4 ms·
What I find disturbing about the verdict is this: If the person found guilty of manslaughter then goes and commits suicide citing, in a suicide letter, that the
by geetfun 9y ago
What I find disturbing about the verdict is this: If the person found guilty of manslaughter then goes and commits suicide citing, in a suicide letter, that the words of the judge made her do it, would the judge be guilty?
Now, I know that lawyers protect their own and the judge might make the defence that the above argument is too far of a leap, but one could have argued the same for the initial verdict that just by the mere suggestion and lack of action one should be responsive for someone else's action.
- smt88 9y agoIt wasn't "mere suggestion". She told this guy to kill himself repeatedly. She encouraged him to do it. She badgered him about it. After he did it, she didn't call the police to ask them to try to save him. She wanted him dead. The judge did not tell this woman to kill herself, so your hypothetical situation isn't the same thing. There is no slippery slope here. Freedom of speech does not extend to harmful speech. It is similarly not legal to tell people to go out and commit acts of violence.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- foxyv 9y agoThis is not some new precedent really. There are pretty well defined exceptions to free speech and this falls far on the side of illegal speech. In specific this was speech explicitly inciting violence with a clear and present danger of succeeding. This has already been established by previous cases. The only thing that was argued was whether her speech had a reasonable chance of inciting him to kill himself, which was proven in court by the prosecution. Other than this, the trial is a textbook case of manslaughter similar to asking someone to light themselves on fire or inciting a riot.