Instead of downvoting you someone should explain why you are wrong.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't commit a crime by using speech. Plenty of crimes involve speech, like fraud. Most relevantly, encouragement of a crime has long made someone an accomplice in a crime.
If you talk someone into murdering someone else, you will rightfully get convicted. Here, just change someone else to themselves.
The crime isn't the speech. The crime is him killing himself. How she brought it about doesn't really matter. That's why the first amendment isn't strongly implicated here.
Though the first amendment would likely protect someone who said "killself nerd" if the person actually did it. In that situation there is no intent for the person to actually kill them self.
As someone else in the thread said, what's the difference between this and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? You may not have trampled people yourself, but your actions directly led to it and you clearly knew that would be the result. IMO this has exactly zero effect on free speech in this country
Because all she did was give advice to somebody else. We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him.
Anyway I hope all the people commenting here don't support the right to die, because these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
> Because all she did was give advice to somebody else
And all the person in the example did was yell "Fire!".
> We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him.
I will push back against this very strongly. This isn't someone with a terminal illness looking to end things free of pain. People with clinical depression have a mental illness, their suicidal actions are the product of a condition they have no control over. Their feelings are not the product of reason and rational thought, it's a disease.
> these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
No they do not. This is why we have specific legislation allowing doctors to discuss end of life options. It explicitly exempts them from prosecution like this.
I do have to inquire exactly how far you think this logic extends. Lets say I am BMX biking with a friend, and there is a tricky jump we are considering doing. I advise him to try it, he does and breaks his neck. Am I guilty of assault and battery on my friend?
No. There's a whole body of law that deals with this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence is a good place to start. It becomes criminal negligence when a "reasonable person" in your situation would have known that he would get hurt if he tried it. As in the jump was so risky it was obvious it would end in injury. Does that make sense?
Ok thanks for bearing with me, can you explain one more example. Lets say just as a hypothetical there is a military draft in place. I advise my friend to shoot himself in the foot in order to avoid the draft. Have I then committed some criminal act? Obviously my advice when taken directly results in injury. However there are some upsides, much as with suicide.
My overall point is I think it is absurd to punish somebody for giving advice that you think is bad. The girl was in no position of power over the boy (as a doctor or lawyer might be). She gave her unbiased opinion the matter. And this is a crime somehow. Makes one very weary of what can be said.
And, in this case it isn't clear that involuntary manslaughter actually applies, which is why many people have called this a bad decision from a judge who appears to have invented new law.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't commit a crime by using speech. Plenty of crimes involve speech, like fraud. Most relevantly, encouragement of a crime has long made someone an accomplice in a crime.
If you talk someone into murdering someone else, you will rightfully get convicted. Here, just change someone else to themselves.
The crime isn't the speech. The crime is him killing himself. How she brought it about doesn't really matter. That's why the first amendment isn't strongly implicated here.
Though the first amendment would likely protect someone who said "killself nerd" if the person actually did it. In that situation there is no intent for the person to actually kill them self.