[openasocket]

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

[poikniok]

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.

[openasocket]

> 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.

[poikniok]

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?

[openasocket]

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?

[poikniok]

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.

[Mz]

The entire reason this is a landmark case is because of the element of the communication being not in person:

Legal experts say the decision could have national implications as courts grapple with how to apply long-standing laws as technological changes have taken interactions online.

I think this is a thing that very much needs to be grappled with. People often say that online communications don't really count, it isn't the same as meatspace. And yet people can get jobs, create companies with long distance cofounders, meet future spouses etc etc online. People seem to say "It doesn't really count" when they are doing something shitty they wouldn't do in person. These same people often laud kindness that occurs in cyberspace or that happens because of connections made that way.

This case is saying it still counts. I am fine with that having a potential chilling effect on shitty behavior generally that occurs online, on the phone, etc.

[openasocket]

In your example, dodging the draft is a crime, so you're accessory to a crime.

This girl wasn't just giving advice. When he was committing suicide, he got cold feet and got out of the truck. She texted him "get back in the truck." That's not giving advice or her opinion by any stretch of the imagination; that's giving a command to someone in a very fragile mental state, and it's obvious based on the context what that command would lead to.

> Makes one very weary of what can be said.

Unless your words will directly and obviously lead to harm, you don't have to. And if you think your words might do that, well then you probably should choose your words carefully.

[IncRnd]

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.