At least one sick prick off the streets

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

If someone told a known bike thief your address, what security you have, when your bike will be exposed and basically give them the most effective way to steal your motorcycle would that someone be responsible in any way if that thief took your motorcycle?

What if they gave a convicted rapist out on bail the address of your girlfriend's house and the best time to "do his thing" would they be responsible in anyway?

I do get your point though 101.

I get his point too. I just don't agree with it, especially not where the person involved is only *nominally* an adult. Hell, she couldn't even drink legally.

[Captain Morgan]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exception. Take people who are in a mental and emotional state to believe something, then use that to elicit the response you desire, and you're responsible for the results.

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

No you aren't. It isn't my fault they are in an "emtional state", esp. when you are dealing over the internet.

Quit trying to blame others for the sole fault of the women who jumped in the river herself. She was of age and knew right from wrong. This isn't a child who could be manipulated easily, but rather an adult who needed to take responsiblity for her own actions.

However, this guy could just as easily talked with her and helped her find a way to deal with whatever problems she had. Instead, he chose to taunt her and keep pushing her toward suicide, "for the thrill of the chase."

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

If someone told a known bike thief your address, what security you have, when your bike will be exposed and basically give them the most effective way to steal your motorcycle would that someone be responsible in any way if that thief took your motorcycle?

What if they gave a convicted rapist out on bail the address of your girlfriend's house and the best time to "do his thing" would they be responsible in anyway?

I do get your point though 101.

The notion of convicting individuals for statements, no matter how inflammatory, is the height of inanity provided there is no immediate danger. Examples of immediate danger are shouting, "Fire!" in a theatre. Telling someone how to commit suicide, or egging them on? Not even remotely close.

If I tell how someone to go fuck themselves, and they hurt themselves while trying to do it, is it my responsibility? No. If I tell someone how to cut off their arm in the most painless way possible, and they do it, is it my responsibility? No.

The precedent this sets is laughable, and while the individual's behavior was abhorrent, it doesn't merit the infringement of free speech. Period.

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

However, this guy could just as easily talked with her and helped her find a way to deal with whatever problems she had. Instead, he chose to taunt her and keep pushing her toward suicide, "for the thrill of the chase."

It doesn't matter what else he could've done, the issue here is what he did, and whether it merits legal intervention.

The precedent this sets is ridiculous. Free speech doesn't just exist for non-inflammatory rhetoric, and the only time it should be infringed upon is when it represents a clear physical danger to others.

Telling a suicidal person to kill themselves? Not even close, since being suicidal and committing suicide are two different things, nor is it the responsibility of individuals to help them if they don't want to.

Should the guy that did this become a social pariah for his actions? Absolutely. Should he be punished in court? No.

[Papa_Complex]

Free speech ends when you cause harm to another. That harm can be more than merely physical. Telling someone to kill himself is one thing. PERSUADING a suicidal person to kill himself is quite another.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

The notion of convicting individuals for statements, no matter how inflammatory, is the height of inanity provided there is no immediate danger. Examples of immediate danger are shouting, "Fire!" in a theatre. Telling someone how to commit suicide, or egging them on? Not even remotely close.

If I tell how someone to go fuck themselves, and they hurt themselves while trying to do it, is it my responsibility? No. If I tell someone how to cut off their arm in the most painless way possible, and they do it, is it my responsibility? No.

The precedent this sets is laughable, and while the individual's behavior was abhorrent, it doesn't merit the infringement of free speech. Period.



It doesn't matter what else he could've done, the issue here is what he did, and whether it merits legal intervention.

The precedent this sets is ridiculous. Free speech doesn't just exist for non-inflammatory rhetoric, and the only time it should be infringed upon is when it represents a clear physical danger to others.

Telling a suicidal person to kill themselves? Not even close, since being suicidal and committing suicide are two different things, nor is it the responsibility of individuals to help them if they don't want to.

Should the guy that did this become a social pariah for his actions? Absolutely. Should he be punished in court? No.

I can respect your view.
However, I think there may are cases where there can be liability.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Free speech ends when you cause harm to another. That harm can be more than merely physical. Telling someone to kill himself is one thing. PERSUADING a suicidal person to kill himself is quite another.

It is still free speech...you may not like it, but it is.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

It is still free speech...you may not like it, but it is.

Apparently the courts say that it isn't

*EDIT* And before someone tosses out the ol' "Damned liberal judges", he's a former Senator and member of the Republican Party

[Papa_Complex]

Result: He got 360 days in jail.