Re: Free Speech No Defense for Urging Suicide

Sorry, I get what you are saying, but you are not addressing what I said.

 

If he deliberately sought people who self identified as being suicidal
(which the article said), and knowing that, he encouraged them to commit
suicide, then isn't there some manner of malice in his intent?  

 

That would be like putting a small obstacle  in front of a blind person and
then claiming you didnt intend him to fall, because he could have stepped
over.his tripling was just chance.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think this guys biggest crime is being an asshole, and
I like you hold free speech to a very high level of protection, but this is
on the same levels of yelling 'fire' in a theater.   You cannot do so and
then afterwards claim yahoo didn't intend anyone to think there was a fire.

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:25 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Free Speech No Defense for Urging Suicide

 

I want you guys to go rob a bank, right now.  

Mike F.  

 

  _____  

From: Bruce Geerdes <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 12:17:17 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Free Speech No Defense for Urging Suicide

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]>
wrote:

He should have gone with the jury trial.  Only a judge, with the usual Black
Robe Disease, would make such a ruling.

 

Does the fact that suicide is technically a crime make a difference? How
much latitude does "free speech" give people as far as encouraging others to
commit crimes go?

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot