Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

What A Different World Than What I Grew Up In :(

<< < (4/4)

wraith808:
AFAIK, there is no law that says it's a crime to do or say something which results in another person committing suicide.
-40hz (October 16, 2012, 03:55 PM)
--- End quote ---

Actually, someone has been convicted of the same, though I'm not sure what laws they were tried under... hmm...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/801332-pair-guilty-over-girls-death-leap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew

Neither of those were what I was looking for... but apparently felony harassment is a real charge that can be levied.

40hz:
^Not familiar with the UK case. But the Lori Drew case ended in the court overturning the conviction.

Some laws have been added to the books since then so that case might be handled differently today if it came up today. But even so, it's different in that the harassment was primarily conducted by Lori Drew. Which is different than posting some things on the web and then see other people go into "Vanna White mode" on the victim.

I'll have to do some digging. I'm not sure you can be held accountable for everything that follows from something you said except under very extraordinary circumstances. Even advocates of vigilante action are seldom charged in cases where somebody took them at their word and actually went out and killed somebody. Some prosecutors have tried, albeit unsuccessfully so far. At least with the cases I'm familiar with.

There does seems to be a feeling that blanket abridgment of free speech (just because somebody might "do something" because of it) doesn't seem to fly with the pubic or the courts. (Something I agree with BTW. I much prefer a surgical strike over carpet bombing when it comes to drafting criminal law.)

Oh well, gonna have to beat up on Google later when I have the time to go down the rabbit hole.... ;D

app103:
While I am not an expert in law, and especially not Canadian law, I do believe that Canada has laws against the possession and/or distribution of child pornography.

Considering the nature of the photos that were in his possession and the age of the victim, they could probably nail him for possession, at the very least. And his posting it online could probably be considered distribution.

If Canada has anti-stalking laws, him showing up at her home in the middle of the night could constitute stalking, as well as some of his online actions.

I don't know how the laws in Canada define manslaughter, but in both New York and my home state of New Jersey, a bully or cyberbully can be charged with manslaughter if the victim of the bullying takes their own life.

Tinman57:
  I've stood up for people being bullied when I was in school, and usually wound up getting my ass kicked in the process.  But you'll notice that the majority of the bullies hang out in a gang of bullies, they're too chickenshit to attempt it on their own unless the person is tiny and meek...

wraith808:
Some laws have been added to the books since then so that case might be handled differently today if it came up today. But even so, it's different in that the harassment was primarily conducted by Lori Drew. Which is different than posting some things on the web and then see other people go into "Vanna White mode" on the victim.

I'll have to do some digging. I'm not sure you can be held accountable for everything that follows from something you said except under very extraordinary circumstances. Even advocates of vigilante action are seldom charged in cases where somebody took them at their word and actually went out and killed somebody. Some prosecutors have tried, albeit unsuccessfully so far. At least with the cases I'm familiar with.
-40hz (October 16, 2012, 05:12 PM)
--- End quote ---
Incitement perhaps?  The same thing as if your words to a person cause an action?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZS.html

Of course, correlation would have to be proven, which would be problematic at best...

There does seems to be a feeling that blanket abridgment of free speech (just because somebody might "do something" because of it) doesn't seem to fly with the pubic or the courts. (Something I agree with BTW. I much prefer a surgical strike over carpet bombing when it comes to drafting criminal law.)
-40hz (October 16, 2012, 05:12 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well, I think there's a difference between reporting on what someone has done, and a call to act, or the supply of the means to act.  I do agree that abrogation of free speech is something that should be off the table.  But how do you draw the line?  What you say crosses the line, I don't... and vice versa.  It's not clear cut.  And truthfully, I don't trust our legislative branch to decide at this point.  I've become more (not less) cynical as time has gone on.  And in the case of our legislature, sometimes less is best.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page