U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2015, 04:36 AM
 
Location: Glasgow, UK
870 posts, read 757,315 times
Reputation: 550

Advertisements

I think that her freedom of speech should be protected, as abhorrent as we might consider her thoughts. Morally, she should not have done what she did. But this is a moral value that should not be written into law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2015, 10:24 AM
 
5,058 posts, read 606,326 times
Reputation: 13129
Quote:
Originally Posted by G0DDESS View Post
There's more to the story. Apparently, she rejected him and she was the person he was texting AS he was plotting suicide. You know he cared about her deeply due to that fact alone. It was a twisted love story of rejection... he off'ed himself because of her. And she encouraged it.

Yes. She needs to be locked up; not in prison but in a mental institution. She needs serious rehabilitation because of her lack of ingrained empathy for other humans.
I am not sure that it is possible to rehabilitate sociopaths, at least not those over the age of nine of so. I adopted a child with Reactive Attachment Disorder (which is often a precursor to the adult Antisocial Personality Disorder, often called "sociopathy" or "psychopathy"), and I think that if someone does not have a "conscience" by the age of 17, he or she will never have one; it is just too ingrained by then. In my view, in this case, humane solitary confinement for a few weeks is in order. MAYBE, if the girl could experience actual isolation and (minor) suffering as a result of her inhumanity, then MAYBE she would refrain from harming others in the future -- even if it's only out of self-interest.

I would be VERY interested in learning what she was like as a child and what her home environment was like. In many cases (but not all), such behavior is the result of SEVERE abuse in early childhood. (This is definitely NOT to say that anyone is justified in intentionally harming the innocent, however!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2015, 11:42 AM
 
17,272 posts, read 14,837,493 times
Reputation: 32864
Quote:
Originally Posted by micC View Post
I think that her freedom of speech should be protected, as abhorrent as we might consider her thoughts. Morally, she should not have done what she did. But this is a moral value that should not be written into law.
Freedom of speech that puts others in immediate danger is not protected, like they always say you can't yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater and have it be protected speech.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2015, 01:30 PM
 
5,058 posts, read 606,326 times
Reputation: 13129
According to a local paper, the Sun Chronicle, [quote]: "Carter is accused of allegedly encouraging her friend, Conrad Roy III, 18, of Fairhaven and Mattapoisett, to kill himself, which he did while idling in a truck in the parking lot of the Fairhaven Kmart last July. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning, authorities said.
Police allege Carter, who was 17 at the time, urged Roy repeatedly through text messages to commit suicide, right up to the moments before he died. [SNIP] On Carter's Facebook page and on the Plainville Athletic League website, postings say she organized a softball tournament last September to raise money for mental health awareness in honor of Roy." [END QUOTE]

So it seems that in addition to having no conscience, she was also extremely narcissistic and attention-seeking; in short, the ultimate "mean girl".

Perhaps her family and friends defending her will later organize a softball tournament to raise money for mental health awareness in support of Carter; it would not surprise me in the least if they do!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2015, 12:50 PM
 
Location: Glasgow, UK
870 posts, read 757,315 times
Reputation: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
Freedom of speech that puts others in immediate danger is not protected, like they always say you can't yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater and have it be protected speech.
I don't believe that her speech did put him in 'danger', because he was in control of his actions. I don't agree with paternalistic laws regarding suicide. That includes laws against encouraging someone to commit suicide.

I'm not defending what she did, but suicide should be a right. Therefore, there ought to be nothing illegal in encouraging someone to act in a specific lawful manner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2015, 01:31 AM
 
668 posts, read 641,629 times
Reputation: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by G0DDESS View Post
There's more to the story. Apparently, she rejected him and she was the person he was texting AS he was plotting suicide. You know he cared about her deeply due to that fact alone. It was a twisted love story of rejection... he off'ed himself because of her. And she encouraged it.

Yes. She needs to be locked up; not in prison but in a mental institution. She needs serious rehabilitation because of her lack of ingrained empathy for other humans.
why does she ?

we don't know what really happened do we ?
what if he was harassing her or obsessed with her ?

maybe she didn't mean what she said
maybe she was just angry that he couldn't leave her alone

imagine if you were her
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2015, 11:05 PM
 
535 posts, read 514,603 times
Reputation: 1057
I think it is very dangerous to criminalize and persecute free speech. Unless she made a direct threat of violence in my book she didn't commit a crime. People should be free to tell people how they feel. If you tell someone to jump off a bridge how are you responsible if one actually does. The one who jumped made the decision not you.

In this girls case if she doesn't want to challenge this on a first amendment grounds then a good defense is that she was just joking around with him. All she has to say is they joked around a lot when they were together and he was always joking that he was going to hurt himself and she thought this too was a joke. Kids joke, heck even adults joke about stupid stuff. It's called being sarcastic. Hopefully she didn't say anything to the police.

I think freedom of speech is a human right that shall not be infringed. It's too dangerous for a government to decide what people can say. Go after people who commit violence and steal and leave this girl alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2015, 01:14 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,439,282 times
Reputation: 7702
Quote:
Originally Posted by john620 View Post
I think it is very dangerous to criminalize and persecute free speech. Unless she made a direct threat of violence in my book she didn't commit a crime. People should be free to tell people how they feel. If you tell someone to jump off a bridge how are you responsible if one actually does. The one who jumped made the decision not you.

In this girls case if she doesn't want to challenge this on a first amendment grounds then a good defense is that she was just joking around with him. All she has to say is they joked around a lot when they were together and he was always joking that he was going to hurt himself and she thought this too was a joke. Kids joke, heck even adults joke about stupid stuff. It's called being sarcastic. Hopefully she didn't say anything to the police.

I think freedom of speech is a human right that shall not be infringed. It's too dangerous for a government to decide what people can say. Go after people who commit violence and steal and leave this girl alone.
What part of this would apply to this case?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2015, 03:22 AM
 
535 posts, read 514,603 times
Reputation: 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
What part of this would apply to this case?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The prohibiting free speech part. What she texted was horrible if she really meant it. I gave a plausible kidding around defense but in reality that may have been the case. Kids do joke around on the phone.

But if she did mean it, it is still a matter of free speech. She didn't do anything to him. She didn't push him off a bridge or make threats of violence. She spoke words. As much as what she said if she wasn't joking was bad I find it dangerous to criminalize speech. Ultimately people need to be responsible for their actions. It's the person who decides to jump off a bridge (or whatever in this case) that made the decision. Once the government starts saying you can't say this and you can't say that it turns into you can not criticize someone for being fat or for dressing wierd. One thing leads to another. Thanks why I can't support any action against her by the government. And how about if she actually felt that way about the kid. Shouldn't she be allowed to express her opinion?

The moral of this story is sticks and stones. I am sympathetic to people who are bullied. But parents need to teach their kids that words are just words. Same goes when people get into fights over what one said. Never let words cause you to engage in violence. Words are words and everyone has his or her own opinion no matter how stupid it may be. And calling ones words stupid is bullying and oppressive so it's a never ending cycle.

What people can control is exposure. If you are bullied online stay off social media. Stay away from people who make mean comments. A lot of parents don't let kids switch schools or home school which I think is wrong. Just like when someone say something offense, you don't escalate it into a fight you walk away. Schools are prime places for bullying. If a kid is having big problems with it life is more important than sticking to a school. Switch schools or home school for a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2015, 04:58 AM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,524,514 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by john620 View Post
The prohibiting free speech part. What she texted was horrible if she really meant it. I gave a plausible kidding around defense but in reality that may have been the case. Kids do joke around on the phone.

But if she did mean it, it is still a matter of free speech. She didn't do anything to him. She didn't push him off a bridge or make threats of violence. She spoke words. As much as what she said if she wasn't joking was bad I find it dangerous to criminalize speech. Ultimately people need to be responsible for their actions. It's the person who decides to jump off a bridge (or whatever in this case) that made the decision. Once the government starts saying you can't say this and you can't say that it turns into you can not criticize someone for being fat or for dressing wierd. One thing leads to another. Thanks why I can't support any action against her by the government. And how about if she actually felt that way about the kid. Shouldn't she be allowed to express her opinion?

The moral of this story is sticks and stones. I am sympathetic to people who are bullied. But parents need to teach their kids that words are just words. Same goes when people get into fights over what one said. Never let words cause you to engage in violence. Words are words and everyone has his or her own opinion no matter how stupid it may be. And calling ones words stupid is bullying and oppressive so it's a never ending cycle.

What people can control is exposure. If you are bullied online stay off social media. Stay away from people who make mean comments. A lot of parents don't let kids switch schools or home school which I think is wrong. Just like when someone say something offense, you don't escalate it into a fight you walk away. Schools are prime places for bullying. If a kid is having big problems with it life is more important than sticking to a school. Switch schools or home school for a while.

I understand what you are saying, and as it applies to peaceful demonstrations, and redressing the government with grievances, I agree. When it comes to being a predator on society, I totally disagree.

Thankfully, concerned parents have redressed the government and we have laws already regarding bullies. Especially cyber-bullies.

Thousands of texts telling someone to kill themselves qualifies as bullying. Its not like she simply suggested it in passing, and the topic never came up again. Mentally weak people have a right to life too. Life isnt just about sociopaths seeking personal glory, and their freedom to continue to do so.

How do we corrent bad behavior? By sending a message that its okay - its up to the victim to prevent any and all problems?

Sorry, no. Should all victims readjust their lives to accomodate escaping from percieved predators? What kind of world do you have then? Should they not be able to afford such adjustments, then they should accept their role as victims?

You prosecute them, and even if you lose, you continue to prosecute each and every case. That's the only way to change this behavior. To make their be a consequence to the behavior, is the only deterent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top