6 ms·

I would have voted not guilty if I was on that jury. Seems like the First Amendment should protect your right to give advice.

• jdmichal 9y ago
  Leave it to Ars to have a comment section that's actually got some decent stuff in there. I think this one directly applies to your comment. After all, what is fraud other than giving people bad advice on investing? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/defendant-who-texted-teen-to-commit-suicide-ordered-to-serve-15-months/?comments=1&post=33752837 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/defendant-who-te... "People scam other consenting adults out of large quantities of money every day, using nothing but the power of speech. We criminalize that and call it 'Fraud'. Why would the same type of action, when it results in death, be treated any differently?"
  • xyzzy4 9y ago
    Well during fraud someone is being misled with false statements, so the victims don't know they will lose money until it's too late. In this case on the other hand, the guy knew he would die when he took his own life.
    • LarryPage 9y ago
      /r/iamverysmart is leaking
• AcerbicZero 9y ago
  I'm not sure I would go that far as I think she pushed beyond the bounds of pure free speech, but overall I agree with the sentence. It seems to me if you can be talked into killing yourself, the person talking you into it can't be held entirely responsible. Obviously he was dealing with pre-existing problems, but in the end he made his own decision.
  • dhdjdnnnebrbr 9y ago
    She's not being held entirely responsible, she's being held partially responsible. If she was held entirely responsible she would have gotten life without parole.
• dhdjdnnnebrbr 9y ago
  A criminal trial jury in the United States does not vote. It deliberates to a unanimous verdict.