Is It Illegal To Tell People How To Commit Suicide Online?
from the first-amendment? dept
Well, here's a tricky First Amendment issue. Apparently, a guy in Minnesota has been arrested and charged with "assisting suicide" because he spent an awful lot of time on various "suicide" websites, telling people how to commit suicide, and sometimes even agreeing to "suicide pacts" with people. At least two of the people he spoke to did, in fact, commit suicide. Now, it's hard not to be sickened by this guy's actions. He almost certainly needs help. But is telling people how to commit suicide illegal? That gets tricky pretty fast. There are state laws against assisted suicide, but those are generally targeting people helping others commit suicide directly -- in person. Also, it's not clear that Minnesota's state law on this applies when the two suicides both took place not just out of Minnesota, but outside the US (one in Canada, one in the UK).But, really, the bigger question is the First Amendment question. It seems as though Minnesota's assisted suicide law is really quite broad. The key provisions:
Subdivision 1.Aiding suicide.That "advises" part seems especially broad. Again, this is a tricky situation no matter what. It's certainly difficult to defend this guy and his actions. But, there are larger issues here, concerning freedom of expression and a potentially overly broad law.
Whoever intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other's own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.
Subd. 2.Aiding attempted suicide.
Whoever intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another who attempts but fails to take the other's own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: assisted suicide, free speech, suicide
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What a bastard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a bastard
As to the law in question, if someone specifically helps an individual, advising them directly, is how this law is worded. I would bet it would be perfectly legal to start up a website on how to kill yourself as long as it is mostly informational without advising individuals specifically. Probably would still draw the ire of law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a bastard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
Is the guy a doctor? if so then that holds a whole other stigma I guess, but if it's just some random person who decided to tell people how they could accomplish a goal they already had in mind, whether one agrees to it or not, seems a bit like stretching the law to fit the circumstances to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more than speech is required to "assist suicide", at least in California
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more than speech is required to "assist suicide", at least in California
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just proves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It just proves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
If somebody really wants off this earth enough to go through with suicide, and just wants a little help so they do it properly, then what is the problem?
Why is helping people do what they want to do a bad thing?
I almost see it as humanitarian. The guy is helping others out.
And before anybody brings out any "you cant help somebody rob a bank" type analogies, I just want to say that I think the only reason committing suicide is against the law is because of religious morals. Being a moral argument, I see it as helping them. Sure, some people will be sad the person is gone, but I don't really see it as their decision.
Along the same lines, a movie is being made about Michigan's own Jack Kevorkian. He is pretty much one of the most well known names when it comes to assisted suicide. At least round these parts anyways. I agree with his views on the 'right to die'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
Those reasons generally have to do with the myriad of ways in which laws to legalise suicide can be exploited to get away with murder.
A society also has a vested interest in the well-being of individual members - allowing those members to off themselves due to otherwise temporary mental states may have nasty long-term consequences for the society as a whole (if we don't value and respect life itself, what does that imply for those things like truth, justice and beauty that are meaningful only in the context of human consciousness?).
Should euthanasia be an available option for people that have done everything they wish to in life? Possibly. But it isn't as simple as just making assisting in suicide legal across the board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
While I agree, this is an incredibly nuanced and sticky situation, and I have a hard time nailing down even my own personal feelings on the matter.
Having said that, to me, this case isn't so tricky. Engaging in multiple suicide pacts with people that he could reasonably assume had mental issues, particularly when he never intended or followed through with the pact on his end? Depraved Indifference, slap him with Murder 2 for the two that died, 30-Life per count, second degree attempted murder for the rest, 15-30 Years per count, serve them consecutively, and we'll see you in hell, cock-sandwich...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
You make a good point on the assisted suicide being a possible avenue to get away with murder. I would think we could set some high bars to have it approved far in advance for those who went to go through with it though. That might also help prevent it being an impulse thing.
Overall I am more concerned about talking about the morality of assisted suicide then the legality of it. I merely wanted to mention why I think it is illegal. However, you have brought up some goods points as well for why it is. Assisted Suicide is not exactly something I have talked about with many people. It just never comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty of two counts of aiding suicide.
Whoever intentionally advises, encourages....
He's guilty. The law is overly broad, but he wasn't just discussing a topic. He engaged in giving advice and encouragement, which may be protected speech in the states, but it looks like he's guilty under Canadian law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
go kill yourselves
haha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@4 WHO INVITED THE LAWYER
but can you
make
a
run
on paragraph
that continues
to
go
and
go
and
go
and go
and go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah!
Why is it illegal to assist somebody in the pursuit of their rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slavery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slavery?
The stories in the paper were crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other options
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well.....
On broader issues - there are two types of suicide:
Terminal illness/suffering
Depression/Mental illness
This guy is actually a serial killer in my mind because he is taking advantage of the latter and manipulating a sick mind into the ultimate act of preventing recovery. Suicide removes all choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not complicated
I do think he would be liable in civil court however (wrongful death, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not complicated
the right to free speech is not an absolute.
you dont get to run into crowded theaters screaming fire at the top of your lungs when there is no fire, then just kick back and say "oh first amendment!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not complicated
I'm all for unlimited free speech however, I also accept that with rights come responsibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically - no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No worries mate
So, if I stick my head in the sand, how can any laws be being broken when I can't see it happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further speculation
A little broad for my tastes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my personal experience all of the reasons, support and knowledge in the world gets you up to the line. The last hurdle is yourself and no one can help you with that.
The best way to prevent needless suicide is to provide people with all the facts. Tell them how to kill themselves and tell them why they shouldn't. Although I know that people who would choose life over suicide and attempt at every turn to give it no thought would NOT be able to properly consul on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suicide
However, I also don't agree with suicide as a solution to worldly problems. People always have a choice or an alternative.
Is it or should it be illegal to tell someone how to commit suicide...NO. What we really don't want is botched suicides! Losers hanging around on the public dole! This makes good sense fiscally. So actually we SHOULD have websites giving out good, sure fire advise on how to end it all if you really MUST take that course of action!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, this isn't 1st ammendment. If I told you that GM and Ford were secretly going to merge, thats still insider trading, and me saying it outloud doesn't let me use the 1st to protect myself from the insider trading lawsuit, nor should it.
Suicide effects more than just the person that kills themselves. These people all have/had parents, siblings, maybe even spouses and children. A terminal patient with an understanding and open conversation with thier loved ones is one thing. A depressed person acting on an impulse in a moment of need leaves a wake of more pain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like the "2-for-1 nannystate deal"
But at least now when someone commits suicide, it's not all in vein because if successful, the nannystate is required to investigate and assign blame. Perhaps a suicide note that claims it was the fault of an ex or similar, would assist the nanny state in assigning blame.
Once it is determined what is legally admissable, one hopes that it ultimately results in more nannystate suicides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't freedom of speech
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32883786/ns/health-mental_health/
This isn't about free speech ... telling people HOW to commit suicide is something that should probably be on Wikipedia. In fact, it IS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods
What the unfortunately named Mr. Melchert-Dinkel allegedly did was incite those who were, for varying reasons, "considering" suicide to actually DO IT. And he spent hours, weeks, months counseling people from all over the world in order to worsen their depression and catalyze them to take their own lives. Apparently this was purely for pleasure, not because he's Dr. Kervorkian.
The fact of the matter is that any individual who wants to commit suicide can figure out HOW in about 30 seconds using Google. What many of us do is announce that we're thinking about it as a way to incite sympathy or get assistance.
Melchert-Dinkel appears to have been motivated to see these people kill themselves as entertainment. This is not an interesting legal issue because it has ANYTHING to do with the First Amendment. It's an interesting legal issue because this is quite possibly a new form of murder for which there is almost no legal framework in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't even be an argument
The resulting suicide, should be based on the individual's actions, and not somebody who might have been encouraging the idea of said suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 for 1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coverage and Interview with Victim's Mother & Criminal Profiler
Besides expert Brown's conclusion that Melchert-Dinkel is indeed a serial killer, and the fact that the Compassion & Choices organization (formerly The Hemlock Society) which supports assisted suicide, has distanced themselves from the killer's actions, the most alarming news is that in writing Melchert-Dinkel made the statement that he had found a way to commit "legal murder" should make this a slam dunk case!?
So what does the purported violation of Melchert-Dinkel's right to free speech have to do with his actions and, why does his attorney believe that his client will be acquitted?
More to follow but, this is case that needs to be talked about.
Jon Hansen
Author and Host of the PI Window on Business Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is the link to interview with Nadia's mother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
assistied suicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: assistied suicide
And who are you tell somebody that having a purpose is bullcrap? Telling somebody that having a purpose is bull crap is a lie. How about a tell any of your relatives that?
If you're going to encourage your closed-minded way of thinking, then I'd like to see other people kill the hell out of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suicide is illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here are some examples of ILLEGAL things to say:
I want you to kill yourself. (a generic statement urging a person to kill themself)
I want you to commit suicide. (a generic statement urging a person to kill themself)
I want you to go into a closed garage, and run your car until you die of carbon monoxide poisoning. (a specific statement urging a person to kill themself including how do to so)
All of the above statements are intentionally pressuring someone to take their own life, and therefore are illegal under all circumstances. Your only defense would be if the person you said it to, did not take their own life, after you said it to them, and even then it could still result in the charge of "attempted assisting suicide" (not the word "attempted" in there), regardless of if the person was suicidal or not, or whether you would know, or have any reason to know whether or not the person was suicidal.
Here are some examples of some CONDITIONALLY LEGAL things to say:
You should kill yourself (recognized as a general insult if you are mad at someone, but if the person is claiming they are suicidal then your statement could be considered urging the person to kill themself)
You should commit suicide (recognized as a general insult if you are mad at someone, but if the person is claiming they are suicidal then your statement could be considered urging the person to kill themself)
You should go jump off a bridge (recognized as a general insult if you are mad at someone, but if the person is claiming they are suicidal then your statement could be considered urging the person to kill themself including specific info on how to do so)
The above statements could be considered "assisting suicide" if the person actually kill themself, or "attempted assisting suicide" if the person was suicidal but chose not to kill themself even after hearing what you said to them. If the person was not suicidal (or there was no reason for you to believe they were suicidal) then the statement is legal "free speech".
Things that are LEGAL to say, no matter what:
A person could kill themself by walking into a garage, and then starting their car and letting it run until they died, as that would give them carbon monoxide poisoning. (this is simply providing one with information, an act that is considered "informational", "informative", or "educational", and is therefore protected as "free speech")
A person could kill themself by walking off of a bridge. (this is simply providing one with information, an act that is considered "informational", "informative", or "educational", and is therefore protected as "free speech")
A person could kill themself by walking out in front of a car that is moving at high speed. (this is simply providing one with information, an act that is considered "informational", "informative", or "educational", and is therefore protected as "free speech")
The above statements are legal no matter what, because those statements are protected as free speech. This means that criminal charges can not be filed against you. However, the family of the deceased may still believe that the person wouldn't have tried anything to kill themself if you hadn't told them of ways to accomplish it. As such, the family still has the right to sue you in civil court with a "wrongful death" lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't have any specific source that says this, but my knowledge of legal things from reading about the law on the net is enough to give me an idea of what's legal and what isn't. Hence the categories that I created in my above post based on level of legality or illegality. However if you have any questions about the law in your area, you should always contact a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
"Assisted Suicide" is more "I don't want to live in pain, but I am more afraid of killing myself." These are people that "want the attention they need to make their lives better." Instead, we're ignoring their cries for HELP and giving them the option they don't "really" want.
To stress the point, "SUICIDAL PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO KILL THEMSELVES!" If they truly did, they'd be dead already... so intentionally pushing a suicidal person to the edge is akin to murder. Without your intervention, they may have come out alive... with it, they did not.
*Again, with cancer or otherwise... if they want to die, they'll die. If they don't, they'll ask someone else "kill me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whats wrong with assisted suicide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By you, or by the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My honest opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]