SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO HEAR MICHELLE CARTER APPEAL IN TEXTING SUICIDE CASE
This is an example of the Supreme Court declining to hear a very important First Amendment case, and will lead to yet another "slippery slope" wave of legislation, if the United States actually survives.
The case involves a woman named Michelle Carter who advised her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, III, to kill himself via carbon monoxide poisoning. She was not in the immediate area, and was not in any way physically involved in the demise of Conrad Roy, III. She simply texted him, advising him to kill himself.
Yes, she told him to kill himself. That is all. In no way did she MAKE him kill himself, and she was miles from him at the time.
Carter was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen month's imprisonment.
HOW?
Apparently, by a criminal justice system determined to make people guilty of the crime of "speaking or writing the wrong words".
Sure, Michelle Carter is a weird-looking, disgusting example of a human being, but HOW IS SHE RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER PERSON WHO WAS MILES AWAY FROM HER AT THE TIME?
Suppose that I write that someone reading this article should take a 12-inch butcher knife and commit hara-kiri, and they do so after reading this sentence - how am I responsible? Aren't people responsible for THEMSELVES and their own actions anymore?
Apparently, according to the commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and we have a lazy Supreme Court who will not even bother reviewing the serious implications of Carter's conviction.
Further, the case refers to laws on the books in certain states that make "failure to render assistance" a CRIME. HOW? Such laws are unconstitutional, with respect to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, at the very least. Even portions and case law regarding the First and Thirteenth Amendments could be cited regarding such laws.
That's my take; here is the link to an article from ABC News and a photo of the goofy looking, crazy broad, Michelle Carter.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-declines-hear-michelle-carter-appeal-texting/story?id=68248229
The case involves a woman named Michelle Carter who advised her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, III, to kill himself via carbon monoxide poisoning. She was not in the immediate area, and was not in any way physically involved in the demise of Conrad Roy, III. She simply texted him, advising him to kill himself.
Yes, she told him to kill himself. That is all. In no way did she MAKE him kill himself, and she was miles from him at the time.
Carter was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen month's imprisonment.
HOW?
Apparently, by a criminal justice system determined to make people guilty of the crime of "speaking or writing the wrong words".
Sure, Michelle Carter is a weird-looking, disgusting example of a human being, but HOW IS SHE RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER PERSON WHO WAS MILES AWAY FROM HER AT THE TIME?
Suppose that I write that someone reading this article should take a 12-inch butcher knife and commit hara-kiri, and they do so after reading this sentence - how am I responsible? Aren't people responsible for THEMSELVES and their own actions anymore?
Apparently, according to the commonwealth of Massachusetts, I am guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and we have a lazy Supreme Court who will not even bother reviewing the serious implications of Carter's conviction.
Further, the case refers to laws on the books in certain states that make "failure to render assistance" a CRIME. HOW? Such laws are unconstitutional, with respect to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, at the very least. Even portions and case law regarding the First and Thirteenth Amendments could be cited regarding such laws.
That's my take; here is the link to an article from ABC News and a photo of the goofy looking, crazy broad, Michelle Carter.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/supreme-court-declines-hear-michelle-carter-appeal-texting/story?id=68248229
