Cathy Ames
Cautionary Tale
- Mar 11, 2022
- 2,110
It appears to me that folks have not read the actual bill or the bill sponsor's description of it. In its current form, it affects individual forum users. The forum itself is NOT affected. They will need to change a different, existing law before the forum can be shut down (The Communications Decency Act, Section 230).
The bill makes assisting suicide "through certain communications" into a felony at the federal level if the assisted person succeeds. [There is an exception for physician-assisted stuff where it is legal by state law.]
To be considered as providing ASSISTANCE you have to INTEND to facilitate suicide, and the person you are helping has to end up dying. It boils down to this:
1) Don't give material support (defined as a "tangible property"). So don't be sending stuff through the mail (or possibly give money?) for people to use to kill themselves.
2) Don't provide substantial communication facilitating the suicide at the same time as it is occurring.
Either of these is against the rules of the site, BTW.
I just want you all to know exactly what it is that you will be communicating with your legislators. In effect, you will be saying, "I want it to be legal for me (and/or other people) to assist suicide." Think about whether that is an argument you can make and support: why assisting suicide should be legal. You could also argue against this bill based on "free speech." [See below.] Anything pertaining to the web site is off topic in discussing the bill. You should also know, what the situation is in your state. Most of the US states already consider assisting suicide to be a felony. I think most people here already know this, and if not, then you know now.
Source: I read the bill. Please read the actual bill before you attempt to come at me. Thank you.
Edit: Personally, I am not ready, willing, or able to contact my Rep or my Senators to have this discussion. [In actuality, it will most likely be a staff member or intern who will read what you send or listen to you, most likely without even passing along.] I will be going to bat when Section 230 is on the chopping block, as it most likely will be at some point.
Edit2: You could also argue against this bill based on "free speech." But they have used the results of a previous Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling to try to get around this. The main thing they did was give a definition that limits the applicable time frame to "at the same time as the the attempt or act of suicide is occurring." They also defined as assistance "substantial communication facilitating the suicide." Friends... I think the argument would be that this is vague (what does "substantial" mean? what does "facilitating" mean?). They can make an argument that the interest in preserving life is "compelling" (as the word is used in considering whether stuff is constitutional). But I think there can be an argument as to whether "speech" can be considered as "assistance."
Source2: This has discussion of a case that went to the Minnesota State Supreme Court. If you look at Source1 and Source2 side by side, you can see that Rep Trahan's bill did try to deal with the constitutionality question.
The bill makes assisting suicide "through certain communications" into a felony at the federal level if the assisted person succeeds. [There is an exception for physician-assisted stuff where it is legal by state law.]
To be considered as providing ASSISTANCE you have to INTEND to facilitate suicide, and the person you are helping has to end up dying. It boils down to this:
1) Don't give material support (defined as a "tangible property"). So don't be sending stuff through the mail (or possibly give money?) for people to use to kill themselves.
2) Don't provide substantial communication facilitating the suicide at the same time as it is occurring.
Either of these is against the rules of the site, BTW.
I just want you all to know exactly what it is that you will be communicating with your legislators. In effect, you will be saying, "I want it to be legal for me (and/or other people) to assist suicide." Think about whether that is an argument you can make and support: why assisting suicide should be legal. You could also argue against this bill based on "free speech." [See below.] Anything pertaining to the web site is off topic in discussing the bill. You should also know, what the situation is in your state. Most of the US states already consider assisting suicide to be a felony. I think most people here already know this, and if not, then you know now.
Source: I read the bill. Please read the actual bill before you attempt to come at me. Thank you.
Edit: Personally, I am not ready, willing, or able to contact my Rep or my Senators to have this discussion. [In actuality, it will most likely be a staff member or intern who will read what you send or listen to you, most likely without even passing along.] I will be going to bat when Section 230 is on the chopping block, as it most likely will be at some point.
Edit2: You could also argue against this bill based on "free speech." But they have used the results of a previous Minnesota State Supreme Court ruling to try to get around this. The main thing they did was give a definition that limits the applicable time frame to "at the same time as the the attempt or act of suicide is occurring." They also defined as assistance "substantial communication facilitating the suicide." Friends... I think the argument would be that this is vague (what does "substantial" mean? what does "facilitating" mean?). They can make an argument that the interest in preserving life is "compelling" (as the word is used in considering whether stuff is constitutional). But I think there can be an argument as to whether "speech" can be considered as "assistance."
Source2: This has discussion of a case that went to the Minnesota State Supreme Court. If you look at Source1 and Source2 side by side, you can see that Rep Trahan's bill did try to deal with the constitutionality question.
Last edited:
that's what I was thinking as well....
