Discussion Clarification of "Stop Online Suicide Assistance Forums Act" - Please read this and quit panicking.

[M&M]

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.

EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALARMED AND THIS IS WHY ;To prohibit the use of mail or interstate communications to assist suicide, and for other purposes.
I'm not a lawyer, but studied law for many years. The largest problem I see with this bill stands out in the first lines of its execution. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES- YES THE FORUMS THEMSLEVES CAN BE INCLUDED IN THIS LAW; because anything vague like this can be interpreted by an individual judge based on their own personal opinions regarding the subject matter. IE; SUICIDE- FORUMS COULD BE SEEN AS AN INFLUENCE ON AN INDIVIDUAL TO TAKE THAT ROUTE AND BE BANNED. Once a ruling has been made it can then be used to set precedents and change the law again. This leaves so many possibilities open that they are incomprehensible. That's exactly why this single statement is so vague. Plus this is only a draft, revisions will be made and the finality is not set. This is BEYOND slippery and sneaky and most people who have no understanding of how things unthinkable are passed don't understand its all in the language being used. If there is something this vague included in the law, it's not just aiming for one agenda. It can aim for any agenda under suicide discussions with minor adjustments-period. The language of this bill only talks about assisted suicides- that is not what the bill itself states in the title alone. If anyone views these forums as a means to collaborate-facilitate-discuss- encourage- or support these rights- WE SHOULD ALL BE WORRIED. The majority of the world believes these conversations encourage the act itself when they are usually therapeutic and a way to connect with others having similar problems, But in the general public these are not conversations to be had with anyone but licensed individual and for the most part the world agrees- birds of a feather flock together and misery loves company. These sites could be taken down and it would be another oppressive action taken by those who have no understanding for its need. It could/will set people suffering back even further by slamming another door. Yes, the forums could be made criminal. The title of the bill itself is inclusive of all suicide discussions through any kind o mail- email- post, fed, etc, and any interstate communications= and other purposes- OTHER PURPOSES. To prohibit the use of mail or interstate communications to assist suicide, and for other purposes. The word assist is also something a judge can determine the meaning of. Just talking about it could be viewed as damaging and assisting someone

 

[Cathy Ames]

I'm not arguing. This is my one reply to you.

Keep in mind that it is less than a month before the end of the session, and these guys take a big holiday break. It is exceedingly unlikely that the bill can move at all, and it will be dead on January 3, 2023.

I'm not a lawyer, but studied law for many years.

In law school or by other other means on your own? I am not a lawyer, either. But unless you've been to law school or have paralegal training we may have equivalent experience.

The largest problem I see with this bill stands out in the first lines of its execution. AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES- YES THE FORUMS THEMSLEVES CAN BE INCLUDED IN THIS LAW;

I'm sorry, but no. This wording means it can extend to other purposes besides assisting suicide. It does not mean that a law that applies to INDIVIDUALS can be stretched to pertain to an online forum. They will need to change a different, existing law (The Communications Decency Act, Section 230) if they want to do something to the forum itself. You can read elsewhere on the forum about Section 230 (use the search function).

**YES, Section 230 is under attack, and that is where energy (not "panic") should be spent.**

Due to the First Amendment, existing precedent (which they heeded), and Section 230, this bill is very narrowly tailored to prohibit MATERIAL SUPPORT ("The term 'material support' means any tangible property) or "substantial communication facilitating the suicide at the same time as an attempt or act of suicide is occurring." These things are against the rules of the forum.

 

[Rocket]

Shit, there's some gold in this thread. First of all, thank you to @Rocket for your perspective. It's really helpful to get information from someone who helped develop Section 230.

Second, there actually are lobbyists out there defending that little paragraph of law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is one I know of. They probably don't want to get caught defending this site, but they do good work.
Here's a link to their infographic on the importance of Section 230.

It's true nobody likes us, and nobody's ever going to. Weakening Section 230 is a terrible idea that would negatively effect some powerful industries, however. You know where else "children" can get suicide method information? Fucking Amazon. Final Exit and the Peaceful Pill Handbook are both on there. How do you decide that a once-obscure internet forum has provided "material support" to someone's suicide, but Jeff Bezos hasn't when he sells the same information? At least we're not making money out of the deal.

There's also almost no original methods content on here, except for commonly-known information like how to tie a noose. Well, and weird, desperate stuff on the order of "could I garrote myself with dental floss…?" Probably 80% of methods threads are about either SN or N, and that information is sourced directly from Philip Nitschke. I'm not sure how the U.S. Congress plans on chasing him around, since he doesn't live here. Australia would have to agree to extradite him, which I doubt they would do. The proposed law is idiotic, so why would they agree to comply with that?

Ugh, I hate that shit. I didn't really realize how disgustingly bigoted my country is until the anti-police brutality protests of 2020, and of course what happened to Breonna Taylor. Openly racist people (and there are a lot) are just like, "Screw the n———s." Then there's the closet racists who are "helping" by doing exactly what you said. Telling disenfranchised people they need to shape up and act better so the openly-racist people don't pick on them. Do the openly racist people have to change? Why, no! Do the closet racists intend to change anything about themselves, or alter any of the institutions that favor them? Oh, hell no! And they don't even know they're racists.

That shit made me so angry in 2020 that I almost entirely quit social media. The news, too. I couldn't even go out to the store for a while because just seeing fucking people made me furious. I'm mostly dealing right now, but I'm much more isolated than before. I know as little as I can get away with about anything that happens outside my house.

That is a brilliant fucking point. Can I quote you? If so, do you want to be anonymous? It might be a good idea.

Your posts are great. Resistbot can be a great tool when it's used by many people. Section 230 has powerful allies that will tie up any attempts to screw with it through pressure and withheld donations. Politicians are the weakest of the weak and going up against powerful interests, as well as the effect they know it will have in reality vs. their posturing, makes it nearly impossible we'll see any serious action. I hate this perpetual "election mode" the USA is in, but for issues like this, the gridlock and molasses speed is our friend.

True to form, Congress has done nothing on H.R.9260 - Stop Online Suicide Assistance Forums Act. You can sign up for alerts on when anything happens at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/9260?s=1&r=1 (you can use any throwaway email address, it will email when something changes). Nothing has happened since its introduction:
Introduced in House 10/31/2022
Referred to House Judiciary 10/31/2022

At GovTrack, they have an overview also: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr9260?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss#eventid=bill:394453:state:1

Prognosis Details: This bill has a 1% chance of being enacted.
Factors considered: The bill is assigned to the House Judiciary committee. The bill's primary subject is Crime and law enforcement.

As mentioned earlier, right now it's basically just a discussion draft. When/if they get legislative language, it "has to be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole".

With the change in the House to the GOP, now there's divided government and the posturing for the 2024 election will begin. So I agree with GovTrack's prognosis on this: 1% chance.

Wanted to provide a quick update to support Cathy's posts and to reaffirm that I'm confident there's no immediate threat to SaSu and other forums. The First Amendment is powerful and if they try moving something like this forward, 1A groups will immediately oppose it and it'll be tied up in committee. Chances are the GOP and Judiciary Committee will have no interest in getting into that fight. We have a right to speak freely and if there's ever a time we need to speak up, we will hear about it. Until then, ignore the noise.

 

[M&M]

I'm not arguing. This is my one reply to you.

Keep in mind that it is less than a month before the end of the session, and these guys take a big holiday break. It is exceedingly unlikely that the bill can move at all, and it will be dead on January 3, 2023.

In law school or by other other means on your own? I am not a lawyer, either. But unless you've been to law school or have paralegal training we may have equivalent experience.

I'm sorry, but no. This wording means it can extend to other purposes besides assisting suicide. It does not mean that a law that applies to INDIVIDUALS can be stretched to pertain to an online forum. They will need to change a different, existing law (The Communications Decency Act, Section 230) if they want to do something to the forum itself. You can read elsewhere on the forum about Section 230 (use the search function).

**YES, Section 230 is under attack, and that is where energy (not "panic") should be spent.**

Due to the First Amendment, existing precedent (which they heeded), and Section 230, this bill is very narrowly tailored to prohibit MATERIAL SUPPORT ("The term 'material support' means any tangible property) or "substantial communication facilitating the suicide at the same time as an attempt or act of suicide is occurring." These things are against the rules of the forum.

I'm not arguing- but No. Sounds like an argument when I was just pointing out facts. I'm not trying to incite panic either, just awareness. You're siting a few things, I can site a few more. I'm not a paralegal but studied law in college for six years with criminal justice as my major so maybe I see the sleezier side of what this can become. I think it's irrelevant how educated anyone is in this if they're willing to do some research and I'm grateful to anyone who sites laws so others can look it up, but law is also mailable and ever changing. All I'm saying is that this can be amended and added to. My point was the general language of the bill itself can be inclusive and can be changed to add other addendums that may include forums. Just because this bill won't go through because of the holiday doesn't mean it's dead and everyone should keep a close eye on it. If it dies- yay.

Personally, I don't think it should be legal at all considering it holds the possibility of defying free speech and medical attention for those who have the right to die, but as I was saying it can be a slippery line when you consider how the words, assist, and other purposes can be interpreted by someone who has the power to influence it either way.

Case in point; regardless of anyone's stand on pro-choice/pro-life, the decision to reverse Row Vs Wade by the supreme court fifty years after the original case won; was simply because the judges now appointed disagreed with the original decision. Judges, police officers, attorneys, law makers are all human, their personal opinions and feelings regarding the subject matter of a law will influence the decision they make. They shouldn't but they do.

This bill shouldn't even be in existence because it disregards the rights of someone seeking death when they're already dying. It criminalizes the act of medical attention or anyone seeking to provide support, transport, correspondence with medical personal (who could all be held accountable and charged) as well as anyone in between and leaves the individual with no options. Come to think of it its creepy how similar the two bills are. Just driving someone to another state would be illegal and could get you thrown in jail, seeking medical attention for an assisted suicide outside a state that bans it through any communication is no different and the doctors won't have a choice but to ignore any request from another state regardless of what it's for; for that exact reason. You're not seeing the big picture.

In 1984 Gregory Johnson burned an American flag to protest Reagan. He was arrested by two officers who found it offensive by desecrating a sacred object. The Supreme court ruled it was part of his freedom of speech. This was an objective judge. Not all of them are because it could have been interpreted another way and that's my point- This is just like every law, it can be changed depending on who is viewing it and the wording is all it takes.

Don't get angry about it. Do what you're already doing. Make people aware of it, argue your case but look at both sides. How many laws have been passed that are sketchy when it comes Section 230 ? I hope you're right and it dies in legislature but that's not always the case

 

[neoyokio]

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.

thank you all for the discussion and info. I was going to write something to my rep but now I'm holding off. I really appreciate people in here sharing their insight. I signed up for alerts on the bill but like most people are saying it's not something immediately threatening the whole forum.

 

[Utada]

If anyone actually wants to contact their rep, I think that just arguing in favor of freedom of speech would be a lot better than preaching pro-choice and actually sounding insane.

 

[deathbylife]

Then again 4chan is allowed to exist. Nothing happening here would be the most likely possibility.

Exactly. And Truth Social, Twitter (in its current state of dictatorship), etc. We would have plenty of protection free-speech wise in fighting any bill trying to limit such; however, as previously stated, words matter, including when and what kind of support is given here.

 

[raindrops]

Imagine not being in control of your own existence, literally so they make a bill. This makes me sick.

I actually came here just now to view threads about "how to" and I see they have gone? Why??? Because of this bill? Viewing those threads was the only way I could understand why I shouldn't end my life. It was the only way to look at it through an educational point of view. My heart broke. Perhaps now I should stand at the cliff and see. Those threads helped me to understand not to just ctb.

Why can't they leave people in peace.

I'm not American but this isn't to say this crap will be everywhere soon enough. So wrong on so many levels. Why not a bill on ending life peacefully, worldwide, totally, especially to end physical pain at the very least.


Looking at the NHS website and it states:

>The law
Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal under English law.
(THIS IS EVEN IF YOU ARE IN PAIN, LIKE PHSYICAL PAIN AND THAT IS SICK TO FORCE SOMEONE TO LIVE IN PAIN! RATHER THEY GIVE YOU DRUGS!)

>End of life care
When you're approaching the last stage of your life, you have a right to high quality, personalised end of life care that helps you live as well as possible until you die.
(SO IN PAIN OR DRUGGED OUT YOUR BRAIN AND THIS IS ABOUT TERMINAL ILLNESS!!!!)

NOTHING TO STOP THE PAIN YOU LITERALLY HAVE TO LIVE IN PAIN UNTIL YOU DIE BUT THEY'LL PUT AN ANIMAL DOWN.

IM FED UP WITH THIS CONTROL. YOU CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING!!!!! ENSLAVERY IS ALL IT IS. THEY EVEN WANT US TO LIVE WITH TERMINAL CANCER, DRUGGED UP BUT NO WAY OUT BEFOREHAND.

 

[Cathy Ames]

I actually came here just now to view threads about "how to" and I see they have gone?

I don't think they are? Can you be more precise about what you are looking for? Maybe someone can help you find it.

I forget sometimes, but this can be a good starting place.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/suicide-resource-compilation.3/

 

[raindrops]

I don't think they are? Can you be more precise about what you are looking for? Maybe someone can help you find it.

I forget sometimes, but this can be a good starting place.

And this is why "good at assumptions" is my motto!
Thank you Cathy. For the sake of educational purposes this is important. It's what stopped me from ctb, just knowing how and what can happen is vital information.

 

[gomenasai]

Died in a previous Congress
This bill was introduced on October 31, 2022, in a previous session of Congress, but it did not receive a vote.

Although this bill was not enacted, its provisions could have become law by being included in another bill. It is common for legislative text to be introduced concurrently in multiple bills (called companion bills), re-introduced in subsequent sessions of Congress in new bills, or added to larger bills (sometimes called omnibus bills).

This bill died.

 

[Cathy Ames]

When I last checked Rep Trahan had not yet filed the next iteration of this bill. When she does, it should have a completely different bill number.

 

[Rocket]

Cathy is right, it never received a vote in the 117th Congress and they'd have to start over in the 118th. Most of Lori Trahan's proposed legislation had no activity after being introduced, she's only been in Congress since Jan 3, 2019. The Committee that would consider it would be the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Jim Jordan (R) is mostly interested in posturing and preparing for the 2024 election. After it took 15 votes just to get a GOP Speaker, continue to think it's highly unlikely they will get much of anything done, let alone something as controversial as this. The free speech implications will rightfully tie it up.

They've failed to pass it many times. From GovTrack: "Former Rep. Wally Herger (D-CA2) previously introduced a variation of the legislation three times. Named after a 19-year-old woman who died by suicide after receiving online encouragement, the Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Prevention Act was introduced in the House in 2007, 2009, and 2011." It never received a committee vote.

Position of opponents:

"Opponents counter that such popular websites and online forums are discussion groups, protected by the First Amendment's freedom of speech — and can help save lives. 'The main purpose of the site is rational, open discussion about suicide, with emphasis on individual liberty and autonomy,' the administrator of one popular website told Newsweek in a 2003 interview. 'Many people find comfort in some forums and have attested that it helped them get through their most difficult times,' the pseudonymous administrator continued.

'I, personally, am alive because of the existence of the site and the channel,' the administrator revealed. 'Being accepted by persons intrinsically understanding my thoughts and emotional pain made it much easier for me to talk about them. Validation of my thoughts by other members made me realize that others felt the same way, that I was not alone anymore.'

Opponents may also counter that the bill unjustly punishes websites for content that their users post. Even though the Stop Online Suicide Assistance Forums Act's text appears to be about individuals, the title refers to such forums as a whole. This mirrors a broader debate about whether websites and internet platforms should be held liable for content that their users may post, which GovTrack Insider has previously covered."