Discussion Does anyone know about whether we might be legally liable for posting comforting messages on Goodbye threads or providing sources for SN via PM?

[Lifeaffirmingchoice]

I know this will vary from country to country.

 

[LunarLight]

I don't think anyone was put in jail for that.

 

[dajabe]

In germany comforting messages arent lawfull but writing something like "Do it" or encourage someone could be interpreted as murder or homicide with indirect perpetration. I dont know if thats a case that was ever brought to curt.
Providing sources is legal as long as it is for "educational reasons". That means you can share infos if you dont specify that it is for ctb.
As said thats only for German law (StGB).

 

[karmaisabitch]

If you encourage someone to die or bully someone to suicide ofc it's illegal and I don't know how they live with themselves! It's literally like killing them. To kill someone it's not just to " pull the trigger"

 

[thinvy]

Not a lawyer, but as far as I'm aware in US law, encouraging someone is illegal ("do it" "you should take sn/jump/gun to kys") but simply sharing information ("the basically guaranteed amount of SN to take to die is x mg per y mg of water") is not. Comforting someone in their last moments is typically not either, so long as you're not urging them along, so no "it'll be over soon, just drink up/pull the trigger.", but "hope you find your peace you've been looking for" is not.

providing sources is legally much murkier, which is why I myself don't like to share, not that I have any active sources now. I was very clear about getting my (now defunct) source for a science experiment, in my case. Not for suicide obviously.
however, if you dm someone who is always only ever posting "I wanna die pls dm me poisons" and you send them a link to a site that has warnings all over it that their product is toxic and should not be ingested, you're putting yourself at risk legally. If some prosecutor is feeling gung ho enough to make an example out of someone to paint the site in a bad light, that's an incredibly easy target to make a case out of.

TL;DR, stick to educational purposes only and words of comfort and care.

 

[Redleaf1992]

In the UK you need to be a little careful. I think goodbye threads are ok providing you're not pushing them ofc. However providing links and advice on methods can be considered encourage and assisting suicide apparently.

Although most likely you'd be ok, I personally would tread carefully if your in the UK.

 

[Tesha]

In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service use the following criteria to determine if you'll be prosecuted (relevant for suicides after Feb 2010).

For the evidential stage of the Full Code Test to be satisfied, the prosecution must prove that:

• the suspect did an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person; and
• the suspect's act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.

"Another person" referred to above need not be a specific person and the suspect does not have to know or even be able to identify that other person. The offence of encouraging or assisting suicide can be committed even where a suicide or an attempt at suicide does not take place.

In the context of websites which promote suicide, the suspect may commit the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide if he or she intends that one or more of his or her readers will commit or attempt to commit suicide.

Section 2A also makes it clear that a person may encourage or assist another person even where it is impossible for the actual act undertaken by the suspect to provide encouragement or assistance - for example, where the suspect believes he or she is supplying the victim with a lethal drug which proves to be harmless.

Section 2A also makes it clear that a suspect who threatens or puts pressure on the victim comes within the scope of the offence.

A prosecution is more likely to be required if:

1. the victim was under 18 years of age;
2. the victim did not have the capacity (as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to reach an informed decision to commit suicide;
3. the victim had not reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide;
4. the victim had not clearly and unequivocally communicated his or her decision to commit suicide to the suspect;
5. the victim did not seek the encouragement or assistance of the suspect personally or on his or her own initiative;
6. the suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim;
7. the suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide;
8. the suspect did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person had not pressured the victim to commit suicide;
9. the suspect had a history of violence or abuse against the victim;
10. the victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance him or herself;
11. the suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication;
12. the suspect gave encouragement or assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other;
13. the suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for his or her encouragement or assistance;
14. the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer [whether for payment or not], or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care;
15. the suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present;
16. the suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a person involved in the management or as an employee (whether for payment or not) of an organisation or group, a purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.

A prosecution is less likely to be required if:

1. the victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide;
2. the suspect was wholly motivated by compassion;
3. the actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the offence, were of only minor encouragement or assistance;
4. the suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide;
5. the actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide;
6. the suspect reported the victim's suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.

 

[UKscotty]

Have to be careful here in the UK. The pro death mob would be in trouble here telling everyone all life is terrible and everyone should be dead.

We shouldn't be telling people to CTB anyway. Our obligation as humans is to ensure they are informed of the potential for recovery.

 

[Nikitatos]

Not a lawyer, but as far as I'm aware in US law, encouraging someone is illegal ("do it" "you should take sn/jump/gun to kys")

That sounds inaccurate. America is a free country with free speech laws protecting them.

 

[sanitystruggle]

That sounds inaccurate. America is a free country with free speech laws protecting them.

"Carter's texts to her boyfriend seem logically to fall within the category of incitement. She was repeatedly pressing him, through her words, to take his life immediately. This sort of speech is not protected by the First Amendment."

Is It Lawful to Urge Someone to Commit Suicide?

Isn't your free speech protected by the First Amendment?

www.newsweek.com

Tl;dr context matters, even in the US.

 

[Nikitatos]

"Carter's texts to her boyfriend seem logically to fall within the category of incitement. She was repeatedly pressing him, through her words, to take his life immediately. This sort of speech is not protected by the First Amendment."

Is It Lawful to Urge Someone to Commit Suicide?

Isn't your free speech protected by the First Amendment?

www.newsweek.com

Tl;dr context matters, even in the US.

BS ruling. This is like the last episode of Seinfeld where they get arrested for not helping a guy who was being robbed. I'm surprised it hasn't been overturned. "Wanton and reckless conduct" is meant for behaviors like drunk driving, not speech.

It wasn't her texts that got her convicted, according to the article. It was telling him to get back in the truck.

"At one point, Roy exited the truck (which was filled with carbon monoxide), and Carter told him to get back inside. This was the judge's reaction to that conduct: "This court finds that instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct by Ms. Carter, creating a situation where there is a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to Mr. Roy."

Telling someone to CTB doesn't sound like a problem. Instructing them to go inside a truck filled with CO did in this case. I doubt there's many similar cases though.

 

[sanitystruggle]

BS ruling. This is like the last episode of Seinfeld where they get arrested for not helping a guy who was being robbed. I'm surprised it hasn't been overturned. "Wanton and reckless conduct" is meant for behaviors like drunk driving, not speech.

She appealed several times to higher courts in Massachusetts all of which were rejected. She also tried to appeal to the supreme court but they declined to hear the case, so the conviction stands:

Death of Conrad Roy - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It wasn't her texts that got her convicted, according to the article. It was telling him to get back in the truck.

"At one point, Roy exited the truck (which was filled with carbon monoxide), and Carter told him to get back inside. This was the judge's reaction to that conduct: "This court finds that instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct by Ms. Carter, creating a situation where there is a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to Mr. Roy."

Telling someone to CTB doesn't sound like a problem. Instructing them to go inside a truck filled with CO did in this case. I doubt there's many similar cases though.

It's an unusual case and has been described as "without precedent", but there are laws or proposals in several other states amounting to the same or similar:

Bill criminalizing encouraging suicide gets last-minute push on last day of session, likely to become law

It may soon be a crime to encourage someone to take their own life. It’s currently only a crime to assist someone.

www.kctv5.com

Bill would penalize those who press others to die by suicide

A bill filed at the Massachusetts Statehouse would penalize those who encourage others to die by suicide.

apnews.com

Ducey signs bill making it a crime to encourage teen suicide

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation Wednesday that makes it a crime for an adult to provide advice or encouragement that a teenager uses to take their own life.

apnews.com

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2020/rpt/pdf/2020-R-0197.pdf

Other countries like Australia and the UK already have explicit legislation covering encouragement:

Encouraging suicide or committing manslaughter?

A 69-year-old man is in jail for encouraging his wife to suicide but some have wondered why he wasn’t charged with a more serious offence.

theconversation.com

Suicide: Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

Woman found guilty of encouraging suicide in pact with man

Natasha Gordon made agreement with Matthew Birkinshaw before backing out and leaving him to die alone

www.theguardian.com

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Not for comforting messages, but a case could be made for providing SN sources to someone you "knew" was going to use it for ctb. Even if you didn't get charged criminally, the family of the deceased would have a much easier time proving in a civil court "wrongful death" for $$$$$$$.

 

[Lifeaffirmingchoice]

Not for comforting messages, but a case could be made for providing SN sources to someone you "knew" was going to use it for ctb. Even if you didn't get charged criminally, the family of the deceased would have a much easier time proving in a civil court "wrongful death" for $$$$$$$.

Yikes, this is good to know. Thanks. Do you think this applies to people who give hints as to the source in the forums vs providing the direct URL via PM?

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Yikes, this is good to know. Thanks. Do you think this applies to people who give hints as to the source in the forums vs providing the direct URL via PM?

Well, first off, I am not a lawyer. I took a bunch if prelaw classes in college, but that doesnt make me qualified to answer legal questions.

That being said, I think a "case" could be made that because you are on a "suicide forum", you know, or should know, that their is likelihood that anyone looking for sources for whatever, *might* very well have the intention of using those sources to acquire some "material" in order to facilitate their suicide. I don't know the likelihood of this happening. I know the US is a litigious society and I don't know of any laws protecting anyone from a civil suit of this nature. I mean the burden of proof is so much less in a civil suit compared to a criminal proceeding. The other consideration one needs to think about is that it costs $$$$ to DEFEND against a civil suit, even if you ultimately end up winning, so you still could be out tens of thousands of dollars.

I think there are defenses. There's the right you have to free speech, at least in the US. Also, one could argue that whatever "source" you provided is freely and publicly available information found on the Internet to anyone. Still, just about anyone can bring a civil suit against anyone and it costs money to defend it. My gut tells me that you'd probably win in most cases, if someone sued you for something related to providing a source, or something, but you'd end up poorer because of what you had to pay someone to defend you.