That is murder conspiracy. Are you suggesting that suicide is murder?

It's possible, yes. It would depend on whether or not my wife searched my recent posts, saw your post, the suicide was in a reasonable time frame from when you posted, and she brought forth a case. Then it's on the DA bringing a case to the federal court, since I assume you're not in Oregon.

The legal process is not only twisted, but it's beyond me, however, this has been done. There's precedent. You could be criminally charged for encouraging me to commit suicide, should I actually commit suicide. Assuming there are those who wish to push for such a result.

But again, none of that has anything to do with the topic. "Fat Shaming" someone "causes harm" according to current doctrine. So, if you've caused harm, shouldn't you be liable for that harm? I mean, you haven't done anything to be locked in a cage over, but at least a civil payout would be good, yeah?

It's like you're trying to derail the topic by bringing criminal matters into a civil case. Really bizarre, because I clearly do NOT support speech needing insurance. Say what you will. But why filibuster something that the t/c isn't advocating?

Because you seem to be in support of the same thing you're opposing in the OP, on a philosophical level.

How is me saying that you should kill yourself causing harm in ways that fat shaming isn't?

suicide is a crime. Therefore, a conspirator to that crime could be liable for their contribution, just like with any other crime (murder, drugs).

Michelle Carter and Dalia Dippolito have both been convicted of crimes. Ideologically, what they did was the same. They spoke the words of encouraging someone to commit a crime.

Suicide isn't murder though. There are lots of things that are crimes, but you seem to be suggesting that if anyone tells someone to do X, and that person does X, that it means they're responsible in-part for the actions of the other person. That seems like a dangerous precedent to me.

Also, the purchasing of an attempted murder is no longer merely speech.

Technically speaking, encouraging someone to kill themselves is a form of murder. Especially if the person has any form of condition that would lead itself to being suggestible. So, I drink a lot. I get drunk, see you saying I should kill myself, and follow through. Okay, you've literally just murdered me with your words. Because if you hadn't posted it, I wouldn't have done it.

Now, on it's face, that's absurd. I don't give a shit what you say. But the topic post wasn't about criminality. Was it? A person who's brakes fail and ends up rear-ending someone else didn't commit a crime, did they? The liability isn't for criminal activity. As a point of fact, if a person is committing a crime while driving their vehicle, their insurance will not pay out. It's a criminal matter at that point, not a civil matter. It requires a court order to force the insurance to pay out once criminal actions have been determined.

Fat shaming doesn't "cause harm". In many ways, fat shaming helps people improve themselves, and is a public service. However, "fat shaming" does make people "feel bad". And apparently "feeling bad" makes them a "victim". Hence, you've victimized them, thus, you owe them compensation. Why? I honestly don't fucking know. Reasons?



Suicide is not a crime. You're wrong. ATTEMPTING suicide is a crime in some places, but that assumes you fail. Suicide can nullify insurance contracts (think death of a salesman). But it's not a crime. Please stop spreading this oft-repeated lie.

The current laws make it possible to convict. With various crimes, including suicide, murder and drugs, people can be convicted if they contributed with their words.



I agree, which is precisely the distinction I was highlighting in Post#6. When someone's words are playing a fundamental part in actually setting up the commission of a crime, the person doesn't get to claim "oh it was just speech". It becomes something more than "speech".

Even though you feel I'm engaging in a filibuster, I think the points I'm bringing up speak to the actual antecedents of the potential future you're exploring in the OP. Central to the Michelle Carter case was whether someone should be held responsible for their speech if that speech either encouraged or resulted in behavior in another person, and the judge reported that her text messages ""put him [Roy] in that toxic environment" which "constituted reckless conduct" and "that the conduct caused the death of Mr. Roy."

Is this not the same potential result to fat shaming? Are you not putting people in a 'toxic environment' by fat shaming? You have fat people who have already said that being exposed to fat shaming has been detrimental to their mental health, including increasing suicidal ideation. What would happen if the person you're fat shaming ends up killing themselves? Your defense of the rationale that held Michelle Carter liable in her case makes me think you believe you SHOULD be held liable for your speech.

The criminality and civil aspects of this are just two different types of the initial core of this discussion: liability.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Feb 2 2021 01:29am

I think we'll just continue to fundamentally disagree on this. For me, your position understates personal responsibility too much for me.

It's like we're talking past each other. If you harass somebody for being fat to the point that they kill themselves over it, we both agree there will likely be criminal charges. There's no need for insurance at that point.

Perhaps you should use smaller words and type slower so my reading can keep up. If you disagree with the idea of insurance for speech that makes you "feel bad" then what is it? Seriously, like, I can say, "Trump wasn't that bad" and send people into fits of fury. Should I be liable for my hateful statement or not? That's the discussion. Not "people inciting people to suicide."