Wired reports that a wrongful death suit has been filed against an Internet newsgroup participant for participating in the suicide of a 17 year old boy. Amy Viscuso, a member of the usenet group alt.suicide.holiday, recalls,
I talked to him on the phone and kept him company while he was taking his drug overdose. He told me he wanted someone to talk to before he died, and I was there for him.
This case will be interesting to follow, not only because of the issue of free speech, but because it offers a portrait of Internet "connectivity" that I think we often overlook: that while for most of us, the Internet puts us in touch with others with similar interests which can have a positive effect on our lives, the Internet is also creating opportunities for contacts to be made detrimental to society.
Re: A Teen Dies: Who Is Responsible?
Wow, I post on this one discussion board and one of the members is suicidal. She started a thread once wanting to have a philosophical discussion about suicide, but it turned into her basically asking us for our blessing in reference to her own planned suicide. We all said we wouldn't give it. What should members of an online community do in that situation, exactly? It's not like we know where this person lives.
What are the responsibilities if she is physically there?
Hmmm... this doesn't strike me as much different from Viscuso actually being there with him when he killed himself. I have no knowledge of the law in this case, but I would guess she be legally obligated to try to stop him if she was there in the room with him. Why should cyberspace be different?
Re: What are the responsibilities if she is physically there?
That's exactly what I would've thought. The person had the means to prevent a death, and not only didn't, but very possibly qualifies as an enabler.
I hope I'm missing something, because this sounds like the most preposterous & confused claim of free speech I've ever heard in my life. It has nothing to do with printed matter, or public criticism of the government, or artistic expression, or an opinion stated. She was on the phone with this person & didn't help them when she could have.
What a phone conversation where someone doesn't try to help someone obviously in trouble has to do with selling a book about how to commit murder... I don't see a direct correlation.
I mean, one is an action (lack of action), the other is just words.
Can anyone explain this?
Re: A Teen Dies: Who Is Responsible?
Hmmm. My guess would be Viscuso was also suicidal, or perhaps thought it was all a fantasy. I don't think she should be brought to trial, though. If someone asked if I thought he or she should commit suicide, and I jokingly said "Sure!", am I an "enabler?" I "am not my brother's keeper," to quote that old tome. Sounds to me like the boy here hunted down the usergroup, actively participated and become close to some of its members, then killed himself. He enabled himself. I would like to learn more about this board and whether anyone counselled him against suicide. I must admit, the "death email" looked more like a joke than a serious suicide threat.
As far as the philosophical debate about suicide someone mentioned, a popular style of therapy these days does indeed use ancient philosophy to talk through problems. I believe it's called philotherapy, and it uses Socratic style reasoning to help people understand their problems.
The internet is home to a great many communities that are hated by most other communities. If we condemn a pro-suicide message board, we may as well condemn anti-government sites and any site that explorers uncool issues or takes uncool stances towards a group or belief.
Would the case be different if this was a homicide usergroup, and the boy had killed someone else? That's a question I've been wondering..
Re: A Teen Dies: Who Is Responsible?
Personally, I don't think a suicide related (or even a murder related) website, message board or e-group should be illegal or anything like that.
I really don't see what that has to do with this case at all.
Bottom line is, this guy called this woman. This woman KNEW where he lived, and all sorts of information about him... He told her he was IN THE MIDST of committing suicide. And she just sat on the phone with him.
To me, that's the same as if she were in his house with him, and he sprawled out unconscious before her, and she did nothing and just looked at the pill bottles and said to herself "Oh well, at least I was with him when he went unconcious".
Scary to think that he may have ASSUMED she had contacted the authorities. He may have been depending upon her to get him help. That's a frightening thought, isn't it?
And I have no problem with assisted suicides of terminally ill patients in a lot of pain with not long to live or whatnot.
But clinical depression is hardly a terminal illness, it's even a treatable one.
And "enabling" ...
"Go ahead & do it" is NOT an example of enabling. It might be a bit callous, but that's not enabling.
Enabling is when someone allows the circumstances for someone to hurt themselves or others, and does nothing. For example, if you have a neighbor you have witnessed doing something illegal, and you never call the cops... then you're enabling that criminal behaviour. That's a fair bit different than saying to your neighbor "Yeah, go ahead and break into that car."