LibGuides: ENG 112: Dual Enrollment: College Composition II (Woodgrove HS-Loudoun): Suicide Speech & the First Amendment

Should urging someone to commit suicide via text message or social media be protected under the First Amendment/Free Speech?

General Commentary/Morality Sources

Freedom of Speech by Larry. J. Alexander (Editor)
The first volume begins with an encyclopaedia entry, functioning as an overview of the topic, and further articles deal with justificatory theories of freedom of speech, the scope of the First Amendment, the value of free speech, communication control in law and society, and what kinds of acts raise freedom of speech concerns. The second volume turns to doctrinal theories, examining insults, incitements and governmental subsidies.
See Chapter 1: Freedom of Speech and Chapter 14: Free Speech and Speaker's Intent.

Speech and Suicide—The Line of Legality
Newman, Justine L. "Speech and Suicide—The Line of Legality." American Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 49, no. 4, 2023, pp. 436-456. ProQuest.
Includes information on Michelle Carter in Massachusetts and William Melchert-Dinkel in Minnesota.

Commonwealth vs. Michelle Carter (2019)
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter as a youthful offender, holding that the evidence proved that, by her wanton or reckless misconduct, Defendant caused the victim’s death by suicide and that Defendant’s conviction was not legally or constitutionally infirm.
The trial judge concluded that Defendant’s act of encouraging the victim with text messages and phone calls to commit suicide and failure to act to overpowered the victim’s will to live and caused the victim’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) Defendant’s verbal conduct was not protected by the First Amendment; and (3) the other legal issues raise by Defendant lacked merit.

Texting, Suicide, and the Law: The Case Against Punishing Michelle Carter by Mark Tunick
In 2014, Conrad Roy committed suicide following encouragement from his long-distance girlfriend, Michelle Carter, in what has become known as the Texting Suicide case. The case has attracted much attention, largely focusing on the First Amendment free speech issue. This book takes the view that the issue is intertwined with several others, some of which have received less attention but help explain why the case is so captivating and important, issues concerning privacy, accountability, coercion, punishment, and assisted suicide. The focus here is on how all of these issues are interconnected.

Suicide by Text: The Case of Michelle Carter
Chin, Ashley B. “Suicide by Text: The Case of Michelle Carter.” Journal of Technology Law & Policy, vol. 21, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 99–108. EBSCOhost.
The First Amendment and Speech Urging Suicide: Lessons from the Case of Michelle Carter and the Need to Expand Brandenburg's Application.
Calvert, Clay. “The First Amendment and Speech Urging Suicide: Lessons from the Case of Michelle Carter and the Need to Expand Brandenburg’s Application.” Tulane Law Review, vol. 94, no. 1, Nov. 2019, pp. 79–97. EBSCOhost.
Blurred Lines: How the Court in Commonwealth V. Carter Blurred the Line between Freedom of Speech and Criminal Liability
Lujan, Victoria. “Blurred Lines: How the Court in Commonwealth V. Carter Blurred the Line between Freedom of Speech and Criminal Liability.” Houston Law Review, vol. 61, no. 1, Sept. 2023, pp. 209–30. EBSCOhost.
Kill Me Through the Phone: The Legality of Encouraging Suicide in an Increasingly Digital World.
Taylor, Sierra. “Kill Me Through the Phone: The Legality of Encouraging Suicide in an Increasingly Digital World.” Brigham Young University Law Review, vol. 2019, no. 2, Mar. 2019, pp. 613–33. EBSCOhost.

State of Minnesota vs. William Francis Melchert–Dinkel (2012)
Mark Drybrough hanged himself in England in 2005, and Nadia Kajouji drowned herself in Canada three years later, both shortly after 46–year–old William Melchert–Dinkel, who knew that Drybrough and Kajouji were contemplating suicide, sent each a series of Internet messages from his home in Faribault, prodding them to kill themselves. Melchert–Dinkel instructed Drybrough and Kajouji how to commit suicide by hanging, tried to persuade them to hang themselves, and convinced them that he was a distraught young woman who would commit suicide simultaneously with them or shortly afterward. The state charged Melchert–Dinkel with two counts of urging suicide under Minnesota Statutes section 609.215, subdivision 1 (2004). The district court convicted him of the offense over his objection that his free-speech right to send the Internet messages to Drybrough and Kajouji was protected by the First Amendment.