Often times help bears the weight of positive connotations, they help us to succeed in our endeavors, however, in the following article, “In precedent-setting case, aiding suicide charges laid in Brampton teen’s death” is a case where help was with respect to assisted suicides. It is truly heinous, that a person would is already endanger of committing suicide is offered help by schadenfreude people. This is no better than a cyberbully, a person hiding under an alias, and offering friendship based on the intent that the victim will suffer. This is truly disgusting, as laws have not fully come into place like those of a cyberbully, or child pornography, thankfully, based on the wording in the Minnesota Laws regarding assisted suicide, a person does not need to be physically present to assist in a suicide. This brings a predator of a new sort, who outwardly seeks vulnerable people on the Internet, and encourages to commit the act. In the article, it has stated that suicide was a behaviour, and often time encouragement is just words – which indicates it may violate freedoms of speech, though, I believe that someone encouraging someone else, should bear no difference to those who would violate terms of service with respect to abuse. Just because a person is friendly, doesn’t mean they are your friend, and simply the fact that the encourage and offer advice on how to actually go through with suicide, does not make them any less guilty of assisting in suicide. Encouraging someone to commit an act where they may harm themselves and others is a form of harassment, and coercion, therefore laws must consider digital mediums an extension of a persons senses, and should be held accountable for their actions in the online world, as well as the real.
It appears that out of date laws, often times do not consider victims, and such wording in various laws, need to either consider how they can be applied to the Internet. Terms should be carefully worded to protect the victims who may fall prey to those outwardly searching to do harm to others. Though this may be a difficult task, it is vital to consider that the shift in Technology, allows us the borderless ability to communicate good and bad information, and therefore it is vital to consider that certain information or interactions in the online world are still distinguishable from right and wrong, this article is a clear example, of how context should not change, simply because the location was virtual. the larger question is should jurisdiction be applied in the state that the information is received, and also in the state where the message was originated from?
Additional resources
- Reachout.com – a website to help those in danger of suicide
- Lifelife – a 24hour website that provides free counseling
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier – another case of where cyberbullying had gone too far
G33ky M3 :D 