In my view, I am convinced that the first amendment protects the right to speech and not the right to encourage one to commit suicide. Though the right to speech is protected under the amendment, one should be responsible in whatever they say.  The ruling of the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case stated that any speech that inflicts injury to another person is not protected under the first amendment. The right of speech does not allow one to inflict any kind of injury to another person.

This girl really acted irresponsibly. In a text to her friend, she says that she could have stopped the teen from committing the suicide. She encouraged him to get back to the truck. She knew what she was doing and she knew it was wrong.  She is actually afraid that the cops will see her texts meaning she knew what she did were wrong.  Though I am not completely convinced that this is manslaughter, I am convinced that it is not covered by the first amendment.

The girl inflicted injury on the young man by encouraging him to commit suicide. She went ahead to help him determine the best way to do it. She argues that she could not allow him to continue living as he was living. The defense attorney argues that the girl was brainwashed by the teen but I disagree. If she were brainwashed, she would have been considering committing suicide herself as Roy had suggested.  I would argue that she brainwashed Roy into committing suicide by encouraging him and tormenting him to stop making excuses. She should have encouraged him to stay strong.

Response to LUCAS MORENO 

Great view Lucas but I tend to disagree with you that this girl was exercising free speech. I feel that free speech does not include speech that inflicts injury on others. If you abuse me, that is not free speech. It inflicts injury on me. The same in this case, her text messages inflicts injury on Roy. In addition, she argues that she could have stopped all meaning that if she had encouraged Roy not to commit suicide, things would have been different. She went ahead to encourage him to commit suicide knowing very well she could stop him. This constitutes to manslaughter.

Response to JILLIAN RUIZ 

Great thinking Jillian, I agree with you that girl is not protected under the first amendment. She knowingly inflicted injury on another human being.  Encouraging someone to kill himself as she did was not free speech. It was an irresponsibility, which must be tackled by the law.  I agree that free speech was meant to protect democracy. The girls act is not part of that democracy. That was manslaughter. Though her words were not directly spoken to the teen, they were directed to the teen through writing.  Our fundamental national values does not allow one inflict or help inflict injury on another person. This girl fully disregarded the value of human life.

Response to NICHOLAS MINX 

Great view Nicholas; this is not covered by the first amendment.  I do feel that this qualifies to the level of manslaughter.  Though the girl did not physically inflict injury on the teen, she psychological aided in his death. She confesses that she could have stopped all this, but she chooses not to. This indicates she knew it would cause harm but did nothing to prevent the harm from occurring. As you say, she spent a lot of time encouraging the boy to commit suicide instead of encouraging him or seeking professional help for him. She does not seem to share the moral values we nationally value.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?