By Morgan Kleinhandler
There is no doubt that the advance of modern technology has allowed for an increase in the interconnected nature of American society.[1] Specifically, the popularity of smartphones has allowed for a new level of immediate interconnectedness that was previously impossible. [2] With this rise in technology has come a new form of human interaction that can lead to dangerous and irreparable consequences[3]—for example, encouraging the suicide of another through text messaging. A new legal precedent has been set in Massachusetts to deter this type of encouragement, making it a criminally punishable offense to encourage suicide through texting.[4] In many states, it is illegal to assist in the suicide of another, and being found guilty of doing so will result in criminal liability.[5] As technology has evolved, the state of Massachusetts has made national headlines for including the encouragement of suicide through text message as an illegal and punishable form of assisting in a suicide.[6]
In 2017, Michelle Carter was found guilty in Massachusetts state court for encouraging her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to commit suicide through thousands of text messages.[7] Similarly, this past month, on December 23, 2021, Inyoung You pleaded guilty in Massachusetts to assisting in the suicide of her boyfriend, Alexander Urtula, through about 47,000 text messages.[8] Both cases have grabbed national attention[9] and have opened Americans’ eyes to the way that communication through technology can lead to dire consequences.
The Supreme Court has established that the right to suicide is not a fundamental or liberty interest protected by the Constitution, and governmental impairment to the right to suicide will receive the lowest level of scrutiny from the courts.[10] However, the First Amendment establishes the right to free speech for all citizens,[11] which the Supreme Court has long interpreted.[12] The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,”[13] establishes a “fundamental personal right[]”[14] to free speech which can only be impaired by the government if such impairment survives strict scrutiny.[15] Because the right to suicide is not constitutionally protected and receives minimal scrutiny[16] whereas government impairment on freedom of speech receives the highest level,[17] some courts have held that encouraging another’s suicide will be punishable only if strict scrutiny for such punishment is met.[18] For these reasons, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that verbal encouragement to another person before that person’s suicide is constitutionally protected speech that could not be criminally punishable because it does not survive strict scrutiny.[19]
The State of Massachusetts interpreted the situation differently, however, finding that when speech constitutes the crime of involuntary manslaughter, First Amendment rights are not affected.[20] In the case of Michelle Carter, the court clarified that it was not simply Carter’s words that were being punished; it was “reckless or wanton words causing death” that constituted a crime.[21] The court held that even though Carter committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter using just words, she could not “escape liability” through First Amendment protection.[22] Thus, because Carter’s illegal conduct was being punished, and not Carter’s speech alone, her First Amendment right to free speech was not violated.[23]
Massachusetts also concluded restriction of verbal encouragement of suicide could pass strict scrutiny even if the First Amendment applied because the state “has a compelling interest in deterring speech that has a direct, causal link to a specific victim’s suicide.”[24] On appeal, the court affirmed that the state had a justifiable reason to restrict Carter’s speech, holding that the state has a “compelling interest in preserving life.”[25] Through Massachusetts’s reasoning, because states have a compelling interest in deterring citizens from committing suicide, especially with the encouragement of others leading to the suicide,[26] the constitutional protections provided by the First Amendment may be overcome in cases like Michelle Carter and Inyoung You.
The Massachusetts court in Carter did point out, however, that the elements of involuntary manslaughter charges must be met on a case-by-case basis to rightfully prove that charge in the case of encouraging suicide through text message.[27] In Massachusetts specifically, in order to prove involuntary manslaughter, the state must prove that the defendant caused the death of another through wanton or reckless behavior or failure to act.[28] These elements align with many other states’ laws on involuntary manslaughter.[29] In Carter’s case, the court found that her text messages were enough to prove she committed involuntary manslaughter.[30] The court reasoned that because Carter had such a close relationship with her boyfriend and because her text messages were so supportive and temporally close to Roy’s suicide that they were a probable cause of his suicide.[31] Carter’s case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari,[32] suggesting that the Court may agree with Massachusetts’s analysis on the matter.
Michelle Carter’s sentence was the first time an American has been punished for encouraging the suicide of another using only text messaging.[33] A few years later, Inyoung You’s sentencing following a guilty plea for a near-identical situation shows a trend in punishing text messages which explicitly encourage the suicide of another.[34] Although both Carter and You’s cases occurred in Massachusetts, this trend of punishing those who actively encourage and contribute to the suicide of another using technological communication could very well become a trend throughout the states.
[1] Ray Zinn, The Interconnectedness of Things, Forbes (Dec. 15, 2017, 9:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/12/15/the-interconnectedness-of-things/?sh=18e1245865d1.
[2] Christian Jarrett, How Are Smartphones Affecting Our Relationships?, World Econ. Forum (Nov. 3, 2015), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/how-are-smart-phones-affecting-our-relationships/.
[3] See generally Melissa Locker, Two Young Women Have Been Accused of Persuading Their Boyfriends to Kill Themselves—but Why?, Health (Jan. 24, 2020), https://www.health.com/mind-body/inyoung-you-case-commit-suicide (discussing how texting can lead to more detached feelings and judgments).
[4] Commonwealth v. Carter, 115 N.E.3d 559 (2019), cert. denied 140 S. Ct. 910 (2020).
[5] Sierra Taylor, Comment, Kill Me Through the Phone: The Legality of Encouraging Suicide in an Increasingly Digital World, 2019 BYU L. Rev. 613, 627 (2020).
[6] Locker, supra note 3.
[7] Carter, 115 N.E.3d at 561–62, 574.
[8] Marisa Sarnoff, Inyoung You Pleads Guilty in Boston Manslaughter-by-text Case, Can’t Profit from Story, Bos. Herald, https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/12/23/inyoung-you-pleads-guilty-in-boston-manslaughter-by-text-case-cant-profit-from-story/ (Dec. 23, 2021, 8:11 PM); Locker, supra note 3.
[9] Sarnoff, supra note 8; Locker, supra note 3.
[10] Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728 (1997).
[11] U.S. Const. amend. I.
[12] See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666–69 (1925); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 23–26 (1971); Reno v. Am. C.L. Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870–74 (1997).
[13] U.S. Const. amend. I.
[14] Gitlow, 268 U.S. at 666.
[15] Id.
[16] Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728 (1997).
[17] Gitlow, 268 U.S. at 666.
[18] State v. Melchert-Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d 13, 24 (Minn. 2014); cf. Commonwealth v. Carter, 115 N.E.3d 559, 572 (Mass. 2019), cert. denied 140 S. Ct. 910 (2020).
[19] Melchert-Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d at 24.
[20] Carter, 115 N.E.3d at 572.
[21] Id.
[22] Id. at 570.
[23] Id. at 571.
[24] Commonwealth v. Carter, 52 N.E.3d 1054, 1064 n.17 (Mass. 2016), aff’d, Carter, 115 N.E.3d 559.
[25] Carter, 115 N.E.3d at 572.
[26] Id.
[27] Carter, 52 N.E.3d at 1063.
[28] Carter, 115 N.E.3d at 569.
[29] See 40 C.J.S. Homicide § 127 (2021) (describing broad elements of involuntary manslaughter statutes).
[30] Id.at 568.
[31] Id.
[32] Carter v. Massachusetts, 140 S. Ct. 910 (2020).
[33] Locker, supra note 3.
[34] Id.
Post image by Helen Harrop on Flickr
