Free Speech in Assisted Suicide- William Melchert-Dinkle

Today's argument pushing the boundaries of free speech on the internet is the case of William Melchert-Dinkel. This was a man who was entering suicide chat rooms for what prosecutors say was a search for victims. He would enter the chats posing as a male nurse, and sympathizing with the depressed people he met. Once he gained their trust, he would give them detailed instructions on how to kill themselves, and enter a suicide pact, in which he and the victim would agree to both end their lives at the same time. He is charged in aiding and abetting suicide in the deaths of Mark Drybrough and Nadia Kajouji. His lawyer contented this was an act of free speech, but the judge saw otherwise. He was convicted on the two counts and the judge cited that “Minnesota law made it a crime to participate in speech that intentionally advised, encouraged or aided another in taking their own life (guardian.co.uk 2010). He has not yet been sentenced and is expected to make a plea.

View the Full Length Article Here

So was this a fair, free speech argument? (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 475) describe the golden rule into media terms as doing no harm to the subjects of your stories, and treating them humanely. It brings up the issue of situational ethics, which are “moral principles to be relative to the situation at hand and not an absolute (Straubhaar, J., & LaRose, R. (2010 p 476)”. For people who support assisted suicide, this would be an applicable argument. This refers to the theory that people may break ethical codes for the greater good of society. While Mr. Melchert-Dinkle did lie, and break Minnesota law, did he do it because he really wanted to help end someone's suffering? Did he really believe that he was making a difference in someone's life for the better, or was he a twisted individual who was using an indirect way to commit murder. As user's become content providers, it is increasingly difficult to make laws from subjective moral codes. In this case a Minnesota judge made a tough call to consider this against the law, but without many precedents to follow a relatively new medium, it is becoming increasingly apparent for new laws and policies to be made. While his words were unpopular, should we agree with the judge that they were against the law? Should he be protected by free speech, and if not, how does that damage our first amendment?

Word Count: 415