After getting to know them, it became clear this was a defense mechanism a product of all the abuse they received over their entire life. > Some of you may be aware of Near’s notoriously paranoid opsec.

Doxing some, directly harassing others, and even specifically seeking out suicidal people to target. Not to be defeated in their pursuit of utter emotional and psychological destruction, they went after who Near treasured most: their friends. Many wouldn’t, but Near was strong enough to overcome that level of emotional abuse. Composing a slanted and abhorrent commentary about said person does not qualify as or is not comparable to setting up the noose or pulling it. There must be a mens rea and a credible threat or act for the purpose of objectively harming the individual in question. Otherwise, plenty of people would be imprisoned over their opinions about Donald Trump. Defamation seems to be closest category, but that's not a criminal designation.Īnother point to address is that calling for someone's death or suicide is not in itself illegal. 'Cyberbullying', however it's defined, is not among those designations. That's under the purview of the Supreme Court which has already classified what is considered unprotected speech. As to the second point, such a case would involve interstate commerce. The first point has already been explained. If you're arguing that casework from manslaughter-at-a-distance exists in the United States and that such case work would be applicable to KiwiFarms, I'd disagree with both points.

>I was arguing that the event could be considered more than nothing, possibly something like manslaughter due to possibly analogous events being considered as such.

Near bsnes has died