“It’s all my fault because I could have stopped him, but I didn’t and all I had to say was I love you and don’t do this one more time and he’d still be here” exclaimed Michelle on the day of her court hearing. On July 13, 2014, Conrad Roy took his own life and was encouraged to do so by Michelle Carter, his girlfriend at the time. Ms. Carter was sentenced to 15 months in jail for coercing her boyfriend via text message to kill himself. Narrative: Roy Conrad spent most of his young life in Fairhaven Massachusetts where he was born and raised. Roy had struggled with anxiety and depression which resulted in him being prescribed antidepressants to take so that he could cope with everyday life. Conrad had attempted an overdose in 2012 after signing …show more content…
He would do any and everything to make her happy. Conrad and his mother, Lynn Roy, shared a bond that no mother or son could ever think to have. The day of the suicide, Lynn and Conrad spent quality time walking on the beach together. She said that he talked about the future of attending Fitchburg State and one day owning his father’s business. Lynn never really understood what it was like to be depressed until her son was taking away from her. She felt empty, lifeless, and angry because she no longer could hold his hand or feel the warmth in his face again. Is it Michelle Carters fault that Roy Conrad isn’t alive today? Should she be to blame for his death? “I think she needs to be held responsible for her actions because she knew exactly what she was doing” (“Conrad Roy’s Mom: Carter Should Be Liable”). People could argue that since Carter was encouraging Conrad to kill himself she is considered an accessory to his murder. Attorney Eric Goldman, one of the lawyers representing Conrad’s case, states that Carter pushed Roy to commit suicide because she was desperate for attention and wanted sympathy from her peers. The judge ruled Michelle Carter guilty for involuntary manslaughter and sentenced her 15 months in jail and 5 years’ probation. Supporters of putting away Carter for the rest of her life would agree that it is only right that justice be served in that way. Carter knew of Conrad’s whereabouts and …show more content…
It has questioned whether suicide is an act of free will. Cyberbullying has slowly decreased since this incident took place in 2014. The First Amendment was also called into question. This amendment states the right to freedom, press, and religion have been overlooked and observed more closely. The trials verdict sets no immediate legal precedents because other prosecutors would use other instances like these to get away with less serious acts of crime. The Michelle Carter case will be a warning sign for teenagers and how they properly use their devices to talk to others on social media. John Palfrey, headmaster of Phillip’s Academy in Massachusetts said, “I think the hard news for young people and their parents is things that young people do everyday on text and social media have extraordinary consequences, or that can be legal
At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. On May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. The article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce. The following article featured students at Hazelwood East and their experiences as teen parents in high school. Reynolds immediately asked for the two articles to be withheld from that weeks edition. Reynolds had concluded fairness required the father in the divorce article to be informed of the article and given the chance to make any comments. He also stated that changing the names of the girls in the teen pregnancy article may not be sufficient enough to keep them unidentified. Also, the topic is not suitable for younger students. As a result he forbid the two articles from being published. On October 13, 1987 Cathy Kuhlmeier (a student at Hazelwood East High) claimed that Hazelwood East High School was violating her First Amendment rights, and her case was
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
Soon after successfully defending his thesis in early 1994, Ogden received a subpoena to appear at a British Columbia Coroner’s Jury that was looking at a suspected case of assisted suicide. Under the Section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada, anyone (including a doctor) who helps someone to commit suicide is guilty of an indictable offence and can receive a prison term of up to fourteen years (Government of Canada Justice Laws). Authorities believed that Ogden had some knowledge of the matter. When he was asked to
Higher education law attorney Dana L. Fleming voices her controversial opinion in favor of institutionalized involvement in social network protection in her article “Youthful Indiscretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?” (Fleming). Posted in the New England Journal of Higher Education, winter of 2008 issue, Fleming poses the question of responsibility in monitoring students’ online social networking activities. With a growing population of students registering on social networks like Facebook and MySpace, she introduces the concern of safety by saying, “like lawmakers, college administrators have not yet determined how to handle the unique issues posed by the public display of their students’ indiscretions.” However, while Dana Fleming emphasizes the horror stories of social networking gone-bad, she neglects the many positive aspects of these websites and suggests school involvement in monitoring these sites when the role of monitoring should lie with parents or the adult user.
Though in the ultimate sense, he does have a right to proclaim those thoughts, they were proclaimed on school property. Public high schools have rules implemented about anti-distraction, dress code rules, and anti-bullying. By attending this school, he has agreed to follow these rules and to abide by the implied contract that the district sets for students. I believe that there is a line between what should be considered “freedom of speech” and what is “demeaning speech”. Getting his message and opinions across is possible without belittling or demeaning other people. If this case did not take place in a public institute, I believe that my views on his punishment would be different but he blatantly violated several rules that all students must follow. These rules are put into place to limit chaos and that is why his punishment was valid in this particular
In the case described in Document D,a student named J.S. was suspended for creating a Myspace profile which ...
She starts off her argument with her own personal experience then transitions into an example of a girl she interviewed named Caitlyn. She uses Caitlyn as an example to show that teenagers start posting their everyday lives from a young age. Caitlyn likes to post her blogs, her photos and documentaries about her school on the internet for the world to see. She has the characteristics from the author’s previous argument that she thinks she has an invisible audience on the internet and because of this she posts her daily routine. When Caitlyn took a trip to Manhattan, she posted her pictures and “memories of her time in New York [which] are [now] stored both in her memory, where they will decay, and on her site” (Nussbaum 3). During this argument, the author only uses examples of her personal interviews; she does not have any facts from credible resources. If the author where to include more personal examples of teenagers, it would not give the reader the suspicion on whether or not this is true for all youth. If teenagers thought about the consequences of posting online their daily lives, than many people would not do it. By taking this argument into consideration many people would be more careful about what they post. The online world can be a scary place because pedophiles can now have easy access to photos and teenagers accounts and pretend to be someone they are not. Young adults
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
I fully agree with the District Court and the First Circuit Court on the ruling for the school district against Jason, a high school student that wrote a facebook post during school hours and on school campus that included vulgar and offensive words towards his fellow classmates in which he named in the post. When first looking at this case you can either apply the Supreme Court precedent set in the case of Bethel School District v. Fraser or Tinker vs. Des Moines. If we apply the Fraser test to Jason’s speech his speech would have not been protected. According to Fraser schools may prohibit speech that “materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser majority at page 2. Jason did in fact use offensive speech when talking about the other students in his post, the names he called them and the profanity in the speech would reasonably be seen as offensive and vulgar. Though if applying this case to the Fraser test Jason’s speech would not be protected, in this case I decided to apply his speech to the test set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines.
The First Amendment defends those under age from being exposed to offensive language; therefore, Bethel High acted rightfully by punishing Matthew Fraser for his sexually referenced speech. The court referred back to several cases including, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Bowsher v. Synar to ensure the rightful
In document D the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension.J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language.J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because it didn 't cause a substantial disruption.
The Michelle Carter case was a recent trial that looked at the actions of then 17 year-old Michelle Carter and the suicide of her boyfriend. Carter was in constant communication with her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, in the weeks leading up to the suicide. Carter sent encouraging text messages and phone calls, with the intent of helping Roy commit suicide. Mr. Roy had a history of depression and suicidal thoughts and spoke with Carter multiple times about these struggles and his desire for his life to end. In the end, Carter was not present during the suicide, in which Conrad Roy pumped carbon monoxide gas into the cab of his pickup truck. Throughout the entirety of his suicide, Carter was in constant contact with her boyfriend, sending encouraging
One thing that helped Conrad’s healing is for him to begin dating a girl from his high school. Conrad’s experience of grief is coupled with his experience of a growing adolescent. The literature suggests that bereaved adolescents are at risk of developmental complications (Buckle & Fleming, 2011). Though the interaction did not end well, Conrad’s girlfriend was the first person he felt comfortable sharing his reasons for attempting suicide. This teenage relationship helps establish a sense of normalcy for Conrad and there are notable positive changes in his mood and behavior as a result.