Report on >>11481
has been closed for not being actionable. I suggest you once again, just to ignore the insults being levied as they are neither spamming nor breaking any other rules.
It's a long fucking answer. /meta/ BO has not responded, probably because they were too busy trying to figure out how to decline hosting the loli board at >>>/meta/13852
This is my take as a vol and I may be overruled by the board owner here, or the globals, but I will define my understanding here:
Romanian law does not criminalize suicide, however Romanian code 191 states:
>(1) An act of determining or facilitating the suicide of an individual, if the suicide has taken place, shall be punishable by no less than 3 and no more than 7 years of imprisonment.
>(2) When the act specified by par. (1) was committed against a juvenile between 13 and 18 years of age or against a person having a reduced competence, the penalty shall be no less than 5 and no more than 10 years of imprisonment.
>(3) Determining or facilitating the suicide of a underage person who did not reach the age of 13 or of a person who was unable to realize the consequences of their actions or inactions or to control them, if suicide has taken place, shall be punishable by no less than 10 and no more than 20 years of imprisonment and a ban on the exercise of certain rights
Definition of determining
>causing something to occur or be done in a particular way; serving to decide something.
Definition of facilitating
>make (an action or process) easy or easier.
I am unable to find Romanian court case work here. But it is likely to be more restrictive than American Common law, which as usual has a circuit split (and varies by state).
State v. Melchert-Dinkel, 844 N.W.2d 13, 24 (Minn. 2014)
>"Speech in support of suicide, however distasteful, is an expression of a viewpoint on a matter of public concern, and, given current U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, is therefore entitled to special protection as the ‘highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values'"
Commonwealth v. Carter, 52 N.E.3d 1054, 1056 (Mass. 2016)
>“The grand jury could have found that an ordinary person under the circumstances would have realized the gravity of the danger posed by telling the victim, who was mentally fragile, predisposed to suicidal inclinations, and in the process of killing himself, to get back in a truck filling with carbon monoxide and ‘just do it.’”
Giboney v. Empire Storage and Ice Co.
>"for example, the Court rejected the contention that 'speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute' enjoys constitutional protection."
Therefore, context matters in American Jurisdiction, federal courts appear to be silent on the issue (but you will likely still be extradited for muh PR). If you know someone is reasonable likely to commit suicide (based on the average person, and not the image board definition of "average"), you should not post them to kill themselves. For example, some dumbass like the one on 4cuck who livestreamed his an hero with a shotgun, you probably shouldn't tell him to kys. In addition, Romanian law bans specific threats, therefore, I would expect the post to fulfill the following critera:
1) It is specific and directed to someone or a specific organization,
2) It has a logical and plausible way of execution
3) The person them-self is likely to commit suicide on review by the average person.
Don't bait someone who's suicidal, and don't give a specific course with a plausible method to a specific group/person.
Talking about historical events is of course, not illegal.
Edited last time by zergfacecultist on 12/29/2020 (Tue) 23:08:50.