Limits of the First Amendment: Commonwealth v. Carter

We have learned about many cases where the First Amendment has protected people from being incriminated by their expressions of views that have sometimes seemed dangerous. The question of where to draw the line regarding the extent to which free speech should be protected has arisen in a variety of cases– for example, William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries remaining protected by the First Amendment after inciting people to commit acts of violence as extreme as the Oklahoma City bombing. However, in some instances, the First Amendment does not protect people from being held responsible because of the events their words have inspired.

In 2014, a 17-year-old Massachusetts girl named Michelle Carter encouraged her long-distance boyfriend, 18-year-old Conrad Roy III, over texts and a phone call to commit suicide. Carter urged Roy, who had previously struggled with his mental health and had attempted suicide before, to follow through with the act, helping him plan the details, minimizing his worries about how it would impact his loved ones (through text messages such as one saying his family “will get over it and move on”), and even texting him, “No more pushing it off. No more waiting,” and telling him to “get back in” when he had doubts just after beginning the suicide attempt with carbon monoxide in his truck. In 2017, Michelle Carter, who chose to have a bench trial instead of a jury, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The prosecution argued that Carter was criminally responsible for Roy’s death because she specifically encouraged his suicide through texts and also was on the phone with him as he took his own life— she had the chance to talk him out of it but instead told him to follow through with it. The defense argued that Carter could not be held criminally responsible because she did not take any physical action enabling Roy’s suicide and that Carter had the First Amendment right to freely speak to and text him, even if she chose to use that right to endorse suicide.

Ariana Brockington of NBC News provides that ultimately, the ruling of Judge Lawrence Moniz was based on Carter’s failure “to give a ‘simple additional instruction’ for Roy to exit his car as it was filling with poisonous fumes” (Source 7). This week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld Carter’s conviction despite an appeal based on the argument that the conviction violated Carter’s First Amendment rights. The Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has voiced its support for Carter and concern over her conviction and its implications. Robby Soave, an op-ed contributor for The New York Times also writes, “Ms. Carter’s conduct was morally reprehensible. But — at least until today’s ruling — it was clearly legal. While some states criminalize the act of convincing people to commit suicide, Massachusetts has no such law. Moreover, speech that is reckless, hateful and ill-willed nevertheless enjoys First Amendment protection. While the Supreme Court has carved out narrowly tailored exceptions for literal threats of violence and incitement to lawless action, telling someone they should kill themselves is not the same as holding a gun to their head and pulling the trigger” (Source 9).

While Moniz concluded, according to Brockington, that “Carter had a responsibility to take action to stop a life-threatening risk. ‘The reckless failure to fulfill this duty can result in a charge of manslaughter’” (Source 7), this case brings up important questions regarding the extent of First Amendment protections and potentially the concept of legislating morality as well. Some of the arguments in favor of Michelle Carter are reminiscent of the case of the “bad samaritan”; however, David Cash was never able to be held legally accountable for not preventing someone else’s death in a case where he had a chance to intervene. Unlike Carter, Cash did not actually give Jeremy Strohmeyer words of encouragement to murder Sherrice Iverson. Nonetheless, if the reason behind Carter's conviction was based primarily on what she did not say or do (despite the relevance of the First Amendment, as Moniz seemingly expressed), her conviction would, in a sense, contradict the idea illustrated with Cash that there is no way to legislate morality.

From a moral standpoint, Carter obviously should have gotten the necessary help, tried to prevent Roy’s suicide, and should not have told him to get back in the truck. However, from a legal standpoint, what exactly was the "responsibility" with which Moniz justified her conviction? Carter may have ultimately been held legally accountable for failing to fulfill a moral responsibility (one that many, like Robby Soave, argue is not actually rooted in any Massachusetts law).

Further, another complex issue that many are connecting with this case is the role of mental illness (see Sources 5 and 6), which calls for discussion about why, perhaps, Carter made the decision she did—especially if Roy may have placed pressure on Carter, who had her own mental health struggles and initially tried to help Roy, to yield to his suicidal wishes—and how that factors into the distribution of responsibility. Should other adults in the lives of both teenagers have been responsible for stepping in, before the situation ever became so drastic, to prioritize teaching vulnerable individuals about dealing with mental health and unhealthy relationships? Is it just to try someone as an adult for reacting to a desperate situation in a way that evidently does not exemplify an adult’s level of maturity? Sometimes a person never learns how to act morally and/or respond appropriately under precarious circumstances— as s/he grows up lacking certain coping skills and inevitably makes a decision that harms him/herself or others, at what point does that individual become the only one to blame?

Michelle Carter clearly played a role in Conrad Roy’s death, and he might have still been alive today if not for her. Yet, the same can be argued regarding people like William Pierce— perhaps hundreds of people would have still been alive today if not for his immoral words being able to inspire murders and terrorism. Overall, Commonwealth v. Carter once again illustrates many of the complex concepts entwined in the justice system, such as protecting free speech, legislating morality, and determining responsibility when many factors, such as mental illness and age, are at play. Should certain people be held legally responsible when they make the decision to use their First Amendment rights immorally (which would justify holding Carter criminally responsible for Roy’s suicide)? Or, should every individual be held legally accountable for responsibly navigating the “marketplace of ideas” and keeping in mind that some ideas are immoral (which would deem all individuals responsible for always taking others' words with caution, thus putting Roy at fault for his suicide)? Different cases have continued to redefine the boundaries of the First Amendment; nevertheless, their associated controversies reveal that the potential for harm is simply the price we must pay for the vital free speech protections that are essential to American liberty.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/how-the-turner-diaries-changed-white-nationalism/500039/

2. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c5ae8d4e4b0871047598706/amp

3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

4. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/massachusetts-suicide-michelle-carters-texts-urged-boyfriend-conrad-roy-to-kill-himself-a-judge-uphe-1989596?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

5. https://breggin.com/the-michelle-carter-case-archive/

6. https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/09/part-vi-adult-society-betrayed-michelle-carter-conrad-roy/

7. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-guilty-encouraging-boyfriend-s-suicide-text-messages-n773306

8. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/massachusetts-high-court-upholds-michelle-carter-s-conviction-texts-encouraging-n968291?icid=recommended

9. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/michelle-carter-didnt-kill-with-a-text.html