http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5328550.stm
Did the internet kill the son? And should suicide sites be censored?
Did the internet kill the son? And should suicide sites be censored?
The internet killed my son
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
No. His son killed himself. The internet is a tool which the son used to help kill himself. Suicide websites are admittedly bad, or at least, not the best side of the internet, but censoring them will not help, any more than restricting access to paracetamol or razor blades will.
"The act of censoring something is always worse than what is being censored" is a quote that rather applies to this situation. Politely asking them to shut down with the consent of the webmaster is a different matter.
"The act of censoring something is always worse than what is being censored" is a quote that rather applies to this situation. Politely asking them to shut down with the consent of the webmaster is a different matter.
the families are looking for something else to blame because they cannot accept the fact they did not do enough for the son in the year leading up to his death. they should blame themselves before blaming others
Would his suicide have been less likely if he took the amateur approach and tought of a method himself? Like jumping of a building? Would it have been his friends fault if they had suggested to put a gun to his head as a method?
Dunno. Did you?
"The 18-year-old had been accessing suicide websites."
People have been committing suicide for years beyond count. Do you really think that he needed the internet to convince him to do it? Bullshit. If it wasn't the internet it would have been "Suicide Solution" or maybe one of the slower Goldberg Variations. Or god knows what.
Cavemen probably stared at cave paintings when depressed before killing themselves...
The internet is only method of communication, it makes all kinds of things availalbe whether that be shopping, mail, pornography or indeed suicide.
You can't blame the internet because all it does is makes things that are available in the world more easily accessable, you need to look at the problem not the method of it's distribution.
If someone recieves a letter bomb would you say it's the fault of the postal service? no.
If a murderer uses a car to travel to the home of their victim should we blame the highways agency? no.
You can't blame the internet because all it does is makes things that are available in the world more easily accessable, you need to look at the problem not the method of it's distribution.
If someone recieves a letter bomb would you say it's the fault of the postal service? no.
If a murderer uses a car to travel to the home of their victim should we blame the highways agency? no.
spuriousmonkey said:
If he were just left with his own ideas, I think that his suicide would have DEFINITELY been more unlikely. This quote makes a whole lot of sense:
"I think people who are considering suicide don't necessarily know how to do it. They don't want to feel pain so if there is someone telling them what to do it makes it easier for them."
He found a support group for self-murder. He was supported in his desires to kill himself. When you have a support from others, a decision becomes less difficult. These websites are SUPPORTING suicide. It incubated his thoughts of suicide and may have been largely to blame for his decisiveness.
I say websites such as the ones he visited that DIRECTLY PROMOTE/ENCOURAGE SUICIDE are very wrong and should be outlawed.
Pi-Sudoku said:
Um, how about something slightly more comparable to the situation at hand: If someone finds out how to create a letter bomb online, is it the fault of the internet for making such dangerous information available?
We're talking about a person who found information and support and probably used it to carry out his decision. The cause and effect of this relationship is a little more apparent than those you described in your examples.
Of course we're not blaming the knife or gun company for his suicide, that's just ridiculous. Do inanimate things have the power of influence? Of course not! And that's really the issue at hand, here - how this kid was influenced.
Why shouldn't we regulate something that has the ability to influence in such powerful ways? We've done it before with similar venues, so why not now? What is so different?
Last edited:
well he was away on holiday for 5 weeks before his deathperplexity said:
and yes ron i did bother to read the article
yes. the internet killed him.
it is the fault of the internet fully...
anyone that thinks any differently is a moron.
shut up, ron.
it is the fault of the internet fully...
anyone that thinks any differently is a moron.
shut up, ron.
FallingSkyward said:
Wow! You're really opening up a giant can of worms, aren't you? Whatever happened to freedom of expression?
Perhaps with you line of reasoning, we should regulate political sites, radical Muslim sites, racist sites, porno sites, fiction sites, .........oh, my, the list goes on and on, don't it?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
We jail people for being a danger to themselves or others(because it is wrong; detrimental to society), yet we'll allow mediums that advocate this behavior to run freely? How does that make any sense at all?
When the subject being expressed can(and does) influence a person to commit a violent, unlawful act, freedom of expression should not be an issue.
Lines have to be drawn, here. Information and communication is wonderful, but incredibly dangerous if used the wrong way.
Last edited:
the responsibility lies with the reader.
any other kind of thought advocates stupidity, gullibility, irresponsibility, and allows people to blame others for their own damn foolish behavior.
any other kind of thought advocates stupidity, gullibility, irresponsibility, and allows people to blame others for their own damn foolish behavior.
i still think the problems lie with the parents, if they had provided better support then he would probably not have been so depressed as to want to kill himself
John Walsh is his own little cottage industry after the murder of his son Adam almost 20 years ago. He's one of the forces behind legislation named after children that increases the penalties for sex offenders, including those who are not violent and have committed no offenses against children. He made a hell of a lot of money exploiting and popularizing the death of his child. I think that this former parent wants to ride the same money trail.
So we have an organization called "Papyrus" set up to suppress freedom of speech. How about an organization called "Priapus" to further suppress sex? Someone's always got a hard-on for something, that's for sure.
So we have an organization called "Papyrus" set up to suppress freedom of speech. How about an organization called "Priapus" to further suppress sex? Someone's always got a hard-on for something, that's for sure.
john walsh's kid was decapitated by one of the most fucked up assholes that has ever walked the earth:
henry lee lucas.
just a tidbit for the folks that didnt know.
henry lee lucas.
just a tidbit for the folks that didnt know.
If the son could not have killed himself without the assistance of internet-based information, perhaps there would be a case to make. The reality is, however, that suicide has existed for a long, long time. If the young man had looked up Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, he would have found an academic argument against suicide; if we are to blame the internet, should we also blame the schools and parents for not teaching the boy how to do proper research?
No, the internet is not, in and of itself, responsible for the actions of its users. It no more offers a drink to an alcoholic than the beer section at the local supermarket.
No, the internet is not, in and of itself, responsible for the actions of its users. It no more offers a drink to an alcoholic than the beer section at the local supermarket.