Social media is abuzz with emotion and opinion over the text message encouraged suicide that happened in Massachusetts, and while I concur it is an awful and sad situation, I think it is important to look at this in its entirety, and not just in the small picture that the media is attempting to spoon feed us. We live in a culture that pushes death at us daily, and yet, when a heartless woman encourages her boyfriend to follow through on killing himself, we lash out with soundbite phrases like “she should be shot”. Well, let’s take a look at what might have brought us to this point, and why she is not the only guilty party in this horrific story.

The Culture of Death: Abortion
This young woman that texted horrible things to her ex-boyfriend is clearly disturbed. This man got out of his carbon monoxide filled truck, only to be told to head back in so he could fulfill his plans to kill himself. This clearly was an awful human being emotionally contorting a man that was clearly sick. Let’s take a deeper look though at the society in which we live today. Yes, this man was “convinced” to follow through on killing himself, but what is different about the women out there convinced by their boyfriends to murder their unborn children or risk not being in a relationship with them anymore? You have heard virtually nothing about this very similar occurrence, and it is because it is an accepted practice by many, and others simply don’t want to discuss the brutal death of a child that is located in a place they don’t have to look at it. We are told by society, in particular feminists and liberals, that murdering a baby for any reason at all is accepted as long as the woman wants to…because after all, it is her body (you know, except it isn’t, but try having that talk with a liberal pro-death activist!). The celebration of abortion by the left alone should be a reason that this woman isn’t put in prison for even one moment.

The Culture of Death: Assisted Suicide
When Jack Kevorkian was alive and helping others kill themselves, there was still SOME belief in the sanctity of life left in our nation. Those who saw Dr. Death were repulsed. They saw him ending life, and they knew at first glance this was not something that should be allowed. As time progressed, people became more tolerant of death due to the tens of millions of babies being butchered, and assisted suicide started to be looked upon by many as “merciful”, and some states even started to sell suicide pills for those who were facing horrible deaths like from a brain tumor. All of this is awful. What this girl did was awful. She, however, did not kill this boy…she did not cover his face, lock him in the truck or even turn the truck on for him. She simply repeatedly text him, on a phone he could have turned off, words meant to hurt, and yes, encouragement for him to die. What makes that different from assisted suicide though? I would suggest, NOTHING. Massachusetts has no law against assisted suicide (even though they should), and because of this fact, this young woman will not be in prison long, if at all. She is a sick woman, and he was a sick man and a civil suit that is pending it going to make her and her family poor and will do nothing to bring this boy back or help her in getting the care she needs, compounding the tragedy even further.

The Culture of Death: Exporting our Democracy
Uh-oh, here is the point where I will lose many of you who may have even agreed with me up until now. We, as a nation, have condoned and even celebrated the idea of bombing other nations, toppling their leaders and setting up in their place an American-esque governing system, all while babies and teens and adults who have done nothing wrong are viscously killed day in and day out. What exactly makes this better than what this young lady did? We enter a country that we have no interest in, and that doesn’t affect us one bit, and we drop bombs on them? To HELP them no less? This is murder in EVERY sense of the word, and actually is a person taking the life of another, instead of just suggesting it through strongly worded text messages. The culture of death is indeed strong in our nation, and led by the political elite and the liberal left, we as a country have some nerve sitting in judgement on a girl who sent texts that were disgusting, inappropriate and vile, all the while 22 babies are being slaughtered every day, (just in Indiana alone)!

State Recognized Thought/Speech Crimes Are a Scary Thing, and The First Amendment is Meant to Protect Us From Them!
You simply cannot trust the government. They have proven time and time again that whenever we give them a little, they take a lot. We have the first amendment to protect speech that is offensive, not “niceties”. While we may disagree with something that someone says or does, we cannot take it to the next level and demand that a government entity steps in because we are offended and throws that person/persons in a cage because we didn’t like the words. I have heard a couple of things thrown out there by folks on Facebook that makes this situation, and this young woman’s conviction and jailing OK…(spoiler alert, IT ISN’T OK, and NEITHER of these means what folks are saying they mean.)

1. Charles Manson was arrested and thrown in jail for the same things.
Many are pointing back to one of the most notorious killers of our time, Charles Manson, as a reason why this young lady should be thrown in jail for her texts. That sounds convincing and would certainly make this a much easier case if what people were saying about Manson were true, but the fact is, they are NOT true. Charles Mason was the head of a cult, and he did use mind control tactics to get people in this cult to kill others, but he didn’t use mind control tactics on people to get them to kill themselves, which is a HUGE difference. Also, he was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder as well. These are simply NOT the same things.

2. We DO regulate speech…like “yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre”!
We have all heard it…freedom of speech has limits, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre! Well, yes, but also, not really. While it is a BAD idea to yell something like this in a crowded room, and certainly doing so would more than likely get you arrested on a number of counts, that is NOT what the case that led to this was even about.

In an article written by Trevor Timm for the Atlantic he explains,

“Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as a proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, “the law”–as some have curiously called it–can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday “Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater,” as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone’s suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent.

In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.”

Homes, in this court case, used  “fire in a crowded room” as an analogy about limits to free speech, but it never was binding law! It was even struck down several decades later as not Constitutional at all. So, as stated above, it is not a good idea, but yelling “fire” isn’t a reason to limit free speech (and the court agrees)!

So let’s stop letting emotions dictate our responses in this case (and others), shall we? We can all agree that this young woman was in the wrong from a moral stand point and that she is a sick individual that needs help, but our culture has pushed death on the last several generations and it is no wonder that something like this case is rearing its ugly in society as it sits today. If ANY life is not sacred, then no life is. So if you are ok with babies being butchered, or going to war to export our democracy to foreign nations, or allowing others to kill themselves with a state sanctioned pill, then you have no business sitting in judgment of this woman. Maybe instead of discussing how much time this young lady should have received in jail, we could instead discuss what changes are necessary for our culture so that this type of senseless tragedy never occurs again!

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” – Donald Rumsfeld

Jeff Petermann is a husband, father, son, and friend.  He works tirelessly at researching the truth, and then passing the truth on to his readers.  Jeff is an avid comic book fan and is often found watching a great comic book movie.  He loves spending time with his beautiful wife of 17 years and his 2 sons.Jeff owns his own marketing agencyand is the founder of, and the original, Conservinator. To see what Jeff is up to make sure to follow him on Twitter or Facebook @ConservinatorJP