No, words can't make anybody a criminal

The First Amendment has been my entire adult life.

Journalists cannot report accurately or share opinions without the protection of free speech and a totally free press, both of which are enshrined in the United States Constitution.

So any challenge to those rights makes my blood run cold, and it happened recently in Massachusetts.

Perhaps you read about the case of a troubled young woman named Michelle Carter, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter — basically for texting and talking her boyfriend into committing suicide.

Carter had no physical role in the death of Conrad Roy III, who died after inhaling carbon monoxide in the cab of his truck, which was parked outside a Kmart store.

At the time of the suicide in 2014, Carter was just 17 — so the case was tried in Bristol County Juvenile Court, where Judge Lawrence Moniz ruled Carter had caused the 18-year-old boy’s death with just a few words.

MONIZ IGNORED all other facts of the case — including hundreds of texts, the fact that Carter originally had urged Roy to seek help, that both teens had histories of mental struggles, even that Roy previously had attempted suicide — and found Carter guilty because of a single phone call.

The judge zeroed in on Roy exiting the truck at one point when the fumes made him nauseous, and Carter telling him from 30 miles away to get back into the cab.

Everything up to that point was irrelevant, Moniz said, and Carter became criminally guilty when — during that call — she did not try to save Roy’s life.

The verdict astounded most legal scholars, because Moniz suddenly had widened complicity in an event solely to the use of words.

Carter was not involved in any other way.

“This is saying that what she did is killing him, that her words literally killed him, that the murder weapon here was her words,” said Matthew Segal, an attorney representing the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts.

“Will the next case be a Facebook posting in which someone is encouraged to commit a crime?” asked Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge and Harvard law professor. “This puts all the things you say in the mix of criminal responsibility.”

AMONG THE legal experts shocked by the verdict and its explanation was John Runft of Boise, an attorney of more than 40 years who has argued cases in every possible venue, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I haven’t read the transcript,” Runft told me, “so when I heard the verdict, my assumption was that there was another factor involved in the decision.

“If it simply came down to her words, they are clearly protected by the First Amendment and surely this thing will be overturned on appeal.”

Runft noted he’s a conservative Republican, but nonetheless a staunch defender of free speech.

“I’ve argued First Amendment cases,” he said. “Obviously there are a few very narrow exceptions — you can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater — but barring those few things, free speech is the foundation of a democracy.

“No matter what that girl said or what was in either person’s mind, American law does not hold a person responsible for words alone in a case like this.”

I agree with the legal community and would be outraged if Judge Moniz’s wild expansion of the law were allowed to stand.

Michelle Carter’s words may have been ill-chosen, perhaps even immoral by some standards — but they certainly were not illegal.

There is a massive difference between those definitions, and this nation’s laws are based on it.

- • •

Steve Cameron is a special assignment reporter for The Press. Reach Steve: scameron@cdapress.com.