SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

JohnMc1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You know the world's gone off the deep end when self-styled 'feminists' actually put political correctness above the concept of consent when it comes to sex. Jesus Christ. :eek:

I guess "My Body,My Choice" only applies to abortion to these people.

LadyMacBeth_

anna080 wrote: »

This is how threeways begin. Btw, Anna, that's totally cool if you don't want to have sex with me because you're straight but that makes you a massive homophobe

LadyMacBeth_

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

I've seen plenty of documentaries on porn, and I am still conflicted. I think that people have every right to have sex on camera if they enjoy it and why the hell not get paid for doing something you enjoy. I could see myself enjoying making amateur porn for fun. Then again there is another part of me that wonders why someone would choose it as a viable career option and I can't help but wonder about their mental health/background. I know people have fetishes but I have seen some things in porn that just cannot be comfortable/enjoyable. Maybe I am just not into any kind of pain related sex so I don't get it, I don't know.

It's a tough one to know, but the assumption is 1), they're doing it simply because they enjoy it, 2) the money is insanely good and it realistically isn't a career move, 3) they're under some kind of duress.

Edit to add:

The money you can make in that sort of area is crazy. Once heard of someone, a cam girl, making about €2000 in about two weeks.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'd believe it personally. I got a world of hassle on boards before for saying I wouldn't sleep with a man who was born a woman. Apparently that's none of my business and people like me stop them from being true to themselves. God forbid you have a say in who you sleep with

hatrickpatrick

Vihaan Rancid Muck wrote: »

I'd believe it personally. I got a world of hassle on boards before for saying I wouldn't sleep with a man who was born a woman. Apparently that's none of my business and people like me stop them from being true to themselves. God forbid you have a say in who you sleep with

I'll just leave this here...



And this, ladies and gentlemen (and 'others') is why I find SJWs so unimaginably irritating.

hatrickpatrick

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I'm sorry, but if you enjoy seeing people being degraded then you need to see a doctor.

I'm a sexual sub and have dated several women with dom personalities, or dominatrixes if you will. Are you suggesting that they were mentally ill and should have "seen a doctor" to have their sexuality conditioned or medicated out of them instead of just finding a lad who was a decent match? All I can say is that for mentally ill people, they had fantastic, successful lives and are incredibly nice and friendly to be around (outside the bedroom obviously :pac: )

Sexuality is weird, and the things people get off to are weird, but in no way does that make them mentally ill. A vast number of people - in fact, I'd honestly be willing to bet that it's the majority of the population, just that we don't tend to openly talk about it - has some BDSM fantasies, which will often involve either degrading or being degraded. As long as it's consensual, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it - that goes for anything.

If you're going to make the argument I've seen others make, that there's nothing wrong with enjoying being dominated or degraded, but that there is something shameful about enjoying doing the domination / degrading, then that would basically leave a vast number of subs, myself included, without an entirely fulfilling sexual relationship. So personally I'd rather go with social libertarianism and just get used to occasionally fidgeting at my desk because my ass is still sore from a good sound spanking.

ANXIOUS

Deleted User wrote: »

The money you can make in that sort of area is crazy. Once heard of someone, a cam girl, making about €2000 in about two weeks.

Do you mean €20k?

professore

I think DickSwiveller has some serious issues with repressing their sexuality. A bit taken aback by some of the prudish attitudes around porn expressed here. I grew up in holy Catholic Ireland ashamed of having dirty thoughts only to later find out it was a bunch of paedos telling me I was dirty for having fairly normal sexual desires. Men and ( shocker ) some women get off looking at porn ... masturbate etc. Some women actually like sex ... Get over it people.

arayess

Sonics2k wrote: »

This person is not a campaigner. This is scum under the guise of a campaigner.

I've spent near 20 years of my life actively campaigning for things like gay marriage in Ireland, my mother has spent nearly 40 years doing the same.

We campaigned by speaking to people, not attacking people. That is someone who cares more about their own self-gratification and smug self-satisfaction than actual equal rights.

i meant in the sense of a twitter campaigner as in peak SJW not legit campaigner.

so i agree with your comment

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

and being an "escort". A more "respectable" euphemism for prostitution/whoring/hooking

Relevance? Not seeing it. She entered the sex industry in general yes. But my point and this thread is specifically about porn it seems, and so that was the aspect of her choices I was highlighting. What relevance to the thread, and more specifically to my point, does it have that she also did a brief stint of escort work? Do you have a specific problem with sex work you are trying to play a record on here?

Wibbs wrote: »

Well of course she's not going to express regret. No matter what the life choice, bad, good or indifferent, but especially bad, people tend to play internal mind games to justify it. Even when they know it's a dodgy decision. People are naturally psychologically self protective.
Again I'd generally sniff more mindwank there TBH. Plus on further viewing she's got engaged, so is setting some ground rules for him and self justifying her choice to sell her bits for cash. And if he objects he'll be painted as "not a real man" and the like.

There is no "of course" about it. Maybe people enter that industry and come out expressing regret. Many come out perfectly happy with their choices. That is the whole point I am making. That the sweeping generalization of JayZeus simply does not hold at all. Proclaiming that "Nobody ends up in porn by going down anything other than a wrong path." is just evaluating the choices of others by what one wants for ones own life.

The woman herself says she did porn and does not regret it. In fact she was sorry she felt she had to leave it and wished it was otherwise. YOU want to pretend she is just playing mind games and internal justification with herself, rather than simply accept she is above board and honest. I simply did not know mind reading was part of your repertoire. Though the pretense of it is certainly in the repertoire of many posters on the forum.

"Mindwank" is a good word for it. You do not want to agree with someones evaluation of their own life and their own choices, so you presume to psychologize it to pretend the reality is the exact opposite that she herself claims it to be. That is certainly a mastubration of one's own desire for reality to be what one WANTS it to be, rather than simply listen to what she says, and how she says it, and accept her honesty in the matter.

Wibbs wrote: »

Well.. Maybe, but either way the fact remains that men who have sex with men are at a much higher risk than men who don't, whether there's a video camera involved or not.

Sure, I am not sure who is denying that at all. It seemed to me therefore her problem was with the industry not acknowledging that. As other users have mentioned it seems that not only does the industry not acknowledge that, they do the exact OPPOSITE, in that testing standards are claimed to be less in that area. So if such claims are true the part of the industry that requires MORE testing, is in fact the part that has LESS. Which is pretty messed up in my view.

So she, quite rightly I would say, decided not to work with any actors who also work in that area of the porn industry. Her reasoning is sound. What is NOT sound is for a user known for stoking the fires of offence and outrage to spin that as "Homophobia". It is no such thing. And to pretend it was said user had to outright claim that a sentence about homosexual people, and a sentence about homosexual porn was INTERCHANGABLE. Which is....... remarkably dehunanizing towards homosexual people. Perhaps one of the single most dehumanizing statements I have ever read on boards.ie to be honest.

Wibbs wrote: »

In your opinion. Hate to break it you Nozz, but that's all it is.

"Thats just your opinion" is just one of those statements that pretends to rebut what a person has said, without in any way engaging with what a person has said. Pointing out that what someone rights on a forum is an opinion is about as useful as pointing out that water is wet. We are ALL expressing opinions on this site.

One of the few axioms I have in life however is that of "Innocent until proven guilty". And I apply it to concepts as well as people. No one, least of all on this thread, has constructed an argument against the morality and ethics of porn. So yes, I will stand by the "opinion" expressed.

If someone demands we "justify" our production of, or use of, pornography then said person needs to start by indicting pornography in some way such as to make it something that NEEDS to be justified. No one has done that here. You certainly have not.

Wibbs wrote: »

My opinion would be that maybe we need to question if paying for sex is OK, or filming people with their consent, especially minimum wage 18 year olds living on tips(Note that in general societies with more social safety nets have less porn). Nothing wrong with watching people having sex? Maybe. I've certainly strangled the monkey(sorry gorilla...) to porn, well, naked women with their wobbly bits exposed, the addition of naked male bits puts me off. So I'd be a hypocrite there, but I do acknowledge that hypocrisy, rather than try to explain it away as "it's all cool".

And my opinion would be the same only more extreme. I think we "need to question" everything at a moral and ethical level in our society. Not just once, but continuously and in an iterative process that recognizes that no moral or ethical stand point is written in stone but should change as society changes, as knowledge changes, as the data set changes.

So yes by all means let us periodically and consistently question the morality of making porn. Or paying for sex. Or selling sex. Not just the morality and ethics of doing it, but even more so the morality and ethics of HOW we do it.

I am all for it. But after no small number of years of inquiring into the moral and ethical arguments of porn and sex work I am not yet seeing any moral or ethical arguments to indict it.

What I DO see with some consistency are A) moral and ethical arguments about some of the problematic ways in which we do it and allow it to be done and moral and ethical issues caused BY attempts to prevent it or make it illegal which are then fed back in AS arguments against porn and sex work.

Both of which are different things than the actual moral and ethical issue of porn and sex work in and of themselves. The morality of X and the morality of how we go about X are two different discussions for me.

Wibbs wrote: »

The corollary of that also supposes that you extend the same understanding to people, men and women, who will see their choices as dodgy. Not people who would seek to publicly admonish of bully them. I mean people who aren't dicks who feel this way. Or does this understanding only go one way?

Not fobbing you off here, but I genuinely have no idea what your point or question means here. I am not at all sure what you are getting at. Perhaps a failing on my part, yours, or a mix of the two. But I respectfully request you try this one again for me if you would be so kind.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The reason a lot of men are ok with watching this filth, is that they subscribe to the religion of 'my body my choice'.

Or perhaps the reason they are ok with it is that you have not presented any arguments against it. And merely calling it "filth" does not indict it in a way that forces other people to justify it's use or production.

You flinging labels at people places no onus on anyone to justify anything.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Try and express concern about people being degraded, or question aspects of the bohemian lifestyle and you'll get these nuts screaming in your ear "HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I CAN DO WITH MY BODY".

The problem is that nothing about porn as a concept is inherently degrading. You are just label flinging again, as if calling it "degrading" magically means it suddenly is.

What IS degrading is treating people like children, as if you are some kind of benign father figure protecting them from themselves. As if their choices to do porn is something they need to be protected from, because you know better than they do what is right for them.

If you want to protect people from porn then protect the people who enter it because they feel like they have no other choice. But do not limit that to porn. Let us work TOGETHER towards a society where ANYONE who feels compelled to enter a career path they otherwise do not want to enter, has as many choices as we can possibly offer them to do otherwise.

Rather than second guess people's choices to do pornography, let us instead work for a society where we maximize the number of people in pornography who actually want to be there, and minimize the number of people who are there but wish it were otherwise.

And I do not think the way to get there is to pedal the sweeping nonsense this thread has seen, such as claiming that anyone who is in porn took the wrong path somewhere.

Wibbs

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll just leave this here...

I smell fake surely?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sexuality is weird, and the things people get off to are weird, but in no way does that make them mentally ill. A vast number of people - in fact, I'd honestly be willing to bet that it's the majority of the population, just that we don't tend to openly talk about it - has some BDSM fantasies, which will often involve either degrading or being degraded.

Bit of projection there I would suggest.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

....

Oh I forgot, you like longwinded and multi quote laden posts*. Life is too short to be getting into that and it would be more of the same down the rabbit hole equivalence mindwank anyway.





*hardly great coming from me.

Surely the OP is overreaching?

To suggest there was some campaign by some group and this led directly to a suicide throws up at least 2 big questions. Was there really some orchestrated campaign and was it really the sole cause of the tragedy.

I have doubts about both propositions.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely the OP is overreaching?

To suggest there was some campaign by some group and this led directly to a suicide throws up at least 2 big questions. Was there really some orchestrated campaign and was it really the sole cause of the tragedy.

I have doubts about both propositions.

So mass bullying is okay as long as it is in an ad hoc basis and the victim has a pre-existing condition "so it wasn't us, she'd have committed suicide anyway"??

Lovely.

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

So mass bullying is okay as long as it is in an ad hoc basis and the victim has a pre-existing condition "so it wasn't us, she'd have committed suicide anyway"??

Lovely.

That's exactly what I said, good man.

ANXIOUS

ANXIOUS wrote: »

Do you mean €20k?

No, no. €2000. Perhaps for about 4 - 5 hours over those 2 weeks.

That's for solo cam girls. I'm sure porn stars filming scenes could earn $20k.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely the OP is overreaching?

To suggest there was some campaign by some group and this led directly to a suicide throws up at least 2 big questions. Was there really some orchestrated campaign and was it really the sole cause of the tragedy.

I have doubts about both propositions.

it doesnt have to orchestrated , the point is there was a ready army out there who have weaponised the term "homophobia" and these are supposed to be the good guys.
as for sole cause who knows, essentially they going after her career and reputation which would test a lot of people

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I forgot, you like longwinded and multi quote laden posts

I think you will find mine has one less than yours. But if you mean by "longwinded and multi quote laden posts" that I worship the art if discourse, I like to engage with a topic, and I refuse to merely assert but fully explain my positions........ then yes, yes I do. Proudly.

If you do not want to engage then that is of course your right, I do not wish to compel you to do what you do not enjoy. But let us not pretend your choice is actually somehow lying at my feet in any way at all. You have many times demonstrated you are more than capable and willing to not only write, but engage with, long posts. So I suspect the decision not to engage in THIS case has very different roots than what you pretend here.

But I will repeat the core of my point in shorter form for those where attention span is an issue:

I believe in the axiom of innocent until proven guilty for people AND concepts. And therefore if someone expects another to "justify" an action then that someone has the onus of indicting that action first.

That has not been done here.

You’re awfully long winded, aren’t you?

I think most any man with a wife, daughter, mother or sister thay they care about would not want them to accept money to be penetrated by strangers and filmed for consumption by men fapping away with smartphone in hand and trousers around their ankles.

It’s hard to reconcile a desire to watch porn with the reality that the performer IS being taken advatage of without attempting to justify their participation as being quite normal and reasonable, as though it were akin to a decision to be an architect or carpenter.

It’s not. Yet men will justify it to themselves and shake one out anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo

JayZeus wrote: »

You’re awfully long winded, aren’t you?

I think I prefer the "attack the post not the poster" philosophy of the forum and it's rules. So I think I will not engage with your ad hominem here and keep it mature if you do not mind:

JayZeus wrote: »

I think most any man with a wife, daughter, mother or sister thay they care about would not want them to accept money to be penetrated by strangers and filmed for consumption by men fapping away with smartphone in hand and trousers around their ankles.

Sure? So what? I was talking about the moral and ethical position on porn itself. Not people's preferences. There are PLENTY of jobs I would prefer my mother, sister, daughter and partner did not end up doing. But that is MY preference, so what has it got to do with anything?

But I will tell you what I "prefer" for my daughter? I would prefer she grow up with the education and confidence to make her own choices, and to find the path in life that makes HER the most happy. And if that path is as a doctor, a scientist, an artist, a sex worker, a porn star, a toilet cleaner, a childminder, a politician or a priest......... then that is A-ok with me. All I want to know is A) she made her own choices without some man stepping in to benignly tell her what her choices should be because he feels she needs to be protected from herself as a woman and she is happy with her choices.

More than that I simply do not require as a parent.

JayZeus wrote: »

It’s hard to reconcile a desire to watch porn with the reality that the performer IS being taken advatage of

If they made their own choices, and they are happy with their choices, then they are not been taken advantage of. We as a society should work as hard as we can to ensure that is the case.

At least they are not been taken advantage of any more than anyone else in gainful employment. I am sure it could be coherently argued that at some level anyone employed by an employer who profits from them is in some way been taken advantage of.

JayZeus wrote: »

It’s not. Yet men will justify it to themselves and shake one out anyway.

And as I said, I only tend to "justify" actions that I have been shown, rather than declared, need justification. I am not at all a porn user myself as it happens, but I would not feel the need to justify myself if I was.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Surely the OP is overreaching?

To suggest there was some campaign by some group and this led directly to a suicide throws up at least 2 big questions. Was there really some orchestrated campaign and was it really the sole cause of the tragedy.

I have doubts about both propositions.

The answer to the first question at least appears to be yes, there was an orchestrated campaign of harassment, intimidation and bullying carried out against this young woman for her attempting to highlight something that concerned her and that she thought other women should be just as concerned about. She was basically a whistleblower, and for that she was condemned and vilified.

The answer to the second question then is that yes, the actions of her harassers led directly to her taking her own life as a result of their actions. They should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, and I would argue that the concept of the "eggshell skull" rule applies here -


The eggshell rule (or thin skull rule) is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.


Whether or not the young woman suffered from depression is irrelevant in examining the actions of the people who harassed her, they are still liable for what I would argue was the expected consequences of their actions, in that they wanted her to die.

The idea that her suffering from depression was a contributing factor in her decision to take her own life doesn't arise because there is no evidence to support the idea that she was suicidal before she was harassed. There are thousands of people who experience depression and don't take their own lives, so using the idea that her suffering from depression led to her suicide just doesn't hold up.

This is why online harassment and bullying needs to be taken more seriously, and I think this is the one situation I'm aware of where the law is actually way ahead of society in it's regard for the severity and the effects that a sustained campaign of online harassment can have on a persons mental state.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No, no. €2000. Perhaps for about 4 - 5 hours over those 2 weeks.

That's for solo cam girls. I'm sure porn stars filming scenes could earn $20k.

I doubt it, there's nowhere near the money there used to be in it. So far as I know most of them make the proper money from escorting now.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt it, there's nowhere near the money there used to be in it. So far as I know most of them make the proper money from escorting now.

This would have been.. about 4 years ago now. People would be "tipping" ludicrous amounts of money. Can't comment on what it's like now, but it seems most of the "successful" ones last about a year or more.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt it, there's nowhere near the money there used to be in it. So far as I know most of them make the proper money from escorting now.

From what I gather there was good money in porn pre the internet and the oceans of free stuff available. Returns have dropped since then. Porn search engines/sites can and do make money, but the individual performers less so, with a few exceptions of course. Escort work is the lucrative end, as is cam work, so the porn is often used as a calling card for the money making end.

Most women getting into it either do a couple of scenes for hundreds not thousands of dollars and get out(apparently described as "one and done" types), a minority keep going and have a career on the back of it, but usually a short lived couple of years kinda deal. A smaller minority again become "names" in the business. Men get paid less, but can have longer careers as the number of men who want to do it and can do it is quite a small pool. The women willing to do it are a larger and ever changing number and the business and audience demands the churn of new faces and novelty. So women start off with solo onanism scenes, then man and woman scenes, then woman women scenes, then threesomes, then anal, then "interracial" and group etc. Each step being a novelty hard to repeat for long.

I wonder whether the likes of Pornhub have changed the model much. They allow for the community to upload their own scenes, so seems like a lot of people pretty much film their own amateur stuff and upload it to the site.

I haven't done much digging into it, but I'd be curious to know whether there's any monetary benefit to doing it.

Ubbquittious

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder whether the likes of Pornhub have changed the model much. They allow for the community to upload their own scenes, so seems like a lot of people pretty much film their own amateur stuff and upload it to the site.

I haven't done much digging into it, but I'd be curious to know whether there's any monetary benefit to doing it.

There is probably more free porn now than you can watch in your life so it becomes increasingly pointless to create more of it

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder whether the likes of Pornhub have changed the model much. They allow for the community to upload their own scenes, so seems like a lot of people pretty much film their own amateur stuff and upload it to the site.

I haven't done much digging into it, but I'd be curious to know whether there's any monetary benefit to doing it.

Jon Ronson did a whole thing about it. Apparently Pornhub is massive, absolutely massive. It started by allowing piracy but it undermined the studios etc. so much that it was able to buy them. Pay was slashed and the money now apparently is more in cams and of course escorting.
He was also talking about the effects of "keywords" so that everything in categorised now. Basically the girls work til their early-mid twenties as "teens" then can't do much for a few years until they're "milfs". Obviously there'll be a few outliers who are big enough but generally the on-screen stuff is just a shop window.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The answer to the first question at least appears to be yes, there was an orchestrated campaign of harassment, intimidation and bullying carried out against this young woman for her attempting to highlight something that concerned her and that she thought other women should be just as concerned about. She was basically a whistleblower, and for that she was condemned and vilified.

The answer to the second question then is that yes, the actions of her harassers led directly to her taking her own life as a result of their actions. They should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, and I would argue that the concept of the "eggshell skull" rule applies here -


The eggshell rule (or thin skull rule) is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.


Whether or not the young woman suffered from depression is irrelevant in examining the actions of the people who harassed her, they are still liable for what I would argue was the expected consequences of their actions, in that they wanted her to die.

The idea that her suffering from depression was a contributing factor in her decision to take her own life doesn't arise because there is no evidence to support the idea that she was suicidal before she was harassed. There are thousands of people who experience depression and don't take their own lives, so using the idea that her suffering from depression led to her suicide just doesn't hold up.

This is why online harassment and bullying needs to be taken more seriously, and I think this is the one situation I'm aware of where the law is actually way ahead of society in it's regard for the severity and the effects that a sustained campaign of online harassment can have on a persons mental state.

The eggshell skull rule has zero application here, it's a very narrow matter with very specific definition in a very particular arena, the world of tort and the law of negligence.

In cherry picking one phrase from tort law, you are also missing the many elephants in the room, also available in tort law. For example, the absence of actus reus on the part of the commentators (they didn't partake in the act of suicide), the role of the person who actually committed suicide, novus actus intervenien etc. etc.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The eggshell skull rule has zero application here, it's a very narrow matter with very specific definition in a very particular arena, the world of tort and the law of negligence.

In cherry picking one phrase from tort law, you are also missing the many elephants in the room, also available in tort law. For example, the absence of actus reus on the part of the commentators (they didn't partake in the act of suicide), the role of the person who actually committed suicide, novus actus intervenien etc. etc.

I wasn't just cherry picking one phrase from tort law though, Wikipedia is just handy for that sort of thing is all, I knew you'd be familiar with the concept already. It could also be argued that it applies in criminal law -


Eggshell Skull Rule – must take your victim as you find them, with all their beliefs, idiosyncrasies and physiological flaws, even an ‘eggshell skull’. See generally, R-v- Holland , R –v- Blaue (refusal of treatment)


I'm arguing that any traits of the victim you'd care to argue contributed to her death are irrelevant. The sole focus of any potential liability lies with the people who harassed her. They didn't take any part in the act of suicide itself, but I would argue that their behaviour was certainly the cause of her death (actus reus) -


The accused’s conduct must have contributed to the end result in some sufficient way – a minor cause not above a basic level of de minimis will not suffice – The People (DPP) –v- Davis


Source: FE1 CRIMINAL LAW NIGHT BEFORE NOTES


In this case, the people who harassed her would be the accused, and the victim would have no liability. That's why I said earlier that any references to the victims mental state are the equivalent of the now debunked analysis of what a person was wearing or the actions of the victim which contributed to their demise.

The victim wasn't violating any law in what she did, the people who harassed her should be held responsible for their actions, and there has been precedent set by previous cases where people were found guilty of harassment at the very least -


Prosecuting counsel James Dwyer BL told the jury that “simply posting opinions on the internet is fine. But if it goes further, if it amounts to goading, which I would say is the case, that is not covered by a right to freedom of expression. That goes further and into the realm of harassment.”


Source: Man who made posts online found guilty of harassing Garda sergeant

PeterParker957

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't just cherry picking one phrase from tort law though, Wikipedia is just handy for that sort of thing is all, I knew you'd be familiar with the concept already. It could also be argued that it applies in criminal law -


Eggshell Skull Rule – must take your victim as you find them, with all their beliefs, idiosyncrasies and physiological flaws, even an ‘eggshell skull’. See generally, R-v- Holland , R –v- Blaue (refusal of treatment)


I'm arguing that any traits of the victim you'd care to argue contributed to her death are irrelevant. The sole focus of any potential liability lies with the people who harassed her. They didn't take any part in the act of suicide itself, but I would argue that their behaviour was certainly the cause of her death (actus reus) -


The accused’s conduct must have contributed to the end result in some sufficient way – a minor cause not above a basic level of de minimis will not suffice – The People (DPP) –v- Davis


Source: FE1 CRIMINAL LAW NIGHT BEFORE NOTES


In this case, the people who harassed her would be the accused, and the victim would have no liability. That's why I said earlier that any references to the victims mental state are the equivalent of the now debunked analysis of what a person was wearing or the actions of the victim which contributed to their demise.

The victim wasn't violating any law in what she did, the people who harassed her should be held responsible for their actions, and there has been precedent set by previous cases where people were found guilty of harassment at the very least -


Prosecuting counsel James Dwyer BL told the jury that “simply posting opinions on the internet is fine. But if it goes further, if it amounts to goading, which I would say is the case, that is not covered by a right to freedom of expression. That goes further and into the realm of harassment.”


Source: Man who made posts online found guilty of harassing Garda sergeant

+1

Simply put, they are scum for what they did yet feel they are doing good work.

Anyone defending them either directly or by trying to negate the impact they had on the victim is as bad imho.