Diseased Sanctioned Suicide - "Kill yourself" but unironically with sodium nitrite. Higher death count than the Farms. Targeted by parents, legislators, and journalists looking to alter Section 230.

[afounder]

Well thank you for clarifying. But it doesn't come off that way to others. You seem to not understand just how horrible these 'mental health treatments' you're referring to can be. Many people don't want to interact with law enforcement or don't want to be involuntarily committed, and whether it may be good or not there's always a nonzero chance of being involuntarily committed if you tell any authority that you want to end your life. I don't think it's misinformation to caution against mental health treatments by citing how they can involuntarily commit you (and yes, some people do go overboard with this and say it's always going to happen, but can you blame them?)

My point being, it might be more helpful for mental health authorities to institute a policy of not involuntarily committing people. But changing that is harder than yelling for a website to be taken off the Internet.

I wanted to add onto this point. There are many members that refuse to reach out to these services due to the very real fear of being committed against your will. Not only that, but if you work as a Doctor, Nurse, or any other professional field, having mental issues is pretty much a black mark on your record and can be used against you or even get you fired and your license revoked in extreme cases. Another anecdote, I had a lawyer reach out to me anonymously confirming what I said above.

This is why people are not open about these issues. Society really does its best to discourage discussion around the issue, which is why it has to be do anonymously. There's too much of a stigma and risk to talk about this stuff around friends, family, or co-workers due to those consequences.

There's never been a more important time to defend anonymous accounts and free speech on the internet.

 

[Prince Vegeta]

1. Lose weight and/or build muscle
2. Improve your personal hygiene
3. Resist the urge to complain constantly
4. Leave your home, because the only women you'll meet there are hookers who make house calls
5. Learn a skill or trade. Nobody wants a partner who's useless at home
6. Lower your standards. You don't deserve a 10 if you're a 3 yourself

0. Stop watching porn and anime all day.

 

[AnOminous]

Questions for any Law-kiwis: Is there a precedent for charging people with assisting suicide via online instructions?

Let's just say that while I think I would have heard of such a thing had it happened, it's entirely possible it has. I'm thinking of the U.S. in particular.

The only case close I can think of is Michelle Carter, the woman convicted of convincing her boyfriend to kill himself. She did a lot more than just provide instructions, though, basically doing everything in her power to use her influence over him, and even persuading him to continue committing the process of suicide after he got cold feet.

While I think the case is still problematic, you'd probably have to go to that extreme for a conviction to be sustained against a constitutional challenge brought by a competent constitutional lawyer, and I'm not even sure if Carter's conviction would have survived a strong challenge.

I'm also not saying anything on that level hasn't happened on SaSu or that a creative prosecutor might not bring a case regardless of whether it is ultimately constitutional, or that a prosecutor might even win that case before a jury.

That said, I don't know that to be the case and don't really trust the Lügenpresse coverage of the site. Look at the abjectly pathetic lies Mother Jones just told about us recently. Their sole purpose is to whip up hysteria.

Whether or not it's legal to tell someone to kill their self (or how) is a matter of state law, and one state can't impose their local laws on another state just because the internet was involved.

All states have long-arm statutes that confer jurisdiction when out-of-state actions have effects within the state. These statutes range from specifically limited to simply stating that they apply to the absolute limits of constitutional due process. So no, you don't get a free crime because you did it from your own home state, any more than you could stand on a state border and shoot people on the other side.

 

[Markass the Worst]

OP updated to be more critical of FuneralCry and clarify that @Tantacrul doesn't want Section 230 altered. I can't change the subtitle but at least the content is more accurate now.

 

[AnOminous]

The only thing protecting most of the users who give advice on suicide from prosecution is anonymity-most states have criminalized assisting in a suicide.

And such laws cannot criminalize speech protected under the First Amendment, however much do-gooders wish they could.

 

[Prince Vegeta]

I'll leave the intelligent debating to others. However,

Man, I love this thread. Now I’m waiting for RainandSadness and/or FuneralCry to join the thread.

I kind of hope not because I'm not really into reading 5k of suicide girl wannabe wall of text every post. But on the other hand, if it severely triggers people then I'm all for it.

The people who own this site have guaranteedly used either their personal accounts or an official one to tell someone how to kill themselves.

Citation needed.

Actually, SunburnNation has guaranteedly used either their personal accounts or their official one to harass vulnerable people. Guaranteedly.

We see through your bullshit.

Who is we? No really.

OP updated to be more critical of FuneralCry and clarify that @Tantacrul doesn't want Section 230 altered. I can't change the subtitle but at least the content is more accurate now.

This is good stuff (flighty glance) and helps a bit with the timeline. Maybe I missed it in my skim, but would it be worth mentioning more explicitly in the beginning that the site is silencing dissidents?

 

[Dyn]

I'm thinking of the U.S. in particular.

In Australia it's illegal to encourage or incite suicide, but there have never been charges brought against anyone, and the DPP has repeatedly refused to clarify their internal guidelines on it. They could potentially charge somebody for it, but then they'd be testing a 50+ year old statute for the first time, and I can't imagine them wanting to do that unless it was a really despicable case of open-and-shut suicide coaching of a pretty teenage white girl with a grossly unsympathetic defendant and lot of public outcry attached to it.

 

[Markass the Worst]

This is good stuff (flighty glance) and helps a bit with the timeline. Maybe I missed it in my skim, but would it be worth mentioning more explicitly in the beginning that the site is silencing dissidents?

I don't have any archives or screenshots proving this. I know some people probably do though, if those could be posted that would be great.

 

[AnOminous]

If you need to go to some gay forum to figure out how to kill yourself, you should probably kill yourself.

Just sayin.

There are a lot of really bad and unreliable suicide methods that are pretty likely to leave you a fucked up vegetable or nuke your liver but not actually kill you immediately. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do anything with such serious ramifications by just randomly guessing what would work instead of researching it first.

Sure, just jumping in front of a train will probably do it, but not everyone wants to do that, and even that can have horrific results, like for instance you get cut in half but don't die immediately, plus you're trapped in the undercarriage of the train, but it's compressing your lower body so you don't bleed out.

But you'll immediately die once they move the train, and so they tell you that's what's going to happen. Not fun for anyone involved.

They could potentially charge somebody for it, but then they'd be testing a 50+ year old statute for the first time, and I can't imagine them wanting to do that unless it was a really despicable case of open-and-shut suicide coaching of a pretty teenage white girl with a grossly unsympathetic defendant and lot of public outcry attached to it.

That's why they went after Michelle Carter here. It was indeed a really despicable case of basically pressuring someone into suicide, apparently just to get her jollies. Even so, I think the prosecution was questionable. She only served 11 months in any event, which is probably why she just did her time rather than dump a lot of money into a constitutional challenge.

 

[Prince Vegeta]

People have a very different idea of what constitutes encouraging in this thread. Like trannies with the word 'threat' and 'woman'. For the US, weren't the limits of 'encouraging' suicide tested out during the Michelle Carter case? She had criminal charges against her. Or was that just a singular occurrence with little bearing on others.

 

[GenericEdgelordSupreme]

All states have long-arm statutes that confer jurisdiction when out-of-state actions have effects within the state. These statutes range from specifically limited to simply stating that they apply to the absolute limits of constitutional due process. So no, you don't get a free crime because you did it from your own home state, any more than you could stand on a state border and shoot people on the other side.

So if I light a joint on the border of a weed-legal state and blow the smoke into someone's face in a weed-illegal state, the other state can prosecute even though I haven't violated any local laws? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's retarded.

 

[Dyn]

So if I light a joint on the border of a weed-legal state and blow the smoke into someone's face in a weed-illegal state, the other state can prosecute even though I haven't violated any local laws? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's retarded.

If you deliberately drug somebody without consent the state can prosecute you for assault, no matter how legal the drug is.

 

[HRT Heisenberg]

@Tantacrul when this thread started I made a post saying I initially agreed with some of the conclusions you made. However one thing OP undoubtedly does do right is show that there are forum posts from a number of users that you have completely changed the wording of - which I called a "false narrative" at the time. While if I assume the best of intentions that would lead me to believe you changed these posts to stop people from finding the site (which is a bit of a weak reason imo). Regardless of the intention some of these posts as highlighted by the OP did significantly alter the meaning of the messages which always portrayed the site as more unfavorable than the original messages. I would love to see the unedited posts from the site to back up the points you posted here on KF if you can.

Me speaking more generally, I have done some research with a lot of help from @iffywas which I'm really grateful for, and we'll post what we have when everything's ready. During this I've gone through everything again and read a lot up on the site. I will say this now there's a fair bit I actually don't like about the site which has been brought up on this thread quite recently surrounding the admin and FuneralCry with their management and white-knighting. But again as everyone has said this issue is not exclusive to Sanctioned Suicide. Otherwise after everything I've read on the site I do actually consider it more unlikely than I did before that anybody at all is getting persuaded into suicide (before I said there is a nonzero chance and that's it). I would say close to all of the userbase that does CTB go in the site are already dedicated enough to end their own life, post some stuff then do it. I know some people hang around for a while before making the decision but once they do I think it's a similar pattern. The suicide boards heavily discourage "do it" messages and everyone gets upset at those when they are posted it seems. As for the other users I think people in the recovery sections are in a place that a lot say help them where they can speak their mind without worrying about what others in their life might say.

I'll leave my sperging there for now, but I do have a few questions for anyone on this thread who has read a lot of posts on the site

• People have said the site has turned toxic and to shit, is this just powermodding and FuneralCry, and if so is this the same shit you see on sites like reddit or does it cause problems unique to the site?
• What is the deal with the site saying helping people with their suicide methods is against the rules and illegal (see below) and yet they break this rule all the time it seems.
• Also from the quote what are the other rules that are broken daily?

Every rule on that list is broken daily. I had never even noticed until seeing it just now.

 

[Manul Otocolobus]

I wanted to add onto this point. There are many members that refuse to reach out to these services due to the very real fear of being committed against your will. Not only that, but if you work as a Doctor, Nurse, or any other professional field, having mental issues is pretty much a black mark on your record and can be used against you or even get you fired and your license revoked in extreme cases. Another anecdote, I had a lawyer reach out to me anonymously confirming what I said above.

As a healthcare provider, I can confirm the above as well. This is one reason why the suicide rate among health care providers and associated fields is so incredibly high compared to the national average. I am sure the other HCP's here can verify this as well. It has changed slightly in literally just the last few years due to COVID and the ensuing healthcare crisis, but not by much.

You are much better off as a drunk of a pill popper as a physician than having a mental health issue. Drunks and druggies have all the support in the world through "impaired physician" programs that support them. But there is nothing of the sort for physicians with mental health challenges.

If the people who individuals are supposed to go to when they have a crisis can't even get the help they need, why would they believe anyone can help them?

 

[Joe Cool]

That's really heartbreaking. I hope everyone there gets the help they need.

 

[Dyn]

That's really heartbreaking. I hope everyone there gets the help they need.

I hope they all kill themselves tbh they sound like a pack of whining faggots.

 

[LordOfLightning]

A trans woman being the head admin of a forum about suicide, some heavy irony there.

 

[Unheard Bird]

A trans woman being the head admin of a forum about suicide, some heavy irony there.

It's a power trip for him, manipulating sad souls into ending themselves to make himself feel like some God.

 

[YarrBlueballs]

I like Tantacrul, he has good content, but it's important to remember that he's from the cursed isles and like all curse isle peoples he can't help but be a nincompoop when it comes to arguing in good faith.

That said, even if everything he said happened is true and happened exactly as he described in his video, I don't think that it would even matter. What's the worse case scenario? That SS does what facebook, twitter, reddit, ect have been doing for decades anyways? Suicide's becoming destigmatized enough to become state mandated at this point, I don't think a website that thus far not even he can show for 100% has broken a law and is subjectively morally iffy is the height of horror targeting young people on the internet.

I think the fear that people are using it to prey on suicidal people is legitimate, and might even be the good intention that lead to his video, but predators are everywhere and are already incredibly invasive. SS very very much lower on the totem pole in terms of reach and (ironically for a collection of suicidal people) potential for actual harm.

That said, I will refuse to support SS until they get a fair and equitable representation of 41% gender noncomforming activists, gotta pump those numbers up!

 

[dick brain]

Tantacrul here. Can verify myself by making a public comment on my video or something similar.

So, to start, the 'assessment' by the OP of this thread is laughable. It states that my video is bullshit even though the following statements are demonstrably true:

1. The site contains statements of encouragement for anon users to kill themselves on a daily basis (breaking the supposed main rule of the site)
2. The site contains multiple threads where people ask to be DM'd the email addresses of sellers from whom they can buy poisons to kill themselves on a daily basis. They are then given this information (I experienced this personally and I purchased a method myself by following this exact procedure. It was simple.)
3. The site has instruction threads which were (until my vid came out) publicly available to anyone. They'll be made publicly available again when the hear dies down. This is also what they did when the NYT article came out.
4. The site has an instruction thread for buying SN which leads to Exit International, which requires a subscription to join. This is undeniably true
5. The site has a partners section which has been used by predators to target vulnerable young people (leading to a prosecution of one user in Glasgow, which I discuss in the video). The site has not removed the partners section in response. They think it's fine that it remains as is.
6. The site verifiably coached a 17 year old to kill himself. This kid was not the first minor the site has helped to die.
7. As mentioned by others in this thread, the main mascot of the site, who posts morbid nonsense about how everyone should die because life is a cruel mistake - is actively protected by the admin despite constant complaints from other users on the forum who rightly see these posts as toxic and dangerous, given the highly vulnerable nature of many of those on SS.
8. The site is a 'free speech' site.... unless someone dares to challenge it too effectively. If you do that, you get banned.

Take those points together and you have the substance of my video. Pretty difficult to see how this can be picked apart, since most of the points are simple statements of fact.

Another few points in response to the OP's conclusions:

1. I do not make a judgement about section 230 or whether or not free speech should be curtailed in my video. I simply point out that the debate exists. I have very nuanced feelings about this topic... but in general I am very uneasy with the idea of applying rules that limit free speech. I just felt that my own opinions were not massively relevant. I expected people to make up their own minds. The OP states that my aim is to kill section 230, which is a moronic reading.
   
   
2. I do not at any point make a judgement about personal autonomy when it comes to ending one's life. Specifically, I do not make a judgement call about whether someone has the right to take matters into their own hands or not. This is actually not really a point I needed to discuss in the video (again, I have very nuanced views here). My video is about how SS encourages, misinforms, coaches minors, enables psychopaths and discourages seeking mental health treatment.
   
   
3. There have been many statements to the effect: 'why are we talking about taking down the site, when the REAL problem is the wider world that drives people to feel suicidal in the first place?'. This is an irrelevant criticism. I am not discussing the causes of suicidal ideation. I'm discussing how badly SS misinforms people who are experiencing suicidal ideation. I do not need to discuss why suicidal people feel suicidal in order to make the case that SS is doing an incredibly bad job at providing support for them. This is not rocket science, guys.

To state that I am attacking any kind of personal freedom is nonsense. I am simply against SS because it is run by idiots who cause enormous harm to vulnerable people.

Why even bother coming here to post this? It's already been made clear precisely how you've misrepresented facts to mislead your audience, what's the point of reiterating your argument verbatim without actually addressing the criticisms of it made here? Repeating it won't make it true, especially here, with the reality plainly presented in screenshots. It's blatantly clear that you care more about getting your desired outcome than you do about truthfully representing anything, so why even come here and pretend to?

I don't think you're dumb enough to expect to change any minds here with such a non-argument, and I don't think you're dumb enough to expect your audience to see you saving face here. I just don't get it.