Is this call for a ban something you agree with?

[Deja Q]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5056822.stm

Read the article.

:(

[qnr]

1. I have nothing to discuss. I just don't agree. n/t

[rug]

2. The website wasn't the cause of the suicide any more than the Golden Gate

Bridge is the cause of suicide.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. People commited suicide before the internet.

A ban on suicide websites is infringing on free speech. If they can do that, then why not ban books, movies, et cetera that have suicide themes?

[Deja Q]

4. Bingo. They'd have to ban "euthanasia awareness" altogether.

Schiavo...

[u4ic]

5. No

He would have had a myriad of ways to do it; the problem was the depression.

I feel for them, how tragic that their son committed suicide; but I think they're barking up the wrong tree.

How about lobbying for better mental health care/awareness/suicide prevention?

[Mutley]

6. I think people are too stuck on the idea that banning something

will make it go away. :eyes:

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. I don't agree.

Information in itself is not harmful; what use people choose to make of it may be, but access to information ought not to be restricted merely because someone might choose to use it in a manner which brings harm to himself or others.

And someone who wants to commit suicide can generally find a way to do so. Perhaps the family are feeling guilty over their lack of intervention? Had they advised him to seek counselling he might still be alive, after all. They could just as easily blame themselves as a website detailing suicide methods.

[khashka]

8. Just another "Final Exit" controversy

Banning suicide? My fucking right to do it - and I will, I go out my way. Information on how to make it quick and relatively painless? Good.

Suicide should be a fundamental right.

Khash.