Nor did I say it was. I was only using that example to illustrate that even under the law there is a recognition that people can be held accountable for the actions of others that they influence.
"General human interaction cannot be viewed as purposeful incitement to riot."
No, but the very word, "interaction" presupposes the notion of stimuli and response. It suggests that any and all human interaction will influence, modify or change the behavior of either party involved, as opposed to the behavior that would have occurred sans the interaction. Those modified behaviors may be as slight as an acknowledging glance or tip of the hat to a much more formal, elaborate interchange, but in either case both parties involved influence the behavior of one another. Being cognizant that our interactions with other people will influence their behavior, attitudes, emotions etc., we assume a moral responsibility (morality being that which governs our interactions with others) to make our best effort to make those interchanges positive. That's why when somebody says, "Good Morning," responding in kind is a much more viable option than punching them in the nose, or ignoring them altogether. Intentionally ignoring somebody to slight them or to knowingly make them uncomfortable may be perfectly legal. I would argue that it is unabashedly immoral, knowing we would not want to be treated in that manner.
"I think you are comparing apples to oranges."
Again, I was making no such comparison, merely illustrating that the law recognizes that under certain circumstances persons may be held accountable for influencing the behavior of others, and while jurisprudence requires strict definitions and standards of proof, general morality simply breaks down into "right" or "wrong."
"Simply interacting with other people, even if that action is harsh, less than friendly, rude cannot be considered the same."
From a strictly legal perspective you are 100% correct; We may find them to be legal or illegal based on the application of numerous criteria and contextual circumstances. From a moral perspective however, every interaction with others is either moral or immoral, "right" or wrong," and what is legal may not always be moral. This is especially true when and where governments become increasingly corrupt and pass corrupt laws.
"Even abuse has to be established over a period of time before it can be used as any sort of viable defense against action taken to stop said abuse."
Suppose that arbitrarily, the law says it must have five documented instances of abuse before a child can be removed from a home. Does that make the five undocumented cases ok? Is it ok if the abuser stops at four? Again, the law in those instances holds no account since the condition it sets (i.e. five documented cases) has not been met. Morally however, any abuse, documented or otherwise, is unacceptable.
While I realize that in certain cases such as solicitation of murder, one can and should be held accountable for influencing another to commit a criminal act, even to the extent of saying that the influencer is not only as guilty but in some cases even more guilty than the one who committed the actual violence, it is different in this particular case and in the case of suicide in general.
With regard to your disticntion of moral and legal culpabilty, I can only agree that in cases that relate to suicide as a result of negative behavior toward that person, the culpability only goes as far as what that negative behavior actually was.
In one of the examples I listed where I would have had a bad day then treated someone in the manner of a jerk, and then that person later committed suicide, I am morally culpable of behaving as a jerk.
It is possible that I would make the connection in my mind that my jerkish behavior may have been a factor in this person’s decision to commit suicide, or it may not have been. In either case, the only thing I am guilty of is behaving as a jerk.
Notice that in the case of Dharun Ravi, he was found guilty and sentenced only on the crimes that he actually committed. He was in no way guilty of causing this man’s death. Clementi caused his own death. I beleive Ravi did behave as a “jerk” and criminally so, in so far as he invaded privacy and did intimidate or humiliate by posting the video online, but if I recall correctly, people wanted this man to do hard time for this event, which would have been a miscarriage of justice.