Slashdot Mirror
Woman Indicted In MySpace Suicide Case
longacre writes "The Associated Press is reporting an indictment has been handed down in the sad case of Megan Meier, the girl who committed suicide after receiving upsetting MySpace messages from someone she perceived to be her boyfriend. It was later determined the boy, Josh Evans, was a fictitious identity created by a neighbor of Meier's family. Lori Drew, of a St. Louis suburb, has been charged with 'one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl.' Interestingly, despite the alleged crime having occurred strictly in Missouri, the case was investigated by the FBI's St. Louis and Los Angeles field offices, and the trial will be held in Los Angeles, home of MySpace's servers. Wired is running a related story about the potentially 'scary' precedent this case could set."
If you can get punished for inflicting emotional distress, I guess Vista really was illegal...
The girl got trolled and had her butt hurt. Besides if she killed herself over something like this she must have had some mental issues.
I hate to come across as a "heartless" bastard, but jumping off a bridge (or the equivalent) due to some perceived online relationship failure just doesn't seem right.
Then again, maybe kids today are far too sensitive.
Really I do not think theres anything scary about what will happen in this case. An adult should be semi responsible for there actions.
How can an adult feel like toying with a young girl with an over self conscious image of herself when they live near them?
I can understand that there could be other circumestances when this could be scary but in this case i thought it was just HORRID what the person did.
Mod me a troll if you want. But i think most people when they read this case realize that what that person did was wrong. And i believe that in most circumstances driving someone to suicide is a crime. I don't care if you say that the person was to emotional, thats a reason that you should be semi understanding and not go out of your way to mess with them.
She had severe depression. If it wasn't this trigger it would have been another. Simply signing up for myspace and logging in for the first time could have been a major contributing factor.
Or is there something I'm not getting here?
Because the bitch ain't a nice person
For once, an accurate first post. "Inflicting emotional distress" should not be a crime, because that means "insulting someone on Usenet" is a crime. Not only would we lose half the world's geeks within a year, but we'd have disgraced our legal system forever.
If you really feel "emotional distress", you can take the traditional response - a duel, either with swords a la D'argtanan or with pistols a la Jefferson or with words a la Usenet. It's entered into by mutual agreement, which means no one gets anything they weren't willing to get. You can walk away from an insult or even a duel - you can't walk away from a lawsuit. My two cents (that's all I have, I'm not allowed to vote, those under 18 being clear idiots by definition) says that taking this into the courts is an insult to both parties. It's a private matter, and it should be settled privately.
Sure, the girl committed suicide, so there's an emotional investment here on the part of the people hearing about the case, but people should be able to realize just what kind of precedent they're setting here. It's not a good one.
A suicidal girl committed suicide, news at 11.
Here in Italy, inducing someone to suicide is a crime. There is no such law in U.S.A. ?
Perhaps she thought that young girls should not invest their emotions in people they meet over instant messenger or on social networking sites and wanted to teach her a lesson. Maybe she was afraid that a predator was going to get this young girl and thought it better to drive her away from this dangerous activity before she got seriously hurt. Clearly her parents were absent from the equation and maybe this woman wanted to teach *them* a lesson.
Maybe if this generation of kids were not such cry-baby emos she would have taken her lumps and learn from the experience instead of offing herself over something so trivial as an internet boyfriend.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Am I missing something?
Everyone's talking about it like she's been found guilty already. Has the case been judged on already and I missed it?
Max.
Would the situation be any different if it weren't a hoax?
What if Josh Evans really existed, and was true to what was spoken? Because then it would be a freedom of speech issue.
I haven't figured that out yet. IS this a free speech issue, or was this conspiracy to harm someone. She clearly conspired to harm someone, but should she be punished, or should it be tolerated to protect free speech.
On the other hand, they might have her on misusing a computer. She did violate the TOS.
What if you off yourself? No thanks, I'll stay the heck away from calling you -anything- after this indictment decision.
And yes, I fully realize that what happened in the article's case is far more severe than calling a person a troll on Slashdot.
On the other hand, the girl also didn't go through the steps of blocking the user, reporting the user to MySpace or going to court to get the equivalent of a restraining order (as a sibling poster pointed out, we have such things for stalkers.. but you do still need to take action yourself to get one). My sympathies to the family and loved ones, my disgust unto the women (sorry, Ms. Grills, but I don't think you should get away from this relatively unscathed) who drove the girl to see only one solution to this, and my middle finger to MySpace for not doing much in the way of anything to educate their users that there -are- many, many options of dealing with this including legal routes. To be named a victim in this case must bring a very unpleasant and awkward feeling in the gut of the powers-that-be there.
Back to my point... -I- don't know what might send a user over the edge, so no troll mod for you.
"Get her (woman) any way you can" There is no legal means for prosecuting someone for what she did to the girl, so they found another way to bring charges, i.e. being arrested for resisting arrest or the way Gotti caused the deaths of dozens, but he went away for tax evasion. What she did was not acceptable socially, so the criminal justice system is trying to find a way to squeeze her in. I don't like it, but right now I think its better than having US Code specifying the legality of things like this on the Internet more than it already does. Considering the 80% of congress is technically inept (optimistic) and a different 80% could care less about passing ambigous legislation that can be misused.
The issue here is that prosecutors are using the typical shotgun approach, and firing a bunch of charges at her to see what will stick.
Technology has nothing to do with this crime, and there could be negative ramifications if she is indeed found guilty of federal communication charges for a local crime.
Let's pretend this occurred 30 years ago, and instead of using the internet as the backdrop, the woman and girl simply exchanged letters as local pen-pals. The woman would photocopy the girl's letters, and circulate them around the community, demeaning and belittling the girl. The girl finally finds out, and commits suicide over the humiliation and emotional distress.
So what's the difference here? Society at large demands punishment for this woman, as she acted intentionally to harm the girl emotionally and humiliate her publicly. Whether she did so using sign language, morse code, hand written letters or the internet is irrelevant.
Better known as 318230.
This reminded me, for those of us old enough to remember, of the Judas Priest suicide trial. I know that was a civil case but, in summary, Judas Priest was sued for allegedly putting a submlimial 'do it' message in the song 'Better By You, Better Than Me' triggered James Vance to commit suicide. Judas Priest was acquitted. Not exactly the same situation but along the same concept. Even if Judas Priest did put a 'do it' message in their song, why would they be responsible for the death or any unstable person that kill themselves after listening to it?
Were the Beatles responsible for Charles Manson?
In any event, this is barely a civil matter much less a criminal one.
This is the reason I developed a program for my kids as well as yours. It's call Browser Lock and it prevents kids from getting on the Internet via a Browser without a parental password. You can download a copy at TheProDevDotCom, then click Browser Lock. Hope it helps saves kids out there.
you insensitive clod
Nobody seems to care about this, but some fat American girl who by all accounts was a douchebag to her classmates offs herself....and human life is 'sacred' or some such BS.
And why does a 40-year-old woman not get the breaks this girl's peers apparently get? Don't we try children as adults when someone ends up dead (more hypocrisy in our legal system)...why aren't the other classmates who teased this girl getting part of the action.
It's BS, plain and simple. People are sad and angry that chubbo ended it all and want someone to pay....legality and sanity or not.
Blar.
So what's the difference here?
The difference is that the post office doesn't make you press a button on the mailbox to show you agree with a "terms of use" form lacquered to the side of the box, and there are no laws that pressing a physical button obligates you to abide by any terms. There are laws about what constitutes postal fraud, but random postal services companies don't get to set them up and have them be treated as legally binding on people who just push a button.
There's a whole bunch of bad laws that have built up around computers and online services, and this is an example of why they're bad... because this case has the potential for establishing a whole new world of opportunities for lawyers and prosecutors to hurt people who are far less culpable than Lori Drew, while providing no real handle to deal with serious abuse.
I have run into cases online where people who have deliberately engaged in long-term wide-scale bullying on the Internet. Some of them are well known and well respected members of the research community, people at major institutions who have written standard textbooks. Others are merely online personalities who restrict themselves to attacking people on political or religious grounds. Their victims have in some cases lost their jobs, and there have been rumors of suicides.
These are not naive people playing a cruel joke on someone they know, there's no connection between them and their victims, they may not even be in the same country as their targets, and they feel no remorse for their actions... they've played the same game over and over again, and even boasted about it where they feel safe to do so.
And no amount of playing games with EULAs will stop them. All it will do is create more opportunities for abusive prosecutions and lawsuits.
I had an ad online looking for a roomate. My ex, who knew the site I posted on, crafted up a fake persona on the roommate site, and answered my ad. As the room was taken, she then proceeded to chat me up using the fake identity and the knowledge of my personal interests etc.
After stringing it along for awhile, she indicated that she "wouldn't be moving so soon after all", but invited me to a fairly cool party in a city several hours away (Victoria).
I was suspicious, though I didn't suspect my ex , but rather thought that perhaps some friends that I knew to be in Victoria were planning a joke. I was bored, so I decided to check it out. I half-expected to arrive and find all my buddies waiting for a big "surprise", and half expected that perhaps there was a real party. Turned out the address itself was bogus (darn you mapquest, you said it existed) and a waste of time.
So then I traced the IP's on the email back to the wireless of the local college, which gave me some suspicions of the sender. I managed to determine that the password on the sender's hotmail account was my ex's birthday.
So my point? Well, it's pretty freaky to know that somebody will go to *that* much trouble to mess with you, even when you're an adult. As a techie type of guy, I've regularly met friends from both online and off, but it's put a pretty big damper on my trust of those online. It's one thing to know that when you meet a person they might be a little exaggerated in personal details, and another to realize you've befriended somebody who's just a troll created to get into your head.
My story ended (I hope), when I talked to the police. They weren't actually able to do much about the whole internet thing (though it seems like stalking to me), but they were able to deal with the fact that she was calling me about 15-20x in an hour, and often masking her phone # from my call display. The threat of criminal harassment charges and deportation (she was a student from overseas) tuned her down a bit, and I moved from that city not that long after.
This girl's story ended when she got too attached to her stalker, and was given a directive to end her own life. Was she too impressionable? Perhaps. It seems like it's fairly easily a case of stalking/harassment to me. Throw in the age and I'm sure that other things crop up.
As mentioned elsewhere, if this were an adult male and a young woman, they'd most likely have gone after this even more heavily.
I don't agree with trumped-up charges, but what happens when there are many things that are a half-fit, but don't quite match the modern world? The problem is that laws don't always keep up with technology, and unfortunately the technology is not well understood (which leads to vague and easily abused laws). Perhaps there needs to be a meter that distinguishes minor online "harassment" such a posting insults on usenet from creating a fake identity to target and damage a specific person.
Nowadays I think that the best meter for that is still the same as before. A judge, and/or a jury. Unfortunately, they're both (especially a jury) still influenced strongly by emotion and doublespeak, but the justice system is still one of our best ways of making a strong impression about what is not acceptable in today's society.
I'm an adult, I can deal with this shit. A 13-year-old girl, already an outcast, could use a little help or protection.
it may help prevent vigilante justice...
If it were my kid it happened to and the law said tough darts, that woman would not be coming home for dinner.
So then trolling repeatedly could count against in the three-strikes law?
wired article on this says it's up to 20 years...that's wrong... it's up to 20 years for each of the 4 counts against here.. up to a max of 80 years. They should throw the book at her. Speaking as someone who has been harassed on other online form of communication, it would set a good example for others to look to. Yes, that's a lot of years, but that little girl isn't going to get up again... which really sucks. People don't use their manners online and it's starting to go out in to the real world with cell phones and junk.... People that do crap like this need to be set straight because it's not right. Yes, you do have free speech but there can and should be limits to that.
You are correct. They did get Gotti on Tax Evasion too, which I am sure further my confusion...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, if I wrote that, and someone emotionally unstable kills himself/herself, I am a murder?
What if that lady, was a real boyfriend, how many times someone kills themselves because they broke up? Is breaking up less manipulative somehow because it is not on the Internet? Should I pull Kurt's Cobains wife into court for his alleged murder induced by her? How about I hold bands accountable, or rappers for enticing people to kill cops? Blame GTA for someone going and having hooker and running them over with the car? What is the lady said "Go fuck yourself", and the girl did it, and got HIV? etc etc...
How about WE HOLD THE DEADS GIRLS PARENTS responsible because they allowed her to use Internet without proper guidance and supervision?
Should we dissect the girls profile and see if SHE LIED anywhere in representing who she is? How about she posted under an alias, pretending to be someone else?
What that lady did was mean, but holding her responsible for killing her is a joke.
Good riddence, I nominate her for DARWIN AWARD You know Darwin Award, where STUPID people do STUPID Things and Slashdot enjoys ripping into them? How hypocritical of those of you now to say otherwise.
A stupid bitch who died - and the smart people who are pushing some agenda behind it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The question that I would like to ask is, if the allegations made against her are indeed true, is Lori Drew is fit to be a parent?
becomes a criminal act, then all private private companies must be considered as government agents, with all the constitutional restrictions that apply to the government itself. So, for example, no censorship is permitted, no snooping into employees computers by their boss without a warrant signed by a judge, etc. It is important that this case goes nowhere fast.
What?
in the thread, from a high id no less. Congrats!
And your deriving pleasure from that girl's suffering is different than the woman you condemn because....?
1.Its clear case of fake identity to scam the kid.
2.This was planned for months in advance.
3.The psychological value of online friends and the whole argument about "internet isn't real" is as bogus as claiming TV,letters,phones or radio aren't real.
Its not easy to comprehend(especially for Slashdot) but todays internet is what glues many people together.As online social networks show it is pervasive and stronger then any previous communication methods we invented.
Just thinks for a moment how 'real-life friends' communicate betwen each other: they use phones,write letters,meet at public.The internet abstractizes and simplifies the whole process.
If this 'scary' thing really does attach, would it be THAT great a legal leap to say that buying gold (against such a game's TOS) is likewise hacking, in the same manner?
Seems like it to me.
Because, like it or not, the woman in your example was no better beating her husband than he was beating her. It may have worked, but more often than not, it doesn't.
The larger truth is that, if the husband is coming drunk all the time and beating his wife, he is a no-account man and he probably does deserve to be killed.
This is my sig.
But Wired's main complaint seems to be this: That sets a potentially troubling precedent, given that terms-of-service agreements sometimes contain onerous provisions, and are rarely read by users. I agree with them that equating a TOS violation with "hacking" might be a stretch, but it is already well established case law that unreasonable, illegal, or outrageous terms in a contract cannot be enforced. And a TOS agreement is, essentially, a contract between you and the service provider. So we aren't all suddenly going to be charged as felons because the
Both are willful acts, knowingly undertaken, which cause the death of another. Both are selfish and show a careless disregard for human life. But I don't think they rise to the title of murder. Nor does this idiot woman's behavior. Child abuse? Yes. Manslaughter? Maybe. But if its murder than everyone whose posted here is a murderer.
If you dig a little further you will see that the woman in question is becoming famous in her town... and so is her husband.
I suspect they'll be financially ruined for what they did. No one will buy a house from him (he's a realtor) and her advertising newsletter won't get ads--or readers.
She's squirming now like most criminals trying to find some explanation she can live with for the evil she did. Everybody needs to be the hero in their life story... and it sounds like she'll be a hero (in her own mind)--but a poor one.
"MySpace's user agreement requires registrants, among other things, to provide factual information about themselves and to refrain from soliciting personal information from minors or using information obtained from MySpace services to harass or harm other people. By allegedly violating that click-to-agree contract, Drew committed the same crime as any hacker.
That sets a potentially troubling precedent, given that terms-of-service agreements sometimes contain onerous provisions, and are rarely read by users. "
This women is basically a online troll, as much as we may not like her or think she is evil she is no different then any other online troll.
/. or others due to there violation of a civil agreement between the site operator and the user, that is clearly a civil matter between the two.
This case is scary because next people will be arrested for trolling
Also it is important to note that the girl who killed herself approached her parents in a state of emotional breakdown after the "breakup" and her mother couldn't care less, thats why she went up stairs and hung herself in her bedroom. To get back at her MOTHER for not caring about her horrible life as hanging yourself in the home in a place readily to be found (such as bedroom or garage) by a family member is about punishing them, its a calculated decision to show them what they have done.
If anyone should be charged it should be the MOTHER because she actually had a DUTY to care for the girl unlike the troll....
I'm looking over the postings and I see the usual "throw the book at the defendant!" or "the girl needs to grow some skin." These types of stories bring out the worst in this crowd and sight a severe flaw in thinking... we aren't thinking about the middle ground.
This woman Drew needs to be punished. She started this thing up as a joke. A very stupid and sick joke. However I don't think she should do 80 years for the crime. She should do time as an example to people who think they can just find a random person online, take advantage of them, and cause severe harm. Then they should be let out after some time and allowed to move on. The intent was not to kill the girl but they were very reckless.
At the same time, the other side has a great point. This girl needed to grow some skin, and where were the parents? This wasn't murder, and shouldn't be treated as such. The parents deserve some satisfaction, but they need to own some blame too.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
this includes free speech fundamentalism
the true test of a fair and just society is one which tempers ALL ideological concepts with exceptions. ALL ideological concepts must be limited: not just religion in government, not just police powers
but also things like privacy, property rights, freedom of the press: all these concepts have their limits. ALL ideological concepts have their limits and exceptions
fundamentalism is not solely the sin of social conservatives and the right. fundamentalism is also a sin of the left
for example, if you are fundamentalist on the issue of abortion, even you understand that if the life of the mother is threatened an abortion is ok
if you are a property rights fundamentalist, even you understand eminent domain for say, a highway society needs is ok
and finally, if you are a free speech fundamentalist, even you understand that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not ok
but some free speech fundamentalists are not thinking about this case. they are just applying a litmus test: "what someone else said does not make them responsible for someone else killing themselves" and closing their minds on the issue
you fail, fundamentalists. this case:
1. involves an adult preying on a child
2. involves an adult preying on a child she KNEW was suicidal
3. involves an adult purposefully and maliciously and over an extended period of time lying and manipulating the feelings of that child
4. and then suggesting she kill herself
this is culpability, this is intent to do harm, this is and should be punishable in a fair and just society
don't be a fundamentalist. examine the issue, think about it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does that sound good? Sign up with a fake name on some lame messageboard, get in a flame war with some crazy jerk, make rude comments, jerk eventually kills himself, you go to prison. Sound good? Thats the slippery slope folks, enjoy the ride downhill.
This is just another attack on *speech*. As usual, its veiled under a think coat of "OMG, won't someone please think of the children!". Charge someone with menacing or harassment, sure. But holding someone responsible for some nut that kills themselves because they were "big meanies" to them, is total hogwash.
This was just a case of "public outrage" over a cute little girl gone overboard. Her county and home state knew they had no case against the woman. But as usual, here come the Feds (trampling out of their jurisdiction, abusing the commerce clause as usual), to throw a zillion trumped up charges at her, just to get a few to stick. All are bogus. Fear this.
btw, FYI: that girl got into a big screaming match argument with *her mother* right before she ran upstairs to kill herself. What did the mother say that upset her so much? Shall we charge the mother now?
trolling is like taking a paper bag of crap and throwing it into a crowd and revelling in the screams if disgust
1. its anonymous, not personal
2. its temporary and short
3. its done amongst a group of equally aged and emotionally mature people
4. the target is a crowd of people, a community, not a single person
what this evil woman did is more like stalking: purposefully targetting and manipulating one person over an extended period of time
furthermore, most disgusting, this was the actions of an adult against a child. there is no understanding of trolling that assumes that an adult is picking on children
and to go even further into disgust, the adult KNEW the child had emotional and suicidal issues when she set about this plan of decpetion and emotional manipulation
so this case cannot set a precedent against trolling
it can only set a precedent for:
1. prolonged one-on-one stalking
2. manipulating the emotions of a minor
3. manipulating the emotions of someone you know to be suicidal or otherwise emotionally fragile
all of which, in fact, deserve to made criminal
this is not just trolling, what this evil woman did
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Myspace's name has been in the middle of all this, there was an adult who was potentially a predator interacting with kids. I don't believe Lori is culpable in the death of the 13 year old, the girl made her own choices. However, Lori did misrepresent herself when she signed up for the account in such a way that she essentially defrauded both Myspace and the girl into believing she was someone who she was not. Her false statements resulted in her getting access she may have otherwise been barred from. I don't know the details about Myspace policies regarding minors or how (or even *if*, but I assume they are) they're segregated from adults, but the long and short of it is that Lori Drew tarnished Myspace's reputation through her fraud.
so if someone murders someone, and the family of the victim forgives the murderer, society shouldn't punish the murderer? of course not. the murderer needs to be punished no matter what the victims think
the issue is society's standards of justice, not an individual's standards of justice, not even the victim's standards of justice. if i murder someone, and the victim's family forgives me, that's it? no: i've proven to society that i murder people. therefore, society has every moral and logical right to prevent future murders by locking me up
#2:
that this woman involved even more minors in this disgusting escapade is FURTHER reason to punish her, not extenuating circumstances that relieve her of culpability
if i have a son who buys a gun to kill someone, and threatens to shoot a bunch of kids at school, and then i find about this, and gleefully pick up the gun, help my son with the list of kids to murder, and shoot some of the kids myself, am i somehow less guilty than if i had arranged the school shooting all by myself without my son's involvement?
no, i'm actually even more repugnant, because rather than dissuade my son from doing something wrong, i taught him how to do more wrong
so this woman discovers this escapade of picking on an emotionally fragile suicidal girl. what does she do? she gleefully gets involved! so she's guilty of all the crimes as if she had done the manipulation herself, and now she has the further evil of teaching minors how to be cruel and manipulate an isolated child known to be suicidal
what is she teaching her children about the feelings of others, especially about the feelings of a lonely, emotionally fragile, suicidal girl? that we should decieve, manipulate, and be cruel to over a period of time?
the involvement of other minors in the crime doesn't relieve this woman of guilt, it makes the woman MORE evil and punishable
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that I understand where you are coming from. I also think that to some degree laws (or more importantly, selective enforcement of said laws) are utilized to remove "undesirable" behavior from society. Rather this is a desired ideal, I'd disagree, but I think its rather subjective.
The next day, after telling her mother, Christina "Tina" Meier, about the increasing number of hurtful messages, the two got into an argument over the vulgar language Meier used in response to the messages and she did not log off when her mother told her to.[3] After the argument, Meier ran upstairs to her room. She was found twenty minutes later, hanging by the neck in a closet.
Now, do you think it was the messages, or the fact that her mother punished her child who was a victim and clearly already distraught? Who is the uncaring party here? The other woman was certainly guilty of harassment, but the child's own mother failed to support her.
Seems pretty clear to me that her daughter's thought process was "this boy that I loved is hurting me, now my mom hates me and thinks it's my fault." When your own parents don't support you, help you, or comfort you- it's crushing.
Please help metamoderate.
What Lori Drew did was awful. But, her prosecution is scary. Based on the posts I've seen, it's obvious slashdotters are not RTFA'ing but arguing the points in the article anyway. In a nutshell, Ms. Drew faces jail time for violating myspace's TOS.
The prosecutions argument boils down to:
1. Ms. Drew provided false identifying information to myspace.
2. Therefore, she violated their TOS.
3. Since she violated the TOS she did not have authorized access to their computers.
4. By accessing their computers without authorization, she violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
I seriously doubt there is anyone on slashdot who has never violated a TOS.
Does your ISP prohibit running servers, but you setup an FTP, HTTP, or vent server anyway? That could mean prison time. Have you ever given false identifying information to a web site so you could avoid SPAM? If so, go to jail. Do you even read TOS? If not, you might be a criminal but don't know it.
People are righly outraged by what Ms. Drew did. But, making it a crime to violate a TOS to satisfy that outrage is a mistake.
THE FAGGOT AND THE FAT FUCK SCREWED UP A SYSTEM THAT DIDN'T NEED FIXING. WHAT ELSE IS NEW? COMPLAIN ALL YOU WANT, THEY'LL NEVER LISTEN.
I JUST WISH THEY'D GIVE US A WAY TO TURN IT OFF.
Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling. Don't use so many caps, it's like yelling.
THERE. THAT SHOULD SATISFY THE RATIO OF CAPS TO NON-CAPS. TOO BAD YOUR FILTERS ARE SO EASILY DEFEATED. WHAT'S THE MATTER? ARE SLASHDOT USERS SUCH PUSSIES THAT THEY CAN'T HANDLE A LITTLE BIT OF YELLING?
Apologies to Slashdot readers if someone else already posted the following link(s) or material, but I looked for it and related keywords over the entire thread, finding nothing. Orin S. Kerr over at The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog with a cool name) has posted a useful quick analysis of the matter, which I believe is more important than might appear at first glimpse. It's well worth reading in its entirety, but I'll quote a short stretch of it:
(The original post has embedded links to relevant citations).
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
...for it is not a crime to suggest how other people should live their lives (or terminate them as the case may be). Lori Drew may be a manipulative shitbag, I think that much is pretty much agreed-upon. However, she obviously did not abuse her position of authority as an adult to put a child in harm's way. She was a cruel woman pretending to be a cruel child. Good lord people, if we locked-up every human being who says something cruel that might hurt someone else's feelings, there wouldn't be many people on the street.
I wonder why nobody has suggested the depressed child's parents might be responsible for this. They were in the same house as their daughter when she committed suicide. Did they do their due diligence when it comes to not just plopping the kid down in front of a computer and letting anonymous people on the internet babysit her? Did the psychologist who was helping her (I must assume Megan was undergoing counseling because she'd attempted suicide previously) just fail to address the internet relationships and activities that she was involved in?
It's a far greater concern to me, anyway, that parents dump their kids, unattended, on the internet. There were a few pretty young kids playing World of Warcraft when I was active, we had a 9-year-old boy in our guild (granted, that was just what he said, and to my knowledge none of us had met him, but he sounded young in voice communication so we didn't doubt his claims)...and while I mostly exercised restraint and watched my virtual mouth when he was around, this was a guild comprised mostly of young adults and he was exposed to a good bit of language and subject matter that most parents would freak-out over. That's one example, the internet is basically like a downtown area in a big city-- a mix of people, not all well-intentioned, businesses, red-light districts, social settings that are good for adults but not minors, and if parents don't supervise their kids' internet activities, they're endangering them.
I think we can all agree that the charges in this case would never even have been considered if this had been a garden variety case of teens using false user IDs to say nasty things to each other on MySpace. That said, I think criminal case against Drew is a proxy for two separate matters of public concern, both of which I find to be pretty disturbing.
First, this case is really about some sort of public retribution against Drew for her actions. The victim's family want closure, and the public wants blood. Given the conduct involved, this is understandable. However, a lot of the comments to date suggest (or outright assert) that Drew somehow "caused" this suicide through her acts. I question that conclusion as a matter of moral principle, and I flatly disagree with it as a matter of legal principle (as did the federal prosecutors--hence the lack of a homicide charge). Tenuous charges of illegal access and "conspiracy" (conspiracy to do what, exactly?) are a stand-in for the homicide charges that a lot of people seem to want, but which could never stick, and that's a good thing. Drew's actions were repulsive, and probably indicate that she had some mental problems of her own, but they weren't criminal. The point of the criminal law is not to prevent people from being miserable bastards to each other--it's there to ensure the bare minimum of conduct for a functional society.
Second, a lot of people seem to want some sort of criminal punishment to be imposed for "cyberbullying." (I'm not even sure what that word means. Not to be indelicate, but I regularly receive e-mails from drug companies intimating that my genitalia are too small. They're consciously trying to make me feel badly about myself so I'll buy their product. Do I have a case? Does the state?) I'd question the judgment of a parent who knowingly allows their child to use a service that puts their personal information in front of literally millions of anonymous strangers. If you're going to do that, though, you can't turn around and cry foul when the use of that service produces negative repercussions; honestly, what did you think was going to happen? I'm troubled by the notion that the charges in this case could be used to encourage people to play nice on MySpace. If there was criminal harassment here, charge Drew with criminal harassment. If not, let her get on with her sad little life.
She planned to do so with others........ Check on the conpiracy
She willfully committed a crime that resulted in death.......Check on the homicide.
remember folks if you steal a candy bar and the store clerk gets hit by a truck running after you its still homicide. The real crime here is the lazy ass local prosecutors that haven't charged this bitch yet. Of course if she loses this case all the elements will be establish for the prosecution and a homicide conviction would be easy.
We have probably all also broken the speed limit.
If we break the speed limit and cause an accident where someone dies its vehicular homicide.
I'm sure few will agree and that I'll be called an asshole for this, but...
While what this mother did was morally wrong, she should not be punished by the law for it. It was a cruel joke gone bad, can you imagine the fallout of this type of court decision? She obviously has skewed morals and bad judgement, on that much we can agree. Think about it, if I jokingly call one of my friends a "fatty", and then they go kill themselves am I really responsible for THEIR CHOICE? I've been called names, I didn't kill myself. I've seen the end of close relationships, I didn't kill myself. I am responsible for MY well-being, mental and physical, not everyone else's -- that is up to them. If a teacher gives a student a bad grade and the student kills themself, do we blame the teacher? If a boss reprimands an employee and that employee kills themself, do we blame the boss? If someone gets a DUI and then kills themselves, do we blame the cop who pulled them over?
We can't make everyone else liable for other people's decisions, period. This mother exercised bad judgement and worse morals, but that is all. The mother of the child on the other hand, who WAS responsible for the well-being of this girl, is probably somewhat responsible. You people need to get over your nanny society bullcrap -- I am not your kids parent and I will not go out of my way to parent your kids. It doesn't take a village, it just takes more than the crappy parents that most people seem to be nowadays.
I am not a teenager.
I am not your boyfriend.
I would be sad if you left the world.
Please don't ask the police to prosecute me.
i made the case that what the woman did wasn't trolling
you then bring up some completely unrelated scenarios
no one with the slightest bit of common sense and the lowest of iqs would confuse telling a child santa doesn't exist with what this woman did
why do you confuse the two scenarios?
why do you think anyone else would?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ms. Drew's prank was ill-considered and reprehensible. But it has been acknowledged that Megan Meier suffered from clinical depression. Suicide means it was the depression that killed her, not the MySpace hoax.
What if some other adult in Megan's life had said something mean to her, and she later committed suicide? Would that adult then have been charged? What if teasing at school had immediately proceeded her death? Would it have been treated as a death inflicted by the teaser? How many adolescents who don't suffer from clinical depression are mercilessly teased, and never commit suicide?
I know, the charges against Ms. Drew are actually for misrepresentation, hence violation of MySpace terms of service. How many of the World's Internet users are guilty of misrepresenting themselves in some way (e.g., age, gender, occupation, etc.)? And by extension, are the charges supposed to herald the end of anonymity on the Internet? Does anyone want the liberties that only anonymity can protect somehow abolished? Or intimidated away?
The big picture counts. We might be disgusted with Ms. Drew's conduct. But legally prosecuting all bad behavior comprises an attack on freedom far more problematic, and affecting us all, than this person's foolish, mean-spirited prank.
Nothing was taken from her but an illusion. The internet is full of them. Was she vulnerable? Yeah, she sure was. She was preyed upon by an illusion of a friend. Things are rarely what they seem online. It's too easy to make up a name, to play a persona. None of this is to say that things that are real can't be spawned from the online medium, but we have a serious problem when kids or anyone else starts believing in the illusions without verifying them. Or when parents don't supervise a child who's at-risk in this enchanted forest of illusions and masquerade.
its called novel theory. the novel theory usually gets challenged if it leads to a conviction, and if it survives the challenge, it creates new law
you are phrasing it however that just breaking a website's tos leads to criminal conviction. this is some sor tof irrational fea ron your part. just like you say to me that there is noone here who doesn't think that what the woman did was a complete asshole thing to do, and was morally wrong, i am also going to say to you that noone in the legal system thinks that just breaking a tos is grounds for criminal prosecution
the point being, this is a special case. any landmark ruling on the case will only apply to special extenuating circumstances
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it is not possible to write a law in totality. there is always a paragraph or passage or statement that is susceptible to being overly broad or miscontrued
the best you can do is be as specific as possible. mention what makes this case special, in the exact wording of the law: 1. adult versus minor, 2. specific, planned, long term emotional cruelty and deception, 3. foreknowledge of emotional fragility or suicidal tendencies
what happens is that this law, and every law ever written, get challenged in specific extenuating circumstances, and they get amended, the decisions of judges and juries color what the limits of a law should be
this is the way it has always been. you are assuming some sort of protection that never existed: that a law can cover everything that will ever happen, and always be enforced in the exact way its writers intended, without any room for misinterpretation. impossible
furthermore, a few incredibly rare cases are so bizarre as to require the creation of a completely new law, like this case. via the legislature, or via criminal prosecution with novel theory. novel theory gets challenged, judges underline the new iontepretation, life goes on. its always been that way
fact is, law is a living breathing thing, not dead computer code. it requires constant growth of new limbs to cover new situations like this, constant pruning when the limb gets overused and too broadly enforced, and the law must also mutate and change over time as a society's values change over time
there is no protection from what you want protection from. law can be abused and misinterpretted and too broadly interpretted. so the law mus tbe worded as specific as possible, and must be challenged all the time. justice is imperfect, it is a human thing, not a computer system
but because justice is imperfect is not a valid argument to stop trying to pursue justice
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As revealed by the indictment, the "unauthorized access" results from various violations of MySpace's terms of service. I'm no expert on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), but at least one court has found that violation of a company's terms of service constitutes "unauthorized access" for purposes of the Act. See America Online, Inc. v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444, 450-51 (E.D. Va. 1998). The CFAA makes it illegal to, among other things, "intentionally access[] a computer without authorization or exceed[] authorized access, and thereby obtain[] . . . information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication." 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C). The punishment for violating this subsection of the CFAA is a fine or up to 5 years imprisonment if "the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State." Id. (c)(2)(B)(ii). (Otherwise there needs to be some sort of pecuniary gain or the information gained needs to be worth $5,000 or more.) So, how did Drew allegedly violate the CFAA? MySpace's terms of service forbid you from lying to MySpace or using your account to harrass other users, obtain personal information from minors, posting photos of people without their consent, etc. Drew broke all of these terms when, among other things, she registered as a teenage boy, got personal information from the 13 year old victim, and posted a picture of a teenage boy without his consent. Because she violated MySpace's terms of service, her access to MySpace's servers was "unauthorized access." Her unauthorized access involved an "interstate . . . communication" because MySpace's servers are in California and Drew accessed them from a computer in Missouri. Drew allegedly used her account and the information she received to harass the victim to the point where it constituted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a well-recognized tort in Missouri (and, to my knowledge, recognized in all states). See, e.g., Central Missouri Elec. Co-op. v. Balke, 119 S.W.3d 627, 636 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) ("To recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the [plaintiff] must show (1) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and (3) the defendant's conduct caused extreme emotional distress resulting in bodily harm."). Thus, her unauthorized access "was committed in furtherance of any . . . tortious act in violation of the . . . laws of the . . . any State." Now, you could argue that the indictment may be an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, but I don't see how you can argue that this indictment is frivolous. On the contrary, it appears to be the product of good lawyering. Drew better hire herself a good criminal defense attorney.
Did I mention that my fiancee died for licking the envelopes for our wedding's invitation?
law is not dead computer code, it is a living thing
its called novel theory. its used all the time in criminal and civil law
a prosecutor can prosecute her criminally in a new and different way. if he wins and the decision gets challenged, and a judge or jury underlines the original verdict, then new law is written, a new interpretation
furthermore: "they are selectively prosecuting on the grounds that people like you will take an alarmist view of what happened and convict on emotion rather than facts"
the only alarmism and fear here is coming from you. you honestly believe that if someone is convicted for a specific and extenuating circumstance like this, that all of a sudden they will throw people in jail for breaking a tos? alarmism, fear: yours, not anyone elses
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How about "Premeditatedly inflicting extreme emotional distress to someone, by manipulating him/her emotionally through the long term use of deception or coercion, with the agravant of knowing that the subject was emotionally unstable to the point that he/she could harm himself or others"?
I think there SHOULD be a criminal law against this. Votes, please?
The problem is that this will be used as the perfect excuse to make online identities founded in anonymity completely illegal. Think of the poor, emotionally abused children. It's very sad that we have to think like that in this day and age, but with the direction things are going and the legislation that's floating around, we can pretty much kiss goodbye any notion of saying something that may be out of line with the norm without attributing it to our full names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.
Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
This murder has resulted in a new law in Missouri that has a proposed effective date of 8/28/2008. Here is a link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills081/bills/hb1505.htm This law seems to make it illegal to cuss or use "course language" on the phone, internet or any form of writing, make anonymous phone calls if the intent is to frighten or disturb... so ANY prank calls could now potentially be a felony if the person on the receiving end is a minor and the person on the other end is adult. Making repeated phone calls is in this too - so if you get a collection ageny on your butt, you could possibly use this law and say they were frigtening you... especially if you are a minor - just have your kid screen your calls... if the kid answers, you have a case... Basically, any flame forum threads can become a possible felony if a kid is reading and feels disturbed or threatened in any way when reading... Something interesting in it - adult is defined as 21 years or older, child is any person under 17 years. I guess if you are 18, 19, or 20 you are not considered an adult so any crimes you commit under this law would be a misdemeanor instead of felony?... Something else interesting - repeat harassment is considered "aggravated stalking" so if flame wars are going to definitely fall under here if they go on and on and on... and if the person doing that stalking (flame ware) is adult and person receiving it is child, you it's a class D felony! Second offense in 5 years and it's Class C felony! Now the real kicker is in number 6... Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrent, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section... WOW! That means cops can arrest anyone at any time if the see that person on a phone, near a computer, or anywhere at any time doing anything more or less... What ever happened to privacy, free speech, and not to mention illegal search policies that actually meant something... This is just as bad, if not worse than what Bush is doing with illegal wiretaps since this is on a state level so it can be implemented or made harsher in other states. Hopefully this thing can be found to be unconstitutional in the near future.
Thank god we no longer believe in personal responsibility of the individual anymore! If we don't like something, just make it a felony and it'll magically go away!
Get some backbone already... relationships end badly all the time, regardless of whether or not they're fictitious in nature. If I killed myself every time a relationship resulted in being stabbed in the back by someone I trusted, I'd have at least ten corpses to my name.
And don't give me the sob-story about how this person wasn't "able to make friends in school" or some such non-sense like that. You can't quantify stuff which requires personal effort to make happen.
Was it ethical for this other person to initiate this fake relationship? No. Should they go to prison for it? No. At best, this is a civil issue, not a criminal one. (Well, unless you really stretch the definition of "fraud" into relationships. But be ready for a lashing the next time you have a bad break-up with someone "clingy"...)
8==8 Bones 8==8
The liberal lawyers of America have done their job well. They have seeded a whole portion of the population to believe that the victims are responsible for the crime. This women organized and perpetuated a fraud. If she had scammed Megan out of $500 dollars, posing as a fictional character, it would be a clear cut case and no one would be defending her or trying to pass the blame on Megans Mom. This women is not being charged with manslaughter or reckless endangerment, she is being charged for the crime that she committed.
Ignorance can't even be cured by having it happen to you, apparently. People can compartmentalize their understanding.
You can't take the sky from me...
someone who thinks that society and the law functions the way you believe it does must lead a very fearful existence
you believe in the fallacy of the slippery slope
here, this is an example of the slippery slope at work... maybe if i invoke the idea of the slippery slope in another context, and you see how it is wrong, you will get some insight into your own fear-addled psyche:
me: "gay men should be allowed to marry"
you: "if change the law like that, then you are also legalizing polygamy, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestialty!"
me: "wtf?" (scratches head)
the idea that gay marriage means necorphilia will inevitably become legal due to a legal slippery slope is of course bullshit. but i hope you can see that there are people who actually believe that this bullshit slippery slope exists, and why they are so nutty
the reaons these slippery slopes don't exist is of course because people are levelheaded and recognize limits. yet for some bizarre reason you don't seem to be able to see that people would recognize obvious, simple straightforward limits. instead, you propose to me that prosecuting this rare case with a novel interpretation of the law- which happens all the time, will suddenly lead us to corporate fascism
dude, you're a fear-addled kook. god knows how you function in daily life with this level of emotional, irrational fear clouding how you see your society and your legal system functioning
there are level heads out there in the courtroom. really. furthermore, you are not currently someone with a level head. you are someone suffering from paranoia and hysteria on this issue. really. you're quite the hysterical fear-addled fruitcake, if i ever met one
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm glad to see that the federal government has decided that it's a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to violate the TOS by giving false information in registration.
My p0rn site says, "I affirm by clicking on this agreement that I am not a police officer, detective, agent of any government agency or prosecutor, or any kind of investigator, and I will not bring and have no intention of bringing any legal action or complaint against this web site or anyone affiliated with this web site."
So if any anti-p0rn investigator clicks onto my web site, he's violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, by by getting fraudulent unauthorized access to my computer, and the U.S. Attorney's Office will prosecute him or her.
you put your faith in the law like it were dead computer code, rather than a living embodiment of a humane understanding of justice
"But stretching a loosely-related law with an unheard-of interpretation so that you can punish the woman for X when really you want to get her for Y, and then denying that logically you would have to punish otehrs who did X (but who didn't do Y), is advocating tyrany."
its advocating justice. you know, that silly concept that motivates the construction of a set of laws in the first place?
pffffffffffft
you don't get it. where it=understanding the nature of your society or the human beings around it. in fact, you simply don't care. you don't want to think about the idea of justice here, you don't care about who is hurt, or what is right or wrong. you want the law to execute like a cold program, damned if it is unideal, damned if it needs adjusting
luckily for you, you simply don't understand how things really work
the law is a living breathing entity. new law is constantly being written like this, constantly being pruned for misinterpretation, and constantly shifting and mutating as society's values shift and change
this being the truth about the law you live under, and assuming you can concieve of this truth about the law of the land you live in, one wonders why you aren't cowering under a table in fear right now. what a fruitcake. you call the fact that the law is a living changing thing a form of tyranny! amazing...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i am a level 25 Demagog Troll, HP 59. use your +5 vorpal sword of anonymous douchebaggery to slay me and save slashdot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But aside from that, if this becomes a precedent to enact the death penalty on trolls? Good.
As for the mother? She thought this was just a normal "my life is over" teenage tantrum, she couldn't know that her daughter was the victim of concerted emotional abuse inflicted by an team lead by an adult, she's a victim as well, not a co-conspirator.
You can't take the sky from me...
it is very much in the interest of justice to find this person's real identity. but if due to fear and hysteria you believe this means we will now all live under big brother, then go hide in your basement and don't talk to anyone. or, accept the notion that the law and your society is not dangling by a thread to fall into corporate fascism, or whatever your parnaoid schizophrenic fantasies are about the implications of this case. there are people out there with level heads who understand the obvious limits here. really. you're not one of those people
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
there are also a lot of fear addled paranoid schizophrenics posting on slashdot who believe their society is dangling by a thread from falling into corporate fascism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As a 30yr old male (and slashdot reader), if I were to create a fake 14yr old account on myspace and chat it up with a 13 yr old girl and eventually become her "boyfriend" online. You can bet your ass I'd be thrown in jail in a heartbeat..
So the 14 yr old boy's account was fake and created by a 38 yr old adult. The fact that that adult is a woman should not matter. She created that account with the intention of having an intimate relationship with a minor.
Anyone care to comment?
If this succeeds, I do think it will set a bad precedent. Criminal law should not be used to enforce a TOS. The Myspace part of it should be strictly a civil matter.
That said, I think this woman Drew needs to be charged. This wasn't a case of two kids being mean to eachother, or flaming someone on Slashdot. It was an adult preying on a child, an especially vulnerable one at that. I think this is a clear case of child abuse. I have no idea why she isn't being charged with that.
"the girl who committed suicide after receiving upsetting MySpace messages from someone she perceived to be her boyfriend" If a myspace message causes you to kill yourself, I'm guessing that you were not destine to be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon. The parents should thank the woman for relieving them of this overly emotional burden.
-Cnik
these are the desperate maneuvers of a fading corporate enterprise. not the burgeoning reality of a corporate fascism
it is pretty easy to defeat anyone who depends upon the spectre of the slippery slope in the realm of logic and reason. by its very nature, the idea of the slippery slope depends upon fear and hysteria to support its notions. that we are going to slide to some vast new legal or social reality, completely without any recourse or resistance, simply because of some little tweak here or there. its complete bullshit. its demagoguery, propaganda
logic and reason are always the enemy of the concept of the slippery slope, and anyone who depends upon the notion of the slippery slope in their arguments is someone you thereby automatically identify as someone who is afraid and hysterical and is not thinking clearly
"Do you get it yet? I don't live in daily fear, I just see where this is likely to lead and I don't like it. I'm hardly paralyzed and not at all hysterical."
your words on the topic of the implications of this myspace case are very much the definition of fear-based thinking. your thinking is paralyzed and you are in fact hysterical about the implications of the case
the slippery slope doesn't exist. in any argument. on any topic. its propaganda
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
live with it
uh wait.. ooops..
i identified the concept of the slippery slope as a false construct, one based on fear
you reply that therefore, justice doesn't exist
(scratches head)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
A thirteen year old is dead because of an adult plain and simple. many could argue that the girl had a choice, but too me it is clear that the girl was pushed over the edge, and the pusher was an adult. The adult acted no different than a person telling a child it's ok for you to run away with me, or to shoplift in the store, the adult aided the child into a decision that had dire consequences. If anything, the charges should of been aiding abetting a juvenile, and second degree manslaughter. Plus the falsely creation of a account proves that she knew she was committing a crime in my opinion. If she did not feel anything was wrong with it then why did she go out of her way to hide? One person (an employee) open the door up, and said this woman was responsible for a child committing suicide. In back articles the evidence stated that the woman whom did the crime laughed and said the kid got what she deserved. Who in their right mind could feel that way about a child? Throw the book at this woman she had no heart during the crime and she is only sorry now because she got caught. I don't feel for her one bit. Because her family also was involved in this monstrosity, I don't feel sorry for them either, the whole family is heartless they all deserve prison time. because none of them came forward, or even tried to stop the mother. In several back articles several of the family members eventually knew what was going on. I am not sure if this part is true or not, but if it is they all should be locked up.
http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/
This is a blog that is about to be taken down and it described why the woman did what she did. I don't think that this case is as black and white as some people think.
I'm a recall coordinator. My job is to apply the formula. It's a story problem.
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall?
Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, (C). A times B times C equals X... If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
If we could just get everyone that uses MySpace to commit suicide . . . Control that crazy world population, boost economies (well for undertakers at least), surplus of jobs, 100B less ugly web pages, the interwebz pipes able to breath again from not being clogged with bullshit.... Ah... only if...
What I find interesting is that if this woman had scammed this girl to manipulate her out of her money, it would be a clear-cut case of fraud, and she would likely face criminal charges.
Instead, she scammed her out of her *life*, and may not have to suffer *any* criminal consequences.
Fortunately, a civil case could almost certainly be brought against her, I can't imagine that any jury in the world would let her off without some judgement against her.
Is she criminally responsible? No, probably not, in the eyes of the law. And unfortunately, it would be difficult to define a law to protect someone in a case like this. Does that absolve her of *any* responsibility for her actions? Hell no. Mob justice would be too good for her.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Unfortunately, this seems to be a very complicated matter due to the fact that it seems bolth people are at fault. The woman had no business doing what she did, but the girl should have never taken that message so seriously. It's just a sad story of how obsessive some of the worst websites ever invented become for kids who can't find a better use for the Internet.
This lady clearly had some issues if she was pretending to be a teenager looking for a girl online, but can she really be blamed? It's not like she told the girl exactly what to do. This is just an example of why you really need to be careful online, think before you post, and try not to make the Internet your entire life (I'm a computer geek, and even I wouldn't be that obsessed with the Internet)!
I don't see any crime this woman committed, except _maybe_, if they have a good lawyer, stalking.
But she should have known not to do what she did. However, the girl who killed herself is equally as responsible. Clearly she had some issues as well...
The most tragic thing here though is that this poor girl's story will be told again and again on TV, in Congress, on Fox News, and turned into an example of why we need Internet censorship and suppression by the politicians.
that's exactly what justice is
and?
the only thing that needs explaining is what you think that aspect of justice has to do with a slippery slope
one can assume you're at a loss for words because you don't know what the hell you are talking about
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
She has been charged with Fraud under The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. She is not charged with murder. It isn't lying about her name that is the problem, it's the fact that she did it for the reason that she did. Still, it would have been better to get her on child abuse charges. She's good as confessed to it and she's absolutely guilty.
Are you retarded? Or just trolling?
Seriously, this goes above and beyond any attempt I could make at a sophisticated response.
THE GIRL FUCKING KILLED HERSELF!!!
It doesn't matter what you perceive as anything she could have done, there's an old adage: Let the punishment FIT the crime. What had she done that required her to be manipulated into suicide?
Her "friend" and her "friend's mother" knew she was mentally emotionally unstable, and had not only the choice not to pursue their course of action, but the choice to stop it when (or if) they realized they were going too far.
For lack of a better basis for comparison, in a manner that might get through that microcephalic cranium of yours (fuck it, I have karma to burn baby):
It's like shooting everyone in the family, and burning down the house of a kid who egged your house on Halloween.
That is the extent of it. Even if someone is gossiping behind your back, you do NOT have the right to harass them to the point of suicide! What the hell do you think this is? A live action version of Heathers?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
There is a thing called age of consent. A child of 13, in most jurisdictions, is not considered an adult and unable to give consent. This also is why children under the age of consent are not suitable as sexual partners for adults, btw. If this action were sexual in nature, it would be rape - pure ad simple. This was, for lack of a better term, emotional rape. At the very least, it's emotional abuse.
Additionally, as any adult knows (and recent studies have shown), teenagers are emotionally young and immature and subject to extreme emotional swings. We give too much credit to young teens that we think are our emotional equivalents. They aren't.
What we have here is a 13 year old girl, allegedly known to be suicidal, who is allegedly manipulated by an ADULT for the purpose of causing extreme emotional distress in that child.
A suicidal and emotionally unstable child can not handle the stresses the person allegedly put upon her and is not responsible for her actions.
So...stop blaming the victim - Stop assuming that a child can rationally understand the ramifications of acting upon their wildly swinging emotions. They most likely don't or can't.
The whole lot of people who took these actions against this young teenager need to be taught a lesson. The ring leader should not only go to jail for her actions but should also lose everything in a civil lawsuit. In my mind, anyone who could do this to a child is no better than the sexual predators who prey on children. I'd like to think the prison population will think so also.
Offtopic as hell, but I haven't read Eddings in years. Then, rather randomly, yesterday I thought of that exact scene (from your sig) from Magician's Gambit. Just that one scene. Then today I read your sig. Quite strange.
Anon to preserve mods - one for this comment.
Don't forget that some states still have "felony murder" laws. This means that you're accountable for first degree murder for any death that occurs in proximity to any felony. The original intent was to make all hands bloody -- you couldn't plan and execute a robbery and then plead ignorance when your partner deliberately kills somebody, but it's been used to cover things like heart attacks in victims and even onlookers. It's been used in cases where another of the criminals died, e.g., when a victim fought back.
A notorious case happened in Denver about a decade ago. A woman asked some acquaintances to help her get her stuff out of her old apartment. One small details -- she had already moved out so it was B&E even if the was recovering her own property. A felony.
Skip forward about an hour. She's in a car being chased down the interstate by police. She doesn't really know the driver -- think acquaintance of acquaintance. We don't know if she would have stopped for the cops (although she claimed so later).
Skip forwards a little bit further. She's in custody while the driver is holed up outside an apartment complex. The guy kills a cop before being killed himself.
She goes on trial for first-degree murder with aggravating circumstances (the death of the cop). Her defense is that she was literally in police custody at the time. But the felony murder law is clear and she was sentence to life in prison without parole.
IIRC she had exhausted her appeals and it was looking like she would be serving life, but some detail came up that allowed the courts to readdress the issue. I can't remember if she's permanently out now or just awaiting a new trial, but she's already spent more time in prison than many conventional murderers.
What this woman did was absolutely horrible.
But is she responsible for what the girl did? No.
If you are going to charge her with conspiracy, how about charging the parents for negligence as well? I mean really, what responsible parent allows his or her emotionally distrubed/depressed child to go on a site like MySpace unmonitored? It could've easily been a sexual predator she was speaking with rather than just a bitter neighbor down the street.
Once in a while I resume reading Slashdot. And then I get comments like yours that make me realize why I stop reading and posting there. Did you read my comment? Did I say anything about who is right and who is wrong? I stated that there was a blog where the mom posted her side of the story. Is it true? I don't know. Is it false? I don't know.
The Judge summarily dismissed the case, dismissing rumors that a band of individuals wearing Guy Fawkes masks had anything to do with his decision.
Justice is not served by pretending the laws mean whatever you want them to mean in each given instance.
Certainly the laws can change; it is not like "dead code". However, you can't convict someone for an act they commit before you pass the law that makes it illegal. We have a specific rule for that in the Constitution.
Whether you understand this fact or not, what you are advocating is a form of mob rule that would be quickly corrupted by those in power into tyrrany.
I'm not the one who doesn't get it in this exchange.
There I said it. Now if someone goes and dies, am I now responsible?
I cannot believe someone can be held responsible for a death that they did not cause directly - ie shooting someone, running them down with a car, etc. Just because some idiot offs themselves after being made fun of or insulted doesn't mean the bully should be charged with murder. Yes they were ethically a big prick but not a damn murderer. The precedent this could set is horribly scary. No wonder people sue gun manufactures or car manufacturers and not the individual who used the guns, etc. Where is personal responsibility in this world!?!!!?? It seems like it is never our fault but someone elses. HOW SAD!!!!!!
From what I have heard, many of the exchanges between the girl and 'Josh' were strongly sexual in nature. An adult, mis-representing herself as a teen in order to engage in sexually-explicit communication with a minor.
HOLD ON, you say? those are meant for sexual predators!
Hmm. Sexual predators = misrepresenting themselves in order to use sexuality to do serious harm to a child.
This woman = misrepresenting herself in order to use (in part) sexuality to do serious harm to a child.
Well within the letter of the law. Skirting the intent of it, but still inside, IMHO. The fact that the harm she intended was not sexual in nature shouldn't really matter.
http://www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Missouri252
That page's definitions indicate at least a class A misdemeanor for stalking.
The other question is, depending on the content of their correspondence there may be a sex offense involved (if the adult was soliciting sexual knowledge or simulating a sexual interest in the victim, which seems likely given that the victim apparently felt intimate enough with the stalker to develop such emotional attachment).
Does this mean that the government owes for the emotional distress they cause me?
I think while this is a bad indictment. I also think this means that the ATF, SSSG, Justice Department, Congress, Judges, and others that either lied to me and/or violated the law against me causing distress should also be indicted.
I have been out of work and under employed since high school for their BS. So where are the indictments on the government for the distress they caused me.
FUCK
Now ask yourself this question: How would you feel if a neighbor was able to drive your child/disabled parent/S.O to suicide and was told that no crime had been committed.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
This then comes down to intent. Did Lori Drew intend to commit a crime or other harm by violating the TOS? Lori Drew 'allegedly' created Josh Evans and sought out Megan Meier after Drew's daughter and Megan Meier had had a fight. How could this not be intended to cause emotional harm?
If this is proven in a Federal Court, then it is immediate ammunition for the Meier family to begin a Wrongful Death lawsuit against Lori Drew and her co-conspirators.
I hate to say it, but I think we as a society really need to rethink our whole culture. Just thinking about kids on those medications, like for depression and ADD is terrifying. You are not yourself on those drugs. Its one (bad) thing if adults want to do drugs to change themselves to be something they are not, but to force that on a defenseless child so they will be âoesuccessfulâ in school strikes me as morally wrong. Taking that medication can make you less tired and able to function, but that also means functional enough to kill yourself.
Am I the only one who doesn't really care what this woman said to the child?
She's a 49 year old woman, creating a fake identity to hold romantic conversations with and seduce a minor... Isn't there one of those freedom-depriving US censorship/"think of the children" laws that could be levied against her just for that part?
What would have happened if this was a 49 year old guy pretending to be this girl's boyfriend?! I'd imagine that would be all over Dateline NBC and we'd be up in arms over the precedent it would set.
(On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog^H^H^H murderous, demented 49 y/o woman.)
(ps - Captcha: "tempts")
Your comment was plainly "Go to a website that said she deserved it for the rest of the story". Shit, the website was NAMED that.
If the mom was so innocent, then why would she name the blogspot site "Megan had it coming"?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I hate being the one to write this, but someone has to. Megan isn't dead because of Lori Drew, or because Megan was 13 going through all that age entails. Megan is dead because she was bipolar.
Sadly, the world can be a cruel place, and bipolars have a harder time dealing with it, sometimes with consequences such as this. Some bipolars lash outwardly, others inwardly. Be glad Megan wasn't male, or this could have ended like Columbine.
The parent's want to blame someone else, and apparently so do most. In all the media stuff I've watched, the parents have avoided using the term bipolar, but used "ADD" and "depression" instead. This tells me the parents were in denial, or feel Megan's memory would have been stigmatized if they told the truth.
Drew would never have been charged if not for Megan's death. Therefore the judge will likely feel compelled to allow Megan's medical, psychiatric, history to be presented as defense evidence. I hope this happens and that Drew is found not guilty. If she is found guilty, the story dies and everyone forgets Megan. CLOSURE.
We don't need closure, we need discussion. We need Megan, and Columbine, and the Omaha mall shooting discussed daily. Why? Because of the underlying cause--psychological disorders.
We need to constantly be aware that people are among us whose minds work differently, and whose personalities are different. Not because they choose to be, but because nature/evolution/God has chosen to make them different.
Until we have a societal mindset of understanding about this, kids and adults will continue to kill others and themselves, be fired from jobs, abuse their spouses and children, get divorced, and all the other negative things that happen to bipolar people with much greater regularity that the population as a whole.
Doctors and medications are *not* a complete solution for this and/or most psychological disorders. We know less about the brain and how it works by many orders of magnitude compared to any other organ. Because of this, all psych meds are still experimental, when you get right down to it. Some work, some don't, some for a while, then they don't, etc. Lithium in its various forms is still the primary medication, and it's been around for 50 years. What does that tell you about the state of brain pharmacology?
I've not committed suicide (obviously), and I've not murdered anyone. Have I contemplated either, of course. Seriously contemplated either? Obviously not. However, I'm 37 years old, never been married, have trouble with relationships, and have lost many good jobs (and crappy ones), never getting any kind of career traction due to all the start/stops.
I've never lost a job due to performance, quite the contrary. I am excellent at what I do, sometimes too good. And it's the "too good" times that cause the pink slip. Why? Because with most employment, working relationships are more important than one's output or contribution. Bipolar folks, especially in a manic state, have tremendous work throughput and problem solving ability. This is one of the reasons I'm good at tech, beyond just being technical to begin with. However, at these times I am the least congenial, and people don't like to be around me. This creates conflict in "team" projects, especially ones that aren't team oriented, but are turned into team projects for idiotic reasons by management. You've all been in similar situations I would assume.
I'll guess I'll close this down, as it could be a book. Two final thoughts I leave you with:
1. Bipolar people can be turned on/off just like a light switch. Well, easier on than off, but it can be triggered externally. Those who figure this out (whether knowing a person is bipolar or not) often take advantage of it in the worst possible way. Just ask my mother about all the "collateral damage" around the house when I was a youngster.
2. Read up on bipolar disorder. If you know someone who is or you suspect may be, help that person mitigat
It is sad what happened to the girl, but creating a law that allows the government to bully people that it desn't like is not an answer to the issue
Maybe they could try creating a law to this effect. (I'm essentially ripping some ideas/laws off.)
Making it illegal for any adult over age 24 to communicate with minors (under 18) for immoral purposes with intent to inflict (emotional or mental) harm significant enough to cause the minor to commit a criminal act (with the minor as the victim of the act) that causes bodily damage.
Logic...
- Hopefully someone 25+ years old should be mature enough to not engage in such things. (They definitely should know right from wrong, so there is no excuse.)
- Immoral purpose is kind of vague. It would have to be further defined. Perhaps as "for personal pleasure of the adult committing the act". Like toying with someone for entertainment purposes.
- Emotional and mental harm could be determined [even posthumously if there is an online record of the conversations] of the victim. A psychologist/psychiatrist/whatever could make the decision based on what the victim has said or says.
- The minor committing a criminal act against oneself, which happens to cause bodily damage (or attempt thereof), has the following examples: suicide, taking drugs (in an illegal fashion), etc. (sorry, I can't think of too many examples)
The state prosecutor in St. Charles County seems incompetent to me. From http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jFSH4QCAxGXxnVtlJ2iiXpppeGIQD90MBEM81 'St. Charles County, Mo., prosecutor Jack Banas says he reviewed laws related to stalking, harassment and child endangerment and couldn't find statutes allowing him to file charges.' From Wikipedia: "Banas stated that he did not interview Grills because, at the time, she was under psychiatric treatment for the involvement in the Meier case, and does not plan to interview her at a later date. The Meiers criticized the prosecutor's statements, saying that Banas did not interview any party other than the Drews and that Banas is solely relying on the testimony of the Drews." This laziness sounds typical of a lot of cases. He didn't appear to interview anyone other than the alleged perpetrator (not even the co-conspirators, let alone the victim), examined no evidence, issued no subpoenas or warrants to gather more evidence, etc.
The Missouri prosecutors' lack of action is what prompted the federal prosecutors to step in; considering the different focus of federal laws, they probably needed to be a little more creative in their charges (which are "one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress" - the latter being quite specific as to intent and not merely about violating TOS or accessing a computer without authorization for some random purpose).
When an adult bullys and harrasses a 13-year old child under fraudulent pretenses with intent to harm, there are other laws that are applicable, that have nothing to do with computers - the same laws that would apply if the fraud and harrassment were done in person or via mail or telephone should apply over the internet. Even moreso when the adult already knew of at least one previous suicide attempt by the victim as well as her treatment for mental illness, so would have been aware of her fragile emotional state.
That there were two adults working together may add various conspiracy charges to the options (which the feds are doing - wise considering conflicting testimony as to Lori Drew's actual level of involvement, her story evolving with time toward less involvement, compared to her initial statement with police). (Ashley Grills, Lori Drew's 18-year old employee, was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony against Drew. The other conspirator was Drew's daughter, a minor. I do not know what involvement Lori Drew's husband had, other than possibly recommending deleting the account after the suicide, which could itself be a crime, ie. conspiracy to destroy evidence.) From http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/teen-accuses-lori-drew-over-myspace-suicide/2008/04/02/1206850964896.html 'Grills said Drew was the primary instigator behind the fake Josh Evans profile... Grills said she and Drew's daughter told Drew they had gone too far but Drew "was like, it's fine, you know, we can set her up".
I think those saying "grow up, the internet is a dangerous place" (who should grow up, adults posting comments here, or a 13-year old girl??) or "she may be a bitch, but it wasn't illegal" are wrong, as are those who say "it's just bits, it's not real" - to which I say, neither are telephone calls, or the written marks on letters, or the mere air distubances of live conversation. There can be quite a bit of liability (criminal or civil) for such actions.
Adults are also held to a higher level of responsibility when dealing with children than children are with each other, or than adults are when dealing with other adults. And there are a number of laws already on the books emphasizing this. Even if they were both children, or both adults, there might still be applicable statutes, but there are additional ones when a
Gratifying in the fact that most of those who tortured you, are now working in "lousy" jobs, has no effect on oneself.
First of all, there is no shame in doing those kinds of jobs provided the person enjoys them. It may seem odd to see someone so old to be doing a job that is thought to be done by teenagers, but I figure if someone takes pride in their work, and enjoys every minute of it, good for them.
Second of all, the failure or success of any other individual has no effect on the failure or success of oneself. They are no longer entangled in one's life.
Third, and probably most important, would be this. Those persons who torture and cause others pain, are probably in a state of torture themselves. What kind of person enjoys inflicting pain on others? I would hope that this kind of person would eventually grow up, become a productive citizen of society, and do "good" towards humanity. (In other words, to have them have a rotten life later on, one they don't enjoy, does no one any good because they contribute nothing substantial back to society.)