Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Suicide Charges Threaten Free Speech
Naturalist recommends a piece up at Ars about a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the EFF, CDT, Public Citizen, and a group of 14 law professors in the case of Lori Drew, who posed as a teenage boy to harass another teen online, eventually driving her to suicide. (We've discussed the case a few times.) "[The amicus brief argues] that violating MySpace's Terms of Service agreement shouldn't be considered criminal offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The groups believe that if the mother, Lori Drew, is prosecuted using CFAA charges, the case could have significant ramifications for the free speech rights of US citizens using the Internet."
Would it be as big a deal if someone did this through the mail? I don't see why new technology also needs new laws, so I would hope there would be no legal precedent set for computer specific harassment.
I assume by "case" you mean "behavior".
What kind of behavior are you considering outlawing here? Being a dick? You want to outlaw being a dick on the internet?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA
Sony ha
If your child -- YOUR CHILD -- was depressed enough to commit suicide, how could you not know?
Most people who are severely depressed actually hide their feelings from others, which includes not letting people know they are suicidal. Have a quick read of things like Black Dog Institute to catch up to the rest of the world.
Secondly, I do in fact totally agree that the original case is bogus - which I assume is what you mean by your comments here. BUT I do once again need to point out here that this article is in fact about a case arguing that posing as someone who you aren't should not be a criminal offense. This article is NOT about the actual courtcase against the mother who drove the teen to suicide.
While I am not condoning tormenting someone like this, I don't believe that it could in fact be a murder trial from it. I feel very sorry for the teen that was in this, and I think that the mother has acted in a horrible way, but not in the same way as someone who picks up a knife/gun/whatever and stabs/shoots/whatever someone else till they die.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The thing about any censorship laws, especially on obscenity, is that it is up to individuals to decide what gets censored. Tub girl is obscene and "shouldn't" be shown on kids shows, but when you make laws saying you "can't" it gets into a tricky spot.
There are individuals who would say it is obscene to see white women kissing black men, and at one point in time they may have had a large enough majority to make it law if they had the legal means to invalidate the right of free speech. If you have any infringement on the right to free speech based on what is right or wrong, or inflammatory, you risk completly destroying that right and making it just a privilege.
This case has a girl that was harmed in a new way that no law exists to properly prosecute. It shows the need for new laws, not the destruction of old rights. We have protection to these rights because of these kinds of actions, If it is OK to throw out rights based on criminal offenses then it's possible to throw them out on others.
I doubt anybody will remember her name. I've heard about the case many times before, and couldn't recall the name of the accused. If you ask me tomorrow, I will probably have forgotten the name again by them. Sure I could just Google every potential person I plan to hire. But a lot of employers don't do that.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
This is a nature-vs-nurture argument; you clearly fall on the side of nature. We could fill an entire /. thread with arguments on this one, so I'll just respectfully disagree with you on this one and leave it at that (my belief: 80% nurture).
From my experience as a teenager -- not THAT long ago -- and experience with my younger brother's circle, I don't find this to be the norm. That argument aside, you don't have to be privy to every ounce of your teenager's life to know when something is up. Let me flip your statement back on to you as a question: do you have kids or are you around teenagers at all? Coming home from college to visit my family when my brother was firmly in middle of adolescence made one thing extremely clear: you might know the day-to-days, but you absolutely do know the mood. I don't know that anyone can argue that point with honesty.
0/10 troll (a mom's basement joke? that's really the best you could do?) -- BUT, I will say this: I *was* rebellious, pretty hardcore in my teens. My parents made unending attempts to stay involved -- even when I didn't want them there and would say so as callously as possible. Bottom line, they just loved me. When they knew they wouldn't penetrate what was in my "deep, tortured" teenage mind (lol), they just loved on me. And I'd say I turned out alright.
Sony ha
Obtaining access by fraud is a felony. She lied to get access, therefore she obtained access by fraud. Therefore she committed a felony, QED.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The point isn't that the lady said bad things that drove a kid to suicide, or that the lady used the internet to do it. The lady should be subject to ordinary liability for that--just like any person who did the same thing on the street, or in the mail, or whatever. That's not the issue.
The issue is the terms of service agreement! That thing you click on and ignore so many times. That thing you send phony information so that the corporation doesn't get too personal on you!
If you type in phony information, (FRAUD, daddy), and then hurt somebody's feelings while on the account procured by fraud, the Federales can prosecute you for a crime. Think about the slippery slope this affords . . .
You gotta love the ingenuity of those federal prosecutors!
Next time I fill in a fake name or address signing up on a web site I should be charged with a felony?
And a lot states already have laws against this...
From the Texas law:
"Any activity that intimidates or threatens the student with ostracism, that subjects the student to extreme mental stress, shame or humiliation"
I know this was intended for fraternities/sororities, but I don't see anything in the writing that limits the law to colleges.
Why is it a criminal matter and not a civil one? There's not even theft committed in this case.
Why wouldn't you provide a real name? You have no idea who has access to your information; a hacker or rogue employee, for instance, can use the information to harass you or whatever. Not only that, but phishing sites exist and there's always the remote possibility of DNS poisoning.
Hell, I've been harassed over people calling my house thanks to being forced to provide that information publicly when registering a domain name. That's not fun.
Why should it be any more of a felony to lie to myspace than to lie to someone on the street over what my name is?
Even if this adult perpetrator knew she was unstable? You must've had it rough. I didn't have any adult bullies in high school, just the stupid jock types my own age.
However, if violating the TOS is the only charge, as the summary suggests, then I reluctantly think she should be let off.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
What sounds like a campaign lasting a few months to build up, then knock down a teenage kid and then spreading malicious gossip about the kid sounds like enough to count for a lot of straws to me. the kid may not have been the happiest ever, but a medium term campaign like the one described is enough to get a stable person onto the prozac. You say you've been there or near enough and seen how to solve your own problems. I'm pleased for you and maybe this doesn't apply to you but problems caused by other people can easily be just as important as personal problems when it comes to someone taking their own life. I've been there too and I know that working on your own problems can only fix things if a person's environment is right - or at least not so bad that a person gets knocked down whenever they try to get up. The environment in this case included someone who was clearly malicious towards the kid, which is hardly a good one in which to fix any problems a person might have. If you're looking for a last straw, I'd go for the argument with her mum about using myspace
Don't you have any harassment or bullying laws over there that the woman could be tried under? A computer was used for these purposes, as well as impersonation - if a cape and mask were used, would there have to be a cape and mask law for the woman to be tried under?
Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
I think we can safely say that willfully deceiving and maliciously lashing out at a kid, as an adult who damn well should know better, is a little different than honking your horn.
The slope's not that slippery.
Indeed, bullying should be considered a criminal behavior.
Separately from that issue, I do think violating the TOS should make you criminally or at least civilly liable. Otherwise, the TOS loses all meaning, and you can't, for example, set up a kid friendly website and use the TOS as a legal aid to protect that from internet predators. Having TOS be enforceable is definitely the right way to go. People unwilling to comply with the TOS should NOT use the website. This would make most sites with heavy handed TOS unpopular, and freer websites would prevail.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
What I don't get is how people then get worked up about all this stuff if it is a person that doesn't exist. Ok, sure if it was someone you knew that said "I hate your guts" it might be a problem, but some random guy on the internet, I could care less.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The restraining order is for the real person, not the persona.
Yeah... but how do you GET the restraining order when the person in question has fraudulently set up a fake identity? That's the whole point of anonymity, though, isn't it? It spares you from people holding you accountable for what you say or do.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
While what she did was clearly disgusting, You state "And there daughter would still be alive today if not for this woman's depraved actions." I think that is actually quite doubtful. The girl was clearly highly unstable to begin with and on the verge of suicide. Anything else could have driven her over the edge as well. I would say the majority of the blame probably lies on bad parenting.
Free speech protects many things, but it does not provide a defense against harassment, and it does not provide a defense against a criminal act where there is shown to be malicious intent.
While they can argue that what was said between Lori Drew and Megan Meier may have been covered by free speech, the fact that Lori Drew created a false identity (an identity crafted to appeal to Megan) shows that she knew her actions were morally wrong, if not legally wrong.
Free speech may allow people to create online an alter ego or speak under a pseudonym, but I think that it can easily be proven that "Josh Evans" created by Lori Drew was neither an alter ego nor a pseudonym: 'he' was created to appeal as much as possible to Megan Meier.
Free speech also does not change the fact that Lori Drew acted in breach of MySpace's conditions of use, and therefore was in breach of contract.
While I respect the EFF and others for protecting free speech (even though I am not a US citizen), I do not believe that free speech laws should cover actions like this. Sure, this is not an isolated case and harassment like this is widespread in the Internet, but that does not mean that it is right.
Their daughter would still be alive today except for their daughter's own actions.
Time to burn some karma...
I think it's 'cos so many here do or have done something like that in the Internet... So they're scared for the consequences of their own actions, desperately crying after their free speech to impersonate and to bully "losers" without fear of taking any responsibility. To them, "freedom" means "freedom of responsibility"...
Then a whole different class of murderer sympathisers are those who believe that weak deserve to die if they're as weak as the girl here. Some of these might even think that those who test them like this are really almost heroes, culling the herd from the emotionally weak.
It's a sad day, when so many at /. seem to fall into either of those categories.
Thanks for posting, most others seem to think it was a single act that brought the charges, and that isn't true. There is such a thing as felony harrassment, and currently there are a few MySpace felony harrassment cases being prosecuted. This case seems particularly heiness, so maybe prosectors believe that its just not a strong enough charge... they want blood. I don't know the details, but I think its likely this is one of the "lesser included charges." Lying, apparently, is protected by free speech, unless it causes someone to commit a crime, or causes mass panic (yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater isn't protected). If it wasn't suicide but theft or murder that was committed, apparently, it'd be clearer that these instances of lying were not protected and couldn't be used as a defense. It seems like proving intent in this case shouldn't be too difficult, i.e. lies with the intention to cause misery, and once they do that, even if suicide wasn't the intent, it doesn't matter... misery, in many people, is enough to cause suicidal thoughts. Causing misery is harmful, and using speech to cause intense misery shouldn't be protected.
The Admin and the Engineer