Slashdot Mirror
Lori Drew Cyber-Bullying Trial Begins
An anonymous reader writes "The cyber-bullying trial of Lori Drew opened yesterday. She was indicted for conspiring to access and accessing MySpace illegally in order to 'further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotional distress' (PDF of the indictment). The BBC has background on the case, the NYTimes covers the opening statements, and Wired has today's testimony."
This issue seems to me one of the trials that are just to have a spotlight on a particular issue and could have been resolved earlier without the fanfare.
~ Ron Fitzgerald
Like the NYT article says, this does seem like a case the Federal statute doesn't technically apply to. It's a pretty blatant example of overreaching. However, this woman should clearly be punished. I think the trial's going to have to take a look into who actually wrote the messages that compelled suicide and exactly how much Ms. Drew knew about the victim's mental instability. I still don't know whether or not to think of this as an immature prank gone terribly, terribly wrong, or a real attempt to prey on a weak girl's vulnerable mental state.
As pointed out by another poster, this case is relying on a law that doesn't really fit the facts. But as our society continues to evolve, we must learn to adapt and deal with life online. Law is fluid and this case is just the beginning. Given enough time, the laws will have evolved to more adequately deal with our digital world.
As a side note, a new tag should be created for this story...finallyarevelantpostfortheslashdotcommunity.
Its a nice attempt, but it simply can't compete with the likes of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, or The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension. Or even The Adventures of Baron Munchausen for that matter.
-=Bang Bang=-
What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and possibly illegal, but I get the feeling that she's being charged with the wrong crime. "Accessing MySpace illegally?" Now, I don't have a MySpace page, but it was my understanding that anyone could open a MySpace page and use it to contact other people. You don't even have to give your real name when you do so. I'd rather see some harassment charges or even something along the lines of manslaughter. What she did was psychologically manipulate that girl until she killed herself. That was the crime. MySpace was just the method.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It seems to me that one of the implications brought by the defense here is that somehow, using a Facebook assumed identity to try and talk someone into killing themselves has less criminal value than writing threatening anonymous letters or talking on the phone while masking your voice. Shouldn't this whole trial be hinged on whether she has used her prior knowledge of the girl's emotional distress to talk her into suicide, rather than whether or not she commited computer fraud?
That is why this case is so scary. If she can get put in jail for violating the TOS of a website then it would spell disaster for the internet.
People want her in jail because the outcome of what she did was so terrible. However, people do this all the time. She did nothing legally wrong. Making what she did illegal is going to spell trouble for everyone's freedom.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
If she is found guilty of 'torturous' acts, does that mean that psychological techniques will then be redefined as torture? If so, what implications does that have for the US military's treatment of detainees?
If she is convicted, but there is no change in military policy, isn't that a double standard?
I agree, this is going to be taken by a lot of people as a reason why there should not be anonymity on the internet and why attempts to assume a fake identity on the net should be viewed as criminal. Maybe all we need is a law that says it's illegal to be a manipulative, predatory jackass anywhere.
if you all'd go kill yourselves. I don't like you anymore, Slashdot. You're fat and ugly :3
How about he meets up with this lady, and let him have a piece of her and see how she like it. Death by Reiser has got to be one of the worse ways to go.
I don't understand... clearly the charges are just the first thing they could think of to charge this terrible woman with, because the actual wrong committed (driving a girl to suicide) is not explicitly illegal anywhere. So they chose... 'computer fraud' and violating MySpace TOS?
Hello!? This is a 30+-year-old woman lying about her identity in order to start a romantic relationship with a 13-year-old girl! Of course her intent was not sexual but if Lori Drew's HUSBAND had perpetrated this exact same "prank" I guarantee the not-quite-accurate charge would have been sexually soliciting a minor, not breaking a EULA!
The jury is sympathetic enough in this case that I think this charge could definitely pass...
On the one hand, the federal case is rubbish. Intentionally inflicting emotional distress is so subjective of an offense as to be unconstitutional (judges have used vagueness as a reason to strike down statutes). This case is now clearly entirely one of catharsis for the community and a career opportunity for ambitious prosecutors.
Yet, I think there can be a case under state law that Lori Drew murdered Megan Meier. I looked it up before, and remember seeing that it said that if you knowingly cause someone to be killed, then you are guilty of murder, and that's a good definition of what Drew did here. With basically demonic-level of malice of forethought, prodded and goaded this girl into exposing herself emotionally to a fictitious lover, knowing full-well that she had some severe issues with depression, and then she stabbed the girl and butterflied the wound.
It's no wonder why Meier committed suicide. On some level, Drew knew what she was doing. It's already been established in previous reports that she knew all about this girl's psychological problems, and her reported behavior is that of a true predator. She can't claim innocence like "gee golly, I didn't know she very well might kill herself if I set her up for that much anguish and suggested to her that the world might be better off with out her (which Drew did suggest to her)."
Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide.
as if the woman is prosecuted for saying she doesn't like gw bush online
no folks, this is way beyond simple thought crime
context is everything:
1. the woman knew the girl was emotionally unstable
2. the woman is an adult, the girl was a minor
3. the woman purposefully set up a fake account with the intent of faking a boy who was interested in her, got her interested in this fake person, and then started insulting her, in the role of the fake boy, and suggesting she commit suicide
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
surely some of you can support any law coming out of this case. surely some of you recognize this case is an extreme outlier and can in no way be confused with everyday garden variety trolling and meanness
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time to someone they KNOW is a minor and is emotionally unstable, surely you can see that the idea of a slippery slope does not apply
context is everything, and the context here is really extreme
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you read the story its because they can't nail her for the suicide they are doing this because "they have to do something". Which makes this case all the worse. I am wondering if the "hate crime" angle wasn't explored, its as silly as the approach they are taking.
So basically she does something which causes another to harm themselves. Technically she didn't cause the harm and as such is immune to prosecution. So instead they will twist a law and trump up some charges on this twist in regards to rules violated no one would ever consider for serious prosecution.
Lovely, whats next. If crap like this succeeds it opens everyone up to any fishing expedition law enforcement cares to make
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Just give me a tire iron and five minutes alone with that bitch and we can forgo all the legal intricacies.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
this case is extreme, an outlier. context is everything. of course someone will try to stretch laws for all sorts of dubious purposes, but if the results of this case doesn't enable them, some other case will. we shouldn't give this woman a pass because someone somewhere might misinterpret the case and read it out of context. they will do that anyway
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nice, you hit the nail right on the head. If this were done through any medium other than the internet, she would have gotten the charges you mentioned: harassment, maybe manslaughter, maybe accessory to a suicide. But since it's the big and scary internet (and who knows what your kids are doing on there) it's clearly her unfair voodoo use of MySpace that receives the most focus. Just imagine if she had written that teenaged girl a letter instead. Nobody would be saying that the big issue here was violating the ToS of the Postal Service.
millions of emo kids everywhere with suicidal tendencies will start suing their parents for 'torturous acts'.
I get called an insensitive clod all the time, but I don't go to the police saying I've been harassed. This article belongs in Idle with all the other junky news :)
Right now, everyone in America is breaking a law. Whether they are punished for the breach depends on how much money they have, who they know, who they have cheated, and if the public is aware of the crime or not.
They are there so if you get in the way of the powerful, they can throw the book at you. In this case, it's a good thing, since this person, for no other reason than malice, emotionally abused someone just for the "fun" of it. Other times, victimless crimes like possession are used to keep the prison population high and the ghettos under control.
the moral reprehensibility of what she did obviously has to be punished. the idea of laws is to maintain a well-functioning society. we have laws against rapists, murders, etc., so we can keep these people away form society. this woman is a psychopath. she should not be allowed to be free in society. she has aptly demonstrated she is a danger to others. whatever law exists or does not exist, the moral basis for her punishment is 100% sound
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, the big issues here are that the law is being misapplied to fit circumstances clearly not within its purview, and the action itself isn't actually criminal.
This is a perfect case for a civil suit instead. What they are doing is taking a "tort" (punished via lawsuit) and turning it into a "crime" (punished via criminal charges and prison).
This entire case should have been in a civil court from the beginning.
the facts i read them show her to be the originator of the messages, not the assistant or the daughter. every convicted murderer or rapist likewise wan't there or was tricked in to
the crime
but we shall soon see, as the case proceeds in a court of law, won't we?
but thanks for your helping of bias
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Mean Girls 2: The Inter-webs"
Lori Drew was worried about her child being bullied, and took measures to verify if this was happening.
Megan obviously had the capability of committing violence against someone, as she did against herself.
Sad story, but I can sympathize with Lori as a mother protecting her own child.
it is cases like this that write new laws
duh
"and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state"
ignorant and retarded on so many levels. as if the creation of new law has anything do with a police state. as if your excusing of psychopathic murder is somehow no worse than what goes on in a police state, making you and your attitude worse than what you fear
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Maybe all we need is a law that says it's illegal to be a manipulative, predatory jackass anywhere.
Which will never get passed as it would mean that at least half of congress would have to be locked up, along with just about every lobbyist in Washington. Not necessarily a bad thing for the general public, but who the hell is going to vote/lobby themselves into prison?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
on nov 19, a 19 yo guy committed suicide live on webcam
1,500 people watched, with LOLs and hahaha and "go ahead and do it, faggot"
sometimes, humanity is a pretty heady combination of disgusting and low iq
my disgust is such that i fantasize right now of faking a videofeed of a suicide, tracking the ip of anyone who LOLs at it, finding them, and peeling their skin off with a razor blade. such is my disgust at such utterly fucktarded trolls. finding and doing greivous bodily harm to these assholes is the only wat i feel i can be assuaged
if you give up your humanity for your fellow human beings, aren't you pretty much nullifying our responsibility to respect you, in any way?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5203176.ece
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/MindMoodNews/story?id=6306126&page=1
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
im going to make this simple for all of you calling for murder charges. YOU DO NOT CHARGE SOMEONE FOR A MURDER IN A CLEAR CASE OF SUICIDE. Lori Drew did not put the noose around her neck and jump, the little girl MADE THAT CHOICE. While we may not like it and feel we need to do SOMETHING, there is nothing to be done, the girl made her choice.
Good-bye
My question is this: If the harmful things were said to a person in a normal setting ( for slashdotters, this means face to face or in a physical group of people, i know scary) would the woman be guilty? If she were spreading rumors and talking down to the woman face to face, would she be guilty just because she was a jackass?
I honestly don't know the answer, but maybe some of you do. To me the fact that it was on myspace should be the last thing people think about. Was her social interaction enough to convict her in real-life. If so it should be enough on the internet. The medium shouldn't matter.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
a police state exerts the will of a political agenda
here we are talking about an affront to basic moral sensibility
complete, utterly, totally fucking unrelated things
furthermore, a law is not a piece of comptuer code, it is made to be interpreted by human beings. a law can be stretched to an extreme, sure, but if it is done in the service of justice, which this case obviously cries out for, then the law is still doing the job it was intended to do
you have this really strange notion of what a law is and its purpose in society. its not a static dead lifeless piece of computer code, its inhabited by, and enforced by, human beings, for the benefit of human beings. what this woman did is an affront on any common sense understanding of right and wrong, and as such, the law is completely appropriate to be used as humanity sees fit to punish this reprehensible person
it doesn't fit the mold of a law exactly? who fucking care? you honestly think that doesn't happen every day when any law is enforced?
ALL laws are interpretted in every single case ever put forth before a court, and ALL cases set forth before a court differ in the particulars and stray from a technical reading of the law.
but if we abide by your mediocre interpretation of what a law is and what it is meant for, just because a case is a little complicated, you are perfectly willing to completely ignore justice
your approach is a path to the breakdown of law and order in society. the courts serves the people in society, and if the people in society see that its laws are not being used in the pursuit of justice, and that instead truly reprehensible people are allowed off on technicalities, they will cease to believe in their courts, and take matters into their own hands, to see tha tjustice is done. and of course, vigiliatism is wrose, but this is exactly what your attitude encourages: a mediocre approach to legality and morality, a complete separation of the two. incredibly stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I like how everyone who disagrees with you on any topic is filled with bias, while you are the one true observer. It's cute.
And to tag team this post as a reply to Csartanis below me:
You'll notice that TFA quotes Susan Prouty, a former client of Ms. Drew who may or may not be reliable, have an axe to grind etc... Her testimony will come under examination soon enough. I still think that based on the actual evidence available that Ms. Drew is not the one who should be punished for this. If new evidence comes to light or the witness testimony is corroborated and validated then my opinion may change.
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I find it is most curious that no-one is talking about holding the person who prescribed the girl's anti-depressants responsible. The woman is guilty of trolling, not murder. The health professional who allowed the girl's condition to deteriorate so while under his/her care is another story altogether, and is at least most likely guilty of malpractice.
Caveat Utilitor
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1037825&cid=25848195
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just started reading the indictment, and I came across something that struck me as curious. There is a section called "Computer Terminology" that gives the plaintiff's version of a definition of "Internet Service Provider":
(Emphasis mine). I thought the bit about storing electronic files was a little odd when I saw the definition. Then, later, it looks like they use the "store electronic files" part of their ISP definition to claim that MySpace is actually an ISP!
Anyone have any idea why they need to claim Fox Interactive Media is acting as an ISP, instead of just a social networking site?
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
"So basically she does something which causes another to harm themselves. Technically she didn't cause the harm and as such is immune to prosecution."
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I still don't understand this part. Why doesn't this count as some form of abuse or harassment? Why do we need special "cyber-bullying" laws; why are existing laws against child abuse not being used?
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a tort that is well established in US Common Law. Generally the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress and that damage resulted. Some jurisdictions want to see a physical harm rise from the mental harm. In this case, suicide would be a physical harm resulting from the emotional emotional distress. This seems to be a pretty clear cut case of tortious infliction of emotional distress.
Assuming a fake identity on the net, probably should be a crime.
It's illegal to have fake id's.
It's a crime to have fake passports.
Anonymous though, should not be.
This girl would not have commited suicide if the person on the other end had been "Anonymous Coward".
But when she pretended to be Peter A Dickhead, that crossed a line.
The real question here is one of legality, the law she is being tried for is not applicable and opens too many doors for me to be comfortable with a guilty verdict. Having said that, this women is obviously complicit to a plan to cause harm to another person, which makes her an accessory. Yes, she was the parent and should have exercised better judgment but holding her for murder would also push the charge of murder into unacceptable grounds. A few little examples may be in order. If, due to the publicity in this case, this womans daughter was to kill herself, would we hold the press up on murder charges? The Judge, the Jury, the lawyers? No, we would not. It would be like holding the parents of the Columbine shooters accountable for not knowing what was going on and happening with their sons. It may make them bad parents, it may make them callous. It does not make them guilty of murder. Even if their parents were telling them what a great plan it was to shoot up the school they could merely be an accessory to the crime, not guilty of the crime itself. I realize the emotional context of the case but that should have no bearing in a court of law, that is the entire reason for a separate court of law in the first place! It is what makes a jury different from a lynch mob, the ability to reason based on case evidence and legal precedent. Harsh? Perhaps, but very true.
as many of their harassment of others lead them to suicide. Heck a few lead me to attempt suicide myself and should be held accountable for their actions. I've lost many friends to suicide because someone over the Internet told them to kill themselves. Kuro5hin and IWETHEY told me to kill myself and the world would be better off without me as well.
So if Lori Drew is found guilty then so are the rest of the Internet Trolls.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
look, two stories below this one:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/21/1644213
creative use of the law, in the same state, missouri. using the rico statues to go after the riaa
there's nothing wrong, at all, with using wildly different laws in new and creative ways. it is in fact completely normal. al capone couldn't be gotten at through murder raps and conspiracy, so they got at him through income tax evasion. completely new and radical in its time, now everyday and humdrum
people who commit crimes that are not garden variety must be gotten at in creative ways. don't fear this. there is no slippery slope. the context is extreme, it is a far outlier, any future case that refers to this lori drew case must hew to a similar set of bizarre extenuating circumstances
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you're just a stubborn asshole for not admitting when you've been routed. the radical and creative interpretation of established law is a normal process and a good thing
adios, you lose
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I wonder what will happen to old and future cases if this woman is convicted. From the article:
Prosecutors say Ms Drew violated MySpace's "terms of service" that prohibit users from using fraudulent registration information, using accounts to obtain personal information about juvenile members and using MySpace to "harass, abuse or harm other members".
If I recall correctly there was a case of a girl, age 14, who claimed to be 19. Her MySpace page stated that she was a single mother as well. That girl used the social site to meet people and eventually she met two two men who had sex with her. Later one of the guys talked to the girl's dad and found out her real age. Her dad was furious and both of the guys she met ended up doing time. The girl did not face any charges for mis-representing herself and her fake page was up online for many weeks after the prosecution was over. So my question is: If Lori is charged for using fake information what happens to other people who constantly lie on MySpace, Facebook and other social networks? In the case that I have described above it is clear that the girl's lie led to two innocent men ending up in jail.
Please don't get me wrong. I believe that this woman is clearly lacking some brain cells required for normal functionality but if the jury finds her guilty, it will open a new can of worms for better or for worse.
its a unique, exotic case
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"if she didn't want to get raped, why did she wear that tight skirt?"
that's basically the same thing you wrote
parents let their kids have a little privacy, to develop their own identity. if suicide comes out of that, how the hell can you blame the parents for that? and if they knew she was depressed, don't you think social contact helps for depression? and if so, how could any parent have foreseen a psychopath playing mindgames with her online, like what happened?
i have to be frank with you: your attitude of blame the victim, the parents of this poor girl, is rather disgusting. you really need to think long and hard about where accountability and blame falls during a crime: on the criminal. your current attitude, frankly, sucks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The health professional who allowed the girl's condition to deteriorate so while under his/her care is another story altogether, and is at least most likely guilty of malpractice.
Well, I can't manage to find precise information about the drug the girl was treated with, but fact is, some anti-depressant, specially old one which work on the dopamine & adrenaline pathways (less the more recent which work on the serotonin pathways) have quite some secondary effect.
Normally depression is associated with a strong lack of will and lack of energy, the patient just sits around and doesn't want to do anything (aboulia in latin, sorry don't know the proper english word).
The old antidepressant have a much quicker effect on the the lack of will, than on the sadness and morbid thoughts of depression. This leaves a window during which the patient has already more energy to act, but still has lots of dark/sad ideas. During this period, the patient has a higher risk to enact the dark thoughs and thus the risk of suicide is elevated.
This risks require proper monitoring of the patient and perhaps, if that's the case, the poor girl was left too much unattended.
I don't think it's a real malpractice coming from the doctor (I don't thing the doctor really fucked up somewhere). But on the other hand insisting a little bit more about the dangers when speaking with the parents would perhaps attracted their attention that girl was going to be quite fragile during the first phase of the therapy.
Other things strike as rather odd :
- She wasn't completely isolated socially, according to wikipedia the girl participated in outdoor activities, etc. For someone not living completely isolated to reach a point where enacting suicide is a sign of very deep problems, the things that could be easily triggered by seemingly mundane situation.
- She commited suicide by hanging according to wikipedia. This is a method with a certain success rates. This isn't the typical girl's suicide (most girls statistically are more likely to resort to less "definitive" ways, like sleep pill overdoses). Often the suicide attempts look a lot like a "call to help".
The hanging show quite some determination to kill herself.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If I think of someone as worthless, I should have a right to express that thought. If some irredeemable alcoholic is worthless, you know, the real crappy kind that can't properly feed and clothe his own kids, I should be able to tell him that or evince him of that. If some jerk is worthless, I should be able to tell him or evince him of that: the guy who sets out each day to anger as many people as possible. And if some vile female dog is worthless I should be able to tell her that too: the girl who has a venom mouth and lives just to say something nasty about anyone, even her own "friends." And I could plainly foresee that this expression might drive them to suicide, if it convinces them that they are actually worthless. That shouldn't matter. In fact it could be a benefit if the suicide and its impact wasn't too messy: because those people really are worthless. Maybe they are not actually worthless though, but it would be my own opinion and I can't be faulted for being a bad judge of character. And even then, if they committed suicide, I can't be faulted for being a bad judge of character when they themselves were compelled by my expression that they really are worthless. Go ahead and be a worthless person, but then don't complain about being hurt when someone gives you their opinion.
The same thing in this situation. Megan Meier and the Drew girl were both into insulting and emotionally hurting each other. Who knows who started it, but they both continued it. It's just a classic example of throwing stones in glass houses. If Megan Meier did not want to be emotionally hurt in such a way that the Drew girl with her backup was able to dish out, then she should not have positioned herself in such a way that it hit her. It reminds me of high school (oh wait, yeah, these girls were in high school). My friend had a blemish on his face or something, can't remember what. So this girl laughs at him (they always bugged each other) for it, not remembering that she has a giant scar down the side of her face from some operation when she was a little kid. So my friend told her back: "You're laughing at me? Take a look in the mirror, scarface!" She of course left crying. You can say it was a "low-blow", but how is it any more unfair than bugging a guy for having acne? If you are going to emotionally hurt someone, then why would not expect them to try to do the same? And why would you not expect them to recruit their friends in this endeavour if they thought it would be to their advantage?
IANAL, but I have 2 major problems with this case:
1. The prosecution is misusing/abusing the "furtherance of of a tortious act" verbiage as if it were an element of the crime, when in fact if one reads the statute, it's only a factor to determine the punishment of the crime if and only if it is determined that a crime was actually committed. The reason they have to spin it that way, of course, is because otherwise their charge boils down to "unauthorized obtaining of information from a computer across state lines", which is so vague and broad that I don't think any judge or jury would consider it a criminal act.
2. Do we really want to deputize ISPs and/or web content providers as agents of the Federal Government, by allowing them to, via changing their ToS'es, arbitrarily with little or no notice, "de-authorize" users, thus turning them into Federal felons? That's an awful lot of power to give entities which are not officially part of the Federal government. I don't think ISPs and/or web content providers would want this precedent set, once they realize that as agents of the Federal Government, they now have to abide strictly by the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, a raft of ordinary Congressional laws and rules (e.g. the tree-killing CFR compendium), that they have to buy equipment through the GSA, etc.
The bright side to all of this is that since the Federal Government has an IPv6 mandate, if ISPs become part of the Federal Government, that should help to solve our IPv4 runout problem :-)
Having said all of that, I really think Lori Drew should be criminally prosecuted for what she did. She essentially harassed Megan Meier to her suicide. I just don't know that Missouri has the proper laws on the books to permit such a prosecution. So, unfortunately, the Meier family may have to seek retribution only through a civil suit.
Okay, IANAL. My question will probably make it quite obvious that IANAL. That said....
I've heard quite a bit about prosecutors coming up with this (horrible) set of charges because they can't figure out anything else to get her for. I agree that what this woman did was very wrong, and I can understand their desire to prosecute her. My question is, doesn't this woman's actions fall under "reckless endangerment" or "child endangerment"? If she knew about the girl's instability, wouldn't creating a fake personality designed to betray her be an example of creating a situation with an inherent risk of death or injury of the "target" (i.e. potential suicide attempt)?
Soooo, I imagine there's a reason not to prosecute this way. Any legal types care to set me straight?
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
1. she was an adult preying on a minor (and she knew that)
2. she knew the minor had emotional problems
3. she systematically attacked and undermined the girls' confidence over a longterm period purposefully and with malicious intent
none of those 3 things are anywhere remotely near your whoopie cushion scenario
you confuse what this woman did with a whoopie cushion on a chair? really? do you confuse murder with not washing your hands after peeing? do you confuse rape with picking your nose?
you're an idiot. not even remotely similar, this case has absolutely zero grounds for coming to the spastic panicky conclusions you come to
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and a bully is also a minor, and therefore can't be held responsible
duh
if you saw a 30 year old man go into a playground and verbally bully 13 year olds, do you think that's gee, i dunno, slightly different, oh great swami?
"You're absolutely retarded if you think for one second that age is the single difference that makes this a federal case."
age is the single difference that makes this a federal case
really, fucktard
an adult mind is not a child's mind. an adult mind can bring to bear all sorts of experience and resources and social and psychological tricks to run circles around a child
here's a thought experiment for you: why is pedophilia wrong? because a child can't informed consent to sex with an adult. ok adults can consent to other adults, and children can fumble around in the dark innocently. with me so far? an adult having sex with a child is flat out criminal, for obvious reasons (well, obvious to all except you)
now, you understand why age is a factor
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it states pretty clearly in the computer fraud and abuse act: Knowingly causing the transmission of a program, information, code, or command that causes damage or intentionally accessing a computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage that results in: Physical injury to any person. do i think it's a bullshit law? for sure. still looks like she knowingly transmitted information that causes damage that results in physical injury to another person. it ain't murder, but it looks like she could do 10 years for it. ianal
First of all, that's not the interpretation under which she was indicted. Read the indictment.
Secondly, look at the definition of "damage" in (e)(8): "the term 'damage' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information".
Whatever mental state Lori Drew caused with her "unauthorized" access of MySpace, that ultimately lead Megan Meier to kill herself, it doesn't qualify as "damage" under the statutory definition
Lori Drew is GUILTY. Reguardless if she had some kid help her create the MySpace page (since Most Parents don't know jack about Social Networking she had to get help from someone else), Lori Drew had signed up for MySpace for the purpose of extracting information from an emotionally unstable teenage girl. Lori Drew would probably let Megan Meier play with a lit M80 if she knew the girl was a pyro or let her clean out her medicine cabnet if she knew Meier was a drug addict, just so as long as she could extract information from Meier. Instead she chose the Internet.
Drew may not have a degree in Computer Science or Information Technology. She may not know how to pick a lock or phreak a telephone. But what she did was break into this girls head, manipulated her emotions, sought to make sure that her daughter would be seen as more popular and socially attractive than Meier, then break her heart right at the time when she was the most unstable and that her parents were too occupied with their own personal lives to care that some helicopter mom who was manipulating her own daughter's life was manipulating the life of some other girl.
But this case CANNOT and WILLNOT be tossed. As Lori Drew had the option to abide to the terms of service (TOS) and Privacy Policy used by MySpace even if she did not read them, she was still bound by them. She could not have filled out that form, and could not have clicked the box that stated that she would abide to the TOS and Privacy Policy, and she could not have clicked the Submit button. But she did AND she disavowed the TOS and Privacy Policy.
If the judge tosses this case out and if she returns to Dardenne Prairie, there probably will be an angry mob waiting to greet her, there probably will be vandals waiting to destroy the neighborhood, and there probably will be atleast some ignorant nut who will probably try to put a hit on her. As a resident of Eastern Missouri, I should hope that there won't be any violence, even if if the judge is careless or technologically illiterate enough to toss this case out. We can only hope that the judge won't and that Mrs. Drew is sent back to St. Louis in a pair of orange pajamas to be sent to a state prison.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
It's not saying that a lie at a cocktail party is the same as a lie in court.
But if I lie to you, at a cocktail party, for the purposes of some sort of fraud (convincing you to invest in some sort of fraudulent investment for example) well, that _is_ a criminal act, isn't it?
I'm not sure what exactly it was that she should be charged with, but it seems clear to me that she had criminal intent.
She lied, for the purposes of causing harm to someone, and then her actions did in fact lead to harm suffered by that person.
Seems fine to me.
And, IANAL, YMMV, etc, but I don't see that her being convicted means that violating the TOS of a website is a criminal act.
To me, it seems like the precedent set if she's convicted would be more like 'if you violate the TOS of a website in the service of a larger criminal intent to cause harm' then that's a crime.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Cyberbullying is poison for anyone it touches. An institution like a library or a school, which provides patrons, students or guests access to the Internet, has plentiful incentive to stamp out cyberbullying within its PCs. --Ben
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us