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."
Of course. But, then again, people are outraged over this; she supposedly broke the law to intentionally hurt someone.
She's a bitch, and shouldn't be allowed in society. People like this are worthless pimples on the ass of society.
This is one of those hard cases which is going to make bad law. There was nothing legitimate to charge Lori Drew with, so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has already been pretty badly stretched. If Drew is found guilty (and she will be, on the emotional factor), that sets the precedent that violation of Terms of Service is now a criminal act. Talk about a big stick for ISPs to beat customers with... (share your wifi, go to jail...)
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.
It's not both? This woman is a grade-A sociopath, regardless of whether or not she suspected her victim would be so gravely affected as to commit suicide. She needs to be institutionalized regardless of the outcome of her actions, it's just unfortunate that these kind of people are only brought to light when something tragic happens.
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?
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...
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.
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.
And... lighting the bomb doesn't count as "bad"?
No, you can't use the "It was BOUND to happen one way or another" excuse, either; unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence (IE the ability to see into the future) then you can't say for sure that she would have 'offed herself' as you so kindly put it.
Plus, there is the "thin skull" thing in law; basically, if you do something that wouldn't cause a *normal* person harm, but the person has a pre-existing condition (in the original case, a thin skull that was struck and killed the person) that causes the 'normal' action to be deadly, it's *still* murder. In other words, ignorance of a pre-existing condition doesn't exempt you from your actions.
This, on the other hand, is trying to take a hacking law and apply it to something that is clearly not, repeat, NOT hacking. Cayenne's phrasing, "ominous precedent," puts it pretty succinctly. The government can't be allowed to apply whatever law it feels like because the other ones don't fit. That's why we have laws in the first place.
It's unfortunate that every time a mother with a teary eye shows up on the TV, people get whipped into an emotional frenzy without taking a moment to evaluate the unintended consequences of their desired course of action.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
For the love of all that is, people need to learn to take some fucking responsibility for the their own actions!
Every time I hear/read someone talking about people taking responsibility for their actions, they're always letting someone else get off scott free on their actions.
The girl killed herself. She has already paid for her actions. Now it's time for the woman to take responsibility for what she did.
Did she kill the girl? No. Did she contribute to the girl's decision to kill herself? Yes.
Why do you insist that certain people (the girl who killed herself) have to be responsible for their actions, while other people (the woman who helped drive the girl to do it) do not?
And drop the "I was bullied and didn't kill myself so no one else can use that as an excuse" bullshit. People are different. People's circumstances are different. If you got through your own torment and came out okay, then good for you. That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's circumstances, ever.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein