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.
When was the proper time to have resolved bullying? It has been an issue for years and has resulted in some pretty nasty retaliation. Noone has cared about it till someone stuck cyber in front of it. Thats it I'm adding cyber to the front of my name so everyone cares about me...
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...)
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.
Resolved without a trial? You mean like "by death-squad"?
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.
Resolved without a trial? You mean like "by death-squad"?
No, send in Dexter
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.
Ooh, you're definitely right about this having the capability to create a precedent that may be abused. Maybe the last court to rule on this case will have a flash of insight and use some language relating to "malicious intent" or "intent to cause harm", but I don't see any ruling against Ms. Drew containing more restrictive terms than that.
People like the girl's parents are worthless imo They knew her daughter had severe problems and were doing next to nothing about them.
Girl got trolled to death, how the fuck didn't anyone notice she was THAT fucked up sooner?
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
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
Mod parent troll! Muhahahaha!
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.
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
Your post hurt my feelings so much that I attempted to commit suicide. You should be put behind bars for intentionally trying to hurt me through cyber-bullying.
But seriously, STFU.
Totally agree. If it hadn't been for this, she probably would have offed herself over something equally ignorant. Not to mention that this case is now about "hacking." Essentially, if convicted, it will make creating and using a fake account punishable by up to five years for each offense. I've created fake accounts plenty of times, enough that I would be able to spend the rest of my life in prison. We should really blame Hawthorne Heights and the like for perpetuating a scene that gives you more cool points the more depressed you are. Do I condone the woman's actions? Not in the least. Do I have sympathy for the mother of the suicidal girl? Yes. That being said, if you commit suicide over a myspace message, you were a ticking time bomb anyway.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
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'.
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.
It seems to me that this case must not stand. For one it makes the ISP an agent of the state. For example to lie in a court trial carries a penalty. To lie in a cash transaction may carry a penalty. But lying in social situations is not something that carries weight. In essence it is like saying that a lie told at a cocktail party is the same as a lie told in court.
Further, people who go online in social contact areas have prior knowledge that all kinds of nonsense may occur. They are free never to enter or to surf to another type of site at any time. It's like porn. If you don't like it you change the channel or turn of the TV.
And I'm not so sure that anything done purely online can ever reach the edge of torture or harassment. We are not talking about Geronimo and a large group of hostile Apaches circling the wagons here. Vulnerable people need to buck up and stop expecting the world to conform to their tender needs..
You people think that all triggers affect one equally; from experience, they don't.
Certain people are *far* more prone to affect by social triggers (such as bullying) than others. People who lead otherwise perfectly happy lives can easily become suicidal over constant bullying.
So, until you've been in this situation, fuck off. You obviously have no god damn clue as to what's going on.
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.
...so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act...
:(
And such a shame, too! If they had reached another foot or so they could have grabbed the sledgehammer.
nothing new here unfortunately . I've long since grown tired of seeing people do things that are perhaps immoral, but not illegal, only to see some unrelated, irrelevant law bent in an attempt to make what they did illegal.
The "bad laws" are the problem here. Too many new laws are hitting the books either with little care taken to limit their scope, or to outright ignore limitations. Loopholes and overly broad definitions are woven in, under the guise that something in the legal machine will act as a sanity-check and "but no one would ever abuse the law". I'm not sure if they're being naive, or doing it on purpose. I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually. It always works that way. Always has, always will. Make something open to abuse, and it will get abused, usually sooner than you expect.
When you make a law with the hopes that some sanity check will prevent abuse, such as interpretation of a vaugity in the law by a judge, you'll find that some judges are naive, some judges have an agenda, and some parties have bottomless wallets to tilt the balances in their favor. The latter of the three being the major problem lately. You can never rely on "the system" only interpreting a law the "correct" way. Either you spell it out, or may as well not even bother. Making a vague law is worse than making no law at all, because when you make a vague law, you transform a situation from being undefined, to being possibly legal or possibly illegal, depending on the day of the week.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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
Quit bullying him, you asshat!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Same thing!
Why bother
She would have "offed" herself eventually? Perhaps she was on the brink of getting therapy and becoming a more stable person. But now she's dead and doesn't have a chance of getting better.
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
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)
But will probably be undone on appeal.
It's the boyfriend that strangled her to death and hung her in her room making it look like the fault of the woman that was harassing her.
Or am I the only one that watches Law and Order.
This went a little further then calling someone an insensitive clod, you insensitive clod.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I'm a geek, I'm *intimately* aware of bullying and what its like to have tortuous acts commited against oneself. I'm also still here to tell you about it. If I'd gone through with some of the plans I had as a teen it wouldn't have been the bullys fault, but *mine*.
For the love of all that is, people need to learn to take some fucking responsibility for the their own actions!
Is this woman a horrible person, yes, is she responsible for *murder*!?!?! HELL NO.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
You realize that your post constitutes assault and could be prosecuted as such.
Why bother
They are only trying to do this route because there is NO law on the books against what she did. And allowing them to bend this law to get her would set an ominous precedent.
This is much like years ago where I think it was a landlord, or maybe a neighbor set up cameras in someone house to spy on them nude or having sex. While it was a reprehensible act, there as no law on the books against it, and they had to let the perp go free. Laws were subsequently passed against this act, and that is how this case should be treated.
That being said, I dunno how a law against this could be written to where it wasn't so overly broad that the mere flaming or bashing someone on the internet could result in prosecution because anyone could say they were being bullied. This would also probably hit some people that were fairly complaining about someone, or posting negative comments about them. It could hurt whistleblowers.
I dunno if you can legislate anti-bullying.
But, while this act was horrible, I think it is a case of where no law on the books is there to prosecute it, and I hope they are not allowed to try to bend a law that is clearly not applicable to this case, into a successful prosecution.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
Add the fact that there was no ignorance of the pre-existing condition here. The woman was at one point a friend of the family and knew that this girl had depression and was taking medication to treat 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
Funny? Really now? This is when we need sane people with modpoints.
the intentional infliction of emotional distress action is a civil action and not, strictly speaking, at issue in this trial. The unauthorized access isn't being construed as criminal activity in and of itself, but only in so far as it was committed to further a tortious act.
So, no, it would not set the precedent you fear (unless you routinely share your wifi in the process of committing assault, or for the purposes of harrassment).
That said, i'm not really comfortable with the precedent it *would* set either. Making a non-criminal act criminal simply because it happens in tandem with a possible civil breach is kinda fucked up. If we want there to be criminal charges for IIED cases that result in death, we should revise the criminal code to explicitly make such acts criminal rather than doing an end run like this.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
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
What's needed is proper education of jurors that they are that sanity check. That it's their job to see where prosecutors are using laws far outside their intended scope and acquit, that it's their job to ignore laws which start from a foundation of distorting objective reality (Because the average temperature in the united states in -40 degrees; all persons must wear heavy duffle coats on pain of 10 years imprisonment, for instance), that it's their job to refuse to provide a conviction even if they think the defendant is guilty if they're likely to recieve an obscenly disproportionate punishment, that it's their job to put the kibosh on underhanded police & prosecution tactics by refusing to provide convictions.
Only then will we have a justice system which provides some semblance of justice.
FGD 135
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
One of the greater things about humanity is the capacity to take terrible things in stride. A lot of people can make jokes about truly horrific things such as this girl's death or the Holocaust that, so long as you understand it isn't serious, are funny.
Monty Python's "No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition" is a great example of this by the way.
Face it, "trolled to death" is a funny phrase. It's just ridiculous. The majority of people can't imagine being so depressed that it could even happen, even with (potential) evidence that it really did.
Disagree with me? Watch this and don't laugh.
Bah i hate google sometimes. I meant this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A
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
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.
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.
What if I spent months talking online, making you fall in love with me, and then I said the world would be better off with you dead.
Now, pretend you're an emotionally fragile 16 year old girl. Wait, you probably already do.
You're a complete idiot with no social empathy. Or you think you're way funnier than you actually are.
Breach of contract is a tort in itself. There's no reason, assuming this case goes for the prosecution, that they could not prosecute you for sharing wi-fi because you were violating their TOS in the furtherance of a tortious act -- namely violating their TOS.
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.
I don't see that expecting adults to conform to socially expected and well-communicated standards of decency, particularly in regards to minors, should be considered "expecting the world to conform to their tender needs." It is, rather, expecting the world you live in to conform to its own stated standards and expecting society to force out of compliance members back into something resembling acceptable behaviour, or remove them from that society.
And yes, my statement here can be twisted to imply that I personally believe any number of unpleasant things. I fully expect that someone in this society will choose to use my statement in such a manner.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
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
And while that is sad for them, you cannot punish people for happening to trigger this, especially if it is impossible for them to have determined it.
First, this woman knew about the girl's condition. Second, according to the eggshell skull rule the sole fact that she performed a deliberately harming action which resulted in death (whether intended or not) would be enough to call this murder.
How about sending the ADA instead.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually
To make an analogy for /.:
Most programmers make mistakes
Most groups of programmers make mistakes (no matter how big your group is)
These mistakes do get abused eventually. The problem is that there is no one doing 'sanity' tests on these laws and attempting to abuse them before they get made, while we have companies who do 'sanity' tests with QA and hired security consultants.
You are right, we need more sanity checks, especially for things like laws, the controlling factor of society.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
Won't somebody think of the children?
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Police? hah. Never.
Anyone else, whose not rich or has political power? Yep.
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
Unfortunately, committing suicide is not against the law in the US, although attempted suicide is considered attempted murder, and in that case, if the girl had attempted but was not successful, Lori Drew would be guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but only if she had suggested the girl kill herself.
I do not know the contents of the messages in this case, so I don't know the exact wording of what was said, and I can't seem to find the MySpace profile in question. It may be morally reprehensible for someone to pose as a potential peer with the intent of causing emotional harm, but we do not legislate morality, nor should we. Society takes care of moral issues, and the Drews have already been ostracized by their community over this.
If Ms. Drew is legally responsible for this girl's death, then should rappers be responsible for someone doing drive-bys because they heard it in the lyrics, or, to use an old reference, should Beavis and Butthead be responsible for some kids burning down a trailer park because the cartoon characters were pyros?
Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
"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 ]
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
Your post would make sense if she were being charged with murder. However:
IANAL. But the relevant bits here are that the defendant appears to have lied regarding her identity to multiple parties, for the express purpose of inflicting emotional harm on someone. As it turns out, the mere act of her lying is prosecutable, because it led to damages (emotional harm contributing to the victim's suicide).
"She's not guilty of murder" is a straw man - if the DA thought there was a murder charge worth prosecuting there, they likely would have pursued it. This isn't a murder charge.
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.
No, it's exactly the other way around. You can't blame the bully for the suicide unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence that the person in question would never have committed suicide at any point in the future EVER.
Come on, dude. Offing yourself because an online boyfriend you've never actually met said some hurtful things? That's just darwin in action. If you're not stable enough to take being hurt like this, you're not fit for survival, and you're not gonna pass the flawed genes.
Let me put it in another way. Let's imagine a situation where there was no conspiracy. Let's say an actual boy existed with the myspace page. One day he breaks up with the girl and says that she could "kill herself" because he's a fucking jerk. She goes and kills herself. Is he to blame at all, or was the girl just mentally imbalanced? Come on, I've had people tell me to go kill myself in REAL LIFE. I've gone through the middle school bullying where they really try to break you emotionally. This type of stuff isn't meant to hurt you physically. The bullies are being fucking immature jerks, but being a jerk isn't a crime, nor should it be.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Perhaps we should keep pestering this woman until she kills herself too.
Maybe at the end of every local news case we can have the anchor sign off with "And Lori Drew is still a good for nothing bitch, thank you for joining us, and goodnight."
So... you're saying she's not responsible for her actions then? What a hypocrite. If you had a clue (which you don't because we've already determined your not that smart) you'd also realize that there's more than just murder as a definition of harm that causes death along with different degrees of murder.
Dude, Trahloc's entire image of himself was based on his assumption that he's a really smart geek. After you shattered his view, he offed himself. You need to take responsibility for your actions and turn yourself in for murder.
P.S. Please don't kill yourself because I made you realize that you were responsible for another person's death. I don't want to go to jail.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
...we do not legislate morality...
Is the question of whether or not it is okay to kill anything other than a moral question?
All laws are based on morality, and there are even many laws that enforce someone's view of "moral activity" despite having no bearing on anyone outside of the perpetrators (whereas something like murder clearly affects more than just those involved). For example, prostitution laws. Or how about laws against consensual oral and/or anal sex that exist in some States? Or, to delve into an issue of contemporary civil law, how about the law preventing people from marrying members of the same sex?
If Ms. Drew is legally responsible for this girl's death, then should rappers be responsible for someone doing drive-bys because they heard it in the lyrics, or, to use an old reference, should Beavis and Butthead be responsible for some kids burning down a trailer park because the cartoon characters were pyros?
The primary difference between this case and the examples you provided is that her actions were specifically directed at the victim with the intention of harming said victim. And she succeeded in doing just that.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
You can't blame the bully for the suicide unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence that the person in question would never have committed suicide at any point in the future EVER.
And by that logic, you can't blame a murderer for a death unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence that the person in question would never have died at any point in the future EVER.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Personally, I'm tired of the "For teh childres!!!" Arguement.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
I like the way you think.
You're missing the point: intent.
In order for anyone to be considered guilty of a crime you have to have both an illegal act, and the intent to commit that act.
Lori Drew INTENDED to cause harm to megan meier.
In your hypothetical scenario there is no intent.
Now we can argue about the slippery slope of a law against cyber-bullying given the difficulty of establishing intent. But if you want to make comparisons, use apples not oranges.
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.
Quite often, criminals are prosecuted using laws applied in an unusual manner. Capone was not convicted of murder, he was convicted of tax evasion. Since there is no crime of talking an adolescent into committing suicide, they looked for another crime to punish her with. Unauthorized access to a computer system was all they could come up with, I guess. Shallow bitch.
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.
Yep, you have a point. We could always add a law about causing willfully causing distress to a minor leading their death. I mean they can add laws about consumers not being able to listen to the CD they purchased on their car stereo, how hard would this be?
On the other hand, Gene Hunt would have simply stuffed some narcotics in her trunk. Problem solved.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
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...)
A violation of a TOS should be a criminal act... so long as it was done to commit a crime, specially if it leads to death or injury. In fact, any questionable act (even if its barely questionable by the most lenient of interpretations) that has been done (and lead to) with full premeditation to commit (or intent to commit) a criminal act, it should be prosecuted (read "burn the bitch".)
Tons of opinions here and no facts.
Fact One: Everyone is different.
Fact Two: People (especially teenage girls) respond differently to harassment and humiliation.
Fact Three: The fact that I have to state the obvious here shows how remarkably narrow your opinion is. Bottom fucking line is if this one had stayed out of that girl's life, that girl would still be alive today. Maybe she would've killed herself over a guy ditching her in the future but speculation and opinions belong in BFE. Thanks.
Lori Drew INTENDED to cause harm to megan meier.
She intended to cause emotional harm. That's no different than my scenario. A random online jerk also intents to cause emotional harm. Every school bully in existence also intends to cause emotional harm.
I've read about what she did. I didn't think any of it is particularly rare, and I expect that stuff like that happens 500 times a day. It's a bit surprising to see someone that old pulling a prank like this, because usually people grow out of that. It means the woman is pathetic, but it doesn't mean she's a murderer or even in any way criminally responsible for the death.
It's not reasonable to assume that bullying is made with the intention of causing someone to commit suicide, because it simply wouldn't work on the vast majority of the population. It would only work on people who are already mentally imbalanced and prone to committing suicide, in which case the underlying cause is the mental imbalance, not the bullying.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
"..Exactly... like the adult who bullied a kid so much they they lit the bomb the kid was holding. Instead, said adult should have been offering support to clearly take away said metaphorical bomb, not purposely trying to inflict mental harm.."
The important difference here is that this was an adult, manipulating a child to hurt, humiliate and ultimately, cause her death. No adult should be allowed to torture a child, to prey on her known weaknesses.
This woman deserves to be punished. This is intentional cruelty to a child and gross negligence and probably should have been charged as such, instead of fraud, which can have long range consequences for the online community.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
They are only trying to do this route because there is NO law on the books against what she did. And allowing them to bend this law to get her would set an ominous precedent.
Are we sure about that?
I know in Canada we have a "sexual interference with a minor" law, maybe Missouri has something applicable. She certainly carried on a courtship with the girl. And it's pretty obvious that Megan was interested romantically. as well, one of the topics of discussion was sex.
If Lori Drew were a guy (other than a congressman, of course), I have little doubt he'd be in jail now, and on a sex-offender registry as well. I agree that the statutes they are using are rubbish, but I wouldn't be surprised if some sex-crime statute has been violated.
At the risk of having a "what about the children" moment... The amount of callous comments here are ridiculous (not directed at P). An adult psychologically manipulated and abused a kid, and it gets responded to by blaming the kid ("she would have done it anyways..." etc.).
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
If Lori Drew were a guy (other than a congressman, of course), I have little doubt he'd be in jail now, and on a sex-offender registry as well. I agree that the statutes they are using are rubbish, but I wouldn't be surprised if some sex-crime statute has been violated."
I think largely, to get someone on this and convict them...even a man, there has to be an attempt to carry the internet conversations over to a meeting for real sex in meat space.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Oh, so let's say your girlfriend is extremely depressed, and you break up with her then she kills herself, is that murder?
Or do you have to tell her she's fat and ugly first? Since when are there laws in the U.S. against verbal abuse?
Cruelly harassing some poor kid to the point of suicide in on a rock bottom level on the scale of evil shit and human depravity. Someone capable of that has no place in civil society. And, with any luck, the court is about to remove this "person" from society for a long time.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
My interpretation of this trial is that they're trying to get a criminal conviction, any criminal conviction, so that the findings of fact can be used in the civil wrongful death case. That way they can pretty much focus on just how big a wad of cash they're going to get.
steampunk web design
Also like convicts, the students are not allowed recording devices to document bullying because recording devices are disruptive. I'm still unclear how bullying is unbelievable but retaliation is intolerable.
If they are far enough south they won't get 6 months. Down here we have comedians joke about our "he needed killing" loophole, which works like this. Someone does something truly horrible and evil to your family and you "snap" and kill them, preferably with extreme overkill. The Judge goes "Damn. If they would have done that to MY family I would have probably "gone crazy" too.". Then the shrink says "He is okay now. It was just the extreme emotional stress that caused him to lose his mind and kill the one that caused his family so much harm." Then the judge orders you to see a shrink for a year or two and that is it. And I can honestly say that if it was my kid, the "emotional stress" would have caused me to go completely batshit with a chainsaw on the bitch. Because someone that fucks with an emotionally disturbed child's mind just to be a bitch must surely fall under the "need killing" rule.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Is the question of whether or not it is okay to kill anything other than a moral question?
Legislation against murder is not purely moral, as killing someone definitely infringes on their right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
For example, prostitution laws. Or how about laws against consensual oral and/or anal sex that exist in some States?/p>
These are state laws and as such are a reflection of the local constituency's beliefs, although it could be argued that there are medical reasons for such legislation, and not simply prudish ones.
Or, to delve into an issue of contemporary civil law, how about the law preventing people from marrying members of the same sex?
My interpretation of those statutes is that they are for tax purposes, since civil unions are not prohibited, but the tax benefitting status of marriage is, which should be reserved for a family unit capable of reproduction, as the tax benefits are intended to support a continuance of the species.
The primary difference between this case and the examples you provided is that her actions were specifically directed at the victim with the intention of harming said victim. And she succeeded in doing just that.
That is a good point, one I must concede to you, although without reading the messages in question I would not be able to say whether or not suicide was the intended outcome of the emotional harm. My attempt at allegory was inappropriate to this situation.
Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
The way you describe it, all suicides essentially become murders then, (no I'm not defending this piece of filth's actions) as anyone who does this has some reason, caused by some thing, action, person, wording, whatever that drove them to it.
Person goes to casino, loses all their money, comes home, kills themselves... The casino is guilty of murder for taking their money.
Person goes to church, confesses to something terrible, the priest tells them they are worthless pieces of filth because they did x, person goes home, kills themselves, the priest is a murderer.
Yes, what the person did was abhorrent. But they did NOT kill the other person. They mentally / verbally (or is that textually) abused them.
Drill sergeants bring people down, make them feel worthless, lower than the worm that eats dog shit all day, every day, and yes, some soldier wannabes end up suiciding, yet the drill instructors aren't charged with murder, even though they drove the recruit to it.
Do I think this person should get off scott free? No. Do I think they should be charged with murder? No. Accessory to murder (where the person who killed themselves is the murderer and murderee both) - possibly. Child abuse, reckless endangerment, verbal and mental abuse... absolutely...
Where do you draw the line, where do we stop? I don't have a good answer. Personally, (based on emotional response) I want this woman dead, preferably through the most painful and longest lasting method possible. Is that the right way to think? probably not...
Just some thoughts...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Is the question of whether or not it is okay to kill anything other than a moral question?
Legislation against murder is not purely moral, as killing someone definitely infringes on their right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Ah, but murder laws predate your Declaration of Independence. Also, I didn't say that laws are based only on morality, just that morality is part of it, whereas you had stated that morality is not legislated at all.
For example, prostitution laws. Or how about laws against consensual oral and/or anal sex that exist in some States?/p>
These are state laws and as such are a reflection of the local constituency's beliefs, although it could be argued that there are medical reasons for such legislation, and not simply prudish ones.
A reflection of the local constituency's beliefs, or, in other words, local morality. Medical reasons? You're really grasping at straws.
Or, to delve into an issue of contemporary civil law, how about the law preventing people from marrying members of the same sex?
My interpretation of those statutes is that they are for tax purposes, since civil unions are not prohibited, but the tax benefitting status of marriage is, which should be reserved for a family unit capable of reproduction, as the tax benefits are intended to support a continuance of the species.
Tax reasons rarely, if ever, come up in the same-sex marriage debate. It always comes down to religious beliefs. Besides, couples with no intention or ability to reproduce are allowed to marry.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
a solid argument might be made for negligent homicide.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The way you describe it, all suicides essentially become murders then, (no I'm not defending this piece of filth's actions) as anyone who does this has some reason, caused by some thing, action, person, wording, whatever that drove them to it.
First of all, I didn't say that the girl's suicide should be treated as a murder. In fact, I specifically said that the woman did not kill her, just that she contributed to her decision to commit suicide. And yes, it is often the case that people have some responsibility in other people's suicides. An important factor is whether or not their role was intentional. In this case, the woman's role was definitely intentional. Not that she was intentionally trying to drive the girl to commit suicide (although that is possible, since she knew about her psychological problems), but that she was intentionally trying to cause her harm.
Where do you draw the line, where do we stop? I don't have a good answer.
Neither do I. But looking at intent is a starting point. This woman intended to hurt the girl. It's possible that she didn't intend to hurt her that much, but that's the risk you take when you try to hurt someone. If I swing a baseball bat at your head, intending to wound you, but I end up killing you by mistake, I am fully responsible for causing your death. Ms. Drew intended to hurt the girl, but drove her to suicide instead. She clearly shares some responsibility in the girl's death.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
On cross examination, defense attorney H. Dean Steward quizzed Chu on why she didn't report the two conversations to the police or FBI after Megan's suicide. Chu didn't become a witness in the case until the FBI phoned her up for the first time last Thursday, even though she has a relative in the Bureau.
Chu answered that she thought her boss at the salon had been in touch with the FBI and prosecutors. "I understood that she was taking care of it." Hairdresser: Drew Thought MySpace Hoax Made a 'Funny Story'
Maybe evidence that the DA needed was withheld.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
yes. People are not taking responsibility here. Like the parents who let an emotionally unstable girl go on the internet unsupervised or the fact that she tried to talk to her mom before she commited suicide. Lets focus on the person who said some mean nasty words to her.
She's guilty of being a big bad meanie on the internet. That's about it. No one can be held responsible for someone killing themselves other than the person who actually did the killing.
Besides that, wtf is violating the TOS BS coming into play? I don't see how that's even a crime.
Probably not murder, but I'd say Wrongful Death has a chance. Unless, of course, your in Maricopa County, Arizona (Sheriff Joe Country).
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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
If Ms. Drew is legally responsible for this girl's death, then should rappers be responsible for someone doing drive-bys because they heard it in the lyrics, or, to use an old reference, should Beavis and Butthead be responsible for some kids burning down a trailer park because the cartoon characters were pyros?
Inciting to Riot comes to mind
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I got the impression she was a domineering helicopter mom constantly interfering in her daughter's life from the wired article. Her daughter got into a "fight" with Megan and it sounded like it was over and forgotten and/or forgiven but her Mom couldn't let it go. In most states the Mom might have easily been convicted of stalking, involuntary manslaughter, and conspiracy which would easily put her into 3 time loser category for an extra 5 years as well. Pathetic isn't the word I would chose, predatory is.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Imagine that this could happen face to face... wait, it has. Should I/they sue them/me? Social empathy isn't the argument, its whether or not she is responsible for her murder.
There probably will not be that big a wad of cash anyways, Drew had to close her advertising business due to the community shunning her and anyone foolish enough to advertise with her company.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What's needed is proper education of jurors that they are that sanity check.
Unfortunately that's pretty much up to the judge. The judge instructs the jurors as to how to do their job.
In the end, the judge seems to be the sanity check, because they decide not the guilt, but the penalty for being found guilty. (within the guidelines of what law was broken)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If you physically take an action that physically does some damage, then yes, that's a definite action - reaction.
If you say something, you have no control over how that person may respond to what is being said. (you may have an idea, but you really cannot tell).
That's the trouble with mental abuse, it leaves no visible (physical / tangible) marks that point to what / who caused them.
In this case there's clearly evidence showing that the woman taunted the girl, in an attempt to drive down her self worth. I'm guessing it was not her intent that the girl kill herself...
It's a real mess, and I don't envy the jury that has to decide this case...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
I remember a bit about this case. This woman masqueraded as a teenage boy and had "romantic" chats with this girl before telling her that it was all a joke, and that no one could really like her. At some point the woman actually said something to the effect of 'nobody likes you, and I heard that you've talked about suicide, that would probably be a good idea'.
Yeah, if I were on that jury, her best bet would be to get a psychiatrist in there and claim that she's severely emotionally stunted and slightly mentally deficient.
Further, people who go online in social contact areas have prior knowledge that all kinds of nonsense may occur. They are free never to enter or to surf to another type of site at any time.
I would like to add that Megan Meier and Lori Drew's daughter had....on many occasions....violated the terms of service.
1. The terms of service state you need to be 14 to sign up for an account. I believe the two girls were as young as 12.
2. The girls created accounts under false names and presented themselves as attractive older girls so they could talk to boys.
Megan's mother banned Megan from using the Site for a period of time because she KNEW they were misrepresenting themselves. When this boy started acting erratically, they should have thought the situation over logically.....Megan's mother in particular as she was the adult...knowing what kind of stuff goes down on those type of sites.
This could create a dangerous standard. I've signed up on a lot of odd web sites that I did not feel terribly comfortable divulging too much of my true identity. Heck, my Boss is a 54 year old guy who is about as "Good" of a person as I've met. When he created his first Yahoo account a decade ago he did so under a false name and gender because he didn't want to give out personal information. It kind of became his "Thing" so every account he has for that type of service is under his alter ego.
and they need to be instructed that they're free to ignore the judge if they think (s)he's gibbering like a plate of beans trying to negotiate its way out of a cow's digestive system. Which was my point.
All jurors need to be given the same standard documentation which details their responsibilty to be the sanity check:
That stuff should also be taught in civics lessons. Repeatedly. Knowing how a law is made is useful, knowing how to ensure that it's applied justly is far more important.
I'm not saying that's how it does work, I'm saying that's how it should work. The right to be treated equally under the law absolutely requires that the manner in which a person is judged is not largely dependent on the way that the judge directs the jury.
FGD 135
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".
But then who will pester the pesters to kill themselves? Maybe we should have some sort of übertroll to make them all fight each other. Hell, I'd do it. Then I'd be the only troll in a world of victim. Soon I'd be President, and then Supreme Leader.
You should kill yourself for suggesting this by the way. You're a despicable, worthless excuse for a human being.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Very nice intertwining of insults and attempted insight, I applaud you. It's good to see your so firmly on the moral high ground while I obviously am idiotic scum.
... I believe this woman should potentially be convicted of harassment / stalking / intimidating a minor. One of those has to be illegal. But I don't see her responsible for murder.
I never said she shouldn't be held accountable of some sort, but is she responsible for murder? No, I do not think she is. I'm also sorry that I don't see how everyone should be required to "offer support" to every individual they see. I'm not defending this woman, what she did is horrible. But I don't see why you think the girl who killed herself has *no responsibility* for her own choices. People come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them don't mesh well with the reality that has been forced upon them. In short, what happens to you may not be your choice, but how you *deal* with it is your choice. You may believe the world should coddle every soul that enters it but reality doesn't match that.
As for punishment
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
First of all, I didn't say that the girl's suicide should be treated as a murder.
My response to that person was based on the fact that *they* thought that person was responsible for murder. The girl was responsible for killing herself, the woman is responsible for harassing her / stalking / intimidating her. That was my point about people being responsible for their own actions, not the actions that someone else chooses to make.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Oi, I was responding to the persons post, not the article or the actual charges. Try reading the whole thing next time. Key point they made "it's *still* murder."
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
That is only if you physically injure them to the point of death....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
No it doesn't. He hasn't actually made a threat ("I will beat Lori Drew with a tire iron"), and he hasn't shown the "means" to carry out the threat. He made a vague statement that if he were given five minutes alone with her and a tire iron, that something would happen.
I actually had a frat boy neighbor threaten me once. It was 4 AM and after being woken up repeatedly by their drunken idiocy (kept coming home, then leaving), I had had enough and went and told them to keep it quiet. The occupants then essentially said "you had better not come back and bother us any more or you'll regret it" (the exact wording escapes me; it's been years ago now.) I called the police to report the noise complaint and the threat, and the officer that showed up essentially told me that it can't even be considered a "threat" unless he was waving a gun or knife, or at the very least had clenched fists or made an aggressive gesture, and that he could do nothing about it.
So this is most definitely not even a threat, let alone an "assault".
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
fair enough
Why bother
No. Im only despicable and worthless if she actually offs herself because of my ideas.
Not necessarily. Someone depressed as a teenager may outgrow it to become a fully functioning adult.
My interpretation of those statutes is that they are for tax purposes, since civil unions are not prohibited, but the tax benefitting status of marriage is, which should be reserved for a family unit capable of reproduction, as the tax benefits are intended to support a continuance of the species.
This is BS. If that's the case, why would a childless marriage receive tax benefits while a lesbian couple with kids conceived through the sperm bank would not?
So remember: next time you tell someone to "fuck off and die" when they're being assholes you could end up being charged with hacking if they're mentaly unstable enough to go through with it.
Were there no harrasment laws that could have dealt with this situation?
but the tax benefitting status of marriage is, which should be reserved for a family unit capable of reproduction, as the tax benefits are intended to support a continuance of the species.
Wow... people actually believe this garbage???
So say you wander too close to the microwave tomorrow and get steralised- if you're married already your marriage should be annuled and if you're not married already you should lose the right to marry?
Fantastic idea!
Or is this a thin excuse for for homophobia?
yes but capone really had commited fraud.
The problem with this is that if years from now you register an account at a site under "john doe" or some other fake name, or break the TOS in other ways keeping in mind that site owners can put any crazy shit in the terms of service then this precedent makes you guilty of hacking.
Posting fads on a site where it's against the TOS? Hacking.
Failing to mark a link as NSW on boards where it's against the TOS? Hacking.
See where this is going?
Given that I can put anything I like into a TOS- I've never heard of any legal restrictions, what's to stop me making it against the TOS to register on my board if you're black? Then I can charge those to violate with hacking.