Slashdot Mirror
Lori Drew Trial Results In 3 Misdemeanor Convictions
grassy_knoll writes "As a follow up to an earlier story, the Lori Drew 'cyber-bullying' trial has resulted in misdemeanor convictions." grassy_knoll quotes from the AP story as carried by Salon: "The Los Angeles federal court jury on Wednesday rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.
However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization.
The jurors could not reach a verdict on a conspiracy count.
Prosecutors said Drew violated the MySpace terms of service by conspiring with her young daughter and a business assistant to create a fictitious profile of a teen boy on the MySpace social networking site to harass Megan.
Megan, who had been treated for depression, hanged herself in 2006 after receiving a message saying the world would be better without her."
Adds reader gillbates: "She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines — a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym."
She's an asshole though.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
if you sign up under a pseudonym... don't kill anyone.
(and before everyone screams at me, yes I understand just how badly this precedent can be used)
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym.
This has nothing to do with registering under a pseudonym. This has to do with psychological stalking and trauma. Please pull your head out of your ass. I'm sure it's hard to breathe up there.
It's far more troubling that she is getting away with murder. But then the so-called Justice system is not and has never really been interested in justice.
Sure, driving someone to edge to kill themselves is wrong, but 3 years?
Couldn't the victim at least tell her parents about what was happening? :facepalm:
This is when I bet the CyberSitter nannystaters will start jumping in going "U CULD ATLEAST MONOTIR HUR INTERNETZ!!!!1111oneoneone!!!!"
nonexistent sig
I don't think that putting her away for life is appropriate, let alone the death penalty.
That being said, I also don't like the idea of an adult conspiring to harass an emotionally unstable child (aren't they all).
This is a good decision, so long as it is upheld. 300K fine and a (relatively) short jail term is enough to ruin a life for anyone not upper class, and will likely act as a deterrent to others that think that conspiring to harass someone online is just fun and games.
Now mod me to oblivion.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
"She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines - a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym."
I'm not actually troubled much by this at all. This is what happens to someone who falsifies their information to use an online service TO A BAD END.
That's actually a good precedent.
Can it be warped? Sure, but so can everything else. I personally feel that three misdemeanor convictions are a PERFECT fit for what happened, and would like to see similar charges brought against future 'cyber bullies' going forward with similar results. The penalties sound a bit harsh, but I'm sure they will be whittled to 90 days in a white-collar work camp, just as they were for the 'Spam King'.
I used to enjoy logging in as someone else; no more trolling the retirement chat rooms as a 74 year old chinese woman. :(
is that Ashley Grills, who wrote the actual message about the world being better off without Megan Meier, had immunity protection from being prosecuted, for testifying against Lori Drew! This woman is just as evil as Lori Drew, and should be punished as well!
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
was it conspiracy to harass? Is that a crime? I'd imagine if it was, she was surely guilty of that. The jurors obviously wanted to hit her with something, why not that?
Owning a crowbar is not a crime. Using it to bash in the skull of your neighbor is a major felony. Likewise, it isn't illegal to have a pseudonym.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
And then used it to successfully encourage someone to kill themselves. So much for freeing up some low digit slashdot IDs for recycling. Cowboyneal, I take back all those things I said about you, DON'T DO IT MAN!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
By launching criminal charges against anyone who posts on 4chan's /b/ board for using the pseudonym "Anonymous" on their posts, and sending us all to jail?
I predict that it'll be a useful tool for stopping severe cyber bullying. While I do find the ramifications troubling in some respects, the ruling here seems to be specifically on the grounds that her goal for violating the ToS was to commit a crime. The big problem with this ruling is that there are a lot of crimes that can be committed when we don't mean them to be, such as copyright infringement (fair use ain't always obvious).
This case probably has a 50/50 chance of being overturned in appeals, so I wouldn't worry about it since this is a stretch of the Computer Fraud Act and appeals courts tend to be more conservative in their tolerance of twisted prosecutorial language.
While Megan's death is tragic, I cannot approve of this abuse of the justice system being twisted just to find something, anything, to nail Lori Drew with. It sets dangerous precedents in an already fucked-up-beyond-repair system.
Certainly Drew deserved punishment, but if everybody using the internet was punished for causing emotional distress over the internet, we'd all be in jail. Keep in mind that that is all she did. She didn't go kill the girl with her bare hands.
I think a public beating would be more appropriate and cheaper to society as a whole. Give the bitch a few emotional and physical scars of her own to remind her that shit like this will not be tolerated. But computer crimes? Seriously, what the fuck?
Question everything
...to me is that it seems the only thing she was really convicted of was "accessing a computer without authorization". Does that mean that if we talked over IRC or some P2P chat or sent an e-mail or whatever where you didn't explicitly agree to a ToS regarding the service, that this would be completely legal? Because if that's the case, it's an absurd penalty for breaking a ToS and pretty wierd that there's no other law to deal with somebody harassing a kid to death. Or maybe I'm completely misreading this?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
According to wikipedia Meier was taking Celexa, Concerta, and Geodon.
Celexa is an SSRI anti-depressant medication. SSRI meds are associated with the following side effects:
Manic Reaction (Mania, e.g., Kleptomania, Pyromania, Dipsomania)
Abnormal Thinking
Hallucinations
Personality Disorder
Amnesia
Agitation
Psychosis
Abnormal Dreams
Emotional Lability (Or Instability)
Alcohol Abuse and/or Craving
Hostility
Paranoid Reactions
Confusion
Delusions
Sleep Disorders
Akathisia (Severe Inner Restlessness)
Discontinuation (Withdrawal) Syndrome
On September 14, 2004 the FDA added a Black Box Warning in regard to antidepressants & suicidality in those under age 18
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/slides/2004-4065s2.htm
On September 14, 2004 the FDA mandated that pharmacies provide to all parents or guardians for those younger than 18 an Antidepressant Patient Medication Guide. This guide reads (in part) "Call healthcare provider right away if you or your family member has any of the following symptoms: Acting aggressive, being angry, or violent & acting on dangerous impulses." This Antidepressant Patient Medication Guide also states "Never stop an antidepressant medicine without first talking to a healthcare provider. Stopping an antidepressant medicine suddenly can cause other symptoms."
On December 13, 2006, the Black Box Warning for suicidality was updated to include those under age 25. The Black Box Warning is included in the insert to the drugs and in the Physicians' Desk reference.
Note how Meier was also taking Geodon, which is used for schizophrenia, acute mania, and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. She was clearly being affected negatively by the anti-depressant Celexa. Instead of taking her off the medication her doctors gave her more medication!
The role that these drugs played in the suicide of this poor girl haven't been investigated. That doesn't excuse the behavior of the women, but does it warrant jail time and a large fine? Shouldn't her parents, doctors and FDA officials, pharma companies also be liable for putting her on these meds?
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Why isn't there simply a law which states that bullying/talking someone into killing themselves is illegal?
No computer or internet specific laws seem necessary.
Is it me, or do many laws seem to tightly bound to a specific technology..
Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
What if I'm mentally unstable and after reading your post I get so distraught that I kill myself?
You fucking murderer! I hope they put you in the chair for that.
If this stands, this sets a terrible precedent. Suppose some ambitious prosecutor has decided that you must have committed a Federal crime by using a pseudonym to have a nasty war of words with someone on a chat forum on a politically touchy subject, in violation of the Terms of Service? He can use this terrible precedent to railroad you on charges of "unauthorised access", claiming it has nothing to do with, say, opposing abortion on demand, or supporting it, or whatever. If you don't think this can happen, well, it *has* happened, over and over, with other laws meant for originally limited purposes. The anti-Mafia RICO laws come to mind. There is indeed a slippery slope here, and a steep one at that.
Prosecuting what can only be called a venomous viper isn't worth it for what it'll cost all of us.
You might also find it mildly interesting to check out this slightly newer thread and this slightly older thread at The Volokh Conspiracy, both begun by Mr. Orin Kerr, who is one of the attorneys for Ms. Lori Drew.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
...so sue me!
Aliases are liabilities? This could totally bankrupt some people.
14x300,000 = $4,200,000
twitter will have to open a bank and ask for a bailout...
My real name is not B5_geek. I think some/one of you should go kill (your)/(them)selves.
Hey you! Yeah you, the one behind the screen typing at a keyboard. You should go hang yourself. I am a sexy women who thinks you are pitiful.
Grr
You are ugly and dumb!
ok, I think that covers it. Send me to jail.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
"In a majority of jurisdictions, however, the offense is committed when death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor."
Works for me
Personally I would have thought the adult womans malicious acts of emotional abuse on a child would have constituted reckless endangerment then they could have gone for felony murder.
And a protest against the State's conviction of Lori Drew, I propose the following usenet group list:
alt.meganmeier.dead.dead.dead
Note how Meier was also taking Geodon, which is used for schizophrenia, acute mania, and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder
That is stated in the article
She was clearly being affected negatively by the anti-depressant Celexa. Instead of taking her off the medication her doctors gave her more medication!
I could not find anything to support that claim. While indeed the symptoms could have been side-effects of the anti-depressant, it is also possible that those symptoms were present before. The wikipedia article also mentions that she was under the care of a psychiatrist from age 3, so there was probably quite a bit going on that wasn't disclosed in that page.
I agree that the anti-depressants do have negative side-effects for some patients, that has been demonstrated. However, the links you provided don't support your claim of her other psychiatric symptoms being the direct result of those medications.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Don't confuse the two. The Law is about mediating relations between people, providing some semblance of order and consistency. Justice is a dark god who demands blood for blood.
A killer gets away. Fine. Justice wasn't done. But was the law appropriately applied? That's the question.
This is an excellent way to resolve this. There may not be law on the books to handle this type of "obviously" criminal action, but in the future there will be. The punishment is about right for a crime like this, perhaps a bit more. But the second side to all this is that her name is ALL over the press now, which doesn't usually happen for all death crimes.
Her next job interview will be VERY interesting, which I like very much as a punishment.
K
For getting retribution/justice in this case, filing a civil case against Mrs Drew seems like a much more appropriate and potentially fruitful course of action.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Am I the only one who cannot understand why they went this stupid direction rather than processing using a relevent law. (Yes I know they said they they could not find any law applicable...)
To me this seems just as bad as when some companyt slaps "on the internet" onto some existing thing and try to patent it/otherwise claim control over it.
Surely mental torture is covered by an existing law. "On the internet" is neither here nor there.
Maybe it's just me but I'm sick of this "on the internet" bollocks.
+----------------- | What is the question!
Doing things for the lulz has been ruled illegal and could land you in jail.
And good fucking riddance to you, too.
Hope you don't get raped in the ass too often!
The conspiracy charge resulted in a mistrial, and I believe she may still be prosecuted for that on top of what she has already been convicted of.
She should have asked for help on /b/.
Well, in Texas, don't they have enshrined in their legal system the doctrine of "He done needed killin"
That's been unavailable as a defense for probably more than 100 years.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
I am so dumbfounded at this that words escape me.
What's next, I say you're dumb, and I get sued ?
After that, I say I don't like you, and get sued.
Finally, I decline to make a positive comment and I get sued.
Sorry, this is just idiotic.
Time for all you damn wimps to crawl back to mommy, and don't come out again until you can face the real world.
Yep, it's not Candy Land, it's reality, and sometimes it hurts.
An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.
paintball
I am annoyed that there's less focus on direct abuse of a child here, though. I think the conspiracy charge is valid but the key issue here is this is an adult who consciously manipulated and mentally abused a child with malicious intent.
The charges here focus on the act of deception and abusing a website, which seriously aren't the problem here. She didn't steal MP3s; she tormented a teenage girl. This is about bullying and wanting to hurt a person, and that's the issue that needs to be addressed.
--M.
I'm terrified by the vast amount of utter morons on THIS site.
You morons need to put your feelings aside and look at the black and white matters here.
1. There was no law against what this person did.
2. In an effort to placate emotional whiners like you, the federal prosecutor drummed up specious and UNRELATED charges to base a trial on.
3. The trial relied on emotional draw to gain a conviction where NO LAW WAS BROKEN.
4. This conviction sets a precedent that using a false name like Anonymous Coward, CmdrTaco or Cowboy Neal online can be illegal!
5. The *rule* that was broken and effectively prosecuted as law was actually a corporate terms of service. This creates a situation where ANY corporation can create ANY rule they want and potentially prosecute it as federal law!!
This prosecution is INSANE!
the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization
- now can you explain to everyone, how is this related to this:
psychological stalking and trauma
?
You are the one, who has to pull your head out of your ass, it must have stuck really hard in there.
She is not convicted on anything related to the suicide of the girl, she is convicted on accessing a computer without authorization. Where is the real conviction for the suffering she caused? There is none, because there is no law that says a person cannot pretend to be someone else to gather some information, specifically when it is a situation between two private individuals. Maybe there should be a law that says a grown up cannot pretend to be someone else to manipulate a child, ok fine, but a law like this does not exist.
So what has happened here is that a case was created in criminal court that eventually will be used to convict an otherwise honest person of something, anything in fact, by using this case.
Exactly who is innocent now? Basically everyone with a computer has created an account, an email account, a forum account, whatever account where they did not provide their own name (and/or address). So now almost EVERYONE can be convicted based on this if the government just wants to convict a person because the person has something that the government wants or has done something that is not actually illegal, but the government objects to it.
What if the girl was not contacted via MySpace account? What if she had received a real piece of snail mail with a fake photo in it from this woman? What if the woman hired an actor-boy to do the same thing?
The woman's actions are bad not because she 'accessed a computer without authorization', but because she didn't care for the feelings of the girl she was manipulating. Do not allow the government to make every single person into a criminal on a whim.
You can't handle the truth.
#1. What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and disgusting, but not illegal.
#2. She is not responsible for Megan's suicide in any way shape or form any more than you'd be responsible for my suicide if you told me to "fuck off and die" because you don't like this post.
#3. Using dubious interpretations of the legal system to persecute those who some feel have violated the social compact or acted outside of the bounds of what we consider to be normal decent behavior, yet who haven't violated a law is not only wrong, it's extremely dangerous and undermines everything that this country is supposed to stand for.
#4. Some people need to come off of it - your need to feel some sort of vindication by seeing that this woman is punished does not outweigh the damage done by this ruling to the rest of our rights. I am sure she is suffering for this, and I am sure she didn't really think that this girl would kill herself. Even if she did, that isn't a crime. People are responsible for their own actions - the world is a mean place, and if you're looking for someone to blame foir her suicide it makes more sense to blame her parents (though I don't think they are to blame either - depression is a bitch).
if you're also going to post harassing and demeaning comments as part of your pseudonymous communication.
Especially on a site like Myspace.
If you want to be a jerk on Slashdot, nobody will ever care.
Adds reader gillbates: "She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines â" a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym."
Oh please, what a BS thing to say. There is a world of difference in going by a pseudonym online and abusing anonymity to inflict harm and persecute someone with a mental illness.
It's because Megan's Law was already taken.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
The problem with cases such as this which have no real precedent is that cooler heads often do not prevail. Although I am pleased that the jury rejected the cyberbullying argument, I don't understanding the accessing a computer without authorization charge. I could be wrong, but if she used her daughter's computer (or even her own), the charge she was found guilty on seems spurious at best. My brief research into California law regarding computer crime indicates that, at this point at least, statutes only cover actual white-collar crime, not childish pranks such as this. My hope is that this charge gets overturned on appeal. Although what Drew did was despicable, let the legislature pass a law on cyberbullying. Don't put something like this in the hands of the court.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
This is not about using a fake name to sign on to a web site! such actions do not fall under this law!
This is about providing False information to access a computer (Which really is all that hacking is) with the intent to cause harm or damage. The are TWO clear elements of this crime
1-unauthorized access
2-intent to inflict harm.
you must do both to be guilty and the jury decided she did (correctly in my opinion)
â" a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym.
Yes, this is troubling in the same way that Al Capone's trial should be troubling for anyone who ever was less than 100% honest on their income taxes.
Al Capone was prosecuted FOR cheating on his taxes but BECAUSE of the murders and mayhem he committed. Tax evasion was just the way that the system was able to exact justice for the other crimes that wouldn't stick.
I see this case in a similar way.
I'm drunk and very ranty, and I fully understand what precedent is being set, and I also know that I'll end up on charges some day if this stands as it is (who doesn't make fake accounts?), however, there is a strong point to be made.
Repeal this bullshit and start again. Start again with assisted homicide. Start again with harassment. Start again with breach of the peace. Start again with anything, but don't let this twisted, disgusting pile of shit get away with the *fact* that she was instrumental in driving another human being to suicide.
Yes it's a fucking slippery slope, and yes it's difficult to say what might become of any law that tries to punish this woman.
However, there HAS to be some way this woman can be brought to justice. What she and her cronies did was utterly despicable.
Cripes I'm getting riled up.
I've re-read everything I've posted and after a few deep breaths I still agree so.. submit.
Use of a pseudonym is not a "Get Out Of Jail Free" Card.
It is not a grant of immunity from any civil action. You remain legally responsible for the consequences of your actions - no less than in the world outside.
Whining, spineless imbeciles. Toughen-up you pussies.
If this stands, this sets a terrible precedent.
That IS how it works...
First they go after the worst scumbag available to set the precedent. Then, once it's solidly established, they use it on anybody they want to harass.
A child abuser is normally the first target. The only thing special about this case is that the abuse didn't have as much of a sexual component as is typical.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Lori Drew NEVER created the MySpace account, her "friend" who ratted Lori Drew out for immunity is the one that setup the account. There's actually no evidence that Lori Drew even ACCESSED the account.
So yes, she's a bitch for thinking it would be funny to do this to Megan. Even more so that she thought of some things to say. But there isn't any evidence she sent any of those, like there is for her daughter and her "friend".
And now we have a terrible legal precedent. If this was a US District Court then it affects the whole nation as well.
And for what? Because a whole lot of people feel that *morally* there was a wrong here and can't be adults for 10 seconds to handle the *legality* of her actions.
Hell, the prosecutor didn't even try to bring some easy charges about harassment and hate speech. Remember kids, now you can't say "die in a fire" because that person might just go torch their own ass. The precedent is there.
There's a difference between forgetting to feed your baby a meal and forgetting to feed your baby so many meals that it dies.
There's a difference between going 25 MPH over the speed limit and going 25 MPH over the speed limit and also killing a van full of girl scouts at the same time.
Need I go on? Outcomes matter only when they indicate what your dumb ass has done.
She should have been charged with felony harm to a minor and homicide (of some kind, depending on the local laws). The "through a computer" part is what confuses people.
Try this. Your emotionally disturbed 13 year old neighbor is up on her roof getting ready to jump to her death. You, an adult, are first on the scene. You shout, "You ugly bitch, the world would be better off if you just jumped. I would say that your parents are ashamed of you, but I'm pretty sure he's not your real dad, since your mom fucked every man that walked up to the door, not to mention the ones she picked up on the street corner for crack money. You should jump and they'll be happy, and I will be happy too." Then, she jumps. Would you charge her with illegal access to a neighbor's roof? That's absurd. That's not even related to what happened. You charge her with the crime she did. She found someone she didn't like. She purposefully targeted them. She intended to cause harm. She caused harm. That harm resulted in a death. That's homicide (and a pile of other "little" felonies). I'm really confused as to why there is so much confusion. I would take from this result that it's perfectly ok for an adult to take actions that result in the death of a minor, as long as they don't use a computer or a firearm.
Learn to love Alaska
Posting to undo a mismoderation.
You can have my pseudonym when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
for trying to seduce a minor under an alias.
Why do men who do that get felony convictions but women like Lori Drew who do it get a slap on the wrist and misdemeanor charges instead of being a convicted sex offender? She solicited the girl for sex and then told her the world would be better off without her and caused her to hang herself.
The average Internet troll does not seduce the victim for sex, but rather does personal attacks on them instead.
Only Kuro5hin and other shitty web sites do the "Shotgun mouthwash now!" troll. Some victims fall for that troll and kill themselves, is that the same as what Lori Drew did?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I learned it in unix chat, the "extinct" version of msn chat..in a big hurry. The attitude that climbs from your self if you act as the title states. It does not take much to even make a misunderstanding of different english dialect to set off emotional reactions. This suicide , it seems to me, was predictable starting in the 90s. There is a punishment, and i hope it goes through with an offense seious enough to be written accordingly.
This woman was horrible, preying upon a young girl with known weaknesses, kind of like what happens in prison. The law, however, is not really set up to prosecute this. If I were her, though, I'd check my brake lines regularly.
heh... I know a guy who got sentenced 90 days in prison for not sitting down fast enough when the judge ordered him to. Think I'm hyperbolizing? video. blogs.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Scientologists soon to be telling judges that they are having suicidal thoughts due to Anonymous activities on the web.
1. Daughter not liked by some other kid ...
2. Some other kid's mom makes fake MySpace account, acts like boy, gets daughter liking said boy, said "boy" then dumps daughter and says world better without her.
3. Daughter kills self. Other kid's mother and others indicted for internet bullying and contributing to daughter's suicide.
4. Mother found guilty on lesser charges.
5.
6. Mother of dead daughter takes Mother of bitch girl who helped drive daughter to killing herself to court on a wrongful death suit, wins, causing contributory mother, daughter, and their family a lifetime of being poor
7. PROFIT!
See, it was a plan to get rich the whole time!
Troubling NOT as long as you don't act like a complete asshole and harass someone literally to death!
This has NOTHING to do with "a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym." Every website I've ever registered on warns about this type of behavior and makes it very clear they WILL cooperate with law enforcement.
None of this crap is relevant.
The original annotator hit the nail on the head. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Al Capone - racketeer, murderer, bootlegger, etc was convicted of tax evasion. I've told a couple of small fibs on tax returns in the past, but I don't expect to be given jail time for it - sometimes the law has to work around its own limitations to convict someone who has taken morally reprehensible actions that it lacks the power to punish directly. I have no more fear of being charged for using a fake name to register at a website (which I do regularly) than I do of serving a prison sentence for my minor tax infractions.
Congratulations, you have finally pushed me over the edge. I am going to kill myself now. Until I read that, I thought I could go on pretending, but You have shown me that the world would be better off without me. Goodbye cruel world!
By launching criminal charges against anyone who posts on 4chan's /b/ board for using the pseudonym "Anonymous" on their posts, and sending us all to jail?
"And nothing of value was lost..."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym.
No, dipshit, it's only troubling for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym in order to commit criminal activities. A bit of a difference, don't you think? Admittedly, the criminal activity itself (aside from its unexpectedly devastating consequences) was of a mild nature and at best an imperfect fit with the law under which she was prosecuted. But still, speaking as one who has registered with a number of websites under a pseudonym, this does not bother me even the tiniest little bit.
not the hysteria of those who rendered a verdict on this reprehensible woman
the hysteria of the slashdot crowd who thinks this case sets precedents that it does not actually set
there is no slippery slope
this case is such an extreme outlier, you have to be complete fool to confuse it with your typcial internet troll douchebaggery
the woman:
attacked a minor that she KNEW
that she KNEW was emotionally sick
and did so over an EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
it was carefully planned
it was directly and uniquely targetted
it was designed for emotional manipulation degradation
the cruelty went on for an extended period of time
she even suggested suicide to this emotionally disturbed minor, who she KNEW, and KNEW she was a minor and emotionally disturbed
no folks, this in absolutely NO way resembles any garden variety trolling situation, by any remote stretch of imagination
there is no slippery slope. there is no scary precedent
really. here's brown paper bag. breathe into it, stop with the idiotic hysterics over this case slashdot
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
my name is jill and i hope you all die, slashdot would be a better place without you
You can't take the sky from me.
So if you goad a young girl into killing herself, you end up doing jail time? Unbelievable.
This isn't your average anonymous posting incident, this is a direct abuse of the medium in order to harm somebody. Ethically, this should have resulted in homicide charges; establishing once and for all that psychological violence is still violence. How can Lori Drew claim she told a clinically depressive person to kill herself without intending her death?
This strikes close to home, because on the communities I moderate I have seen insecure and potentially suicidal people tormented on several occasions for fun (and I don't mean "learn to spell, moron"). This /b/tard behavior of "get a thicker skin" is disgusting; it's like walking up behind heart-failure patients and saying "BOO".
I'll shed my cynicism for a second and ask "can we just stop being assholes"?
"accessing a computer without authorization"
"accessing a computer without authorization", where the term means "using a pseudonym" As you said, this is a bad, bad precident. Anonymity is a necessary part of freedom. As someone else said, when you are restricting freedoms you don't arrest the white 30 year old mother of three, you go after the scary mexican guy first to set a precident. This is a terrible ruling and I pray to His Great and Noble Noodliness that it will be overturned posthaste.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/web/verdict-handed-down-in-myspace-suicide-trial/2008/11/27/1227491672826.html
first thing that came to mind when i saw drew's daughter
Jury convictions at trial courts do NOT set any sort of legal precedent. Future juries aren't bound by them in ANY WAY.
If another asshole manipulates a vulnerable kid to the point where he/she harms him/herself, another jury might or might not convict that asshole.
But there is NO jury that will convict you just for registering under a false name, whatever the law says. There's no DA that would bring a such a charge.
"Your feelings are not protected by the constitution of the United States of America. If your Pussy hurts, get some Vagisil." -- Carlos Mencia
Surely some kind of medal would be more appropriate, no?
You go onto Myspace to create a fake pseudonym to harass someone. This is against the ToS which you must agree to to use myspace. You then get caught for harassing someone. According to some people its ok because "nobody reads the ToS".
If I go out and stab someone, can I use the excuse "It's not my fault. I didn't know it was wrong because I didn't read up on what's legal and illegal to do"? If you don't agree, don't use the service! Ignorance is not an excuse.
Lori Drew accepted the ToS, and went against it. She got charged for it. If you violate it and get caught, then why should you be pitied either? It's your damn fault.
She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines -- a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym
Here we have some person who has mercilessly bullied a vulnerable child to suicide, and she is let off as easily as this. On the other hand, if a loving spouse helps their helpless, hopelessly ill other half end their suffering at their own request, the starting point for prosecution is a charge of murder. It seems to me that there is something desperately wrong with our society and laws, if you are a murderer for doing something good out of love, but it is only a misdemeanor when you cause the death of a child because you are a vicious bitch.
It seems to me that you completely and utterly miss the point here. The jury and the prossecution didn't have the tools needed to punish what was clearly an evil person committing callous acts of cruelty resulting in the death of a child; so they try to hit as hard as possible wherever possible. The problem here is not that you can now end up in jail for giving a false name on the web, but that the law is inadequate.
I've antagonized peers. People in my own age group, income group, and approximate mental status. As an adult, I don't antagonize young teenagers, or those subordinate to me at work, or people who I just think can't handle it mentally. Picking on my peer at work isn't the same thing as me, as an adult, targeting a young teenager to torment. What she did is unconscionable. What's more, she didn't just make a mean one-off statement in a fit of anger; she systematically set out to destroy this young girl's mental status. The thought of someone my age picking on a kid that age is no less repulsive than that of a person exploiting another kid's insecurities and need for love for sex. She got her kicks at tormenting a young teenager.
While it's horrible what this woman did, it's also horrible what's happening to her. When are the parents going to stnad up and accept some responsibility? The girl clearly had issues, and they let her go on the internet unmonitored? Guess they weren't worried about child predators either. The girl committed suicide, something was bound to set her off. It's like blaming video games for school shootings.
The issue was not registering with a pseudonym, the issue was the use of the fictional "character". ;)
Lori Drew should be publicly horsewhipped! I don't care if she used an alias, the fact that she, a 49 year old woman messed with the mind of an ill 13 year old is wrong on more levels than I can delineate. In fact I could make her punishment significantly worse. The only mitigation that I can possibly envision is that she herself is also mentally ill. She certainly demonstrates that she shares the mental age of her victim. In that case as good thrashing is what is in order...just like what you do to other delinquent kids.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Same old same old from the authoritarians on here. So long as someone gets put in jail, it doesn't matter that registering with a website under a net name is made a criminal offence along the way. I just hope they registered with Slashdot under their full legal names, that's all I hope. Are you football or baseball?
"She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines â" a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym."
Let me fix this for you
"She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines â" a troubling precedent for any [adult] who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym [to harass a child]."
There, now it's accurate. Of course, now you can't wear your tinfoil hat.
That's exactly what Lori Drew said. Look where it got her.
I hope sincerely that you don't work for any law-enforcement agency. That attitude of yours is what prompted the US founding fathers to create the Bill of Rights". The state is so powerful that it cannot just "find a way" to punish someone they think they "need" to punish.
But I also know and have seen power abused.
No need to open any more loopholes/take more power from the people.
Her prosecution, if !lawful!, needs to be approached carefully.
Best to own your own computer programs and SMTP server. If this stands, it has profound implications.