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.
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
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
Sorry, but it's not "murder". It was a terrible thing that she did and she should be punished for it, but it was not actually murder.
In any case, we live under the rule of law. And one consequence of that is that sometimes people do terrible things that are not covered by the law. In that case, these people should go free. It's terrible, but it's vastly superior to the anarchy that results when there is no rule of law.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
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?
It was a terrible thing that she did and she should be punished for it,
Would you argue that she should be punished even if the young girl had just shrugged it off and got on with her life?
The punishment should be based on an act, not on somebody's reaction to that act. Either an action 'ABC' is a crime or it is not - that should not depend on someone's reaction to 'ABC'.
I brought up anarchy because it's what punishing this person implies.
It may or may not be reasonable to cover the law such that this offense can be punishable the next time it happens. That's really a separate debate, but I'm not arguing against it here.
What's unreasonable is deciding that this person must be punished even though her action was not against the law. By all means, advocate that the law should be changed. But if you believe in the rule of law at all, this person should be set free!
As for the definition of "murder", you can quibble over the English definition but clearly what she did is not covered by the legal definition, otherwise the prosecutors would have charged her with it.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
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
Really? So if I accidentally shoot someone while hunting, and that person gets hit in the arm and has to have surgery, I should get charged as heavily as if that person got hit in the head and died?
As far as this case goes... it's not murder, certainly. I don't think she should be (and isn't) held accountable for the death of the person. However, if she actually was messing with the girl's mind and thus had power over her and told her to kill herself, basically, and she does it... she actually DOES deserve harsher consequences than if the result was otherwise.
Think of a cult leader that has a mental sway over someone as opposed to a wacko that has no charisma at all. If a wacko is going around saying the world would be better without this person or that person, that's one thing; if it's a cult leader (or a parent, a spouse, etc) that has some mental/psychological leverage, it's a lot different.
Not to say that I believe in some weird mental phenomena and psychic powers... but intent has something to do with it, too. I could jokingly tell someone they should kill themselves, and I could seriously try to get them to do it with just words. There IS a big difference. Which is why people like Kevorkian should not be allowed to do the sick things they want to do, and why doctors should not be allowed to encourage suicide (or, IMO, help it.. unfortunately, Washington (state) thinks otherwise).
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
That's an interesting interpretation of the law or morality but I don't think you'll find that it matches the real world even a little bit.
Forget to feed your baby and he cries a lot and shrugs it off: no consequences.
Forget to feed your baby and he dies: you go to prison for a very long time.
Go 25MPH over the speed limit and get caught by a cop: expensive speeding ticket.
Go 25MPH over the speed limit and kill a van full of girl scouts: you go to prison for a very long time.
Plan to kill somebody and screw it up: go to prison for a little while.
Plan to kill somebody and succeed: get the chair.
Need I go on? Outcomes matter.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
No, it's not. Said person always had a choice to live; a murder victum does not get that choice. You're trivializing murder.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
Twisting laws to "get the bad guy" is anarchy. The laws are supposed to be specific. If we allow your line of thinking, any law can be twisted to convict anyone of anything. It's also inconsitent, since the same situation might come up and not be tried at all, or be tried by twisting around another law. That sounds pretty choatic to me.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
See.. your arguing based on your emotion, not law. You're redefining murder to suit your own ends, and then calling THAT justice.
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
Yes, because you caused them to fall by pushing them. Name calling is not at all like pushing someone off a cliff. Get a grip.
"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.
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.
Creating laws to charge people with after the fact is a fast track to tyranny. There is no rule of law per se only the state's will to prosecute, since everyone has necessarily broken laws that are not yet written. Please review history.
Sorry dude, murder it is not. She was not charged with a murder or a homocide. She was not charged with anything but a breach of the terms of service. That is it. The charge was and is fair. If you want to prosecute somebody for murder you need to find an appropriate indictment. In fact, one could argue that this woman is not going to get a fair trial due to the extreme publicity of this case and thus these charges could be tossed out on an appeal. All a good laywer has to do is to find a hole in defense that shows how being accused of murder affected the outcome of the trial. I hope that this happens becuase we cannot mis-apply the law no matter what.
It sucks that our law does not cover every particular situation but that's the way things work. That's why we cannot legally detain people for longer than X hours without pressing the charges or deport individuals who have no home state if the gov't strips them off their citizenship/legal residence. That's why we have statutes of limitations on everything but the most grusome crimes. That's why we select a group of piers who will debate on a case and produce a verdict. Emotion has never been or should be any part of the criminal procedure by design and it is our duty to make rational decisions based only on the facts that pretain to the case. If we don't do that we break the same justice system we want to "fix."
On the plus side this woman can still face civil charges. Also, the facts that were not admissable in the criminal court can be used in civil trials and various hearings which could impact further fines.
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!
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.
Either an action 'ABC' is a crime or it is not - that should not depend on someone's reaction to 'ABC'.
Okay, I guess I can try to murder my friend who is allergic to peanuts by putting peanuts in his food, and get away with it. Hey, feeding peanuts to someone isn't a crime!! So even though I knew he was allergic to peanuts and he could possibly die, I shouldn't receive any punishment, right?
The crime in this case should be that Lori Drew tormented a girl who had depression and risked the girl's life by psychologically hurting her. Since there was no "Making a Myspace persona to incite an individual's suicide" crime, the prosecution found another crime that was already in the books (but generally never enforced, and probably won't be enforced in the future except for extreme cases like this) that she did commit and used those as reason to punish her. This obviously isn't the most efficient way to serve justice, but I do think justice was served in this particular case.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
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.
An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.
paintball
#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).
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)
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.
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.
Whether punishment should be based on outcomes, or not, in fact it is. It's called the "thin-skill rule" or the "eggshell skull rule". The rule says that defendants take their victims as they find them.
This means that if a defendant tortiously or criminally torments someone, traumatizing him so badly that he kills himself, then the defendant can be held liable for the victim's death. This rule applies even if the defendant could not foresee the unexpectedly dramatic results of his actions, such as might be the case if the victim was predisposed to suicide. It only applies if the act is a tort or a crime, though, like if the defendant were harassing the victim. The reason is simple: courts do not want to allow defendants to build their cases on the vulnerability of their victims.
That's exactly what Lori Drew said. Look where it got her.