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."

59 of 568 comments (clear)

  1. Shit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She's an asshole though.

    1. Re:Shit by Windows_NT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea she is. Although im sure she wouldn't have done it if she knew what would happen, there are consequences. This story is kind of a nightmare for anyone, because im sure everyone here has harrased someone to a point where they might have felt bad about it. Picking on someone in class, or always giving shit to the person you dont like. Its too bad that happened, but for me, if reminds me just how much words can hurt someone. Make me think a little bit next time a give a death threat to the guy at McDonalds for putting no pickles on my burger instead of extra pickles.

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
    2. Re:Shit by Nursie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh YOU'RE the extra pickles guy.

      I always get your damn burger after I've ordered no pickles. Dammit.

    3. Re:Shit by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "She's an asshole though."

      Well, but, that is not against the law...if it were, well, the prisons would be bursting at the seams even moreso than they do now..

      I hope this gets tossed out on appeal. While what she did was reprehensible, this sets a dangerous precedent. You can get a misdemeanor conviction with jail time and heft fine just for joining something like myspace under false name, etc?

      Even if you think she is a bitch and should get some punishment for what she did....I'd hope you would not like to have a precedent of this type of conviction that could be used against someone doing something as innocuous as joining a website under a false name....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Herein lies the problem with the American way of life. If someone is an asshole to you they KNOW that you cant reach over and smack them in the face.

      It's why these jerks on the highways and roads, tailgaite you, cut you off, and generally put your life in danger for their convenience. If they knew that I would stop my car and kick their ass, they would not do it.

      Honestly a lot of people in his world need to be smacked in the head, all the way to having the ever living crap beat out of them. If that happened more and Judges had 1/4 a brain and said," you deserved to be smacked.. you cover all court costs and his costs as well." Then the world would be far more polite and less jerkwad filled.

      Yes that applies to cops too.. if a cop is an asshole, we deserve to be able to wait for him after work and kick his ass.

    5. Re:Shit by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      how so? i register on websites with pseudonyms all the time. this does not trouble me at all (other than the fact a grown woman would conspire with her daughter to bully a neighbor's kid, especially a young girl with emotional problems).

      the problem isn't with the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in this particular case. the problem is with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act itself. this incident actually resulted in the death of a girl and was motivated by deliberate malice. a maximum (which are rarely handed out to members of privileged social groups) of 3 years in jail and $300,000 doesn't seem any more ridiculous than handing out such punishments to well-intending security experts.

      i would be more disturbed by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act being applied to non-malicious teenage hackers breaking into un-secured government networks out of curiosity. if they can be faulted for "damages" that include the time spent investigating the intrusion and fixing the pre-existing security flaws, then certainly a grown woman can be punished for causing the death of a little girl.

      in any case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act needs major reforms, and perhaps making such ridiculous laws applicable to the general population will open people's eyes.

    6. Re:Shit by onkelonkel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, in Texas, don't they have enshrined in their legal system the doctrine of "He done needed killin"

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    7. Re:Shit by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "She's an asshole though."
      Well, but, that is not against the law...

      No, but fraud and harassment are. And this sounds like a pretty clear case of using a pseudonym in a fraudulent manner in order to harass an individual. I for one do NOT hope that the judgment is vacated.

    8. Re:Shit by JimDaGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with you for the most part. However, this case had A LOT OF EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE attached to it.

      Also, she didn't "innocuously" join a website under a false name. She did it for one purpose. To harass and bring emotional damage to a child, an emotionally unstable child at that.

      I also blame the parents of Megan for even letting her get on anti-depressants at such a young age. Those meds are harsh and should be only used under the care of a very, very good psychiatrist, note that I did NOT say psychologist. Huge, huge difference. I noticed a trend where a lot of non-medically trained psychologist are making recommendations about MEDICATIONS to their clients (they call them patients). This is very scary. Only a MEDICAL doctor should make those calls. Yet parents hear crap like ADD or ADHD from just a psychologist and run to their primary care doctor and tell him/her and bam the child is on very harsh drugs that DO have long-term effects and have been shown to cause suicidal thoughts. SSRI's.

      Hell, I am only 35, I was never drugged out by my parents for "mood swings" or my "lack of attention". I spent most of my time in high school with a boner and looking out the window. I turned out OK and with a good career.

      "Modern" parents, stop, stop, stop, drugging your kids because they don't fit into some model mold you created in your head. They are freaking kids for crying out loud.

      Would Megan still be alive if she never took SSRI's? No one could say that. However, I personally believe she would.

      Should we make this skank mother pay for what she did to Megan? No. She didn't break any laws, so let's not create new ones just for this waste of life.

      I personally don't want to have to worry about criminal charges because I didn't adhere to some big corps. EULA. Jeez.

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    9. Re:Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a "fighting words" clause in the US. Though, I was thinking Texas had something that if you used fighting words, you had the "right" to deck the guy saying them without having to prove any kind of self defense for punching him in the nose.

    10. Re:Shit by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      "No, but fraud and harassment are."

      As I said before...trouble is, she wasn't convicted of this really. She was convicted of basically breaking the myspace EULA. She wasn't convicted of harassment...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Shit by raehl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I spent most of my time in high school with a boner and looking out the window.

      Vegetation fetish, eh?

    12. Re:Shit by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "No, but fraud and harassment are."

      As I said before...trouble is, she wasn't convicted of this really. She was convicted of basically breaking the myspace EULA. She wasn't convicted of harassment...

      I feel you, and I hold out hope for the appeal but even if that never comes you can still take some small consolation in knowing the authorities won't be on this like white on rice. What I'm saying is the state needed to punish her, so the state found a way. It was about her, not about using a false name. It's similar to marijuana tax stamp laws currently enacted in a multitude of states. They are going to get you on something if they want to.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    13. Re:Shit by v3lut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you familiar enough with Megan's medical history, her treatment history, her symptoms and her prescribed medications and dosages to speak intelligently about them with the treating physician? If so, then you should write a paper, or at least an article on the subject.

      However, if you are basing your statements off the fact that antidepressants are carelessly over-prescribed in some cases, and completely unnecessary in other cases, without knowing for fact that this was actually the case in Megan's case, then I postulate that you don't actually know enough about what was going on to blame the parents for anything.

      What happened here was pretty messed up. I don't know exactly where I fall in all this, legally speaking. Morally speaking, I'm pretty clear on the subject. But to blame Megan's parents for letting her be prescribed antidepressants, without being able to speak in depth about what was being treated, how and by whom, is pretty weak. Being a parent is hard enough as it is.

      --
      http://downwithpants.org Overthrow the tyranny of your pants
    14. Re:Shit by liquidsin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      personally, i won't be taking any consolation in knowing that a precedent was set that gives authorities in the U.S. more leeway in harassing the innocent. if the state "needed to punish her" then they "needed" to make a valid case on harassment charges. aside from online banking, i'm not sure that i've *ever* signed up at a website with my real personal info, and i'm sure i'm not the only one. the idea of being on the hook for a year in prison and a hundred g's for each such instance makes me real glad i don't live in the U.S.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    15. Re:Shit by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, she didn't "innocuously" join a website under a false name. She did it for one purpose. To harass and bring emotional damage to a child, an emotionally unstable child at that.

      Since technically suicide is a criminal act and this grown woman contributed to it, couldn't they go for contributing to the delinquency of a minor instead?

    16. Re:Shit by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I'm saying is the state needed to punish her, so the state found a way. It was about her, not about using a false name.

      And the fallout from that misguided deed will be far worse than what was gained today.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    17. Re:Shit by 644bd346996 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All that this case has shown is that seducing a child by means of a false identity for the purposes of causing emotional harm is going to get you a jury conviction. Most likely regardless of the actual charge. If Lori Drew hadn't been targeting a specific person as revenge, and if she hadn't known that the person she was seducing was a child, she probably would have gotten off pretty easily.

    18. Re:Shit by nbetcher · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Please mod-down the parent: the post is neatly written, but quite obviously opinionated FUD.

      I also blame the parents of Megan for even letting her get on anti-depressants at such a young age.

      Actually there was never any true-and-lasting contraindication for anti-depressants in teenagers. There was a period of scare, but people soon found out that adults had the same problem too. Typically this results from lack of compliance to the anti-depressant and then having rebound depression.

      Those meds are harsh

      In my experience having worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over 8 years every patient reacts to every medication differently. One person can get high as a kite off of Vicodin, some people don't even notice that they took it. Same with anti-depressants: some people feel better, some people don't.

      and should be only used under the care of a very, very good psychiatrist, note that I did NOT say psychologist. Huge, huge difference. I noticed a trend where a lot of non-medically trained psychologist are making recommendations about MEDICATIONS to their clients (they call them patients). This is very scary. Only a MEDICAL doctor should make those calls.

      There are many poor psychiatrists out there, but I would not discredit psychologists - many of them go to a professional school much longer than some psychiatrists end up going to. Some psychiatrists are so blind to obvious signs of certain conditions that the patient can receive severely inappropriate care. While medical doctors should be the ones held accountable for the medications prescribed, it is a widely accepted form of therapy and treatment to have the psychologist and psychiatrist work together, even if the psychologist is the one to recommend adjunct therapy with medications. Yet you're forgetting the important fact that only medical doctors (which is what psychiatrists are) can prescribe medications in the United States - so the statement that people need to see a medical doctor is rhetorical.

      Yet parents hear crap like ADD or ADHD from just a psychologist and run to their primary care doctor and tell him/her and bam the child is on very harsh drugs that DO have long-term effects and have been shown to cause suicidal thoughts.

      It's also widely accepted by psychologists and psychiatrists that ADD and ADHD is a very overly diagnosed condition, and I completely agree that it is overly diagnosed. Dispensing several stimulant medications (to help treat the symptoms of ADD or ADHD) a day to children is a depressing fact of life that I have to deal with on a day-to-day basis - so I can sympathize. Stimulant medications have not been linked to suicidal ideation's, but they do have potentially very long-term side effects since they accelerate the central nervous system.

      Hell, I am only 35, I was never drugged out by my parents for "mood swings" or my "lack of attention". I spent most of my time in high school with a boner and looking out the window. I turned out OK and with a good career.

      That's fantastic, but for those of us who would have suffered a lot less in high school if our parents would have considered medication options, I can say I completely disagree with your school of thought.

      Would Megan still be alive if she never took SSRI's? No one could say that. However, I personally believe she would.

      Your beliefs are misguided. You have a right to your opinion, yes, but consider the impact on others before you spread FUD. The people you hear all of the bad press about anti-depressants are the same people like you: medically-undereducated laymen attempting to understand very complex organic chemistry and scientific reactions.

    19. Re:Shit by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hell, I'm an alcoholic and drank heavily throughout my twenties. (And worked at various dot-coms in the good-old days. Was fired from a couple less liberal environments for showing up drunk in the morning. (I'm reminded of Lionel Hutz, who offers Marge a drink and pulls out a bottle. She says "It's 9am!" And he says "That's all right, I haven't slept for days." That was me.))

      Anyways, I was a complete dick. I said really hurtful things to people. Sometimes people come up to me and say "hey, remember when you said 'blah blah blah' to George?" No. I really don't. I'm an alcoholic.

      If you could be convicted for being a complete and utter asshole IRL, I would be in jail right now. Serving out a sentence for things I don't even remember doing.

      (I quit drinking 4 years ago and am doing much better thank you.)

    20. Re:Shit by phulegart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow... what a way to justify your own inappropriate actions... to throw out a blanket policy that Everyone has harassed someone to the point of regretting it, just so you feel better about the times that YOU did it in the past.

      So, how does it feel to be wrong? I mean, you are sure that everyone here has harassed someone to a point where they might have felt bad about it. I've never done that. I know others that have never done that. This makes you wrong. Don't even bother to argue that... you said everyone. I'm part of that Everyone, and I'm here. Some of us actually take responsibility for our actions, and the words that come out of our mouths. Some of us think about what we say before we say it, and if we say biting things, we mean to be biting. I understand that this is a foreign concept to you. Don't argue that it's not a foreign concept to you either. You've already proven that you need to be reminded how much words can hurt someone. That means you forget how much words can hurt people. That means you don't always think about what you say. That means that you don't take responsibility for what you say. That means the concept of ALWAYS thinking before you speak and ALWAYS taking responsibility for your words and actions is a foreign concept.

      Lori Drew knew full well what she was doing was malicious. She just thought nothing was wrong with what she was doing. She thought her actions were correct for HER and her life. She just did not put any real thought to what she was doing. She enjoyed being mean to that child, and she enjoyed making that child's life hell. Then she applied her own twisted morality to it, and thought, "Aww, what a baby... can't take the heat."

      Well, this woman got off light. I say an Eye for an Eye. I say that if you want to teach people to take responsibility, you must show them that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Execute her. I don't really care if people think that is absurd or too harsh. If people do not fear and respect the consequences, they will continue to behave badly. Lori Drew's punishment should be so harsh that she not only never EVER wants to act that way again, but that she should spend her remaining life making amends... considering her actions already cost someone else (someone who was not fully developed enough to realize their potential and understand life) her life. Lori Drew's life should be forfeit. Ok. Maybe not Executed. Maybe a lifetime of public service helping kids with self-esteem issues.

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    21. Re:Shit by rtechie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, if you are basing your statements off the fact that antidepressants are carelessly over-prescribed in some cases, and completely unnecessary in other cases, without knowing for fact that this was actually the case in Megan's case, then I postulate that you don't actually know enough about what was going on to blame the parents for anything.

      No. His statement was a lot more profound. He was questioning the wisdom of EVER perscribing powerful psychotropic drugs to teenagers who are acting normally (depression, violent behavior, and suicide attempts are normal for teenagers) given their brains are not yet fully developed.

      Many people do not realize that not only were most antidepressants not tested on teenagers, but many of them weren't even tested for depression. They were developed to treat other, more severe, mental issues and depression is an off-label use. Many people are stunned to hear that drugs like Paxil and Zoloft were not clinically tested for depression. And there is a huge difference between clinical depression (crying uncontrollably 24/7) and the very mild depression these drugs are generally prescribed to treat. They only tested them on people with serious depression.

      This is not to say long term studies haven't been done. A few have (you can count them on the fingers of one hand, I think there's 4 now). And the results aren't promising. Most importantly, they tend to show that taking antidepressansts does not have to seem have much of a positive impact on behavior when compared to doing nothing.

      I think associating SSRIs with suicide as a side effect is a bit of a red herring. I think the bigger problem is that parents have a child with serious depression, pump them up with drugs, and consider that "doing something" instead of dealing with actual issues. Like the fact that you're a lousy parent.

    22. Re:Shit by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. It isn't about the fact she created an account under a false name. It's what she used it for. Anonymity is good when you aren't using it to harm someone else. She was fully aware of the potential for harm in her actions.

      Her behavior afterwards was like "What's the big deal - some little kid wacked herself - maybe mommy should have watched her more carefully".

      The problem is that there aren't laws that govern cyberbulling that have any teeth to them. That will change soon.

      I have kids of my own - one, now 14, who is bullied because he's much smaller than other kids his age, is smarter than several of them put together and has mild Asbergers. The school has a "Zero Tolerance Policy". Yet, when a kid threatened to slit his throat, nothing was done about it - we weren't even called by the school.

      Life's tough on the kid and my wife and I worry about him all the time as he gets depressed easily. It's tough seeing him go through what he does every day.

      As for her - Screw this bitch. What I would love to see is that nobody give her even the time of day. Fire her from her job - don't employ her. Heck - fire her husband too. Make her life miserable. Raise her credit card rates to 25%. And, please...don't give her her a book deal or pay her to speak. Let her suffer for what she's done. She deserves to live and rot in Hell.

      Maybe, if there's a God, the fact that she was convicted of a crime may allow the girls parents to sue her for everything she's got - and actually win.

    23. Re:Shit by Restil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First off, as a general rule, most criminals are not exactly the smartest bunch in the lot. They just have to be smart enough to avoid getting caught enough times to make the risk/reward ratio pay off. Yes, there's a chance the police will catch up to you, and also a chance that a homeowner will fill you full of holes. You weigh that against the(unfortunately) very likely chance that you will get away with it.

      Depending on the influences of the criminal, there will be varying degrees of risk that he will be willing to endure for his activities. Take someone who's smart, who carefully cases his targets, ensures the owners won't be home and a lack of credible potential witnesses, knows how to cover his tracks, keeps his mouth shut, and knows when to quit. This criminal will accept far less risk than a broke cokehead on the verge of withdrawl. The cokehead might not even care if the owner might have a gun. Probably doesn't even care if he KNOWS the owner has a gun. He'll still go for it.

      So yes, guns won't stop all crime. Just like the death penalty won't stop murders. However, they do give the owner the capability of defending himself, family, and property that he wouldn't have otherwise.

      What the Castle Doctrine defense offers the owner is the lack of hesitation. While you're preparing to pull the trigger, you don't want to have to take time out to consider if you should wait until your assailant takes one more step toward you so he won't fall outside of the house, or make sure he's directly facing you so you won't accidentally shoot him in the back. It makes the rules you have to follow in a crisis situation much simpler and much easier to prove you were following those rules in good faith.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    24. Re:Shit by Sj0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh no! Someone made fun of me! On the Internet!

      Goodbye, cruel world!

      --
      It's been a long time.
  2. let this be a warning... by butterflysrage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:let this be a warning... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, put it this way. If I tell you I'm a doctor and that you're terminally ill and that you'll die in horrible pain pretty soon, and based upon that believe you shoot yourself in the head, it's a suicide but it was induced by deception.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:let this be a warning... by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      Still...is that against the law??

      I'm not sure. I know some countries have laws against inducement to suicide, I'd have to ask an attorney whether any US states do.

      Seems to me that justice would have been better served here if someone had just beaten the crap out of Lori Drew, and gotten acquitted for it due to extenuating circumstances.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:let this be a warning... by UncleTogie · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...I'd have to ask an attorney whether any US states do.

      They do in Texas....

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    4. Re:let this be a warning... by TechForensics · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IAAL and I can tell you any case that intentionally and unreasonably pushed a susceptible person to suicide would be punished, at least if the defendant had reason to know of the weakness or susceptibility.

      It's not about doing it online or whether it was done under a real name. It's about what was done and how culpable and causative the conduct was.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
  3. Say what? by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Say what? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. It was about the charge as written.

      If she was guilty of psychological stalking (which she was) she should have been charged with stalking. This is a clear misapplication of the law.

    2. Re:Say what? by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      The take home is, victimizing someone is bad. That it happened via the internet means they've had to fudge things up a bit, but I don't think this means flaming someone on a website means the cops will come-a-calling.

      In this instance the woman was clearly a nasty piece of work, so I'm glad they found a way to punish her. I would not expect someone posting nastiness here would get into trouble with anyone except the mods.

      I think some people make the mistake of assuming that things done on the internet which would result in fines or punishment in the real world are somehow 'freedoms that need defending' on the web. I'm not one of those people.

      I don't mind argument, rudeness, flaming, or anything like that, I mean, that I just accept as background noise, but this incident went way beyond anything like of that nature.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    3. Re:Say what? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the same way that a jury has the right to discard a bad law (even if the judge won't tell them they do), they should have the right to mete out a good law.

      No. They really shouldn't. The law should be to protect the innocent. If a few of the guilty remain free that is an unfortunate cost of the system, but one we should accept.

  4. Somewhat fitting. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Somewhat fitting. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Informative

      True. But where were her parents? Pretty sad the girl lived in a household where she couldn't talk to her folks about what was going on.

      I'm usually on the side of parents taking responsibility for the welfare of their children. It bothers me to no end when parents seem to think others should assume that responsibility. However, I'm not so sure this is one of those situations.

      From the Wired blog:

      Then on October 15, Josh sent Megan a message saying that he didn't want to be friends anymore. The next day, Josh told her he'd heard she wasn't nice to her friends, and that's why he wanted to sever their ties.

      Megan became upset and Meier, who had to leave the house to take her other daughter to an orthodontist appointment, told Megan to shut down the computer. Megan didn't do as she was told, however, and got embroiled in an electronic brawl when at least two other people began attacking her online, culminating in the final message from "Josh".

      When Meier came home she found Megan still online and in tears. When she appealed to her mother for support, Meier chastised her for being on the computer when she'd been instructed to shut it down, and suggested that Megan had brought some of the attacks on herself by continuing to communicate with her attackers.

      Megan, in mental anguish at this point, told her mother, "You're supposed to be my mom. You're supposed to be on my side."

      Thirty minutes later, Megan hanged herself, Meier testified.

      I'm sure the mother wishes she could have had that moment back; handled it differently. However, this certainly doesn't seem like a case of an inattentive parent who didn't communicate with their children.

    2. Re:Somewhat fitting. by sssssss27 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it seems exactly like that. From what I have read and heard it seems like it was the culmination of things that pushed this girl over the edge. I know my mom would never turn down me or any of my siblings for support no matter how badly we disobeyed her orders. Especially if we were to the point of tears. This girl was being attacked from every angle, including her mom. It's no wonder she reacted the way she did especially when she is on medication with a reported side effect of suicidal tendencies.

      My friends wonder why I'm always willing to listen to them regardless of what time it is or what I have to do; this is the reason why. Sometimes we just need to know that we aren't alone in the world and even though a person might not agree with our actions still is there for us.

      What I want to know is why Lori Drew started the whole thing in the first place.

  5. I'm not troubled... by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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'.

    1. Re:I'm not troubled... by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, there's going to be a lot of outrage that she wasn't convicted of more serious offences, but there's a limited scope to what can be done to her.

      If you make it too severe, then in similar cases where the defendant is totally innocent, you're going to have problems.

      This is much like the attempt to reclassify downloading music and movies as a felony. Is it against the law? Yes. Is it a crime equal to grand theft auto or murder? No.

      What this woman did was cowardly, stupid, abhorrent and vindictive, and almost certainly led the young girl to kill herself due to being bullied and psychologically manipulated by a grown (physically) but immature (mentally) woman who should really know better.

      There is possibly a case for manslaughter, but in that case, you'd likely have to prove that the nasty cunt set out to kill Megan, instead of just set out to bully her, and you run the risk of her being acquitted.

      Perhaps one day she'll feel guilty for killing a child, but the law and justice system just isn't set up to put her away for that, at least not without endangering the system itself.

    2. Re:I'm not troubled... by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what happens to someone who falsifies their information to use an online service TO A BAD END.

      What if it were a real teenaged boy who used his real name and information and he harassed the girl and drove her to suicide? To me, the falsification of information seems irrelevant.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    3. Re:I'm not troubled... by IronChef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Thank goodness it's the government who will decide what a "bad end" means!

    4. Re:I'm not troubled... by topham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A teenage boy having a disagreement with a girl and having it result in suicide is tragic.

      An adult, pretending to be a teenager who intentionally manipulates a child (which is what young teenagers are) is criminal.

      If you, or anybody else on Slashdot can't figure out the difference you need to grow up.
      An adult is expected to be able to draw conclusions about their actions and the resulting consequences. They are held to a higher standard than teenagers and children.
      If a teenager intentionally harassed a child and the child committed suicide it is entirely possible they could be found guilty and sentenced appropriately; however it would be more difficult to show their intent.

  6. What Pisses Me Off... by TheNecromancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  7. Precedent by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Precedent by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      But using your pseudonym to bash in the skull of your neighbor is a major no no.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
  8. Re:It's far more troubling... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:It's far more troubling... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  10. Re:It's far more troubling... by homer_s · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'.

  11. The biggest WTF by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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
  12. Role of SSRI anti-depressants? by megamerican · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  13. Re:It's far more troubling... by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. correlation versus causation by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  15. Makes no sense by Carrot007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  16. Conspiracy charge results in mistrial by Pinckney · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:"He Needed Killing" by jcr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are you sure of that? Last I heard, you could still introduce evidence against the character of the deceased in pursuing a justifiable homicide defense in Texas.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  18. Not the same thing. by raehl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.

    1. Re:Not the same thing. by pauljlucas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.

      Sure, but that's got nothing to do with my point which was in response to BobMcD's point of making a big deal out of the fact that the information was falsified. OK, so what if Lori had used her real name and information? The fact that she drove a girl to suicide is the problem. The fact that she used false information is, again, irrelevant.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  19. Pay attention to the facts by TRRosen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  20. She should face Pedofile crimes by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.