Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Summarizes the Lori Drew Verdict
Bootsy Collins writes "Last Wednesday, the Lori Drew 'cyberbullying' case ended in three misdemeanor convictions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 1986 US Federal law intended to address illegally accessing computer systems. The interpretation of the act by the Court to cover violations of website terms of service, a circumstance obviously not considered in the law's formulation and passage, may have profound effects on the intersection of the Internet and US law. Referring to an amicus curiae brief filed by online rights organizations and law professors, PJ at Groklaw breaks down the implications of the decision to support her assertion that 'unless this case is overturned, it is time to get off the Internet completely, because it will have become too risky to use a computer.'"
You need a law?
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
I myself have been known to condemn people merely for posting a single sentence on slashdot :)
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
As for serverco retroactively ruling conduct "unauthorized", there's a panoply of affirmative defenses such as invitation, habitual tolerence, failure to notify, discriminatory enforcement. Cyberbullying wouldn't have those available.
She was not convicted of harassment. If she had been convicted of harassment, there would be no issue with the decision. But, she was convicted of illegally accessing a computer.
If you don't have a valid ID that states your real name as ChromeAeonium, you are also 'illegally accessing a computer' and could be in the same boat as Lori Drew.
When I was young I occasionally suffered actual bullying--as in, with fists. Cyberbullying is a head-scratcher for me: how is it that saying mean things to someone is worse when done on the internet than when it is done face-to-face? Children say mean things to one another all the time and it seems to me that the adults don't do much about it until a fight comes to blows. Or to suicide. That an adult would engage in cyberbullying is bizarre, and wrong, and I maybe there should be a law against it (how would you word this law?). But it's inappropriate to hold her responsible for the child's response, which no one would have predicted. If there is no law that properly applies to her behavior then the judge shouldn't instate a new legal theory just to provide a punishment in one case--not if the precedent could have serious chilling effects on many other people.
Not really, because slashdot's terms and conditions don't require that you use your real name when creating an account or signing posts.
To hear that from someone on slashdot just makes me laugh.
It's been more of a social/news site ever since they added the politics section. I think the definition of 'nerd' has expanded somewhat as well... you certainly don't see as many tech savvy folks here as you used to.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Actually I'm surprised that there isn't a simpler way to prosecute this, along the lines of "causing distress to a minor".
But where would one draw the line between "causing distress" and "physically reprimanding"? A simple spanking, while not looked down upon by the court, causes a child quite a bit of distress, hence the crying et al involved.
Let me guess, you're a lawyer. You quoted almost word for word the 'eggshell-skull' doctrine.
That is, "You must take your victims as you find them". The fact that a regular person would not have been affected in such a way is no excuse.
I agree with you, entirely. An excellent comment.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
I'm changing the TOS for my sites to include "You must donaite $5 to view this site." If they don't, BAM, federal crime!
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Isn't it fun when people make up their own draconian laws? I thought libertarians were supposed to be fundamentally opposed to that sort of thing, but I suppose they are also supposed to be fundamentally oposed to slave ownership as well (below minimum wage doesn't count as slavery apparently).
It's been suggested (if not 'found') that emotional/social bullying is far far worse that physical bulling. The effects are felt more keenly and last far longer than if you're punched and kicked.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
"Do you actually want a world like that? In some ways, it's worse than lawlessness, worse than the old Wild West. Why worse? Because in the West in the old days, might made "right". That's clear enough, and you knew where you stood. Practice shooting, or move East where there were laws."
The reality was far different than the popular fiction. Studies have shown that a person was more likely to be killed in a criminal encounter in the large Eastern Cites than it the territories of the 'old west.' I understand that the analogy he was trying to make was based on the 'old west' of fiction and lore. However, the facts do not support the fiction.
Or, as the California Supreme Court ruled in 1855, in a case in which a drunk person fell into a hole in the sidewalk:
"A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it." Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co., 5 Cal. 460 (1855)
.
Yes, I know, the title is not fair to most Americans - it is meant as a provocation, of course.
But sadly it isn't far off the mark when it comes to the kind of responses I see on /. that are modded +5 "Insightful" or "Interesting". They seem to range from the dowright disgusting "Who fscking cares about some 13year old brat killing herself" to the rather lame "Lori Drew did something wrong, but 'free speech' is much more important" - and that is at the kind and warm-hearted end of the spectrum.
Freedom is important, oh yes. It is also mostly fictitious, at least in the absolute, quasi-religious sense people on /. seem to think. Everything, from quantum-mechanics up, should tell you that there is no such thing as complete, perfect indepedence; the only real freedom is sufficient freedom to live a worthy and fulfilling life at peace with your neighbors. With freedom comes responsibility, because with action comes consequences.
One can but wonder how it came to that in America, it is certainly not the prevailing viewpoint in the parts of Europe I know of. This is where people usually start pointing to History and Founding Fathers, but I just can't see what that has to do with anything; the freedom of speech should be seen in light of that time, as a reaction to specific oppression of political and religious dissent, and it is clear that it is about the right to practise your faith and express your political views; both of which make a lot of sense. But this idea about "freedom to do and say anything at all with no restrictions or consequences" is simply nonsense - to me it seems to have arisen in the 60es, a time when we also saw some talk about psychopathy as an ideal for mankind, exactly because psychopaths are so void of the moral inhibitions of normal society. Go and look it up if you don't believe me.
Far be it from me to dictate what Americans should think or believe, but before people start idolising what can in many ways be regarded as "the essence of evil", they would be well adviced to at least have thought it through.