Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Verdict a Danger To Depressed Kids
Since a jury convicted Lori Drew of three misdemeanors for harassing Megan Meier on MySpace and causing her to commit suicide, most of the debate has focused on the question of whether proper legal procedure was followed in an attempt to punish someone for their obviously evil actions, when it wasn't clear that an actual crime had been committed. Emily Bazelon has argued that the rule of law is too important to convict someone for a crime for what was essentially a violation of the MySpace Terms of Service. Anne Mitchell has argued that the slippery slope is nowhere near as dangerous as the backlash is making it sound, because the doctrine of prosecuting people for violating a site's TOS is almost certainly only going to be used against people who commit horrific acts in the process, as Lori Drew did.
I'm more inclined toward the rule of law argument, but hang on — both sides seem to be assuming that it was a desirable outcome to punish Lori Drew publicly and severely. Hell yes she deserved it, but there is more at stake here. What about the consequences for kids who are current victims of harassment and who hear about the case and the verdict?
When anti-cyber-bullying laws were proposed in response to the original news of Megan Meier's suicide, I argued that the laws would be a terrible idea, especially if the criminal provisions of the law were conditional on the bullying victim harming themselves — because then you've created told victims of harassment: You can have your tormentors publicly vilified and even arrested, but only if you make it look like you tried to injure or kill yourself (and at which you might succeed in the process, intentionally or not).
What would be true of a cyber-bulling law is also true for the pseudo-caselaw created by the verdict. Surely there are other Megan Meiers out there who should not be led to believe that they can ruin their harasser's lives by committing suicide.
Now you might argue that by my reasoning, existing harassment laws which are contingent on the victim showing signs of emotional distress, could lead to the same problem — victims either consciously faking distress, or trying to fake distress so convincingly that they actually harm themselves, or subconsciously absorbing the fact that they can only get justice if they actually show harm. I had actually assumed that existing harassment laws governed only the conduct of the harasser, and did not depend on how the victim felt, but I was wrong — here in Washington State for example, RCW 10.14 states that harassing conduct is conduct that
"shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,
and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." [emphasis added]
Reading that literally means that no matter how bad the harassment is, you still have to feel distressed in order to have them prosecuted, and the more distressed you "act," the more likely you are to succeed! But hang on — in order for that law to create incentives for victims of harassment to fake distress in order to have their personal enemies prosecuted, they would have to actually know that the law says that. I doubt that most people walking around Washington know the exact wording of the harassment law. More likely, they already realize that if they were to ever try and have someone prosecuted for harassment who didn't actually deserve it, a little tears and shaking would probably influence the judge, whether or not their feelings had any technical relevance under the law. And even if they were to exaggerate the effects of the harassment, all they would have to do would be to claim that they threw up or lost sleep from anxiety — they wouldn't have to show evidence of trying to harm or kill themselves.
On the other hand, everybody has heard about the Lori Drew and Megan Meier case, and it seems likely that the fact that Megan killed herself did contribute to the conviction. (At one point Judge George H. Wu had said that he would probably exclude evidence from the trial that Megan Meier had committed suicide as a result of the harassment, but later changed his mind and did allow it to be mentioned, saying "It's impossible to get a jury that doesn't know.") If Megan Meier had merely lost sleep, or suffered from panic attacks, or cut herself as a result of the harassment she endured from Lori Drew, would Drew have been convicted? Or even arrested?
These perverse incentives — "rewarding" Megan Meier for her suicide by vicariously exacting her revenge on Lori Drew — have been present ever since the wall-to-wall coverage of the case first started. Many news outlets have a policy of not publishing the names of suicide victims, not only to protect the privacy of grieving families but to avoid "rewarding" suicides by giving them the attention they may have wanted. The Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles does not list any policy against printing the names of suicides. Maybe they should. (They do have a policy against printing the names of sexual assault victims, for example.) But it's a slippery journalistic slope to go down once you start deciding not to publish certain elements of a story, even for what seem to be compelling reasons. For example, take the policy of not publishing the names of alleged rape victims. If the rationale is that the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true, why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false? So any decision to leave someone's name out of a story can lead to sticky "but-then-what-about" scenarios.
Perhaps the story should not have been covered at all, or anywhere near as much as it was. (I realize I may be contributing to the problem here, but my penance is that I'm calling for less coverage in the future, and I would never be writing about this if the mainstream media hadn't covered it so extensively.) What about all the other people who committed suicide during the same year, also as a result of vicious harassment, but with the only difference being that their suicides did not involve the Internet? Don't they deserve the same justice, and don't their tormentors deserve the same vilification?
Defenders of Internet civil liberties have for years been disgusted with the fact that crimes involving the Internet — from simple identity theft to rape and murder — have always gotten disproportionately more attention than the same or similar crimes committed without the aid of a computer. In the Megan Meier case, the effect of the coverage is even worse: Leading potential suicides to believe that they can have the sympathy they always wanted, and revenge on those they hate, if they kill themselves.
I mean, I was raped on the Internet. My Karma went from Excellent to Terrible due to one post.
But I'd hardly call it a crime. Travesty, maybe...
Suicidal people, by the very nature of being suicidal, aren't really in a position to make rational judgements regarding what may or may not happen should they top themselves. Suicidal people have, since time began, justified wilfully idiotic acts with spurious reasoning that only makes sense in their own heads. Whatever the outcome of this people will continue to think suicide is their best option - either for their own sake or because they misguidedly believe it'll make someone else feel bad, or even get punished. That isn't some new and exciting insight. It's just been made a little more concrete by this particular case. Using Megan's suicide as a rallying cry of "oh how terrible, everyone will be bumping themselves off for revenge now!" is pretty small minded and it devalues the good that came from Megan's too short life in my opinion. Shame on you.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Since I have insurance I have every motivation to leave the keys in the ignition of my car when I go into a supermarket shopping, right?
Defenders of Internet civil liberties have for years been disgusted with the fact that crimes involving the Internet â" from simple identity theft ... have always gotten disproportionately more attention than the same or similar crimes committed without the aid of a computer.
I am a big civil libertarian and I have to disagree with them on this one. Then again, I don't see how civil liberties are directly affected when things are publicized other than the over-reaction by policy makers and the hysterical members of the public who enable them.
When internet identity theft scams are publicized, it puts its cause into the public's mind; such as phishing schemes. I don't know of anyone who trusts emails from their bank or eBay anymore asking to "verify personal information" or anything like that. Phishing schemes have become much less successful because of the publicity.
I don't agree with most of this. Harassment is and should be a crime. People don't typically go "omg, if I just do XY, then I could get back at this person!" Even if that WERE the intentions of the person, doesn't it speak to the level of harassment that someone is willing to harm themselves in order to get justice for it?
The whole, sexual assault victim to suicide victim bs is totally out of line... the interest in the suicide situation is that they don't want to make suicide sound glamorous so people don't do it.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Seriously, have you been sexually assaulted? I have. You feel like shit, and it took me more than a week to even TRUST any man. I had to take a whole week off of work to just sit there and compose myself.
Yeah, those rape allegations certainly cause people to sit in their showers trying to get themselves clean...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
What if Drew had a son who agreed to seduce Megan, and who then told her to kill herself? The onlly difference would have been that if it was in person, there would be no evidence - but there would have been no crime, either.
If so, my friend's Annie's boyfriend is guilty of the same thing. Annie is on Zoloft for clinical depression, and one night when she was in a bad way and talking suicide, he told her everyone would be better off if she did. I wound up taking her to the hospital, where she was admitted to the nut ward.
Contemptable, but is it legal? Lots of contemptable things are legal. BTW that crazy Annie's back with her boyfriend. I hope she gives him the clap.
Free Martian Whores!
At every turn, it seems, people would like to cushion, candy-coat or otherwise render harmless the world we live in. It would be easier to "air condition the planet" than it would be to make everything in the world "safe." The fact is, no matter what is done, some people can handle it and others will not be able to handle it. There will always be people with emotional problems -- it can't be eliminated without extreme and unpleasant measures. [read: extermination] So if we shouldn't go to one extreme [extermination of unfit people] to solve the problem and we can't reasonably go to the other [make the world out of marshmallows so no one gets hurt], then it stands to reason that we have to accept that some problems cannot be "solved." They have to be managed and accepted. Regrettable and tragic things will happen. It is okay to feel sad about it or take some sort of lesson from it -- whatever enables you to deal with it. But there is no escaping it. All of life is suffering.
Don't blame the parents or doctors for putting the girl on dangerous SSRI and anti-psychotic drugs.
From the third grade Megan had been under the care of a psychiatrist. She had been prescribed Celexa, Concerta and Geodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier
The FDA and other bodies have found that SSRI medications cause increased suicide and agression in people under the age of 24.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4272b1-01-FDA.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssri#Adverse_effects
http://ssristories.com/
Blame someone else, its the [new] American way!
Blaming SSRIs is so stupid. What are they supposed to do? Let her live out her life in misery?
SSRIs can also cause liver damage, but you don't see people suggesting that this risk means they shouldn't be used. It's an ADVISEMENT that the doctors should consider the person's state before prescribing them.
Actually, the presumption on SSRIs here is that people will come out of a deep depression, and begin rationalizing suicide. Not that SSRIs actually cause the suicidal intents on its own.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
You have a subscription and the story wasn't posted yet.
Free Martian Whores!
> You feel like shit, and it took me more than a week to even TRUST any man Wow, you mean a whole week? I've known adult women who, being sexually assaulted as children, still refuse to trust men.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
This isn't about myspace, or terms of service, or teenage suicide. This is about guilt. Even when it's "only" online, we're still talking to other people. We're communicating. And communications form the basis of relationships and through relationships we can effect changes to a person's mood, behavior, life circumstances, and more. The issue is trust, and how some people abuse trust. And all of our criminal codes come down to this. I'll say it again, it's about trust. So people feel naturally betrayed and angry when trust is violated (even accidentally).
But the law is not about trust. The law is about balancing personal freedoms (which includes the right to mistrust and also to betray trust) with society's so-called "best interests", which is mostly about avoiding and minimizing harm. Anyone can throw up a terms of service, and you can't tell me most of you wouldn't wipe your bottoms with the lot of them. I also think I'd find very few people here that would say that talking is a crime; Even when the matter under discussion is about illegal things (like drugs, or underage sex) -- or things we find morally objectionable. Speech in and of itself is not a crime; Actions are criminal.
Yes, she manipulated the hell out of someone who was vulnerable. But how is that different than commercials on TV, selling us crap we don't need? How is it different than the mormons coming over every sunday to try and convert you? It's not, except for intent. And we all want to punish her, not for violating some TOS crap, but because she violated the trust relationship between a child and adult. "It's all for the children" and we rush in stupidly, blindly, reflexively, to protect them. And that is what happened here. The very thing the justice system is supposed to prevent: Linking emotive thinking to punishment.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Yeah, those rape allegations certainly cause people to sit in their showers trying to get themselves clean...
No, it takes them the rest of their lives to remove the stigma, that a moment's pique on the part of the person making the accusation, caused.
Are they worse off? Physically? no Emotionally? Not in the same way, but almost as bad. Reputation? Permanently damaged - because a lot of people will believe it was true regardless...
SSRIs by themselves are not dangerous, or have not been conclusively shown to be at least. Many of those who had suicide ideation were also on other drugs, just like Megan. Many of them were on seven or more psychoactive drugs at once, and many also had suicide ideation before being put on the drugs (that probably being one of the reasons for going on anti-depression drugs in the first place). I've read some of the surveys where they attempted to correct for past suicide ideation, and they asked if the patient had suicide ideation in the past 30 days. Anything before that was irrelevant, including multiple attempts.
The apparent correlation between SSRIs and suicide, once again, does not mean causation.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I've known adult women who, being sexually assaulted as children, still refuse to trust men.
More specifically, it was a week before I trusted them even enough to be in the same room as a guy without someone there to watch them.
Also, childhood scars are bound to be much deeper... I suppose in that way, I'm fortunate. :(
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Read it again. He didn't say that at all. He said that the embarrassment of being publicly identified as a victim of sexual assault is less than the embarrassment of being publicly accused of being the assaulter. He was comparing the results of publication, not of the crime itself.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -- Winston Churchill
... punish someone for their obviously evil actions, when it wasn't clear that an actual crime had been committed.
This is what I call an "ASSHOLE LAW", where someone obviously evil to most people, but clearly within the confines of what is "legal".
In the old days ... people like this would get their asses kicked, and the law would look away. The assholes would end up being isolated away from the rest of the community.
Bad cases make worse laws. This case is just another example of ASSHOLE justice, which is really bad for defining what is legal or not legal.
Assholes always skirt around the edges of what is legal, which is my definition of what an asshole is. Assholes ruin it for everyone else.
Next Asshole on the list ... Blago.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I would not have said "less than a false allegation" but I think you understate the magnitude of what happens to someone who is accused of such a crime. Many people accused of sexual assaults lose their jobs (as they are unable to attend their workplace), and most will spend months suspended from their job while the police and prosecutors decide whether to proceed. In addition they will normally be publicly named (and have the allegation against them permanently recorded in newspapers etc), and there are many people out there who will then choose to believe the worst about them for the rest of their lives.
In many cases there is simply not enough evidence to either successfully prosecute one party for sexual assault or the other for making false reports. However only one person in that situation ever gets publicly named, only one person is likely to have lost their job and have their neighbors refuse to speak to them etc. Believe it or not, that sort of thing can cause a loss of trust as well...
Mis-assignment of responsibility, undermines the idea of responsibility.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Suicidal people aren't 100% irrational zombies or something. They seize on things and overemphasize them, downplay contrary evidence, etc., but they do still have thought processes that take into account the external world.
One of the (many) ways of trying to convince people who are in particular suicidal because of a desire to "get back" at someone is that suicide is not a particularly effective way of getting back at people. Providing a very concrete way in which it arguably actually is a good way of getting back at someone is not very helpful from that perspective.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Don't blame the parents or doctors for putting the girl on dangerous SSRI and anti-psychotic drugs.
Is that you, Tom Cruise?
The problem with any law in which criminality is dependent upon the feelings of the victims is that it allows for arbitrary and capricious prosecution. Unlike most criminal laws, which criminalize specific acts (such as robbery, for example), this law allows any exchange of opinions between two people to be turned into a criminal matter should one person feel slighted.
You might think this is extreme, but when a Canadian printer refused to print a flyer because of his moral objections to the content, he was brought before the human rights commission, and fined. How long before:
This law is a godsend for any geek who wants to get back at that girl who won't have anything to do with him. Or anyone with a vindictive mindset, for that matter.
The legitimacy of the law is suspect when based upon the mere *feelings* of the victim, rather than the actual actions of the perpetrator, are sufficient to induce criminality.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Emotionally? Not in the same way, but almost as bad.
Of course... they totally need to receive therapy and counseling for it.
Here's a hint to guys in general... STOP RAPING WOMEN, and no one will take it credibly when you're accused of it.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
If you pretend that you are being cursed by a witch, the whole village will break out their pitchtorches and burning forks to burn the witch. Get the mob to side with you, and you win, regardless of whether or not the so-called witch was actually guilty of witchcraft.
That's the basic principle in this essay. I'm not saying that I agree with all of the finer points of the essay, but it makes a good argument overall. So far in my short lifespan, I have heard several cases involving harassment which were attempts by the harasser to cover up what they were doing by claiming the victim was the harasser.
The biggest danger to depressed kids is the depressed kids themselves. Personally, I think Lori Drew's conduct calls for a civil, not criminal case against her. Misdemeanor convictions against her help in that case. The last thing you want when you are suing somebody for half their earnings for the rest of their life is for them to be spending several years in jail, earning nothing. And of course, violation of terms of service is a contractual breach, which is entirely a civil matter, and has no business whatsoever being discussing in criminal court. If anything, the Lori Drew case help at-risk kids by making it clear that you shouldn't believe anything people claim online, especially if you've never met them in real life. Anybody can create an online account, and any 2-bit script kiddie can forge an originating email address. Kids _should_ assume that anybody who takes an inordinate interest in them online means to do them harm, even though 99% of them do not. Yeah, it sucks to live in a world that works that way just like it sucks that I can't be trusted around little girls (or boys) due to the fact that I'm an adult male, but that is the world we live in -- get used to it.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So are sharp corners.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
because I am a Christian or that I am mentally or physically ill. It is really hard to hide either of the two but mostly my mental illness causes a writing style that has cyberbullies pick on me.
I've attempted suicide a few times as a result of the cyberbullying esp when they find my home number and harass me at 3am my time using anonymous calls like 012-345-6789 as the Caller ID spoofed. Try to ignore them and they call Anonymous with no number and we cannot tell if it is my wife's family members in Thailand calling for an emergency or the harassers calling again, so we had to get our number changed. Police reports got filed, but they hardly ever catch the person doing the bullying and harassment.
Yes I live in Missouri.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
This verdict is just another sad example of making an overly-broad law under the guise that it will never be abused, and will only be used when "necessary". Laws are not meant to be used this way, and the old standby comes immediately into play, "that which can be abused, will be abused." Laws open to interpretation will be misinterpreted, or interpreted in a manner that would horrify those that created and supported the overly-broad law.
Say NO to catch-all laws every chance you get. If they can't define the law in such a way that it cannot be abused/misinterpreted, it's not a good law, I don't care what you're trying to prevent. Find an airtight way to word it or don't put it on the books.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Stop being glib.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Sorry to knock you off of your self-righteous soapbox, but read that article again before you fly off the handle. The author was pointing out that in the event of the allegation being false, the printing of names would be far more detrimental to the person falsely accused than to the "fake victim". Not, unfortunately for your crusade, that being accused of rape is worse than being raped.
No, you read it again:
For example, take the policy of not publishing the names of alleged rape victims. If the rationale is that the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true, why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I'd like to suggest that:
I'm not saying it's a good verdict; it's not. I'm just saying your particular concern about creating incentive for bullied kids to harm themselves seems a little exaggerated when you consider that they would have to know the bully was violating the terms of service before harming themselves in order to bring punishment on the bully.
It seems like you've put a lot of thought into this article. Unfortunately the thought that politicians and their electors put into such issues is trivial and ideological. I would imagine that the likelihood of any thoughtful and logical consideration towards laws and behaviours would be as likely as a politician or judge is to read this article; statistically unlikely.
Best regards,
UTW
I believe he was saying that the damage from the press coverage, not from the actual incident, is a problem for the alleged offender, damaging reputations and employment prospects if nothing else. If the incident is only alleged, the press coverage damage is the main object of the false allegation and should perhaps be discouraged.
So, should we not report on alleged murders? Who doesn't think that OJ didn't do it, even if a jury said so?
He has to live with the embarrassment of being called a murderer on every comedy show in the world anytime he comes back into the news.
Due process requires that alleged criminals have their crimes PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. That way there are no secret courts, and no secret punishments.
Imagine the pain and suffering to a victim of sexual assault, in the event of "secret courts"... he's found guilty, but no one knows about it. So what if it's published after the fact... it's two or three years old by that time usually.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
It is a difficult situation. Someone coming out and saying that Lori Drew should not be credited for the death of Megan Meier usually gets vilified. But the truth is, as you say, what of the countless others who have committed suicide after being bullied? What of the other people in their lives that should have seen that they were depressed and try to help?
The bullies and the others who could/should have helped also share in the blame.
Linux Resources
A whole week? You poor thing. Ever been falsely convicted of a felony? How long do you think it takes to get over that?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
So, because you're a woman, and you've been hurt, it's ok to destroy an innocent man's life?
All men are pigs right?
I'm not making light of sexual assault, my best friend was raped and it didn't take her a week to recover, it took her years. About two before she was comfortable hugging close male friends, and another year after that before she could handle dating. Her first boyfriend after that had a tough time, because she had several panic attacks that would be triggered by seemingly benign events, but went back to the rape.
However, her reputation was not harmed in any way, and since she has healed she can live a normal, and very happy life. A man charged with rape, brought to trial, and then aquitted has no such hope if his name and crime are not protected before a conviction. His reputation is permanently ruined, there will be jobs he cannot get, relationships he cannot have, communities he cannot join, all because he was accused of something he did not do. This is multiplied ten-fold in high-profile cases or small town cases.
You seem to think the only person who can possibly be severly damaged is the female, apparently men's lives don't matter, innocent or no.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
This entire situation is the stupidest thing I've seen happen since the Information Age began. Everything else aside, it boils down to one very simple premise: human beings are contemptible, self-absorbed, petty assholes who've actually regressed since we climbed down from the trees and started walking upright. There have always been unmitigated cunts like Lori Drew, and there always will. Likewise, there have always been melodramatic, angsty teenagers on the edge between stupid and dead, and there always will. I don't have any sympathy for either side. The fact that they had to use irrelevant technicalities in order to make up a crime and actually punish someone just shows how truly pathetic our society is.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
I have never raped a woman, but under certain circumstances it is possible that people would take it credibly if a woman accused me of it. I don't have any control over the actions of other men.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
This is how I see it:
If an alleged victim's name is published, letting everyone know they may have been raped - the detriment to the victim is that everyone will then know that they'd been raped, which understandably causes a great deal of embarrassment and additional psychological damage to the victim.
If an alleged attacker's name is published, letting everyone know they may have raped someone - the detriment to the attacker is that they are also embarrassed and publicly humiliated (though not at all to the same extent), BUT, they also typically lose their jobs, their families, their friends, and are presumed guilty of the crime and treated as such (innocent or not). In most countries it stays on their record whether they were convicted or not, and typically they have to live with that shame the rest of their lives - whether they did it or not.
Do you see the difference?
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
I have never raped a woman, but under certain circumstances it is possible that people would take it credibly if a woman accused me of it. I don't have any control over the actions of other men.
Right... because social pressure never caused anyone to do anything.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I do have to say you did catch the main disagreement to be had with this essay. Everyone else (myself included) got caught up in the small details, but you are right.. the precedent in the case really wouldn't apply to the situation the author raises
I don't mean to belittle your suffering; deep inside I believe that anyone that commits a sexual assault should be killed as quickly as possible in order to make certain they do not cause anyone to suffer. However, I submit that you are handling your assault much better than Mr. Nikolai, committed suicide based on a single 7-year old girls report of inappropriate touching and no physical evidence. I don't think those accused of touching little girls fare very well in prison and I'm sure they have a short life expectancy, regardless of whether the allegations are true or not. I'm not even saying Mr. Nikolai didn't deserve his fate; I'm just saying it is very difficult to strike a balance between always believing the victim and giving too much power to those few unbalanced individuals who would deliberately make false allegations in order to seek twisted vengeance against somebody who has slighted them. Everybody suffers, and everybody feels the psychological scars of injustice for years. I sincerely wish you all the best in healing the pain that was inflicted on you.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
This is a parenting problem.
When a child commits suicide, clearly there is something lacking at home. It may be as clear cut as a complete parental failure or as complex as some sort of chemical imbalance going untreated. In either case, the child *should* have been taken to a shrink long before it got to that point. That the parents failed to ensure that their child was cared for and treated suggests to me neither more nor less than that they were totally lacking in parental ability. For pity sake, parents MUST pay attention to their kids!
Perhaps Lori Drew was the catalyst, but I guarantee there was an underlying problem before her. Going after the Lori Drew's of the world only enables parents to claim "it's not my fault!" I'm not saying that we should tolerate this sort of behavior (particularly in adults). I am saying that placing all the blame on Lori Drew is preposterous.
Bottom line is, parents MUST take responsibility for their children. When parents fail to do so, the results range from maladjusted adults to suicidal youth.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Yes, but there's a difference in scale. If I were to go into the average brick and mortar store, I could steal a few dozen credit card numbers if I'm lucky. If I hack into a database online, I could easily get a few hundred. In addition, assumptions change. Whereas you're supposed to check id when you take a credit card payment, you can't do that online. If the law assumes that something happening physically, then it might leave out wording or add in wording that makes it so that it can't apply properly to an online crime.
So, while the crimes are rooted in the same things, the scale can be vastly different and the laws' wording might disqualify themselves.
I have to agree with your comments. You cannot take the worst case scenario and use it to make case law.
Laws should help to protect people from invasions and unreasonable treatment.
The problem here, is Myspace is something you go to voluntarily -- it isn't like school.
The world cannot be responsible, for the acts of the most fragile people.
If I teased someone, in a light hearted manner, and they take their own lives. A jury will have to then conclude what my intent was, and if I had a history of teasing. On the other hand, cannot we say that there is a certain mental fortitude that a person should be required to have.
On the other hand, a group of people could hound someone, no matter where they went. And cast aspersions on their character. Making threats and harsh comments that affects their business. The target, might never cry or be driven into depression. But, has harm been done?
We need to look at the severity of actions committed -- not based upon the reactions of people. I'm sure most of us know how hard it can be to work in a place, where there is a person so sensitive, that any curse, wicked thought, or slightly amusing joke can send them into a tizzy. Should we all be held hostage to the highest bar and offend anyone? I can tell you, that the one thing that offends me is when there aren't dirty jokes, a little teasing, and people worried about not saying anything interesting.
What about kids who are shunned and never have anyone talking to them -- is there a measure of "harmful neglect?"
>> This was a bad thing that happened, and the people were jerks. But they should not be responsible for another human being's actions -- but I can only say that up to a point. The real test would be "could the victim have avoided the teasing, and would the teasing, harm the average person." In neither instance of this case, is that true.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Gee, way to limit the options. "Leave her alone and she lives her life in misery; treat her with these ineffective drugs, and their side effects include an increased risk of suicide. If only there were other treatment options available..."
Of course, psychotherapists don't have the money and pull that Big Pharma does.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Well... at least she's better than Katz...
Furry cows moo and decompress.
I disagree with what you say, for the reasons that others have said.
But troll? Seriously? Mods, what's wrong with you?
You know, they tried to pass that same bullshit when Kurt Corbain committed suicide. They brought out counsellors and therapists and suicide hotlines because they thought there would be a rash of suicides because 'the hero of our generation' had committed suicide. Forget the idiocy of anyone idolizing Kurt Corbain, it just didn't happen. There was no mass suicides, no real copycats.
Teenagers are not as emotionally fucked up as everyone thinks they are. And certainly, if they were treated with respect and shown that acting like a fucktard had actual consequences, bullying resultant suicides would be alot more rare.
> I stand by my position, and refuse to alter it. I don't care what he was talking about, to me it says that my pain is less than something else.
Your position is irrelevant, then, if you refuse to even consider that what he said is not at all what you think he said.
> BTW, when arresting someone we're REQUIRED to identify their name and crime, it's called DUE PROCESS.
You really don't have any idea what we're talking about, do you? News outlets routinely protect the identities of victims/accusers to save them from embarrassment. Those accused, however, are granted so much protection, and the media knows that simply publishing a man's name in the context of "was arrested for [insert sensational sex crime here]" will irrevocably destroy that man's name in his community, whether the accusations are true or not. This is a double standard which is unfair.
Yes, rape is evil. Yes, being a rape victim is very difficult. That's not what we're talking about though, so when you feel like joining the actual conversation at hand, by all means do so.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Really? My, my. Guess that's why everyone I saw drinking at holiday parties over the weekend was dysfunctional, unemployed, and hostile. Oh, wait...that wasn't the case.
SSRI's are little better than placebos for treating depression, and have been linked to increased risk of violence or suicide.
They're widely prescribed because they're far more profitable than psychotherapeutic approaches, and because they fit in with the modern mythology of neurochemical reductionism, not because they work well.
If they work for you, great. Bur be aware that there are other treatments that would probably work even better.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Many people accused of sexual assaults don't even get anything at all. The police go over talk to them, decide that there isn't enough evidence, and they blow it off.
Fame and infamy don't last as long as you presume.
That will whole depend on how much you are portrayed in the media and for how long. I know too people (friends of my father) that were falsely accused of been rapist. One stayed in jail 1 week before been released. And he killed himself 2 months later because of all the shit throw to him.
You seriously understimate what a FALSE acusation can make to the life of an INNOCENT man. The moment a girl comes to Local TV and says: "He was the one that raped me.", even if some time later he comes to TV and says: "It was not him sorry". The damage is done, and if the time between those 2 is big enough, it can be permanent. I will not even touch with what happens to people accused of been a rapist in prison, there are a bunch of tatoos to mark those in the prisons here for a reason.
So be careful of saying that the name of person ACCUSED, not convicted, must known. Because he may be innocent and you would devastate another life. And if you really believe that you should take the life of an innocent person, just because someone destroyed yours raping you, I'm really glad I don't live close to you.
And honestly? DAMN RIGHT they should have that happen. Speaking as a victim. After all, nothing happened to my rapist. A little anxiety in his life wouldn't be too much to ask for, just so that he would accept what he did to me.
Look, what happened to you suck, badly. My ex was raped, and I know how those memories and scars last forever. I hope your rapist have an unnecessary slow and painfull death as all of them deserver, but that is no justification to falsely accuse someone.
--- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
I think a lot of people are missing something very important in this case, lots of things are crimes if and only if lying is involved. There is no such thing as slander, liable, false advertisement and fraud (for example) that involves only true and wholly accurate statements. So yes, we can't and shouldn't make people "play nice" all the time, but things don't work well if you let people lie and harm others. So the truth really DOES matter (duh).
Are you kidding me?
1st - anyone who holds it against a rape victim is probably not someone a rape victim distance themselves from as quickly as possible. This is not one of the warm, compassionate people that a rape victim should have around to help them to heal.
2nd - for some reason, people don't seem to believe that someone accused of rape, even after acquittal, can be truly innocent (or else they wouldn't have been accused, right?).
Finally, to claim that a false accusation of such a serious VIOLENT crime is a mere "embarrassment" is utterly ridiculous! Like a rape victim, such an individual will be subjected to public humiliation. Unlike a rape victim, they will probably be shunned by some family members and friends, lose employment opportunities and may even be subjected to violence as a result of those accusations.
snowgirl, I do not mean to imply that the crime commited against you is trivial. To the contrary, to be violated in such a way (rest assured, this is not beyond my comprehension) is one of the most demeaning things which can happen in your life. I would suggest, however, that to claim that the social rape of an individual with such a false accusation does NOT pale in comparison. With a rape victim, the body will heal and in time, so too will the mind. For those falsely accused of rape, the stigma will never relent.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
This is a conversation stopper.
Nobody bother trying to talk to snowgirl. Based on her own words, she is clearly not capable or willing to consider other arguments.
If you really think that what you're saying is true, please look up 1963 Buddhist monk self-immolation.
What happened to the comment you're replying to? I feel like I'm missing something here...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
I stand by my position, and refuse to alter it.
A person who refuses to ever change their position is a person who refuses to learn.
I don't care what he was talking about, to me it says that my pain is less than something else.
In other words, he hurt your feelings, and damn any logic involved.
I acknowledge your pain. I acknowledge that, since I am not a rape victim myself, I cannot truly appreciate how much you have been hurt.
However, the fact that you were hurt is not a get-out-of-debate free card. I will not abandon logic to comfort you, and the point stands.
Any pain caused by this being pointed out, publicly, is less than that caused by the act itself. But being publicly identified as a victim gives you sympathy. Being publicly identified as a perp makes him hated -- in a small enough town, might even drive him out.
Certainly, you could make a case that it's deserved -- if he actually did it. So, yes, in your case -- but not every woman who cries rape has actually been raped. And people won't forget he was accused, whether or not he's actually convicted.
If you still believe anyone accused deserves that, fine -- but I hope, at least, you don't think anyone is automatically a chauvinist pig for daring to suggest it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'd say that's where amendments to laws need to come in. It seems that law makers are just crafting quick laws to deal with the internet without considering the consequences of those laws.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
n/t
Most law is dependent on the actual consequences of actions.
1) The difference between battery and murder is how much damage you did.
2) The difference between vehicular homicide, reckless endangerment and DWI has to do with effect.
There is nothing unusual here. You tease someone and they suck it up you get off. You tease someone and they become severely distressed and you have problems. You tease someone and they die because of it, its homicide.
I think the suggestion is that we not publish the names of "alleged" criminals. By all means, people convicted of a crime should have their names brought to public attention.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
The apparent correlation between SSRIs and suicide, once again, does not mean causation.
I'm sure the victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Red Lake, Omaha, etc... would disagree with you. There have been very few, if any cases of school/mall shootings in the past 20 years that haven't been directly linked to SSRI anti-depressants.
Many of the cases involve the person going off the drug abruptly, which usually can cause very dangerous psychotic break. Look at the Omaha Mall shooter as an example.
The Physicians' Desk Reference lists the following adverse reactions (side effects) to antidepressants among a host of other physical and neuropsychiatric 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
You can say that correlation is not causation until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it always true. It seems to be "true" most when people don't like the facts.
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."
It is highly unlikey that the FDA would do this if it weren't true. The FDA is notorious for being a revolving door for big pharma execs.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
"shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,
and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner." [emphasis added]
Reading that literally means that no matter how bad the harassment is, you still have to feel distressed in order to have them prosecuted, and the more distressed you "act," the more likely you are to succeed!
A couple of points here ->
To some extent, distress is an effect of harassment. In that a specific kind of behavior may or may not be harassment depending on the circumstances. E.G., if I'm chasing my wife around the house, and she's giggling and laughing (this actually happens - we get silly), that is quite different that if I were chasing her around the house and she was screaming for me to stop (this has never happened). So if there's actually harassment, you would expect to see distress.
The second point is, the law here talks about "would cause a reasonable person". Under this law, if I'm walking down the street, and someone happens to be walking a block in front of me, I am not harassing that person even if they feel completely and horrendously violated by the fact that I'm walking a block behind them ... because no reasonable person would feel such just because a stranger happened to be walking a block behind them down the street in a fairly well populated area.
And I don't think people harming themselves would meet a 'reasonable person' standard, either. Although, it may be hard to show motive on the side of the self-harming person.
Code or be coded.
So let me see if I understand you... you're blaming him, and me... people who have never raped a woman because we feel its wrong and highly immoral... for the crimes of other men, because somehow we pressured them into raping women? If this is correct, then you are fucked up. Seek help. Same goes if you are seriously suggesting that its ok that lives are destroyed from false accusations because rape is bad. What happened to you was a tragedy, but that does not excuse such ignorant, selfish, and pig-headed remarks.
Statutory rape? Of a 17 year old? I am glad I live in a country where it is legal to have sex with 15 year old girls and it is up to the girl to decide if it was rape or conceptual sex. I am glad that there is no such thing as statutory rape in this country.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Just curious since this is a "true story" of yours (not saying it's not), but what state did it happen in? 32 states in the US have the age of consent at 16, and another 7 have it at 17. Odds are for most people that you live in a state where they don't have to be 18 to be legal. Depending on what state your friend lived in, he could sue the Sheriff.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The police go over talk to them, decide that there isn't enough evidence, and they blow it off.
People are innocent until proven guilty. Even the scum of the earth deserve a fair trial, and to be proven guilty of the crimes they are accused of. If the evidence wasn't there, then what else can the police do? The fact that rape is horrible does not justify us becoming monsters ourselves.
The word of one person is simply not good enough to convict a person of a crime, especially when the consequences of even being accused of it are so serious.
I don't think it would have been. Obviously it depends on the state law but it appears from the following that it would infact be illegal. I would consider telling an emotionally unstable person, that could be reasonable understood to be inclined to suicide, that the world is better off without them would be considered encouragement.
"A person who willfully, in any manner, advises, encourages, abets or assists another person in taking the latter's life, is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree."
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Substantial emotional distress is cause for concern. If someone is simply unhappy because they got into an argument with someone, that's not harassment. Harassment is systematic, unwanted, and bothersome attention paid to someone.
A flame war can go on for months between two people, but that negative attention isn't harassment. Person A can repeatedly call person B and be told to go hump a dead coyote, but if person A is initiating the contact then person B isn't harassing person A (possibly the opposite, in fact).
If there's no distress, there's no harassment. That part of the laws is correct. If you make it about whether the perpetrator "intended to cause" some "substantial distress" in another person, then you'll never be able to convict anyone. "I only meant to cause minor emotional distress" would be a valid defense.
And leave us not forget that men can be raped too... either by other men or by women. True, it's not as common, but it does indeed occur.
Does this then mean that a woman being falsely accused of raping a man feels nothing?
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
They also fall into the "quick fix" category. Everything has to be fixed immediately and nothing can ever actually be anyone's fault. If you're on drugs you're getting fixed quickly and your depression isn't your fault, you've just got a chemical imbalance.
I feel the same way about parents dragging their kids off to be diagnosed with ADD. Try pulling them away from the TV and the pure sugar juice box and making them run around outside a bit. It's easier to focus when you're not constantly on a sugar high and looking for a way to burn some energy. I feel sorry for those kids... once you get categorized with that kinda of crap teachers practically act like you're special ed. Some of my friends really got screwed by that.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
The ludacriousness of the subject says it all. No one caused that girl to kill herself, but herself. Sure it was an evil thing to do an karma will catchup with her, but there were obvious signs that were ignored by her parents and if anyone is at fault it is them...
[blockquote]Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?[/blockquote] I knew someone who took his own life after being falsely accused of rape. He didn't seem to be to be particularly mentally fragile but he lived in a small community which turned against him and after a year or so he couldn't take any more. I think this is a rare example of what you are saying isn't true, and I don't consider myself an asshole, chauvinistic or a pig for saying it.
Its not what she said but how she said it. The amount of vitriol is almost palpable, and she has been steadily making it worse as the thread wears on.
Okay, so let's assume the bullied kid misunderstands the case. Are we then going to say: "Don't publicize far-reaching cases that might influence an unstable person who misunderstands the facts to act in a way that harms themselves?"
That seems like a fairly big trade-off to me. There's been a legal precedent set that could affect countless Americans, but we shouldn't warn them about this because someone might misunderstand the facts and act irrationally?
There was also the big child porn sting in England. Turns out that some of the accused had simply had their credit cards stolen. I think 7 or so of these innocent people killed themselves as a result of being accused. Being accused of rape is no laughing matter. It is an accusation that will come up in a google search, and it will haunt you for life.
We can do very little legally to protect our children from this kind of thing. That's just the way it is.
If someone tells you to kill yourself...and you DO IT...why should the first party come under legal consequences? Even if the person truly wanted you to kill yourself, The receiving party is still the one in whole who exercises their own will to do so. Nevermind the fact that most people are only suicidal for attention, making it a LAW that if someone tells you to kill yourself that they would go to jail is just...ridiculous Then again ive always said arguing on the internet is for losers [at least when the arguments are as asinine as resorting to telling each other to kill yourself] Mass Mail: *.myspace.com Subj: I LOVE YOU body: KILL YOURSELF!
nigelt.wordpress.com
So you're saying that we shouldn't punish bullies because it gives incentive to the bullied to have the bullies punished? Am I crazy or does this not make any sense at all?
Conceptual sex? Is that what I'm having when I theorize about what sex might be like?
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
The amount of vitrol in the post I would say is minimal; about the only thing remotely close to the line is "ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG". Posts get +5 around here with far more than that on a somewhat regular basis.
...the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true...
Doesn't even touch on the subject of rape being worse than being accused of rape. Specifically refers to hiding the identity of alleged victims to prevent unfair embarassment.
why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
Also does not make any hardship comparison between the act of rape itself and false accusation thereof; Again, it specifically refers to the hardship associated with public knowledge of the events.
I personally know a number of victims of sexual assault- among them my younger brother, by one of our cousins, who attempted the same with me as well. And you know what? It's rather presumptuous of you to put so much weight on the embarassment of the victims. From my experience, embarassment is the LEAST of their concerns. Even if nobody knows what happened to the victim, the victim still knows, and the victim still lived through it. Putting so much weight on their public embarassment serves only to trivialize the actual crime itself, and is a great disservice to the victims.
On the other hand, a person falsely accused of sexual assault is a victim as well. I wholeheartedly agree that the act of falsely accusing someone of sexual assault is not as disgusting or grave an offense as actually sexually assaulting someone. However, The falsely accused has to bear that scarlet letter for the rest of his or her life. The lifelong hardships faced by a sexual assault victim, on the other hand, aren't lessened in the least by hiding the act from public knowledge.
I'm not entirely certain how you can claim that public embarassment of a sexual assault victim is anywhere near a measurable percentage of the hardships he or she deals with. But as I said previously, it rather trivializes the hardships that sexual assault victims go through, and doing so does them a great disservice.
Laws are laws, and if you disagree with a law, work to get it overturned or changed.
But to argue that a prosecution of a law is bad because it might or could or may lead to someone thinking they might or could or possibly get someone prosecuted if they are bullied online and then kill themselves relies on a lot of "what-ifs" and assumptions.
Really? Do you really think there's this huge morass of online people just waiting for a verdict like this so they can go and say, "Wow, now all I have to do is get someone to impersonate someone else, get them to bully me on MySpace, and then make sure lots of people know about it, and then take my own life, and I'll get my revenge!"
Agree or disagree with TOSs, but they are there for a reason. And if you don't like the fact that if you violate one, you can face prosecution (or even criminal prosecution if your actions lead to someone's harm or death), well, that's your choice not to visit that site then. There are millions of websites, and the nice thing is, nobody's forcing anyone to visit a particular one.
Decisions like this one are not bad, nor are they likely to lead to some sort of strange epidemic of people who work hard to try and commit suicide while implicating someone else for causing it. They are reasonable interpretations of law and proper repercussions for people acting in an unlawful manner. And people who are suicidal aren't going to start changing their entire set of behaviors to conform to this decision, to try and implicate another person.
It's a long term solution to a short term problem. Idiotic, although it is, is an overly simplistic way to put it. But I'd settle for selfish.
And FTR no, I am not a zombie, I was just lucky enough not to be particularly good at it.
Quack, quack.
Megan Meier was not trying to get back at Lori Drew. Nor could she possible have been. She died *not knowing* that Drew was her harasser. Indeed, the verdict against Drew hinged on her *falsifying* her identity. If she had really been that boy she pretended to be, that boy would have committed no crime and gotten off scott-free. The simple fact was, Megan killed herself because she thought the boy of her dreams had turned on her, and Lori Drew is guilty of creating the delusion that drove her to it. It has nothing to do with getting back at anybody.
Only in the absurd case that someone is suicidal, being harassed by an imaginary person, KNOWS that their harasser is imaginary, yet simultaneously still believes in the fake person, can this verdict ever provide an incentive to suicide. The only incentive this verdict gives anyone is the incentive NOT to pretend to be someone else in order to push people into killing themselves.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Your position is based on a faulty presumption; it simply doesn't work.
No one is saying that someone who is actually raped suffers less than someone publicly identified as their rapist.
People are saying that someone who falsely accuses rape (which happens very, very frequently) doesn't suffer as much as the victim, who has done nothing legally wrong and just wants to go back to their life.
Unfortunately, they cannot.
As an undergraduate at RIT, I have a friend who was in a relationship with a woman. As relationships sometimes do in college, it died away after they had sex a few times; my friend had decided that he wanted something more than just sex, and since she didn't want to be in that kind of relationship, she left him.
The next morning, he was walking back from the bookstore; public safety showed up with three officers and a police car. They said his name, and he responded with a groan (he was the RA, and there had been some drinking the last week that he had to break up) and a "what's up". He was taken to a room and asked where he was on a given date (incidentally, he had been at the hospital on that date for an injury that had happened during robotics club). He was then told that he was being accused of rape.
Before he was even *charged* with the act, he had to start defending himself to the college immediately. A student conduct hearing was scheduled, he had to move off campus immediately (as in, that night; he had to come back to his room under police and campus safety escort and get a small number of his belongings to take to a hotel which he had to pay for for 4 weeks until the hearing), and he was removed from his job, all classes and student activities, and his position as the RA pending the hearing.
Mind you, this is all BEFORE he has been charged.
The police verified that he was, in fact, at the hospital at the time (two days before they broke up); she quickly changed her story 7 or 8 times as this went on, to the point where the police told her not only that this wouldn't fly in court and that it was pretty obvious that she was lying. At his request, they filed their recommendation that the school that they find in the same fashion.
They didn't; they decided that "no conclusion could be found". He was kicked out of school. If you search for his name on Google (he has a rather unique name), the first thing you see is a bit in his home town paper saying that he was under arrest for rape.
If you think that his suffering was less than the suffering of the woman who put him through that, please, tell me how.
Any pain caused by this being pointed out, publicly, is less than that caused by the act itself. But being publicly identified as a victim gives you sympathy. Being publicly identified as a perp makes him hated -- in a small enough town, might even drive him out.
Being publicly identified as a rape victim rarely brings sympathy. Talk to some rape victims about it some time and you'll find that for most it brings further embarrassment, questioning glances, people talking behind their backs about whether they "were asking for it" or are "sluts". Especially in a small town. In many cases the first thing the police ask is what she was wearing. As if it's just assumed it was her fault. And "in a small enough town," the perp might get high-fives from his buddies and a slap on the wrist from the law. I say these things not as someone who has been raped, but someone who has talked to many rape victims and listened to their stories.
I'm not saying the post you're responding to is right, just that you need to check your assumptions if you're going to appeal to "logic".
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
But it's a slippery journalistic slope to go down once you start deciding not to publish certain elements of a story, even for what seem to be compelling reasons.
When it comes to names, I have the perfect solution. Similarly to the system for reading hash values over the phone, come up with a list of 2^n first names and 2^m last names.
Take the sha256 of the involved parties' names, and for each sum use n+m bits to invent a new pseudo-random name which is uniquely determined per input name.
Only on slashdot? ;)
Ah yes, the classic excuse: "X has it worse, therefore you should not complain about Y."
Your post is less than useless, it is harmful and is ignorant beyond reason.
Conceptual sex? Is that what I'm having when I theorize about what sex might be like?
Shit, at least you're getting some ;)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If I were him, I'd strongly consider legal action against the school. In addition, the story should be shouted from the rooftops, as to give the school a bad name.
All I can say is boo-fucking-hoo. Everyone in Western society is so utterly spoiled. Anyone wanting to committ suicide in a Western country, save a very minute number of cases, should just get it over with because we don't need your cowardly influence any longer. Let me explain.
This post is either a troll or genuinely ignorant. Either way, it's certainly not "insightful."
People who are suicidal typically suffer from depression or other mental illness. Even in affluent civilizations, they aren't cowards or somehow morally deficient. They just have a disease which warps all of their perceptions in such a way that suicide appears to be the best alternative. Bullying might act as a catalyst, but the underlying phenomenon is usually illness and almost never a moral failing.
As for people who are bullied, sure they don't suffer as much as someone being raped, tortured, etc. But they do suffer, and not in a trivial sort of way. "Shut up about X, because at least you're not getting Y like those other people" is morally repulsive when X and Y both involve the victim suffering significantly---even if X is no where near as bad as Y.
I would, but I've already posted. Our society is disgusting in its double standard for men and women when it comes to sex crimes.
Long ago, long before this [if(SSRIs) suicide_risk++;] hit the news, I went to see a shrink, 'cause my family was concerned about my constant glum attitude - I was exhibiting all of the symptoms of clinical depression. The guy that I went to see prescribed Zoloft for me... I tried it. After 3 weeks on the pills, I actually *did* overdose (3 bottles of sleeping pills, 1 bottle of Vicodine, and - the rest of the Zoloft washed down with 2qts of Long Island Iced Teas). Obviously, I lived (don't need to go into details, but it involved intervention), but... here comes the irony...
I stopped taking the Zoloft, and went back to feeling generally glum and lethargic. Time came around for my every-four-months blood test (college, promiscuity, and part of the sex=AIDS=DEATH generation X)... had the doctor run a full blood workup, while they were poking the needle in. Test results came back -- blood cholesterol was abnormally *low*. I had cut meat out of my diet a couple of months before all of this started, and *that* was what was causing the lethargy... and the SSRIs *did* significantly bring my mood down.
The shrink told me that they might make me "feel a little racy". I don't know if he was that ignorant about neurochemestry, and actually believed what he said, or if he was hoping to cash in on the placebo effect, but I'd bet that a lot of doctors who are handing these pills out to kids are guilty of both. Serotonin is a "downer" - Dopamine is the brain's "upper". SSRIs cause Serotonin levels to build up (especially during the initial stage - this levels off as the body starts producing less of it, seeking homeostesis)...
btw - I started eating meat and eggs again, and got to feeling much better. It's not *just* the SSRI issue that brings this rant out in me... Every time that I hear about some new anti-cholesterol treatment, it reminds me of that New-Year's eve... but - when it comes to giving these drugs to kids... Fscking around with the neurochemestry of a developing brain is *not* something that should be taken casually.
You have an interesting point, although your post is borderline flamebait. Western society is at its very core violent. The culture is obsessed with violence, tormenting others, and winning. Western culture is sustained by conquest abroad and repression at home. Your friend was a victim of this conquest as are many 'others' in colonized countries. But as I said, at home, there is repression. This repression causes much of the violence to internalized. Fear and mistrust run rampant. Bullying in schools is the norm. Some people are unable to cope with all that psychological trauma and either shoot up schools or commit suicide.
Often I see studies blaming the media or video games on $age_group violence and I laugh my ass off. (How long have we have been at war?) The various media violence in question is an expression of that violence that is already in us, and has always been there. Look at the history of civilization. It's ridiculous. Indigenous (outside) people get their lands and bodies raped while those inside the culture get their minds raped.
I'm sure this girl who committed suicide already had many things wrong with her before she went through with it. She was likely bipolar and this simulated heartbreaking relationship pushed her over the edge. Love and sex are very powerful feelings at that age. I'm sure you remember.
Of course, bullying and lying are not against the law in the culture. Or if they are (harassment?), no expects anyone to do anything about it - or for it to stop. It's just the way things are. And thats why they had to prosecute on the basis of violating the terms of service.
Although I'd easily agree Western Society is spoiled with material goods, I'd say that it also psychologically tormented, morally bankrupt, and cause of pain for millions worldwide.
The primary function of the criminal law is to take revenge out of the picture.
When the law looks away, matters like this aren't resolved by an ass-kicking, they are resolved by a 12 gauge or ten feet of hemp:
There is nothing you can imagine that has not been done.
Without Sanctuary - Lynching Photography in America
I urge you strongly to take a look at these photographs - and not for one second forget that they are postcards - produced and sold like any other.
The point is you're innocent until proven guilty. Think about the Duke Lacrosse team; their Lacrosse season was disbanded for a year and their names dragged through the mud, and in the end they were innocent. They weren't angels by any means, but they did not rape someone. Reputation is hard to gain back.
Actually, we tried to get the student-run newspaper to run a story about it. They decided that to do that would be in bad taste. The most interesting reaction, though, was when some of us called the local paper; we figured this would be "Wow, holy shit" news, but the reporter we ended up talking with answered "That's not really newsworthy, that happens all the time." I had one of those moments where one of the foundations of your philosophy gets blown apart and your entire way of thinking just stops and tries to rebuild itself.
He considered legal action against the school, but he was told by counsel that he couldn't do anything about it, and that even if the court did find in his favor, he would have to reapply, and they would probably just screen him out during application.
He has coped with it EXTREMELY well; despite being very intelligent, he hasn't been able to get into any other 'reputable' schools, so he had to attend a state university.
For more information, at the end of the quarter, he was going to go intern at IBM. He was sent an e-mail by HR about two weeks after this all started and was told that it would be against policy to accept interns with a criminal record, so he lost his co-op for that quarter, which was something he was really looking forward to at the time. Now, every time he applies to an internship, it gets brought up quietly, he always tells his story, and he never gets accepted (although he always gets selected quickly for an interview).
If "secret courts" where there's no press is the only way to solve these kinds of problems for people who are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, then I'm all for it. If they're found guilty, great; publish it all over the place. Until then, there's no need to ruin people's lives like this whenever some vindictive woman gets mad because she lost her boytoy.
Listen to yourself ... there's so much anger and bitterness showing in your post, you might want to reconsider your position that you are somehow that morally superior to those that felt suicidal, as those beatings probably affected you more than you think ... "all it ever did", I don't think so. I'm not even sure it's normal to feel that strongly about something that really has nothing to do with you if things are as you purport them to be - those suicidal people did nothing to you. It sounds more to me as though positing your status as being higher than those "weak losers" (in your mind) helps you see yourself as stronger or better (an imagined position you're clearly fighting hard to maintain, suggesting maybe it is in doubt in your mind) --- in fact, what you are ultimately doing is very much akin to bullying those 'losers'. It's all about maintaining a position in the social status hierarchy; your not being suicidal doesn't make you 'better than' those people. You're holding a lot of anger and bitterness down and it's very obvious from every other sentence; your attacking people you perceive as weak (who might be a lot stronger than you in fact, you DON'T know what else they go through) is probably doing harm to the people around you.
He was sent an e-mail by HR about two weeks after this all started and was told that it would be against policy to accept interns with a criminal record
Sorry, Freudian slip. Obviously, he doesn't actually have a criminal record per se, and that's not what was exactly said--I don't recall the exact wording, but you understand what I mean.
Did he entertain suing the woman for slander? She knowingly made false statements about him that had material impact upon him. Its the textbook definition. The woman definitely deserves to be hit hard for what she did. I'm guessing that the authorities would have viewed that as blaming the victim though.
From another angle: My impression is simply, you're clearly spitting venom, and I think it's because you're still in pain.
If you search Google or Google Scholar for "teen brain development" you will find some relevant information. Like this or this or if you've got access, stuff like this.
A lot of scientific attention has focused on charting the ongoing physical maturation of the frontal lobes through adolescence and even into early adulthood. The frontal lobes are involved in executive functioning, which includes things like self-regulation and impulse control. The frontal lobes are also involved in self-monitoring, which interestingly ties back to the grandparent poster's statement:
I mean fuck, I was beat up daily in high school, and all it ever did was make me certain that I would never reciprocate it to others. These suicidal fucks are no different than the retards that shoot up schools - they're cowards and should be labelled as such.
I think it affected you more than you admit. It sucks that you had to deal with that just as it sucks that people have to deal with fucked up brain chemistry. I don't know the solution, but I'm pretty sure compelling people to kill themselves is not helpful.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I'm sorry, but I really do have to disagree with you on several points.
First of all, why is it that this is suddenly a crime when it's done online, but if you're being harassed at school, no one cares? I spent 4 years being picked on every fucking day for no reason. I'd get hit, I had my glasses and possessions broken or thrown into the water, etc. When I went to the cops, do you know what they said? "Maybe you should see a counselor or take up karate" Really? It's not like I'd taken karate for 5 years already, and was trying to avoid fighting on principle. School officials did nothing. The authorities did nothing. And when my parents went to talk to their parents, they found them to be even bigger assholes than their kids. And when I did fight back, _I_ was the one who was punished, or sent to detention. And it kept going until one day, 3 of them decided to pick on me outside of school on the way home from the bus. My expensive new glasses got broken, I snapped, and left all 3 of them crying on the floor. And then it stopped.
There are thousands of kids who live through that every day, who can't fight back the way I was able to, and no one does anything. At best, if you're lucky, they'll send them to the school counselor, who will then proceed to do absolutely nothing. So please enlighten me as to why this is perfectly ok, even though there are a multitude of suicides and self-abuse cases over similar situations, but "cyber-bullying" is somehow so much worse.
As for the rape story, first of all, you seem to be equivocating statutory rape with assault/rape. This is not the case. A very close friend of mine was assaulted and raped when going home one evening and she's still trying to get over it more than 8 years later. To somehow claim that this act is the same as statutory rape is completely absurd. Why do I feel this way, you might ask. The reason being that statutory rape depends on what the state believes the victim's ability to understand the situation and make a valid decision. The problem is that each state can decide this. Why is this a problem? Because, for example, when I was a senior in high school I began seeing a freshman (an age difference of 3 years). The age of consent in New York State is 17. The age of consent in New Jersey, which was a 5 minute drive away, is 16. How, I wonder, does she magically gain maturity and the ability to make a rational decision if we drive a few miles, and then mysteriously lose it when we go home?
Don't get me wrong, I didn't sleep with her until she was of age (which had less to do with the law and more to do with when she was comfortable with it), but that doesn't mean that the law is any less idiotic in that situation. Yes, the GP's friend is an idiot, and he did in fact commit a crime, but the way in which it played out just goes to show how stupid the law is. In another state, likely just a few miles away, it would've been perfectly legal! At least in NY, we make an effort to make some distinction (it's only a misdemeanor if the perp is under 21, and the victim is over 15), and the severity of the charges increases the younger the victim is, but other states have no such provisions, and make little distinction between a 50 year old man who slept with a 10 year old, and an 18 year old boy who slept with his 17 year old girlfriend. And lest we forget that the latter case goes into the sex offender database as well, making it difficult to find work, a house, etc. I know one guy who married the girl who was the "victim" and later couldn't find a job because he was a registered sex offender.
I'm beginning to stray off-topic, but my main point is that equivocating assault/rape to statutory rape, regardless of the circumstances, is an injustice to both victims of rape/assault, and both parties involved in a statutory rape case. Just because they both have the word "rape" in the name does not make them the same thing.
As for the main point of the article, the most sensible solution is to keep both perpetrator and victim's names private, because both are entitled to due process. Too often, society judges us to be guilty regardless of what a court of law has to say, and the media rarely prints retractions on accusations they make.
About your comments regarding not publishing the names of rape defendants ("in case it turns out not to be true"): of all sexual assaults, only about 1 in 10 are even reported. Of those reported, only about 1 of 10 are prosecuted. That means that only 1 in 100 cases end up in court (these are rough statistics and taken from around 1999 when last I checked).
The reason so few are prosecuted is because the prosecution needs to have enough evidence to be confident of a conviction (you know, so as not to waste taxpayer money on losing prosecutions, regardless of the other merits of the case). So the ones that get prosecuted are the ones that there is generally a lot of evidence to support the victim's case. So when you see a report in the news about a trial regarding sexual assault, you can bet there's a lot of evidence to show the defendant is indeed guilty. Now, not all the time, mind you, but... you see what I mean.
So I don't worry too much when I see a defendant's name published in rape cases. Coz he's very likely to be guilty.
As strange as it is to say so on Slashdot of all places, you're probably right. Thanks for your comments - I do have some thinking to do.
If I treat a person badly, in real life, and somehow that makes her take her own life, is it a crime as well? I don't think it is in my country, is it in yours? I am feeling the internet is getting over protective...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
You sound like a very reasonable person. More people should listen to you and take your views seriously. You express yourself clearly and everything you say makes perfect sense. My fairy godmother cast a spell on a frog and turned it into a prince.
Yah. I second that with a similar story in a similar college with a similar friend and a similar crazy ex-girlfriend.
I know colleges aren't courts of law, but the amount of deference given to the accuser makes it inevitable that false accusations will be common.
We all told my friend to sue the girl. He decided not to do that.
It's the same at all schools, so that wouldn't work. Also, because going to school is a privilege, not a right, there is very little legal standing to sue in order to be re-admitted (not zero, but very little).
Many of the cases involve the person going off the drug abruptly, which usually can cause very dangerous psychotic break.
Not using the drug as prescribed is hardly the drug's fault.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
If I then pull up next to someone & rev up my engine, and as a result they peel off, crash & die, can I then be prosecuted for MURDER
This is totally unrelated, but you actually just described almost verbatim a competition mock trial case I once had in High School.
Lori Drew's case holds a lot of lessons for a lot of people. It is about cyberbullying, which is behavior for which society has little tolerance. Cyberbullying is poison for anyone it touches. An institution like Myspace -- or a library or a school, which provides patrons, students or guests access to the Internet -- has plentiful incentive to stamp out cyberbullying within its system and its PCs. Regardless of how the law says it (through a misdemeanor criminal conviction or otherwise), the law has made clear it wants to find a way to punish anyone involved with cyberbullying. --Ben
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
I think this is a side effect of the current legal culture of victimhood.
It's very much the same if you're a livestock producer and get falsely accused of "abuse" or "neglect" -- your animals and often your other property are confiscated (and often *profitably* disposed of by the "rescuer") before you're even formally charged, and chances are you'll never be allowed to face your accuser in court.
In this scenario, the "helpless animals" are cast in the same role as the "rape victim" and in the eyes of the legal and social lynch mob, the accused is guilty by definition, with absolutely no recourse to facts nor to the accuser's motivations.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Agree. The existing laws we have will work fine, too. If the victim would not have suicided without defendant's act, and the jury thinks defendant had reason to forsee the suicide by reason of a knowledge of the victim's susceptibility, then the defendant can be found liable in the jury's discretion. (IAAL)
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Anecdotal: I took Paxil for about 6 months. I eventually stopped because of strange physical sensations, a desire to constantly move, twitch, and an overall sense of extreme unease. It's called "akathesia," it is a known symptom of SSRIs as well as various antipsychotics, and it was so severely uncomfortable that at times I wanted to just die. Not because it caused a "suicidal ideation" but because it made me feel so physically ill that unconsciousness was preferable to those effects. I'm not at all surprised that some people, who are unstable to begin with, might choose death over those symptoms.
The world is a danger to depressed kids. It's not fair to condemn each and every thing in the world, randomly in knee jerk reactions, to protect the children.
A good story and a good cautionary tale. As much as I despise homeopathy, they do have something right... generally, giving a drug to someone who doesn't need the treatment will evoke symptoms like those they are intended to prevent. Homeopathy is however after all, much like Alchemy... and early protoscience that was eventually shown to be over all counter-factual. But Alchemists still knew how to make hydrogen, and homeopaths did still know how to make reasonable treatments by diluting otherwise poisonous substances well below the LD50... like botox for example.
One needs to know what the causes are and address those real issues. As you pointed out, you weren't depressed, you were suffering from protein malnutrition (many vegetarians would hate to admit that this exists, healthy vegans know that you have to take supplements). Attempting to treat you for depression with SSRIs in that case is definitely not a good idea. It doesn't matter what drug or condition they were doing... they were treating your condition with a drug for a different condition.
SSRIs however are immensely important to people for whom they are necessary. Even at the risk of higher suicidal chances.
Thanks for the information though, I'll stick that in my SSRIs cause increased risk of suicide file. :)
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I'm not saying that SSRIs aren't helpful to certain people in certain specific situations, just that people need to realize that the SSRI television commercials are a marketing fantasy. While attractive people do attend parties and while beer is consumed at parties, a television commercial that shows some lonely guy crack open a beer and suddenly find himself at a wild party surround by super models is, fundamentally, a marketing fantasy. Similarly, television commercials that show some guy totally turn his life around by taking a few SSRIs are also marketing fantasies.
I would personally go further to say that no medication advertising is reality. All drugs have side-effects, this is known, any time that you're doing something good for the body, you can potentially harm that body.
The lay person in general doesn't have the knowledge necessary to understand what and why the drugs they are taking are important and what the risks are. All drugs have risks.
I think it's more important for doctors to be educated about the risks and uses of the drugs, rather than have the public flooded with advertising for medication. Of course, that was the idea back in the day before Big Pharma got permission to start showing medication ads. Thanks deregulation! One more thing you did good for us.
There's a reason why patent medicine worked for so long... people are wiling to believe a lie because they want it to be true. "Cure all, take it and you'll be cured of everything you have", wow, that's awesome, wow, when I take it, I'm happier!
Big Pharma is just using the patent medicine game to line their pockets anymore...
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
You have no reason to take my advice, especially as an AC, but since you've shared a bit of your history, I'll do the same. I've had several long-term, deeply loving relationships with women, all of whom had been victims of some kind of sexual abuse, including forcible rape, date rape, "minor" child sexual abuse (single incident, no penetration, fondling only), and severe childhood sexual abuse (multiple abusers from age 5 through teen years, including blood relatives, frequent vaginal & oral penetration, cumulative physical damage leading to inability to have children).
According to RAINN One in six women are victims of sexual assault, and you appear to understand this. The statistics against falsely accusing rape are not that overwhelming.
My statement is, when one in six women are sexually assaulted, those charges are more likely to be presumed to be true at first. If it were not the case where one in six women are sexually assaulted, say, more like six in 100,000 for murder, then it would be a situation where presuming it to be true at face value wouldn't make sense.
To put this in perspective, in order to produce the same number of false accusations of sexual assault as actual occurrences of sexual assault, we would need one in six women to falsely accuse a man of sexual assault. To do the same for murder, we would need just six people in 100,000... I think I could find six people in 100,000 willing to falsely accuse someone of murder (or just "mistakenly"). Meanwhile, convincing one out of every six women to falsely accuse someone of sexual assault? I'm sorry, but I think the morals of even our society are too high for that one to be tractable.
So, let me put this into perspective for you. False accusations of rape are horrible, and they are wrong, and if they're done maliciously people need to be held accountable. However, I doubt very much so that one in sex men are falsely accused of rape. I find that HIGHLY unlikely.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
I think the suggestion is that we not publish the names of "alleged" criminals. By all means, people convicted of a crime should have their names brought to public attention.
Right, but the 6th Amendment guarantees a public trial. So, should we step on the rights of people to have it publicly known that they are on trial, so that police can't just secretly prosecute them, or do we follow the same rights of free speech that the requirement that a criminal trial be public is so paramount, that in order to protect those who might be falsely accused, we should remove public scrutiny of the justice system?
Also, "convicted" criminals are not always actually guilty of their crimes... should we protect their identities as well just in case a later court of appeals finds that they were wrongfully convicted?
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
You still refuse to read the bits that are inconvenient to you. Such as the fact that not everyone who is accused of being a rapist is actually a rapist; in fact, according to some measures at least, most aren't.
Or do you believe that their suffering as a result of being falsely accused somehow "atones" for what happened to you? Spread the pain around, so to speak?
Disgusting. Your words and attitude make me seriously doubt whether there was even any rape, to be honest, or whether it's one of those "he did something I didn't like on the date" cases. You can sleep well knowing that, if I ever end up in a jury for a rape trial, I would be very, very, very careful and conservative in determining the guilt of the accused - thanks to you.
Keep walking west dude - until your hat floats.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Maybe you should, you know, ask the guy on trial if he wants it to be publicized or not, before the end of it? If he wants to use his 6th Amendment rights, then sure; if not, then why should he be forced to screw his life by doing so?
Actually, that's a pretty good idea - I don't see why anyone, except for the victim, and close relatives and friends of the convict (as designated by himself) should be aware of the conviction. The word could still get around, of course - but personally, I think that publishing convictions in any mass media outlets is, at best, useless, and usually harmful (even when conviction is just), and should be banned.
Even so, it's not nearly as bad, because wrongful conviction happens much, much rarer than acquittal in court. So if we protect the privacy until either conviction or acquittal happens, this covers vast majority of cases.
Maybe you should, you know, ask the guy on trial if he wants it to be publicized or not, before the end of it? If he wants to use his 6th Amendment rights, then sure; if not, then why should he be forced to screw his life by doing so?
People obtaining a new trial with definitive evidence that they are innocent that will be presented to the jury still have to openly and willfully waive their right of protection against double jeopardy.
The right to a public trial is not a protection for the individual itself, but for the public against the government.
That being said, someone accused of a crime has the right to ask the courts to keep the privacy of the individual if there are extreme circumstances. However, by far and in large, the rights of the people to know and understand what it is that their government is doing should always be paramount, even at the cost of the privacy of an individual.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
If his life is going to be wrecked anyway, he might consider publishing every last detail (incuding the name of the bitch concerned, with an easily recognized photo) and going on the offensive.A website with the police reports and other relevant information could be a great weapon. The bitch deserves to be exposed, for the rest of her life, for trying to ruin this man.
If it were me, I'd make damn sure not only that I didn't hide (hiding = fail) but that she never could. My new hobby would be preofessional vengeance.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
7.6 Zordak has been happily married for 10 years, has kids, a mortgage, non-pasty skin, a minivan, a job, no facebook account, and no desire to pick up girls on the internet. Sorry to disappoint.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
If Megan Meier had merely lost sleep, or suffered from panic attacks, or cut herself as a result of the harassment she endured from Lori Drew, would Drew have been convicted? Or even arrested?
Quiz: How long can you go without sleep, before going clinically, permanently insane? Sleep is an absolutely necessary biological function, and one can die from its lack, as sure as one can die without food, hydration or adequate ambient temperature. People also die from cuts, and the fact that some people survive them or perform them so frequently under distress that to you the activity appears "recreational" does not excuse or mitigate the intentional inflicting of suffering on another: torture.
These perverse incentives -- "rewarding" Megan Meier for her suicide by vicariously exacting her revenge on Lori Drew...
What an utterly despicable, fatuous excuse for ethical reasoning! If Megan Meier considered "These perverse incentives" even comparable to the incentive of life as a direct result of Lori Drew's actions, which is indisputable and Lori Drew's self-stated intent, Lori Drew had at that time deprived Megan Meier of the unalienable, Constitutional right to pursuit of her own happiness, and Lori Drew is from that moment forward guilty of a felony. Her accomplices are her ISP and the social networking site, who were unwitting and, until proven guilty, presumed unwilling, thus they are not prosecutable but still an indispensable accessory to the conspiracy, satisfying the condition "two or more persons" in the Civil Rights Statutes, without putting the ISP or social networking site in moral or legal jeopardy.
Perhaps the story should not have been covered at all, or anywhere near as much as it was. (I realize I may be contributing to the problem here, but my penance is that I'm calling for less coverage in the future, and I would never be writing about this if the mainstream media hadn't covered it so extensively.) What about all the other people who committed suicide during the same year, also as a result of vicious harassment, but with the only difference being that their suicides did not involve the Internet?
That is your only remotely interesting point, and it so closely mimics the Slashdot meme about patents, "add 'with a computer' to a pompous description of any obvious and non-novel device, idea, or process, and you have yourself a shiny new patent!" as to render even that interest nearly imperceptible. Yes, Internet-related stories obviously get disproportionate coverage. You noticed, want a cookie? More importantly, which you completely missed or ignored, crimes committed using the Internet are seen as necessitating their own statutes rather than prosecution under existing ones, which are generally written in platform-independent language. Lori Drew misrepresented herself. She forged her identity, and initiated romantic relations with a minor under that false identity, and prosecutors had trouble finding an applicable statute to successfully prosecute her. That's the real "WTF" story here, not your macabre question of whether people so viciously harassed that the prospect of revenge rivals or exceeds their will to live, have a bit more or less legal standing, posthumously.
Drop dead.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Normal 14 year old girls don't kill themselves when they receive nasty break-up letters from their boyfriends, real or imagined; quite to the contrary: it's part of growing up. What Lori Drew did was mean, but mean shouldn't be illegal. The fact that she faked an identity didn't change anything: if Josh had been real, Megan would still have committed suicide.
Megan was likely because she was depressed, on anti-depressants and ADHD medication, and possibly because she was fighting with her mother. That's the mother's responsibility, nobody else's.
So, I'd say the way this verdict is dangerous is even more immediate: it lets the mother off the hook and tries to shift the blame to others. Of course, that's nothing new. Keeping kids away from pornography, drugs, guns, violence, etc. is the responsibility of the parents, but they are so technically incompetent and have so little time for their children that they want to shift the burden on everybody else.
I don't want to live in a kid-safe society.
Here's a hint... parental consent to statutory rape does not make it any less illegal.
Legally, perhaps. The logic behind that is bizarre, though. In some states, kids as young as 14 (perhaps even younger) can be married off by their parents, but they can't have sex even with parental consent, let alone without it.
Seems to me that anybody old enough to marry is old enough to have sex, with or without parental consent.
I think we need a uniform age of consent.
and the jury thinks defendant had reason to forsee the suicide by reason of a knowledge of the victim's susceptibility, then the defendant can be found liable in the jury's discretion. (IAAL)
So, on every E-mail and discussion contribution, I now have to try to diagnose the mental state of my reader? Whether they are a suicide risk?
Sorry, that's a bad verdict. What Lori Drew did was mean, but you couldn't expect her to diagnose Megan as suicidal. If anybody should have known that Megan was suicidal and done something about it, it's her mother.
The beauty of the jury system is that some members of the jury might view matters exactly as you do.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
The beauty of the jury system is that some members of the jury might view matters exactly as you do.
No, that's not "the beauty". The problem is that the uncertainty that this creates results in prior restraint on free speech, and that's a bad thing.
This verdict should be clearly and unambiguously struck down.