Slashdot Mirror
Judge Tentatively Dismisses Case Against Lori Drew
An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired, 'A federal judge on Thursday overturned guilty verdicts against Lori Drew, and issued a directed acquittal on the three misdemeanor charges.'" A similar story in the L.A. Times notes that "The decision by US District Judge George H. Wu will not become final until his written ruling is filed, probably next week." Update: 07/02 21:15 GMT by T : For those not following, Lori Drew's three convictions sprang from charges of online harassment of Megan Meier, a Missouri teenager whose suicide was linked to Drew's actions.
Lori, we go way back.
It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this.
It's the correct decision, but the emotional "she must pay" reactions are going to be pervasive.
As mentioned in the tags, this is a horrible summary. I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with. Is it piracy? Is it shoplifting? Speeding? Drug charges?
Who knows? Not me.
Karnal
Now she can buy the family an ipod
...she was convicted of the wrong charges.
She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something. Not for violating a website's terms of service.
That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.
but who the fuck is Lori Drew?
go to the St. Louis Post Dispatch website and read the comments. Whenever I begin to have faith in humanity, I go there and am reminded that I am surrounded by idiot racist filth.
But I love St. Louis. Really.
who is lori drew and why should I care?
It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.
That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm pleasantly surprised. I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.
"God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet."
'Nuff said.
But she's still a horrible parent and a horrible person, and even though I stopped believing in Karma as a universal cosmic force years ago, I hope she gets what she deserves for her part in abusing that poor 13 year old girl.
I think a Wrongful Death suit is appropriate.
You can't just have a one line write up. Who the hell is Lori Drew? Is it really that hard to ad the line: "Lori Drew is the woman who was convicted of using MySpace to tease a 13 year old girl until the girl committed suicide."
Apparently it is.
He dismissed it. They don't write the rulings in the courtroom so it has to be on paper before any new motions can be based on the dismissal, but he dismissed it. That's all 'will not become final' means. It's not an exploratory step.
That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)
The addition of a computer should not fuzzy this.
FanFictionRecs.net
She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself. The bitch needs to face the consequences.
If we decide she can be imprisoned based simply on her speech, it's is not just her but we who will face the consequences.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Um, no she didn't, there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.
Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off. Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
If we decide she can be imprisoned based simply on her speech, it's is not just her but we who will face the consequences.
That's already been decided. To take the classic example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are responsible for the consequences.
The pay part is better dealt with in civil court. She's an asshole who deserves to be severely punished, but she did not violate the law she was accused of and it would have set a horrible precedent. She should have been found not guilty to begin with. Now in a civil case I could see handing down a guilty verdict for harassment or wrongful death, and likely a crippling financial penalty with it.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Actually, I don't think anyone proved that she specifically intended Megan to kill herself. She intended severe emotional pain, and may have known of Megan's diagnosed depression, but it may have been difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she combined those things and formed a plan in her mind with Megan's suicide as the goal.
She's already been socially stigmatized, as she should be. All that remains is to remove her worldly possessions through a Wrongful Death suit. Unfortunately, if she's acquitted of all criminal charges against her, that may (IANAL btw) become marginally more difficult to pull off. I'd imagine the Wrongful Death case would need to be established from start to finish, without the benefit of a criminal conviction to lay the groundwork.
Unfortunately, she needed to be charged with the right crimes. The Prosecutor thought he'd be cute by charging her with a bunch of computer crimes instead of going for boring old crimes like "harassment" or "criminal negligence causing death" or something like that. So she'll get to walk, in all likelihood.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
the freedom to say mean things, as well as good things. Lori Drew is an asshole, but last time I checked, being an asshole was not illegal. What she did was harassment, not murder.
dunno...according to the article, it was that girl who testified under immunity that it was her idea and that she sent the message to the victim that the world would be better without her (the victim).
so in essence, the prosecution done f*cked up and went after the wrong one.
Also according to the article, Grills, the girl who got immunity was 18, an adult and capable of standing the charges if they were ever brought to her.
Lori Drew should have been charged with accessory and the Grills been the center of this.
sad day for the victim's family nonetheless; the killer got immunity and Lori Drew got double jeopardy (and no...no Alex Trebek involved)
FTA, somebody else: signed up on myspace, created the profile, AND sent the last message to the teen. The person that actually PERFORMED the actions copped a deal for ZERO punishment.
And what she was charged with, because they couldn't charge her for anything directly related to the teen's suicide, so they charge that violating a site's TOS as a criminal offense? That's ridiculous.
Is she a bad person? Yes. But there wasn't any enacted law she broke, so there is no punishment the public can enforce, other than public scorn, which she has, and continue to, get lots of.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
It all worked out out in the end. Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished. For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I love it when the tards on Slashdot advocate mob rule with their indignant and emotionally base desires for revenge. Ironic when your insistence that emotions aren't involved devolves into something that is emotionally base.
Mobs are not virtuous. The individual members of mobs tend to be pathetic cowards who would otherwise not act out on their own as individuals.
We used to deal with your kind by the swords of noblemen.
no. but that's "simply speech"
well, actually, no, there is no such thing as "simply speech." there are plenty of things that you can write on the internet or issue from your mouth that should rightfully result in you being imprisoned
such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre
such as an adult
1. purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)
2. a child she knows to have psychologically problems
3. over an extended period of time
4. directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child
that's not "simply speech". not REMOTELY "simply speech"
this is nothing like me calling gw bush a douchebag or advocating for greater acceptance of necrophilia or defending westboro baptist church or anything else that someone might object to but is obviously free speech. there are lots of free speech that are odious but not criminal
your opinion is invalid because its too broad, and does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world
no, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Seriously, the charges she was convicted of were an EXTREMELY BAD precedent to set. Under that same precedent, I could put up a website, where-in, I could specify in the terms and conditions of the agreement "that everyone or everything (bots included), upon accessing the website agree to pay me $20, and must opt out of such payment by clicking on the "do not agree" button on the page within 30 days of accessing the site." And for everyone who does not pay me $20, I can have prosecuted under the same statue used in this case for "hacking" computer systems, because they have access them without my consent and against the terms and conditions of use.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Don't be daft, they're just punks...
www.isoHunt.com
Thank goodness that judges have the ability to overrule the jury (only in the favor of the defendant) when there is a serious miscarriage of justice being performed...
Haven't had much occasion to do it recently, but chalk up a win for the American justice system.
Of course I don't like her, but someone should never be found guilty of completely BS charges, even if they're guilty of something else.
Lori Drew is terrible, I think we all agree on that. I'd like to take issue with the word "cyber-bullying."
What she did could be called harassment, stalking, maybe even grounds for a wrongful death suit. Had she done this by phone, or snail mail, or paper airplane she probably would have wound up under one of those anvils. Instead, just because her evil-doing happened to be done through a computer the media feels the need to refer to it by a stupid made-up word, and the prosecutor feels the need to dig into some wacky interpretation of computer hacking law.
What's the result? This poor judge is forced to make a ruling that will make a lot of people angry, probably to the detriment of his own career, and let an evil woman go free. Guess what, he had to do this because of the shenanigans of the media and prosecution, fortunately he has the foresight to avoid setting a terrible precedent that violating ToS is "hacking."
Porquoi?
I agree. I personally feel that she is a complete dirtbag and a horrible parent, but the prosecution was way out of line in using such a ridiculous law to prosecute. Unfortunately, she'll be seen as "innocent" now. Really they should have prosecuted her with regular ol' harassment or whatever laws don't use the words "cyber" or "e-" or "tubes" in them and pushed for that maximum sentence.
Not all crimes require intent. "I intended to go through that intersection at a high rate of speed, officer, but I did not *intend* to kill the pedestrian." == "vehicular manslaughter". This case seems like a prime candidate for "criminal negligence causing death". The defendant, from what I've heard, did wilfully cause distress to a child whose depressive condition was known to her (seriously? a 13-year-old girl who is NOT emotionally volatile is the exception, not the rule!) that the defendant should have known faced a reasonable likelihood (which is not the same as "better than 50-50 odds") of causing the death of said child. That's pretty much criminal negligence right there.
The only thing that shoots a hole in this theory, as far as I'm aware, is the presumption that the prosecution lawyers probably know the law better than I do, especially as I'm not a lawyer, and would have gone for the easy conviction over the hard (novel) one if it really as straight forward as this.
While she's undoubtedly not very intelligent, there's no evidence to suggest she's particularly promiscuous. Please edit and re-submit your rant accordingly.
Careful, there... there's a free-speech-advocating mob here on slashdot who you'd hate to have your address if "mob justice" comes back into fashion.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Well partially restored.
The only thing that could have been better was some sort on censure motion on the prosecution for abusing the legal system and generally being idiots. Probably not allowed to do that though.
It's so true! I'm the biggest sponsor of freedom of speech and information and so on, but seriously, this sl*t Lori Drew - she has to burn.
I can't believe someone proving themselves to be as big a fucking moron as you must be got modded insightful. She did not set out to cause the girl to /wrist, she just set out to fuck with her. If this ruling had stood, any and all trolling/flaming on the internet would be made illegal. That's bullshit.
ALSO
This girls parents knew every step of the way what was going on, minus the fact that the boy was an adult woman, and after ti happened whined to the media about how even though they told her to stay off the computer she simply refused and they didn't do shit to stop her. Where the fuck are the cries of "Where the fuck were the parents?"
I know GNAA is always modded down as off topic, but ... oddly enough I think this one is actually on topic.
over an extended period of time, i send to your email address explicit detailed accounts of how i am going to brutally murder you. i do this for months on end. i show you i know where you live on a map, i send you pictures of you getting in and out of your car, i send you pictures of your family
is that protected speech in your mind?
of course not, its stalking and harassment, and deserves to be punished
but all i did was communicate with you over the internet. its protected speech, right? bullshit
not all speech is protected. please understand that. what this woman did is like stalking and harassment cubed: it was pointed at a MINOR, a minor she KNEW had psychological problems, it lasted over an extended period of time, it involved lies, manipulation, setting someone up for a fall, suggestions of suicide
this is not shouting angry warped words at anyone in general or anonymous people you don't reallty know. thats free speech. but this is specific to one person, a crafted, tailored and dedicated long-term attempt at psychologically torturing a specific person, a minor, a minor with psychological problems the woman KNEW about
no, that's way, way, way beyond free speech, and it is criminal
the legal strategy the prosecuters used to try to punish this woman is retarded. i don't know why they just didn't go with some sort of laws pertaining to the psychological abuse of a minor
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Bullshit, people have have sex, do not give a fuck to First posts. True Story.
Where are my mod points when I need them?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The noblemen that were to represent or otherwise oversee those pathetic cowards? Interesting you say all of that as an AC. Or are you a pathetic anonymous coward? Also, who is we? I bet you have never even held a sword, much less wielded one in dealing with a member of a mob. Or a pathetic coward you so boldly proclaim. This is the kind of post that makes me sick. I challenge you to a duel. Come to the Bay Area and I will beat your pathetic coward ass.
That's already been decided. To take the classic example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are responsible for the consequences.
Given, of course, that the theater is not actually on fire. =)
Apparently not now. This could be used as case law to argue that yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater (or around a firing squad) is acceptable.
The main problem with this case, all along, is that it was going to set some sort of precedent. That was inescapable. Judges HATE setting precedents and try their damnest to always set the most relaxed precedent possible, so as to not get blamed later on. (It rarely has anything to do with law, as far as I can tell, purely a CYA.)
The secondary problem was that there was no rational or sane legal instrument that could be used. It was going to be the same farce as the British Govt using lockpicking laws against the guy who broke into Prince Philip's e-mail account.
The first problem is going to be hard to avoid with any new real or potential abuse of technology. The second problem is caused entirely by lawmakers who are too stupid to say what they mean and mean what they say, but try to fancy-up the language to sound impressive. It should be entirely possible to codify a set of laws that are independent of the technology of the day or the social mores of the day. Instead, their aim is not so much to write clean law but to get re-elected.
It's times like this that I wonder if there shouldn't be a branch of Government solely concerned with working through the laws and shredding everything too stupid or too of-the-moment to keep.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They didn't prove that she had a plan, they only showed that she tampered with an account. Thankfully our legal system requires the burden of PROOF.
you got that right.
That's a horrible example, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it. The case in question, if you care to do some research--did not involve a person shouting fire in a theatre. It did not involve anyone shouting fire. That quote came from a judge convicting a man of distributing communist leaflets. "Fire in a theatre" seems totally appealing to the average person--but the precedent it set was that politically unpopular speech was equivalent to inciting a dangerous panic.
Please--can we abolish the example of fire in a theatre forever more? In the eyes of the judiciary--it's equivalent to handing out fliers.
The prosecution of this woman for bogus charges was ridiculous.
Yes, she was cruel, but:
1. Violating a website's TOS is not illegal;
2. She was not responsible for the girl's suicide, that is why it was a suicide and not a murder;
3. Abusing the legal system to punish someone who has done something extremely unpopular with the masses by either trumping up charges or using ridiculous interpretations which are byond novel should be a criminal offense if anything should be;
4. The authoritarian leaning people in government and industry in this country hoped to be able to use this case and the bogus charges to set precedents that would have left pretty much all of us who use the net regularly at risk for all kinds of shit.
I just read a post where someone referred to one of the scumbags who was teasing this girl as "the killer." If that doesn't illustrate that people have a poor and overly emotional "TV cop show" understanding of the law and ethics, then I don't know what will.
I hope we don't see this judge bow to the inevitable pressure that will be heaped upon him by the scores of people thirsting for vengeance after they hear about this ruling - there are TONS of injustices that are far worse than what that bitch and her nutty kid did to this poor girl, some of which may make life harder or more miserable for already suffering people - who may then commit suicide...Where is the outrage for them?
These outraged people would better spend their time donating money to suicide prevention programs or volunteering for suicide helplines; but hey, there's no voyeuristic sick venegeance pleasure to be gained by doing so....
But only under the correct law.
This is no argument for setting the precedent that disobeying arbitrarily set "terms of services" constitutes "hacking". Consider, what she did should be just as bad whether it was offline or online. If it would've been illegal offline, prosecute her under that law. If it would've been legal offline, why should it be any different because a computer is involved?
- The terms of services of replying to this post are that you must agree with me. -
Which has nothing to do with this case. In that example, it would only be yelling fire that is restricted.
This ruling would criminalise anyone who doesn't obey the terms of services of a website.
A better analogy would be someone yells fire in a crowded theater, and in order to convict them, a precedent is set that not following cinema rules is illegal. Next thing you know, someone is sent to prison for not following some completely trivial rule set by the cinema.
If yelling fire - or harrassing teenagers - is illegal, then it should be illegal in itself, no matter what rules or ToS is set by a private company. This ruling however means that harrassing teenager (or yelling fire) is fine so long as it doesn't violate any rules set by a company, and meanwhile allows private companies to basically write new laws.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8127533.stm for the details.
Correct decision? You are kidding right? So it's ok to act irresponsibly and maliciously towards a minor (as an adult) and cause the death of said minor? And you should not face the consequences? There's no emotion about it, well, other than reactions to those that attempt to justify the adults actions as "free speech".
I guess this is the same group that thinks that it's ok to pirate music, movies and software because, well, you want to! Freedom of the Internet?
What happened to right and wrong? What happened to being held accountable for your actions?
I fear for the world our children have to live in 20 years from now.
So why not charge her with that, rather than using a law that should be irrelevant to the case, and setting some dangerous, awful and nonsensical precedent with the definition of "hacking"?
IMHO, were I to have been the governor, after renaming the state to Wireheaddia and instituting my birthday as a state holiday complete with nudist parade, I'd probably lean on child protective services to take Lori Drew's kids away on the grounds of her being an unsuitable parent.
There was a lot of shit going on when I was a kid between various silly kid BBSers. Most of it was stopped by parents doing.. ehrm... the exact opposite of Lori Drew.
Gentoo Sucks
Then everyone ought to be furious at the government for pressing totally bullshit charges instead of addressing what she did.
Imagine if I bite you, you die of the resulting infection, and then I eat your brain, and the government's reaction is to charge me with pedophilia. Eventually, I'm going to walk (my lawyer is going to bring up your age, the lack of any evidence that I raped you, and the recording of the conversation where you said, "ok, you can eat my brain"), instead of going to jail for murder+cannibalism.
Blame me, but blame the government too. The government didn't charge Drew with trying to get someone to die; they charged with for "hacking."
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
...Will you find hundreds of basement-dwelling libertarian morons hailing a woman who caused a child to commit suicide.
Yeah, but then they could prosecute YOU for being an asshole for calling all lawyers and most people in Florida and Texas assholes with no citation. It's like that old poem thing about the Nazi's where it goes "and then they came for me ..." except instead of Jews and Protestants and Black people or whatever it's assholes, assholes, and assholes, according to some random asshole's opinion of what an asshole is.
had to do with someone shouting fire when there was no fire
sure, if there is a fire and someone shouts fire, and someone gets trampled for that, well, that's not really anyone's fault, the fire made people panic in general
but if you shout fire when there is none just to see people panic and someone gets trampled, then you have just killed someone with your speech. you deserve to be punished. i don't see how you can disagree with that
as for the supreme court using it in a decision about wwi draft fliers, well obviously that decision is retarded
but if i say "correlation is not causation" (which is true), but then use that meme to justify a completely retarded line of thinking, that doesn't mean correlation IS causation. it just means i don't understand the concept and am using the meme inappropriately
same with the supremes using a perfectly good concept- don't yell fire in a theatre, to justify a totally retarded line of thinking. it reflects poorly on the supremes and their inability to understand concepts, it doesn't reflect poorly on the essential logical soundness of the allegory itself
a nice aesop's fable is "never cry wolf". if i use that fable to justify never crying wolf, even if there IS a wolf, then that just means i have crappy reasoning skills, not that the aesop's fable itself is flawed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We operate under the law here. Not lynch mobs. You can't just throw someone in jail because everyone hates her, or the whole system we have put into place to establish justice is evaporated.
I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.
And instead fell into the "hard cases that the courts don't want to deal with so they get dismissed/acquitted pile". While the law that was to come from this would have been incredibly stupid, and this should be dismissed to keep that from happening, she still should be facing more appropriate charges. Her actions were incredibly egregious and did lead directly to damages (Even if there were other factors, those don't invalidate her actions), and those two things really are core to the spirit of the law. This all reminds me of a quote (Churchill I believe), "If we follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit of it, all justice is lost". Even if we can't find a law worded exactly to apply to a case like this, it doesn't change the fact the someone with at least some degree of common sense can tell her actions were wrong and would likely agree that she shouldn't get away with this.
Again, in case it wasn't clear, I am quite happy that no law came from this.
So a 40 year old man goes online. He spends a month chatting with an 11 year old girl. He encourages her and says nice things. He flirts with her, etc. The conversations get racy and he eventually talks her into meeting.
The 40 year old man shows up and so do police - who were pretending to be the 11 year old girl.
The man is eventually charged and convicted and goes to jail.
Nothing happened but conversation.
To answer your comment - We have decided that he can be imprisoned based simply on his speech. To do otherwise would be to face the consequences
its all about the consequences of your actions, cause and effect. free speech or not free speech is really just a sideshow to the real issue: responsibility
people are always clamoring for their rights... and promptly shut up when the subject matter of their responsibilities comes up. guess what folks? if no one takes responsibility, there are no rights in this world. rights and responsibilities are fused at the hip. for every right you are granted, you are also, implicitly or explicitly, describing a responsibility you take ownership of as well
explicit right: freedom of speech. implicit, unmentioned responsibility: you are responsible for the consequences of what you say. nothing protects you from that reponsibility. nothing. well, something DOES protect you from that responsibility... in a society that has no right to freedom of speech at all. if you have no rights, you also have no responsibilities. so exercise your fucking responsibilities in this world if you want to retain your precious rights
if you avoid responsibility, you weaken the entire right to freedom of speech, as you have demonstrated that you, at least, are incapable of maintaining the social environment in which your rights work. if you do not exercise your responsibilities, you add fuel to the argument that you don't deserve the rights you cherish. no, we all deserve the right to free speech, we just need a big wake the fuck up to the morons who don't know that freedom of speech carries with it a burden: responsibility for the consequences of what you say
if someone says gw bush is a douchebag, a zealot would say that terrorists gain support when this kind of dissent is demonstrated, and therefore, this kind of speech should be censored. which is of course completely bullshit cause and effect. the holes in that "logic" are like swiss cheese
but if someone picks on 1. one specific 2. mentally unstable 3. minor for 4. months on end, a clueless "free speech defender" would say what the woman did has nothing to do with the teenager's suicide, and therefore the woman shouldn't be punished. fucking bullshit. the woman psychologically tortured and harassed the poor girl to death. the cause and effect is obvious and real
avoid responsibility, and you erode your rights. remember that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself. The bitch needs to face the consequences.
No, Drew had a calculated plan to annoy a child. That's not illegal.
Plus, the myspace postings that drove the child to kill herself were WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE!
Was Megan Meier's death a suicide? I would answer yes because that is what all the news reports say.
Are any suicides accidental deaths? I would answer no because I believe intentionality is an essential part of a death being a suicide.
Are all deaths caused by criminal negligence accidental? I would answer yes, because if they were not accidental then they would be intentional, and then the guilty individual or individuals would rather be guilty of murder and not negligence.
But now I think I've ran into the problem for your idea that Meier's death was caused by criminal negligence. Given that her death was a suicide, and given that no suicides are accidental, we can conclude that her death was not accidental. But it also seems that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental. So, based on that, if her death was caused by criminal negligence, then her death was accidental. But her death was not accidental, so it seems safe to conclude that her death was not caused by criminal negligence.
Then charge her for that. They basically decided to make up some bullshit about unauthorized access to a computer system and charge her with that.
The difficulty here is that killing oneself is generally considered to be an irrational action, and therefore it defies a typical causal relationship. Should this woman have known that her actions would cause the girl to commit suicide? Personally, I wouldn't think that anything I could do would make anyone else kill themselves. We've all acted cruelly to others, and had others act cruelly towards us, but still, most of us don't kill ourselves (and presumably nobody reading this has killed themselves). And when others do kill themselves, e.g. because a relationship ended, we're all quick to point out that it wasn't the fault of the other person. We acknowledge that the suicide victim had deeper issues and behaved abnormally to normal events.
It's hard to say what the case is here. Clearly adults should be held more responsible for their behavior toward minors, the same way they are for sexual assault, or providing substances to minors. The same should probably apply for harassment as well. If there's not already a law for this, then we can make one. But our goal should be to fix the problem(s), not to find vengeance. Vengeance is not a solution, and the respite it brings is virtually inconsequential. Nobody ever says that everything is better after a murderer is executed -- the healing process continues in the same way, as it must, whether they're executed, locked away for life, or escape to some third world country. It does bring a sense of order, in that people suffer the consequences of their actions, but that sense is only illusory anyway. Bad things happen to good people, just as good things can happen to bad people, and it's just something we have to accept at times. And when there's no law in place to punish certain actions, that's one of those times. The potential damages of writing laws that are effective retroactively far outweighs any benefit or solace we might find in "setting things right," particularly because it's not setting things right when we have to compromise our values in the process. In effect, we as a society bear some of the responsibility here for not having clearly defined such behavior to be off limits in the first place.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Daft...Punks...
The problem was that there wasn't anything conventional she could be charged with that Megan's parents wouldn't have been even more guilty ofâ¦
Consider-- if it was so obvious that harassment was going to lead to suicide, why weren't Megan's parents actively intervening when they knew better than anyone else could have how strongly their daughter was reacting to the internet dramaz?
It's also the case that Megan's parents destroyed evidence: Much of this prosecution has hinged around the content of messages which the parents say they deleted on myspace and which myspace can't recover. If the actual harassment were made the core of the case the law would require the destroyed evidence to be interpreted in Drew's favor.
It's also the case that the bulk, if not all of, the harassment came from Drew's teenage employee whom they granted immunity to. Teen vs teen drama doesn't really get people worked up, even when it results in death. By focusing on the computer aspects they're able to pin it on Drew due to her role in creating the account.
So, don't think that the particular charges filed were an accident. They were, in fact, very carefully calculated.
this case is like trying to prosecute someone for yelling "fire", on the basis that they threw away their ticket stub instead of keeping it with them at all times as clearly printed on the ticket.
If it raising a false alarm is a crime, prosecute raising a false alarm, don't try to pretend failing to keep your ticket stub on you is illegal.
If raising a false alarm is not a crime, tough cookies. Fix the law, and move on.
"Cyber bullying" was not a crime.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
But it was intentional!
What is it called when you convince someone to off themself, knowing full well you are doing it?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
No-one's saying her actions weren't reprehensible. Punishing her, however, must be done with proper application of law. Whatever the wrong done, corrupting the rule of law in order to punish someone will bring consequences far worse than failure to "get" a wrongdoer.
The GGP was accusing her of planning to force Meagan to suicide though, intent is relevant to that particular accusation.
As for your willful distress theory, I already stated that someone else confessed to being the one that did that, using Lori Drew's computer.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
From the article:
.
U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said afterward that he had no regrets.
.
"I'm proud of this case...and this team (of prosecutors)," he said, even though using the CFAA to prosecute Drew "was a risk." He added that his office "will always take risks on behalf of children."
.
Taking risks on the behalf of someone is very noble... so long as it isn't them you're putting at risk.
I think that isn't going to happen in the USA for the simple reason that chatting with a policeman who you believe to be an eleven year old girl is not actually illegal. Even if you _believed_ to do something that is highly illegal (and rightfully so), you didn't actually do it.
They should come up with a new term for this. How about "ManUrgicide". Homicide without intent or direct involvement.
Seriously. Give me a fucking break. This isn't manslaughter and it was impossible for "perp" to know "victim" would do anything.
a fundamentalist believes in absolute universal and unyielding concepts
it is a convenient way for you to avoid having to think about the world and how complex it really is, and all you wind up doing is create more suffering than you think you relieve
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But now I think I've ran into the problem for your idea that Meier's death was caused by criminal negligence. Given that her death was a suicide, and given that no suicides are accidental, we can conclude that her death was not accidental. But it also seems that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental. So, based on that, if her death was caused by criminal negligence, then her death was accidental. But her death was not accidental, so it seems safe to conclude that her death was not caused by criminal negligence.
This is all symantic quibble. You can tip a glass without attempting to knock it over. If it falls over and breaks, it's you're fault - whether it was your intention or not, you are responsible for it breaking. If this woman harassed this teen, intentionally causing emotional distress, and that becomes the primary factor of the teen's emotional breakdown-leading-to-suicide, then the teen's blood is on this woman's hands, and she is guilty or murder or manslaughter. Murder, if she intended the teen to kill herself, or manslaughter if she intended to have someone stop the teen before the emotional distress so violently manifested itself (a therapist, teacher, parent). It was her negligence to stop the consequences of her own hideous, wretched, horrific actions that caused the girl's death. Criminal negligence is the lightest sentence that justice should present to this monster.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
What is the point of the ToS if it doesn't matter what's in the ToS? Can I start distributing GPL code and just say that I prefer not to read the anything in the license? It seems to me that if a site makes it clear that these are their rules, and aren't trying to hide them, then you should be bound to them if you click on them. If you're naive enough to simply "not read" them then that's your fault. The rules should be reasonable and understandable, but beyond that, I think the precedent would have been appropriate.
You do know that we have these people called "judges" who review cases on an individual basis and determine a ruling right?
is it the bullet's fault that it was propelled by an explosion forward into someone's body? not your fault?
cause and effect
you know people panic
you did something that made them panic
same damn thing as pulling the trigger on a gun
you knowingly set off a chain of events you know would result in lives put at risk
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do you disagree that all deaths caused by criminal negligence are accidental?
Do you disagree that Megan Meier's death was a suicide?
Do you disagree that no suicides are accidental?
Or do you think the argument is invalid? The argument which I take to be: No C is an A. Every B is an A. x is a B. Therefore, x is not a C.
None of that seems to be semantic quibble.
Rather: No B is an A. Every C is an A.
Nope. Jeopardy attaches as soon as they begin to pick the jury.
"I believe in the government not encroaching on the rights I am supposed to have."
this is an empty phrase. everyone agrees with that. the problem is: what are these rights you are supposed to have?
for example, if you yell fire in a crowded theatre, you are pitting your right to say whatever you want versus someone else's right to live. in this instance, their right is more important than your right, so your right is naturally and logically limited by reality
in reality, your rights exist in tension with other people's rights
i exert the right to blast all the music i want. well what if its 2 am and my neighbor is trying to sleep? then i need to give up my "right"
there are limits on your rights. those limits are simple: your rights end where other people's rights begin
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This case seems like a prime candidate for "criminal negligence causing death". The defendant, from what I've heard, did wilfully cause distress to a child whose depressive condition was known to her (seriously? a 13-year-old girl who is NOT emotionally volatile is the exception, not the rule!) that the defendant should have known faced a reasonable likelihood (which is not the same as "better than 50-50 odds") of causing the death of said child. That's pretty much criminal negligence right there.
First off, "criminal negligence" means "failing to take action when it is obvious that such action is necessary to prevent harm". What you're looking for is called "depraved indifference", which means "taking an action knowing that harm is likely, but not caring".
And I'm not sure that *either* applies to his case. You state the defendant "should have known faced a reasonable likelihood of causing the death of said child", but there's no evidence that the defendant had the psychological training needed to recognize the difference between an ordinary teen's mood swings and a teen headed for suicidal depression. Without such expertise, you can't really assert that she knew that there was a serious probability of suicide resulting from her actions.
What this case calls for is the classic "wrongful death" civil suit. There simply isn't an existing criminal statute that covers this case (and it would be extremely hard to craft one, without many unintended consequences), so let the girl's parents sue the crap out of Lori Drew, and let that be the end of it.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
Years ago I read a story, forget the name, where a government assassin would deliberately set up situations where the victim would end up killing himself. Basically he would closely study your personality profile and find a way to trick you into doing something dangerous or goad you into attacking him (so he could kill you in self defense). The author made him a bit more sympathetic in the story by having him kill off criminal bosses they couldn't pin anything on.
Basically challenged the idea of just when you and are not responsible for results of your actions.
if i send you a rant saying you should kill yourself, and you do, my culpability is near zero because i don't know who you are, how old you are, what your mental state is, etc. i'm just an asshole
but this woman knew this girl. she knew she was a girl, she knew her mental state was unstable. she purposefully manipulated her and purposefully told her to kill herself after a long sustained period of purposeful manipulation
so when the woman acted, she acted with specific knowledge that if she manipulated the girl with a fake profile of a fake boy to get her interested, then suddenly switched it up as cruel as possible so as to cause the most mental trauma possible and said no boy would ever like her and she should just kill herself, this is pretty much murder because she KNOWS this kind of abuse has a good chance of actually making the girl kill herself
allegory: if you find a random person and scare them with a big BOO in the dark, and they die of a heart attack, you're an asshole, but not a murderer
however, if you KNOW the person you are going to scare and you KNOW they have a serious heart condition that a fright could push them into cardiac arrest... and you STILL scare them with a big boo in the dark and they die, then you are as a good as a murderer
see the difference?
if i drop rocks over a cliff randomly in the dark, in the middle of nowhere, and one kills a hiker, i'm pretty much innocent because i had no idea that would happen, and no one would expect me to know that would happen in the middle of nowhere
but if i look carefully for a hiker at the bottom of a cliff in broad daylight, and carefully aim the rock to hit the hiker, i'm a murdering piece of shit
that's the difference between free speech and what lori drew did
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I would have to disagree. What was done to this child was *not nice* but being a big fat meanie-head isn't illegal.
In the end, you are responsible for your own actions. If someone tells me that microshaft stock is going through the roof tomorrow and i buy in big only to see them tank...well too bad, so sad. There are, of course, exceptions for someone you employ who intentionally gives you known wrong information - but in that case you have a contractual agreement (verbal, virtual, or on paper) that they are violating.
If you want to criminalize lying or making someone feel bad I suggest you go lobby for yet another unenforcible law that will make the non-sheeple shake their heads.
I don't like what she did - it was a terrible thing to do - but I support a person's right to saw what they want no matter how much i disagree with it.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
if you would like to actually write down some words that involve logical reasoning, rather than baseless hysteria, then at that point i would be interested in responding to you
Then let me give it a try.
over an extended period of time, i send to your email address explicit detailed accounts of how i am going to brutally murder you. i do this for months on end. i show you i know where you live on a map, i send you pictures of you getting in and out of your car, i send you pictures of your family
That problem with that type of harassment is the threat of physical violence. I'm not afraid of the e-mails, I'm afraid of the fact that you actually do know where I live, you know who my family is, and you appear to be nuts enough to actually carry out your threat. If you keep posting to me on slashdot that you're going to kill me without giving any indication that you actually have the means to do so, I won't feel threatened, and yes, it should be protected speech because it's not a credible threat.
The girl in question wasn't receiving threats to her life. She was receiving insults. The world isn't a nice place. What Lori Drew said to her online pretending to be her "online boyfriend" are things that can actually be said from a real boyfriend during a bad breakup. Would the guy be a world class jerk? Sure. Is the guy guilty of a crime if his insinuations that his ex is worthless and should kill herself actually causes her to kill herself? No. I went through my share of bullying when I was a kid in school. Megan apparently did her share of bullying when she was in school. Would you have wanted her to be guilty of murder had Lori Drew's kid committed suicide instead?
In the end, committing suicide is a choice. McDonalds advertisement isn't at fault if it convinces you to overeat and become obese. Budweiser isn't at a fault if their ads cause you to become an alcoholic. Nobody is responsible for your death unless they actually physically caused it. Talking you into it is advice, but you can always say no. Yes, this girl was psychologically disturbed, but that's all the more reason why Lori Drew wasn't at fault. Megan's psychological problems were at fault.
Yes, I understand that the idea of an adult bullying a teenager is insane. Reprehensible doesn't cover it. Drew is an immature bitch, but that's not illegal, nor should it be.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
So you're saying that if a person, without a computer, were to assume disguises for the purpose of harassing and bullying another person, even going so far as to encourage them to harm themselves, as this woman did, and the person ended up comitting suicide, that wouldn't fit the legal definition of manslaughter?
I guarantee in that situation the DA would drawing up charges faster than you could blink.
FanFictionRecs.net
What about everyone else who kills themselves? Are the people who cause those suicides not responsible because the blame is less concentrated? What's the threshold? What if 2 people cause me to kill myself? 3? 15?
You can call me whatever names you want. I'm not going to kill myself. If it's persistent and annoying and disruptive, perhaps I have the police talk to you about harassment. But going beyond that is kind of ridiculous, in my humble opinion.
Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.
Another teenager testified under a grant of immunity.
How convienent.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I agree that it was the right LEGAL decision, but the punishment she was going to receive would have been much less than the bitch deserved. Even though she was not COMPLETELY responsible for the girl's death, the mere fact that she intentionally messed with the girl's head means she does share some of the blame. Sorry, but any cunt that preys on little girls for the sole purpose of tormenting them deserves years of torture before a slow death.
This is one of the very few cases where vigilantes are called for.
Just my $0.02.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I would have to disagree. What was done to this child was *not nice* but being a big fat meanie-head isn't illegal.
No, being a "big, fat, meanie" is not illegal. Tormenting underage girls when you are an adult IS illegal.
Not that it would matter if she did this to my little girl. She would be hoping the law was there when I got a hold of her.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
[The prosecutor] added that his office "will always take risks on behalf of children."
Well, maybe he can prosecute the parents, then, instead of constructing wild legal theories that turn contract law into criminal law.
While Lori Drew's messages were both forged and rude, they were within the bounds of what a teenager needs to be able to cope with in real life. I think the parents are trying to shift blame here. They are ultimately responsible for their daughter's online activities and for not supervising her enough. Her suicide didn't come out of the blue, she was depressed, had ADD, was on medication, and her parents picked a fight with her.
That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)
Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.
The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.
If tormenting children is against the law, then why wasn't she charged with that, instead of a "unauthorized access of a computer system" (breaking a EULA).
Learn about Photography Basics.
Hell, regular bullying isn't even necessarily a crime.
I could meet you in the elevator every day at work and whisper "You're a failure and the world would be better off without you" - that's not illegal. Its fucked up, but not illegal.
Learn about Photography Basics.
No, being a "big, fat, meanie" is not illegal. Tormenting underage girls when you are an adult IS illegal.
Well, apparently not, because she wasn't even charged with that.
And what exactly would that even mean? How do you define "tormenting"? Drew's behavior doesn't even meet the standard of "harassment" or "spam", since the communications were engaged in voluntarily on both sides, and both Meier and her parents could have stopped them whenever they chose.
She engaged in a criminal conspiracy to harm someone which accidentally resulted in their death. That's manslaughter.
Why isn't it manslaughter. There is an obvious disparity of knowledge.
For example lets assume you think I'm a doctor and I write you a prescription for "Coumatetralyl" (a rat poison). I give you a sample below what I think is the lethal dose. You take it and die. I'm not a doctor and I told you what I was giving you.
The combination of misrepresentation + intent to harm makes manslaughter.
Drew intended harm that resulted in death.
Appropriate charges should have been filed. Its no different then snail mail or saying those words in the face. Whatever charges that cab apply to anyone that talks someone into killing themselves knowing it was going to work should have charges files. Manslaughter or similar I think.
If tormenting children is against the law, then why wasn't she charged with that, instead of a "unauthorized access of a computer system" (breaking a EULA).
IANAL, but I see old men getting arrested several times a week on "To Catch a Predator" who never touched a soul and the jail bait they were supposedly talking to was not even true jailbait, but an undercover person (not even an officer) acting like jailbait. This woman, an adult, had a relationship with a child, a real child, assaulted her causing emotional distress and eventually contributing to the child's death. If I were the lawyer, I would have gone after her for pedophilia and assault on a minor (doesn't have to be physical) at the VERY least. In civil court, I would have gone after everything. I would have owned that bitch's grandkids!
So, like I said, IANAL, but whoever the lawyer was in this case was a friggin moron for not finding better charges to go after. Well, I guess he wasn't that bad since he won the first round. Who knew he'd get a bigger moron of a judge in the appeals court!!??!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
That's the difference between manslaughter and murder. In murder there is an intent to cause death. In manslaughter there is an intent to cause harm but the death resulted accidentally. For example if I punch someone and they die that's a manslaugher.
No, being a "big, fat, meanie" is not illegal. Tormenting underage girls when you are an adult IS illegal.
Well, apparently not, because she wasn't even charged with that.
And what exactly would that even mean? How do you define "tormenting"? Drew's behavior doesn't even meet the standard of "harassment" or "spam", since the communications were engaged in voluntarily on both sides, and both Meier and her parents could have stopped them whenever they chose.
The conversations were under false pretenses. Saying that it doesn't meet the standard for "spam" is rediculous. If you are approached on MySpace, FaceBook or whatever site this happened on by a Nigerian Scammer, do you mean to tell me that they are acting legally?
She acted like a teenage boy with the intent of having a relationship with an underage girl. I see men get arrested weekly on "To Catch a Predator" that do much less than that.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Imagine this if you will,
Suppose you are driving your car down the road and I swerve to the right, then back to the left as if I was going to ram into you. I stay in my lane but you react and swerve to avoid me and hit a pedestrian killing them. Am I at fault at all? I didn't break any laws, the pedestrian is dead by you hands, not mine. Now suppose this has happened before and I was actually attempting to make people swerve into pedestrians. Am I still innocent, I haven't broken any laws.
Now think about that, then think about if I should be charged with anything. How about after the first time? what about the third time? what if I was able to do this 25 times each time resulting in the death of some pedestrian at the hands of 25 different seemingly innocent drivers. Now if you changed your mind and think something should happen to me after 10 people die, then why and how would that be different then attempting to manipulate someone into committing suicide.
There are nice vague things you can be slapped with like dangerous driving for a reason.
Lets try another example.
You see someone a fair distance behind you with an idiot tailgating them right up their ass.
You slam on your breaks, the car behind you slams on their brakes, the guy behind them who's not leaving a safe distance slams into the car behind you.
Who is responsible- you or the tailgater?
It'd be nice if it was you but in most places it's the driver right at the back who actually slammed into someone who's considered at fault.
The most you'll get slapped with is something like reckless/unsafe driving or some such.
Like it or not you have a responsibility to not let yourself be manipulated easily since if you're manipulated into slamming into the back of someone, bludgeoning someone to death with a rock or hanging yourself it's ultimatly you who's to blame.
Are you suggesting these judges can ignore precedent and make whatever rulings they feel like? Or are you suggesting there's some tangible difference in the orginal case and the example given?
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
No he is not kidding. No one said it is okay to act irresponsibly or cause the death of said minor. You really need to stop being so damned stupid.
She was convicted under anti-hacking laws for not following the terms of service of a website. Are you so fucking oblivious you don't know why people are agreeing with this decision?
Why don't we just eliminate all civil liberties and allow the government to throw people in jail for any reason or no reason. Why the fuck bother having trials anyway if the government can do the equivalent of charging you with one crime because what you did wasn't illegal by any other crime they can define? The legal system isn't a moral code, and the government can't be allowed to randomly assign a crime and prosecute you for that crime when what you did has no relation to what you are being charged with. It's like being charged with bank robbery because you were busted with a joint. Sure, you broke the law, but you didn't rob a bank.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.
Then why exactly would she be sent a message telling her "you should just kill yourself."?
Simon: "You can't take away people's right to be assholes!"
Raymond C.: *grins innocently as if to say, 'Oh no?'*
Simon: THAT'S who you remind me of: an evil Mr. Rodgers!
Why does it always take a criminal to point out the obvious WRONG in our "best intentions"?
[End Of Line]
I can agree that the DA was a moron, but why the appellate judge? The charges were entirely inappropriate and so had to be tossed. That's all the judge could do.
Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.
As those involved admitted, they had planned beforehand to create a fake identity to gain information and use it to humiliate her publicly, hoping it would cause some heavy damage. They topped it off by encouraging her suicide when they had finished, and the mother oversighting it all might as well have dug up the girl's corpse to spit in her face with the comments she had made after her death. This was in no way just "being rude and offensive".
The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal;
I take it you were the popular jock through school? Anyone knows school was tough enough for the nerds, outcasts, etc. without someone going the extra mile to humiliate and torture them. Being that this is "Slashdot, News for Nerds", I would have expected more acknowledgement of that fact.
Claiming it's the girl's fault is rather.. disgusting.
Oh, no. She'll never be innocent. She'll be an outcast pariah everywhere she goes, wherever she tries to live, probably even if she goes for radical cosmetic surgery, changes her name, and leaves her family. And that is as it should be.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
"I would have to disagree. What was done to this child was *not nice* but being a big fat meanie-head isn't illegal."
cool, so what's your daughter's myspace page? Mind if we're "big fat meanie-heads" to her?
I think it should be illegal for adults to pose as children online with the intentions of communicating with real children. When adult males do this to teenage girls Chris Hansen shows up and the men disappear, but an adult woman does it to a teenage girl and nothing happens. That's BS
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"Not that it would matter if she did this to my little girl. She would be hoping the law was there when I got a hold of her."
Agreed. I figured she'd been murdered already and I missed the news report. I'm shocked she's still breathing.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"And what exactly would that even mean? How do you define "tormenting"?"
If you're an adult and you're talking to my children you better have a damn good reason. If you don't, you're tormenting.
Think of the children!
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"Suppose you are driving your car down the road and I swerve to the right, then back to the left as if I was going to ram into you. I stay in my lane but you react and swerve to avoid me and hit a pedestrian killing them. Am I at fault at all? I didn't break any laws, the pedestrian is dead by you hands, not mine. Now suppose this has happened before and I was actually attempting to make people swerve into pedestrians. Am I still innocent, I haven't broken any laws."
No, you'd be charged with vehicular assault, a felony. Just like kids that street race, if you're racing someone and they crash and kill someone, you are also charged. So if you're swerving all over the road and cause a death, you will be charged.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"I would have to disagree. What was done to this child was *not nice* but being a big fat meanie-head isn't illegal."
-Yes it is. It's called 'Harassment". Look it up.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
FTFA: "Wu also doubted that MySpace provided sufficient notice to members to hold them responsible. If a user didn't read the terms of service, the judge asked prosecutor Krause, could they still be charged with violating them?"
-Yes. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Someone should have asked the judge if was familiar with that saying. Someone should rub his face in his own ignorance. MySpace *DOES* give sufficient notice, and you have to make the conscious effort to click a small box stating affirming that you agree. Wheather or not someone actually reads the whole thing is the responsibility of the user, NOT the provider.
FTFA: "To convict Drew of the felonies, prosecutors would have needed to prove two things: that Drew accessed MySpace "without authorization," and did it for the purpose of committing a tortious act -- in this case, to intentionally cause harm to Megan Meier."
-How on Earth could these two things be so hard to prove?
1. Drew violated the terms of her useage agreement by using it with malicious intent. You do not have authorization to access sites with a ToS if you violate the ToS. MySpace granted permission for Drew yto use the site in accordance with the ToS. Since she did not abide by the ToS, she did not have the legal right or authority to access MySpace. Technically, she did "hack", but not in the sense that SlashDot readers are used to, she just used it without authorization. Technically hacking. PROVEN.
2. She created a fake account, created a false identity, and used that false identity to harass another person. PROVEN.
Someone hang this bitch out to dry with the dipshit judge, who thinks he can rewrite the law.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
IANAL.
For example lets assume you think I'm a doctor and I write you a prescription for "Coumatetralyl" (a rat poison). I give you a sample below what I think is the lethal dose.
This is where that great legal principal of "a reasonable person" comes in.
A reasonable person should have reason to believe that rat poison has a significant potential to harm you.
Would a reasonable person have good reason to believe that emotionally tormenting another person has a significant potential to harm them?
It's an arguable point either way, but in no way is it a slam dunk guilty, IMHO.
Bad example: Impersonating a doctor and dispensing medical advice would in most situations lead to criminal charges, even if no harm comes of it. Impersonating a young person is a very different situation.
"Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off. Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages."
While I am happy with the verdict in this case, your statement is off. Lori Drew was the adult in that situation - she was responsible.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
She wouldn't be 'walking' for very long if I or a great number of other people belonged to Megans family.
I like how you deliberately conflated the to different actors here when you described intent. Well done!
For those of you who are confused as to why exactly the poster's argument isn't correct, Lori accidentally (maybe) caused Megan to intentionally do something. Lori and Megan have different values of intent/lack of intent.
And yes, anytime you argue from the definition of words (suicides are always intentional by definition - negligence is always accidental by definition) then that is exactly what a semantic quibble is.
No, I was just tormenting them on purpose. Its my hobby.
ESUPERBATSHIT
I see a parallel of this case and that of Charles Manson, he killed no one, but he's in prison. I see here a case of an adult twisting her vocabulary in such a way that a child self terminates. The adult did this intentionally. The adult has publicly stated this action, there is no doubt as to the time, motive, and means. A human is dead because of the direct actions of another. It's obvious that I have greatly missed a simple truth. But I ask, "Would you let this person talk to your child?"
They could have used some old laws to punish the woman. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor might have fit. Causing mental distress of a minor. There are many laws to protect children from predatory behaviour. They might even have charged the trio of conspirators under sexual predator laws - they were obviously "getting off" on their actions.
The whole problem was, the internet was used to harass the girl, so all the idiots in the world wanted a "technical" charge to stick. Hell, we don't need to be "technical" or "hi tech" to recognize predatory behaviour.
Now, it goes to civil court, where it should have been all along. Contributing to, or causing a wrongful death of a child. Somewhere, there is a lawyer capable of putting that into legal language. All the morons who staged the circus in California should have been that capable.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's pure semantic quibble. It's 100% manipulative ratcheting. No, I don't agree with your narrow assessments. You're talking about absolutes when dealing with completely non-binary states. For example, I'll take your generalization "No suicides are accidental" and substitute it with the much more realistic reasoning that "Most suicides are committed by those incapacitated to reason" which immediately qualifies them to be as much products of negligence as a toddler falling into a swimming pool.
Metaphorically, in this story, the woman picked up the stumbling child, put it next to the swimming pool, told others if they see the toddler wandering about, to place it back at the pool, and then left it. It was an act of pure malice that led to the death of a girl. Like I said before, if it wasn't murder, it was criminal negligence.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
And you are also responsible for actions that hurt others. This is the basis for the law of tort.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Suppose you are driving your car down the road and I swerve to the right, then back to the left as if I was going to ram into you. I stay in my lane but you react and swerve to avoid me and hit a pedestrian killing them. Am I at fault at all? I didn't break any laws, the pedestrian is dead by you hands, not mine.
Actually, you've committed vehicular homicide. Almost all jurisdictions define homicide as taking an action that causes the death of another person. It doesn't matter that the other car was the one that actually hit the person; you are a proximate cause of the accident. Your intent will only matter to determine which degree of homicide you committed -- from vehicular manslaughter to 1st degree murder.
I know that's largely a distraction from your point about using the law to convict someone who's wrong of something even if there's no law on the books, but that's not really the way we do things. No "post ex facto" convictions and all that.
I know the media has largely focused on the federal prosecutors' unique use of computer fraud statutes, but I've always wondered why she wasn't charged with violations of other laws like 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E) and why the local county prosecutors decided to do absolutely nothing about the case. You'd think that there had to be some state laws that would apply.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I believe in the government not encroaching on the rights I am supposed to have.
You're, of course, begging the question as to whether or not you are supposed to have the right to harass someone until they commit suicide or even just the right to play a cruel and emotionally damaging prank on a girl that wouldn't commit suicide.
I like the old maxim that "Your right to swing your arm ends at my face." No one has the inherent right to be hurt someone else for their own amusement / satisfaction. Just saying that all speech is the same ignores defamation, ignores fraud, and ignores abuse, stalking, and harassment. I mean, if you pretend that things are all black and white about speech, then even asking someone to kill someone for you wouldn't be a crime in your world.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Not that it would matter if she did this to my little girl. She would be hoping the law was there when I got a hold of her.
Nice e-muscles. You work out regular?
Interesting defence - write a message that strongly suggests she should kill herself, then deny any intent for her to actually follow it through.
Plausible I suppose, but fucking impossible to prove and not likely to be believed.
I I would have owned that bitch's grandkids!
Dude, two wrongs don't make a right.
Problem is the dead girl was a minor. Society does not expect the same level of responsibility of minor as it does an adult.
The fact that the victim was mentally ill and apparently suicidal, does not in law admonish you for your actions (at least in the UK).
yep, it expects the responsibility from their parents.
No it would depend on what you intended to happen when you punched them. If I punch someone really hard and send them flying backwards over the edge of a cliff to their death that is murder.
It is not just intent, but reasonable expectation of what your actions might cause that define murder. I stabbed him with a knife in the chest but did not intend to kill him argument does not wash, as there is a reasonable expectation that stabbing someone in the chest will kill them.
I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you think.
If someone is about to jump off a building and you walk up to them and tell them they're worthless, should do it and laugh at them and they do it then you certainly can be against a charge of manslaughter.
The assumption you make (falsely) is that assault is only physical, you can however assault people verbally (and hence mentally) and if a verbal assault leads to suicide then again this will lead to a manslaughter charge.
It is important to realise the possibility of this because it is often brought up in cases of domestic violence, statutory rape and the likes.
Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is no offence of "pedophilia" and there is no legal definition. The people who get stung on To Catch a Predator are often charged with crossing state lines to engage in sex with a minor and for attempting to commit the sex offence which they allegedly intended to commit.
Is there no law against harassment in the USA? That would be the most appropriate charge in this case and the maximum sentence would presumably apply.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
I don't think so.
It would have to be a *risk* of her actions that she planned, but she couldn't *rely* on her comitting suicide.
NOTE: Her parents were more directly responsible for their child's death: they practically abandoned her. If her parents had listened to her, she wouldn't feel so alone that her only perceived escape was to leave life.
This may be why the parents are dead set on making someone else responsible: it's either Lori or them.
The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.
Hey, google the phrase "eggshell skull" some time. You may be surprised. (And I'll note that in this particular case, the defendant actually KNEW about the eggshell skull...)
The difference here is the INTENT to do harm. The intent to cause the girl to kill herself may not have been there, but there was clearly an intent to do emotional harm to a minor by an adult. This is a clear problem with the legal system if this is not an obvious problem.
Now, you say that people have a responsibility to not let yourself be manipulated, but, minors are NOT expected to be fully able to do this. That is the difference between if the victim was an adult or not. In spite of how grown-up many teenagers may act, they are still not adults, and need to be protected from mental abuse by others.
I will say this, any adult who intentionally causes emotional or physical pain to a minor should not just be locked up, but locked up with the worst sorts of people so they can know the sort of fear and pain they have caused.
She could not be made to say she did it because that would incriminate her.
If she has immunity, she can.
If you don't like it, remove the fifth.
You are breaking laws....its called reckless driving, which the last time I looked, was illegal.
You are.
Oh sorry, my mistake. I thought that said "liar".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Which dictionary do you have? Mine doesn't define torment as "verb (transitive) - to speak to a child without permission from its parent who thinks he's an internet tough guy."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yes you did. Reckless/dangerous driving. Next!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I did. It doesn't contain the words "fat" or "meanie".
If it did - and assuming that the prosecutors are a little more knowledgable about the law than a random intarweb blowhard - one assumes she would have been charged with it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Evolution?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm sure it varies from place to place, but in the UK at least that's wrong.
If you intend to "only" inflict serious injury, it's still murder if the victim dies.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
OK change the scenario to me impersonating a mechanic and convincing you to "fix" your brakes in a way that causes a fatal accident. It is not the fraud that is key but the intent to cause harm that results in death.
That example is horribly irrelevant to this case. Drew didn't give her a rope and help her string herself up. She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world. most of which don't kill themselves.
she didn't cause the death of the minor. The minor caused her own death, thats what suicide is.
Except it wasn't Lori who wrote that message. Learn to fucking read, asshole.
I can see why you couldn't beat up a woman on your own.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Then charge her for that. They basically decided to make up some bullshit about unauthorized access to a computer system and charge her with that.
Absolutely. I was only addressing the part of the post that I quoted. Trying to get her with just the unauthorized access charges was definitely a stupid move.
The difficulty here is that killing oneself is generally considered to be an irrational action, and therefore it defies a typical causal relationship. Should this woman have known that her actions would cause the girl to commit suicide? Personally, I wouldn't think that anything I could do would make anyone else kill themselves. We've all acted cruelly to others, and had others act cruelly towards us, but still, most of us don't kill ourselves (and presumably nobody reading this has killed themselves). And when others do kill themselves, e.g. because a relationship ended, we're all quick to point out that it wasn't the fault of the other person. We acknowledge that the suicide victim had deeper issues and behaved abnormally to normal events.
If I remember correctly, and I may very well be misremembering this, the neighbor was aware that the girl had psychiatric issues and knew that harassing her in this way would cause serious damage, and she did it to intentionally cause the girl harm. Even if the neighbor didn't believe that the girl would commit suicide, she knew that she was purposely causing damage.
Yes, I am aware of how laws about causing emotional damage could be abused, but whether people like it or not, intent is part of the law, and that's why we have judges presiding over the court and not computers.
Sexconker! Why you hate me so much?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
If it can be proven that you did this maliciously, yes, you could be charged.
There was a true case similar to this set up. A group of people would drive down the highway and position their cars around a "victim". Then, the lead car would do something causing the "victim" to react, hitting other cars. Whoever was hit in the group would sue.
Well, one time, I think the "victim" was killed. It was proven that the group was doing this maliciously (versus an actual accident). It has been too long, but I think it was proven that they had done this before. Without this history, I doubt they would have been charged... BUT, they were all charged in the death in this case... and found guilty.
So, the first time this happens, I strongly doubt any connection would have been made to maliciousness, but if you do it again, I would bet it would be clear. Sooo, you only have one clean shot, make it count. :D
First off bullies have been charged with manslaughter (or more properly adjudicated a delinquent for manslaughter) for example when a kid running away from bullies runs into traffic and is killed or rides his bike into a tree. And it is the disparity here that is key, this was an adult organizing a conspiracy.
In Scots law, at least, it would be. There are cases where a shouting match caused a heart attack, which resulted in manslaughter charges (although the penalty levied is proportional to the circumstances). Scots law on manslaughter is, I think, common law, and so does not necessarily have to follow the letter of statute law.
[FUCK BETA]
Yeah this is one of the differences. You need malice afterthought (i.e. take an act which is likely to cause death), gross disregard for life.... in the US to convicted of murder. I can't see Lori Drew's acts rising to gross disregard for life.
You mean something like this? Good idea.
[FUCK BETA]
That's very true, but this was a criminal case and not civil. The problem is that there is no good criminal charge for what happened, and many people don't see civil liability as being sufficient punishment for such an action.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Actually, the conversation has to get quite a bit more than "racy." And there has to be quite a bit more than talking her into a "meeting." Prosecutors have to have a pretty clear cut case that the defendant is explicitly going there to have a sex with someone who thinks is underage, or the case will never stick.
Now, lets contrast this with Lori Drew. Which of the things did she do that were against the law, other than the bogus charge of violating myspace terms of service? See, that's the problem. None of those things were actually illegal. That's why she hasn't been charged with them. This is why even though I despise Lori Drew, for society's sake I don't want them using any means necessary to convict her. Because we will all pay the price for that kind of behavior.
And, as others, you have misinterpreted what I meant about speech. I'm talking about her telling myspace that she was someone other than who she was. I never meant anyone to think I meant speech could never be a crime. Ordering someone to kill another person is speech, as is posing as someone you are not in order to defraud them. The killing and the defrauding are both crimes, so the speech is a contributing crime. But, again, in this case the thing Lori Drew did (playing, tricking and bullying Megan Meier) wasn't actually a crime. So the speech cannot be a crime since it wasn't used to commit a crime.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
AFAIK, it's NOT illegal to engage in a non-sexual relationship with a child (say, dating?). I don't even think kissing is defined as sexual contact, but I'm not so sure about that one.
From what I've read about this case, a woman broke EULA to 'masquerade' as a young boy, and used this identity to build a trust relationship with a young girl that was insecure as a result of frequent bullying and that sort of crap, and subsequently used that relationship to exploit this young girl's sensitivities to make her feel bad (I assume, since I haven't seen any evidence she WANTED the girl to kill herself, but feel free to point me to some evidence of this).
Is this unethical and reprehensible? Yes.
Should it be illegal? Hell no.
Parents need to teach their kids that what some bloke says on the net (or even in real life) shouldn't be taken at face value.
n/t.
She acted like a teenage boy with the intent of having a relationship with an underage girl.
On the contrary, she never had any intentions of having a "relationship" with the child.
Her intentions were to fuck with the child, which is different than trying to set up a meeting for sex.
It is legal to pretend to be a teenage boy. It is illegal to set up a meeting with the intention of having sexual activities with a minor. She didnt do that the later, only the former.
"His name was James Damore."
Vehicular assault really only applies if you are in violation of the law too. That's why street racing (which is illegal) can apply it.
And please remember, the swerving was all over the legal lane of travel, it wasn't in the other portions of the road even though the swerving action was designed to elicit a response from on coming traffic.
I suppose someone could be charge with reckless operation of a motor vehicle which would allow a manslaughter charge to be attached if they were actually involved in the accident (same type of charge as vehicular assault). But more importantly, the question is, should that person be charged with something even though they didn't technically break a law or road rule and does that differ from this internet case?
How? I stayed within my lane, didn't cross the line or enter the path of on coming traffic, a skilled driver wouldn't have reacted and not hit anyone. I could simply say I swerved to miss an animal and all life is precious.
I'm seeing a pattern here. It seems that an act that doesn't technically violate any rules of the road directly has all the sudden become a violation of the law because there is a need to punish reprehensible deeds. What I'm not seeing here is how this is much different then faking a name, logging onto a computer network in violation of the terms of use policy, and acting in a manor that would appear to violate 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(E), a law that Valdrax pointed out in a previous post, which says " (a)Whoever-- (1)in interstate or foreign communications-- makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. being addressed with the same outrage.
I don't know if it is that more people fear the actions of other drivers or if it is just that I'm seeing something wrong. Causing the death of another person by legal actions is a violation of many laws unless there is a specific exemption (preservation of your own life or someone else'). Especially when the intent can be shown to be malicious. In the car example, it is obvious and the only physical violation of the law was the act and intent of attempting to get someone else to do something, yet in this internet harassment case, the same fundamentals are there with less culpability.
The intent to cause the girl to kill herself may not have been there, but there was clearly an intent to do emotional harm to a minor by an adult.
In most cases, to be hard on crime, the intent to kill doesn't matter. If there was intent to cause harm, and that attempt was successful and results in a death, then the case can often be tried as if the intent to kill was there all along.
Learn to love Alaska
The problem is that there is no good criminal charge for what happened,
Sure there is. Murder. She took an action designed to cause harm. She was successful in causing harm. And in the commission of that harm, someone died. That's manslaughter or murder, depending on where you live. It's no different than if you strike a child across the face in the commission of child abuse intending to cause them harm, and they happen to fall and hit their head and die. You didn't mean to kill them, but you meant to harm them and caused their death.
Learn to love Alaska
The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal;
Yes, and an adult, wishing to cause harm, took advantage of that. The adult wished harm, acted to cause harm, and that resulted in actual harm, and in the commission of that harm, someone died. That's manslaughter or murder, depending on where you live.
Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.
But causing harm that results in a death is.
Learn to love Alaska
She bullied her like every other kid has been bullied all over the world. most of which don't kill themselves.
Most people shot don't die. So that means that if you go out and shoot 100 people and 25 of them die, you shouldn't be prosecuted for murder because most of them lived. I'm sorry, I don't get the "most lived" defense when you purposefully harm someone and in the commission of that harm they die. That's murder or manslaughter, depending on where you live.
Learn to love Alaska
If we decide she can be imprisoned based simply on her speech, it's is not just her but we who will face the consequences.
She acted to harm. That's already not protected speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't encourage harm to others (you can say "I hate Obama" but not "Obama should be killed and lets get together and plan that"). In fact, just talking about killing someone in a plan is illegal. This could have been prosecuted as conspiracy, or murder. Instead, it was a stupid hacking charge because so many people would be confused about the simple legal point. She acted to cause harm. She succeeded in causing harm. In the commission of that harm, someone died. That's murder or manslaughter, depending on where you live.
Learn to love Alaska
I can't see Lori Drew's acts rising to gross disregard for life.
"You should kill yourself" is gross disregard for life.
Learn to love Alaska
if your freedoms are ever limited, it is because people don't responsibility for the consequences for their actions
right now the government has to go in and heavily regulate the financial industry because the assholes there didn't act responsibly and crashed the economy
if everyone in this world acted responsibly, there would be no need for government
but we have government, because people are always shirking their responsibilities. that's why we need government in this world: for the sake of all those who will not live up to their responsibilities
that's the proper relationship between what i am saying and the idea of government
but you come in with this hysterical attack on me that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEANING OF WHAT I AM SAYING
demonstrating you to be a spastic retarded fuck who can't follow the fucking subject matter
i'm glad you can say fuck you to me. good for you. i'm so happy for you. you're such a cool dude
but next time, why don't you insult me for reasons that actually have to do with what i am saying? sorry if that's too radical an idea for you, spastic retard
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Once again, I'm sad that I wasn't clearer in my original post. The speech I meant was telling myspace things that violated their terms of service. That was the only "crime" they convicted her of. I don't believe simply saying something to myspace that does not harm myspace should be considered a crime.
Okay, on to the other topic. Your argument is reasonable sounding, but there's one key thing you've left out - they never charged her with any of this stuff. If every time I bump into you on the street I tell you you are a horrible, ugly person and should kill yourself, there is no law against it. Even if I really wish you would kill yourself. Now, if I make a plan to kill you, I am conspiring to commit a crime. Which crime was Lori Drew conspiring to commit? Person A cannot be charged with Person B's suicide, as Person B is the one committing the act. The only thing that comes close is when Person A provides a means to commit suicide for Person B. Here, Person A only provided motivation, not means.
In much the same way, I could openly talk about a plan to embarrass my neighbor in such a way that he would have to steal a car. But I can't be charged with stealing the car, because I didn't do it. Notice how this is crucially different to your example, which is to plan to kill someone. That is because it would be a crime that I can be charged with for me to kill someone.
So, no matter how strongly you assert that this is murder or manslaughter, the simple fact is that the prosecutors never tried to charge her with that. So either, a) it's not a crime or b) even if it is a crime, there's no way to prove it in this case.
As such, I can't really put any stock in your assertions.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
No it isn't. "This building is on fire and the only exit is jumping out that 4th floor window" is gross disregard.
Person A cannot be charged with Person B's suicide, as Person B is the one committing the act. The only thing that comes close is when Person A provides a means to commit suicide for Person B. Here, Person A only provided motivation, not means.
If you swerve at another car, and they swerve to miss you and crash and die, can you be charged? You didn't actually touch them. You didn't intend for them to die. You just wanted to scare them (or something else, doesn't matter). Because things like that happen all the time, and without prior planning or malice aforethought, and are still prosecuted as manslaughter (or murder if street racing, or with other extenuating circumstances). And this woman planned, schemed with others, a conspiracy to harm a minor. She knew she was fragile, and targeted that to cause harm. And, in the course of creating that harm, someone died. That's murder, and felony conspiracy. That the harm didn't involve physical contact didn't change the fact that it was calculated harm by her and executed as she expected.
Learn to love Alaska
You are correct there are about a 1/2 dozen criteria that elevated a manslaughter to a murder. Intent is one, reasonable expectation is another. They are separable however, for example if I give someone less than a usually fatal dose of a drug but I intended to give them a fatal dose and they die from it....
Moreso than that. It's called the 'weak skulls doctrine' (IIRC, IANAL). Basically, you take your victims as you find them - if you throw a baseball at somebody (and it wouldn't kill them) and they have an unusually thin skull (and it does) then you are still responsible for their death.
"A normal person wouldn't have died, but this (unknown to me) abnormal person did" still holds the person responsible.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
If you swerve at another car, and they swerve to miss you and crash and die, can you be charged?
You'd be charged with reckless driving, with a penalty according to how reckless it is. We have a law for that. And again I tell you your entire little scenarios, no matter how good they sound to you when you type them out, are moot - because otherwise they would have charged her with that.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Relax, he hates me too inexplicable.
I take it as a badge to my uniqueness as a human being. Really, how many of the 6 billion other bald monkeys on this planet share this distinction?
We are snowflakes, thanks to sexconker.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
First off, I am glad this case did not set a clumsy precedent dstined to become absurd the first time it is applied.
The best case scenario is some thought is put into making a more appropriate law for cyberbullying - which is essentially what it is.
No one here filled with rage or feeling like justice was not served should worry in the least, that Lori Drew is "getting away with it". She's not. We don't know much about her current personal situation but I am certain that members of her own family have essentially disowned her. I am sure former best friends have turned their back on her because they cannot overlook this one act of malice. If she is a churchgoer, is she still welcomed at her church or has she stopped attending?
People know her name, her face has been in the papers and she walks shoulders huddled against the whispers in the aisles as she does her grocery shopping. Her children and her husband face collateral social damage. Her daughter - on whose behalf she apparently acted - will forever have her life tied to the death of another.
The judge made the correct decision, but from what I can see here in Slashdot, the court of public opinion has other plans for Lori Drew.
because otherwise they would have charged her with that.
Why? They charge with what they want to. They can choose to not charge someone they know is guilty, and they can choose to charge someone with charges for something they didn't do. So to claim that the best possible charges are those they filed and only what they filed is absurd. It's probably what they thought was the low hanging fruit. They thought they'd get a conviction, and they did. Rather than applying the correct law and have a harder fight, they applied one on a technicality, and it came back to bite them. The fact the judge on appeal said it was the wrong charge indicates that they made a bad choice, so holding them up as the best choice when a better legal authority asserts they were wrong is absurd. So I continue to not understand what the particular charges have to do with what she actually did.
Learn to love Alaska
Idiot, Moron, Calif. Judges Nulify A Law - AGAIN!
The woman WAS OBVIOUSLY GUILTY, yet the idiot, moron, democrat judges break the law by saying the woman did not break the law when she actually did break the law!!!!
These are the kind of judges that need to be removed from the bench - Sotomyer - the ones that obviously do not believe in the letter of the law and legislate from the bench!
Impeach obama and all democrats!
Deport the illegal aliens!
Remove the czars!
Stop the idiotic, cap and trade, energy bill!
No government run health care!
No government or public funded health care!
Smaller government and lower taxes!
Do you seriously not understand they could charge her with both if both applied? This is what the normal routine is in prosecutions around the country every day. They charge them with everything they thing applies. But that's a bit of a moot point, really. Because we are actually talking about two different groups here. Missouri (where Drew and Meier were located) didn't charge Drew with anything. Federal prosecutors in LA (where myspace is located) filed the charges. So, basically, Missouri got it right and some federal prosecutor in LA tried to make a name for himself by criminalizing breaking terms of service. Hopefully this should clear up your confusion.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
Actually, no, the article shows that it's not really the case. The Missouri prosecutors found that there was nothing to charge her with that would stick. So rather than waste time and money on it, they didn't charge her. Then some federal prosecutor in LA (where myspace's servers are) decide to jump in and try the whole violating Terms of Service = hacking tack.
In the end, you are right in that she'll probably walk. I think it more likely that she'll lose a wrongful death suit, however.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
They might even have charged the trio of conspirators under sexual predator laws - they were obviously "getting off" on their actions.
I don't think you understand what sexual predator laws actually are.
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
I hate to burst your bubble, but in this case
being a big fat meanie-heat
is illegal
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000223----000-.html (Yeah, IANAL) but still, an internet connected computer is a telecommunications device, and I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the Ms. Drew's actions didn't fall under the following:
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
Honestly, the federal prosecutor was asleep at the wheel going for a fraud conviction instead of using the above. yeah, fraud will get you 3 years, and this gets you a max of 2 years, but still.
Along the same notes, a letter I just recently sent to my congress-critters:
It recently came to my attention that the recent dismissal in the
Lori Drew "CyberBullying" case is creating incentive for more
"CyberBullying" laws. Specifically in the House Rep. Linda Sanchez
(D-Calif.) has proposed the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act"
to prevent online harassment.
I would urge you to be very cautious, and highly suspicious of any
legislation the proposes legislating something merely because of it
being "online". In this case, harassment is already illegal, including
online. (See Title 47, Chapter 4, Sub-chapter II, Part 1, Paragraph
223 United States Code).
Granted, The federal government can only regulate inter-state
communication, but in the case of the internet, with some very limited
cases (i.e. Internal corporate/school/university networks that are
limited in location) you almost invariably cross state lines with any
sort of internet communication.
In Conclusion I would re-iterate that just because something is
"online" or uses "the internet" doesn't mean that it needs new
legislation.
Respectfully
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
They should of gotten her for at least emotional abuse of a minor child. She is at least guilty of that
I dunno, I only mark people as Foe is they mark me as freak.
And Daft...Punks... was a joke.
Maybe next time I'll work it harder, make it better
do it faster...
(I hear that would make us stronger.)
it's wrong to blast your music. period. whether someone comes in or turns off your stereo or fines your dumb ass is merely different punishments for the same crime
"My right to do ___ NEVER ends"
your right to do XYZ ends where my right to do ABC begins. your rights exist in natural tension with the rights of others, whether you live in complete anarchy or fascist totalitarianism: it has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the simple obvious fact that what you do has consequences, and some of them impinge horribly on other people's rights
in the case of loud music, your right to do that is NATURALLY limited (no government need be involved) by my right to a good nights sleep. if you blast the music anyway, what you are doing is clearly not a right you possess. how you are punished for your crime (turn off the music, fine you, etc.), doesn't matter, the fact is, you've committed a crime
i'm thinking you're 13 or 14 years old. you seem very confused on the concepts here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The law is not a logical syllogism.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
Remember, the justice system doesn't always produce a good result, it a produces a result that complies with the law. That is all. Morality isn't in it.
All this means is that there are insufficient laws to punish actions like Lori Drew's.
But, don't take my word for it. Do your own damn thinking.
Breaking the ToS of a website should simply mean that that website has no obligation to let you continue using the site and can ban you from accessing if it is found that you are in violation of the terms. It is that plain and simple. Go read one of the few good ToS, like the one here at /. for instance. Violating it means that your access to /. or any SourceForge associated site can and will be terminated. But if you look at something like Microsoft's ToS for one of their forums (where-in they claim such things like the copyright to anything posted belongs to Microsoft, including USER posts), is simply ridiculous to believe. There is no official transfer of copyright document as required for copyrighted material, and since that document does not exist, that transfer has not legally happened, no matter what the site says in a ToS. And I am sorry, but bad ToS agreements are the norm for most of the internet, not the exception.
Creating criminal liability for violating a ToS is an extremely bad precedent to create when the norm is bad ToS agreements to begin with. And as I stated, with that precedent, I could do exactly what I posted in my example. And has been shown in the particular case at hand, no one could prove who actually read or agreed to the ToS, and it certainly could not be proven that the defendant was the person who agreed to the ToS, which means she can not be held liable. There were 3 people known to have access to the account, and the one charged was not the one who setup the account, who presumably would be the person most likely to have read an ToS agreement if there was one.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The problem is establishing causation. If you punch someone and stop their heart, the causality is clear. But can anyone ever *cause* someone else to commit suicide against their will? Answering that is probably impossible, particularly since we can't question the victims.
Since it's impossible to demonstrate that this woman's actions *caused* the girl to commit suicide, as opposed to, say, simply confirming the girl's feelings of worthlessness. And if the latter, then that's clearly an issue with the girl, not the woman. It could have been anything that set her off, from a rude gesture to an embarrassing spill in the lunch room. The only practical and reasonable charge -- the only thing that IS demonstrable -- is egregious harassment of a minor by an adult. That crime simply doesn't exist to my knowledge, but clearly we need it, or something like it, so that we don't have to misuse other laws, which is basically the pursuit of vengeance, not justice.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I don't know. The last message (within 24 hours of her death was), "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you."
Here is how I would prove cause:
-- Given the closeness in time the message was a concurrent cause
-- Given the fact that additional stress was added and her reactions all during the relationship this is a combined cause
If the jury agrees on either one of those then that's enough to establish proximate cause. If the defense wants to make a case for an alternate theory, that is a more likely cause of the suicide unrelated to the note that's an affirmative defense. I think unrelated is going to be hard.
That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)
Being rude and offensive is not manslaughter.
The daughter was mentally ill and apparently suicidal; it was her parents' responsibility to keep her out of situations that would trigger a suicide.
Lori Drew was more than "rude and offensive" - she used her insight as an adult to intentionally manipulate this child's state of mind, repeatedly, over a long course of time. It's ridiculous to say that an adult like Ms Drew is not responsible for her actions because the child's parents should have somehow thwarted her.
All children are psychologically vulnerable to any reasonably intelligent adult, just like any child is also physically vulnerable compared to any reasonably sized adult. What you said is that because this child was extra-vulnerable, it was okay for an adult to target her (and Lori Drew knew exactly who she was going after, the child lived 4 doors away) as it was her parents responsibility to protect her from all psychological assaults. That is akin to saying that the physical well-being of a child, who would naturally be vulnerable to physical assaults from an adult, is also solely the responsibility of its parents. Does that mean that a drunk homeless man on the street who punches a 5 year old girl in the face is not responsible for his actions since the girl's parents should have been protecting her when she walked home from school?