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.
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.
...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.
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.
A simple glance at TFA would have told you that:
Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide.
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.
I'm pleasantly surprised. I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.
From the article:
Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide. The case against Drew hinged on the governmentâ(TM)s novel argument that violating MySpaceâ(TM)s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking.
Sounds like they were trying to create the online equivalent of "disorderly conduct." That is, "we don't have any other crime to charge you with but we really, really don't like you, so have this generic charge instead."
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with.
She killed Michael Jackson.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
She trolled someone to death.
Allegedly. Prior to the original verdict, even the girl's mother confirmed the she and her daughter had argued when her daughter tried to speak to her about the supposed boy who broke her heart. It was not directly after she received the message "the world would be better off without you" when the girl hung herself, but after an argument with her mother and her mother left for work.
I have no doubt that Lori Drew's actions were a contributor to the girl's behavior, but I don't believe it was the only catalyst.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
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.
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?
She was charged with not RTFA, which is now a felony. Somebody get a rope!
I think a Wrongful Death suit is appropriate.
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.
("Not I" you mean...)
There has been so much Slashdot coverage of the Lori Drew/Megan Meier so-called "cyberbullying" case over the past several months, I suppose the summary writer simply assumed that these people were "well-known figures" on this site, albeit perhaps slightly less so than Gates/Ballmer/McBride/Obama/Stevens/Thompson/Lessig/Doctorow/Stallman/Torvalds et al....
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.
She's quite a Smooth Criminal then to be charged with this and be able to Beat 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.
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.
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!
Sounds like they were trying to create the online equivalent of "disorderly conduct." That is, "we don't have any other crime to charge you with but we really, really don't like you, so have this generic charge instead."
It's scarier than that; they were claiming that a TOS violation was enough to charge you under CFAA (unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access). If that were true, being rude on a message board (that banned such behavior in its TOS) would be a criminal offense. It would be possible to charge almost any person with a crime for "hacking".
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.
She trolled someone to death.
Allegedly. Prior to the original verdict, even the girl's mother confirmed the she and her daughter had argued when her daughter tried to speak to her about the supposed boy who broke her heart. It was not directly after she received the message "the world would be better off without you" when the girl hung herself, but after an argument with her mother and her mother left for work. I have no doubt that Lori Drew's actions were a contributor to the girl's behavior, but I don't believe it was the only catalyst.
What disturbs me significantly more is that a child can have such deep and painful psychological problems without a parent, or a teacher, or a neighbor, or a peer, noticing this and doing something about it.
It's sort of like the Columbine massacre. Those boys obtained guns and ammunition and assembled homemade bombs in their bedrooms without the parents even noticing that something wasn't right about them. If they did notice, they didn't step up to the plate and act like parents.
Do some parents really believe that they can be so uninvolved in the lives of minor children who really need their loving guidance without something bad happening? Does some disaster or massacre really have to take place before people decide that this is a really bad idea? I bet one person who really gives a shit can accomplish what hundreds of metal detectors could never do. Usually the subject is computer security when I say things like "we as a culture do not believe in prevention, in being proactive, or in exercising foresight" but things like this are sad reminders of just how deeply ingrained this character flaw really is.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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"
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.
Since when was Michael Jackson an FBI agent?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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.
Oh please. A 13 yo girl, talking to what she thought was a boy who she knew and liked her. Not anonymous, and not 'validation'.
Teen girls are bags of hormones. Not surprising that one could be pushed over the edge. Especially by a devious, malicious, adult.
Hell yes the family should have been more involved in her life. But Lori Drew should not have been involved at all.
Who sought out whom?
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?"
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
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)
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....
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.
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
-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.
Ehmm, if you don't mind I'm not going to treat stuff like the myspace TOS or the Windows EULA on the same level as written law...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
It's a joke, the misspelling was used in some mother's open letter to the internet after her child committed suicide, she called him "an hero". Hence "an hero" has become a meme referring to suicide.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Once you physically touch the person it is no longer assault and becomes battery.
Assault is threatening behaviour towards another person.
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."