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.
Exactly. The incompetent prosecuter screwed this one up big time, and ultimately did everyone a disservice by not knowing the law.
Caveat Utilitor
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 can take it. I've read some youtube comments and lost all faith in humanity already.
I'm pleasantly surprised. I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.
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.
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 incompetent prosecuter screwed this one up big time
The "incompetent prosecutor" was limited by his jurisdiction. The crime, if there was one, happened in Missouri where the prosecutors declined to bring a case. The only way the LA prosecutor could get involved was if he forwarded a theory that the crime was against MySpace.
So, the LA prosecutor wasn't incompetent. Wrongheaded to try to bring the case at all, but not incompetent.
As for the Missouri prosecutor... Well, you know what they say: Missouri loves company.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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?
No, it prevents you from (among other things) being charged twice for the same act: "DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989)."
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
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.
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
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
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.
She engaged in a criminal conspiracy to harm someone which accidentally resulted in their death. That's manslaughter.
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.