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
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.
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.
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"
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
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