Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lori Drew Cyberbullying Case Dismissed

Posted by timothy on from the neither-vindication-nor-absolution dept.

Trepidity writes "About seven weeks after the judge tentatively overturned Lori Drew's guilty verdict for 'cyberbullying' following her online harassment of a teenager that was linked to the teenager's suicide, the case was finally officially dismissed. In a 32-page opinion (PDF), the court avoided a minefield of possible follow-on effects that civil-liberties groups had warned of by holding that merely violating a website's Terms of Service cannot constitute 'unauthorized access' for the purposes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030)."

5 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. glad its not considered terrorism... by mwilliamson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Finally a sane ruling. I'm happily surprized a court didn't rule that breaking a website's T.O.S. is an act of domestic terrorism, punishable by loss of citizenship and infinite water boarding at guantanamo followed by an eternity in hell.

  2. stupid judge by TRRosen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Explain to me exactly how the fact that she accessed a computer system that she did not have authority to access isn't 'unauthorized access'.

    Notes
    She never violated the TOS. The TOS is a contract which she never agreed to (the nonexistent user she created did).

    Giving false info to obtain something of value is a crime. PERIOD. Just because everybody on this site commits it doesn't change the fact that its a crime (just like speeding).

    If you willfully commit a crime and it leads to someone's death, by law, its murder. Even if you just steal a candy bar and the clerk has a heart attack chasing you its murder.

    THIS LADY IS A MURDERER. Plain and simple no if ands or buts.

  3. Re:Silly question? by TRRosen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Judge Wu is an idiot. TOS is not an issue. SHE never agreed to the TOS. SHE was never authorized to access the systems. Their was no contract. She willfully entered a members only club that she knew she didn't belong to thats trespassing. PERIOD

  4. Re:Fighting Abuse of Power by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A shrink speaks.

    Where did I justify anyone abusing anyone else? Abuse is wrong, no matter when, where, or how. This doesn't change the fact that the weak succumb, and the strong fight.

    Sorry, the shrink didn't speak, he blathered.

    --
    "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
  5. Re:Fighting Abuse of Power by youarelying · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Where did I justify anyone abusing anyone else?

    "I have near zero sympathy for kids who are such losers that they can't face life's challenges [abuse?]. Not quite zero, but near it. This girl who committed suicide because some boy she had never met apparently turned on her isn't very far up the food chain from [murderers] the idiots who choose to "go out in a blaze of glory" while shooting up their school. She was weak and unstable, and she chose to suicide. Her lack of a support group contributed, yes, but the fact remains, she failed."

    Nothing in the quoted statment "justifies" abuse, either implicitly or explicitly. And you know it. Therefore, claiming that it does makes you a liar.

    Your rhetoric is an exemplar for how to de-humanise someone as a precursor to justification for maltreatment. They're only retards, they're only Catholics, they're only gypsies, they're only Jews, they're only weak.

    Again, not expressed or implied by anything you quoted. You made up that position and assigned it to him. It is a straw man argument. All straw man arguments are lies.