Slashdot Mirror
Lori Drew Cyberbullying Case Dismissed
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)."
The government chose to use the legal system to make her life a living hell. The government has infinitely deep pockets to fund a lawsuit against a private citizen, but the citizen does not have such pockets. Fighting the government in the courts could drive a private citizen into bankruptcy.
The right thing for Drew to do in this case is to sue the government and, specifically, the lead prosecuting attorney. Drew should sue them for mental distress and seek a multi-million dollar award.
Harassment != being mean.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, 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.
Or:
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 Rob Malda a douchebag or advocating for greater acceptance of necrophilia or defending the 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.
This 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
Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
I am sure that eventually the horrible wrong she committed will be balanced - Karma has a way of working things out !
No it doesn't. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to say that there is something to that, karma is total bullshit. I mean, Hitler committed suicide before we could get to him -- how's that for karma? Or the evil, scumfuck businessmen who defraud the world of billions of dollars only to die of natural causes after getting fat, rich, and happy at the expense of the world? I wish there were something to be said for karma, but alas, it seems that ordinary means of revenge and retribution are all we have. As for Lori Drew, she will be punished by those around her for the rest of her life -- everyone knows who she is and what she has done and she will be an outcast forever. There's nothing mystical about that.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Sue that witch into the ground, take every asset she owns.
It may not bring megan back but if it discourages some other jerk from doing the same thing it will be worth it.
This was truly an unfortunate necessity for the best interest of civil liberties. The reasoning that this case was presented would have made criminals of a great many people for things that should not be criminalized. I understand the charges would have essentially criminalized breaking TOS for a web site, something that simply should not be a criminal action. Will used against this evil bitch who does richly deserve prison, it would set a bad legal precedent.
That being said, I would still like to find a way to charge her with something appropriate, such as a lesser murder charge, as well as holding her civilly responsible (such as how oj still got held civilly) responsible for the murders he committed)
IIRC, Ms. Drew, family, and an employee went to elaborate lengths to ensnare a susceptible and troubled teenager in a web of lies, followed by making very pointed suggestions for the teenager to commit suicide. What legal basis to prosecute her under is one question... but if the allegations are true, there is certainly a moral basis for ostracizing her, which is apparently what happened in her community.
Does this imply that bullying someone (especially underage or pre-teen childeren), by including but not limited to, claiming that 'The world would be a better place without you', up till the point that they feel so miserable that they commit suicide, is somehow not illegal and cannot be punished by law ?
So does that mean that if I break a web site's terms of service then my access is still 'authorized'? Authorized by whom?
Missouri has made harassing a minor a felony, http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_16-2009_08_22.shtml#1250896617
So what I figure is, they knew that the current charges would most likely not stick so they crafted a law to handle the situation. The new law is worse that than even the laws they attempted to prosecute Lori Drew under the first time. They are just too open to interpretation.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So just what is 'harassment' then?
Is it harrassment if I call you an asshole?
How about if I make a point of calling you an asshole every time I see you?
What if I stand outside your house yelling "asshole!" for a whole afternoon?
Can I get away with telling all your friends and family that you're an asshole?
Is it harrassment if I put up posters with your name and the word 'asshole' on all round the neighborhood?
Where is the line drawn? Maybe it should be for a jury to decide.
So an adult posting as a child having intimate and/or sexual conversations with a child in order to later manipulate and ridicule them is merely "being mean"? If Lori Drew were a man, she'd be thrown away in prison for life for for being a sexual predator engaging in sexual conversations with a twelve year old girl online.
Her actions and intentions (and the results) could reasonably (in spirit, though certainly not law) be seen as manslaughter. Adults have measures they can take, legally, to retaliate against harassment and various forms of emotional and verbal abuse, but if you're a twelve year old little girl you should "just toughen the fuck up"?
The problem here is that this woman is a petty, vile, remorseless cunt (an applicable use of that word in this case which nobody can deny) that did a despicable thing that absolutely contributed significantly to the death of a child. Because the case was so mishandled (there are already laws which should have allowed certain prosecution without the ridiculous liberty-curtailing precedents involved here), the only way to make sure she gets what she deserves is to put the civil liberties of every person in the country in peril.
There is no great outcome either way in this case.
Can somebody explain precisely why this woman was not prosecuted under charges of harassment, mental abuse or similar ? Did some lawyer screw up, is the prosecution being twats or is the law just so weird that deliberately trying to hurt somebody by lying to them with the specific intention to cause harm is not criminal?
Don't get me wrong, charging her for violating a ToS was bullshit, but I just don't see why what she did would not be a violation of at least some other law. Libel, slander and bashing ethnic minorities is illegal, so why is deliberately trying to hurt a minor through carefully targeted verbal abuse, lies and harassment not? That it happened over the Internet is surely tangential to the real issue here, which is that a very cruel woman set out to mentally abuse a child.
I'm not so sure that the 19 year old's actions could not be seen as manslaughter, i.e. taking a mentally disturbed person causing great emotional trauma and encouraging suicide as a solution. If that were the case then Drew is part of a conspiracy. But the Missouri DA screwed this up by giving the 19 year old immunity.
No. Criminally this was a manslaughter case if it was anything at all. One that had to be brought in Missouri. Drew didn't particularly harass the child. One element of harassment is the repetitive nature of the offense. You don't just pester someone once; you do it over and over again. Megan didn't get an email every day for a year saying "Nobody likes you; today's a good day to kill yourself."
Instead, what Drew did do is negligently bring about the conditions which resulted her death. "Talked her into killing herself" is a tough case to prove though I seem to recall that when Manson talked a bunch of people into killing others it was possible to put him in jail.
Somewhat better odds of pursuing a wrongful death suit. That's a civil rather than criminal case. Still not great odds and still has to be brought in Missouri, not California.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
There's a reality TV show I saw the other day where the main character balances Karma by getting rid of bad people after the court system fails to do so. The show is called Dester or something like that.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
I'm of the belief that she knew what she was doing and chose to let this girl die, even goading her on to kill herself. I don't see how this is, in any way, different than doing so in person. She should be held accountable for her actions. This woman is the scum of the earth.
I've had words with people before but I've never attempted to talk somebody into committing suicide. I also tend not to get into arguments with minors. What in the world could possibly lead somebody to think this ever sounded like a good idea?
So if I tell someone only to go kill themself or the world would be better off without them, which I and many others do online as well as off, I should go to jail if that person actually does it? That's absurd.
No Its MURDER. Manslaughter means there was no intent. The act of committing fraud in order to do it creates an intent to injure.
Killing someone with no intent to injury = Manslaughter
Killing someone with intent to injure but not kill = second degree murder
No the same way that if you push someone you don't go to jail for murder; while if you push them in front of a train you do. The 19 year old did far more than just tell someone something mean. She spent hours developing a close emotional connection with a child (not a peer) prior to telling them to kill themselves.
It is possible that you are not a skilled lawyer. Starting with the easy stuff first...
>Giving false info to obtain something of value is a crime. PERIOD.
Incorrect. First, I may mistakenly give false information by, for example, accidentally transposing digits in a phone number on a form. Not a crime.
Second, I may give false information that is not material to the transaction. For example, when dealing with someone who has the discretion to complete a transaction with me or someone else but not both (i.e., has a single item for sale and two potential buyers) and who is wearing an ugly hat, I may tell that person that the hat is attractive in an attempt to get the person to deal with me. Not a crime.
Third, the thing of value may not be something that the court feels like adjudicating. I man tell you that I will lower your taxes if you give me your vote, which is something of value. Not a crime.
Numerous other examples suggest themselves. Not crimes.
>She never violated the TOS. The TOS is a contract which she never agreed to (the nonexistent user she created did).
If you enter into a contract, say to buy a house, and sign the name of a non-existent person at the bottom, your imaginary friend did not just enter into a contract - you did. The signature element of a contract is satisfied by the parties giving objectively reasonable indications that they intend to enter a contract. Nodding ones head, stating agreement orally, or making a mark of whatever sort (a signature, a big red X, whatever) are all acceptable indications. Crossing your fingers behind your back, mentally adding certain reservations of which the other party is unaware, and using someone else's name are all things that do not negate the agreement to be bound by the contract.
Huh? No one said she should be charged with murder (which is what would happen if she were held responsible for what the girl did to herself). But she is still responsible for the direct consequences of her actions.
Even if the girl didn't end up committing suicide from the psychological harm that women inflicted upon her (with clear malicious intent), an adult should still not be allowed to bully a child without legal consequences. Heck, disciplinary actions are even taken on a 1st or 2nd grader who picks on another kid at school, so why would an adult doing much more harm to a child be given a free ride?
uhm.. you mean the HBO drama, Dexter, where the main character is a serial killer who was adopted and raised by a cop, who taught him to kill only those people who really deserve it? The show that is based on the Dexter novels by Jeff Lindsay?
Yeah... not a reality show in the least... although it would be nice ;)
WHHOOOOSH!!!!
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
First, Judge Wu's decision has nothing to do with whether Drew's actions constituted "cyberbullying" or whether she deserved to be prosecuted for her ill-treatment of Megan. All of that was decided long ago, first in Missouri, where the AG said Drew had violated no existing statute, nor in the Federal prosecution where the jury refused to treat Drew's actions as felonious.
What was left to determine was whether Drew's act of creating a fictitious identity at MySpace, in contravention of its Terms of Service, constituted a misdemeanor under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). When Congress passed this law its intent was to criminalize activities like hacking into computers at banks or military contractors. After public outcry at the fact Drew was not convicted of anything for her actions, Justice Department attorneys in California (where the MySpace computers were housed) prosecuted Drew for violating the CFAA.
Judge Wu's decision is extremely cautious and proscribed in many ways. First, he specifically states that an "intentional" breach of a website's Terms of Service may come under the purview of the CFAA:
What's really at issue is whether someone can be prosecuted for violating the TOS, or whether MySpace's specific TOS were too vague to provide reasonable grounds for criminal prosecution. "Vagueness" in this case means whether "individuals of 'common intelligence' are on notice that a breach of the terms of service contract can become a crime under the CFAA." His ruling rejects the Justice Department's case on the grounds that the MySpace TOS are simply too vague to provide a basis for prosecution. In particular, he ruled that the TOS were so expansive that a wide variety of behaviors would become criminalized (lying about one's age or weight, for instance):
My guess is that attorneys for popular websites, particularly social networking sites, will be revising their TOS to comply with Wu's decision.
Over the internet, never met in person, the girls parents knew EVERY STEP OF THE WAY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN ITS ENTIRETY, yet noone wants to blame the parents? This is a CLASSIC case of what every slashdotter talks about where the parent's don't have to take any responsibility for their children. Read about the case, the girl's parents knew she was in a terrible place emotionally cause of this internet boyfriend she had, 'but she still went on the computer even though we would tell her not to' is their excuse for why she was allowed to continue.
TL:DR version:
Where the fuck were her parents?
It is possible that you are not a skilled lawyer.
Its possible I'm not, but its definite your not.
The parties involved in a contract will always be material. duh.
False clearly implies intentional. Incorrect can be accidental.
Contracts are entered by two parties in agreement If one party is falsifying its identity there is no agreement.
reality TV shows, best education Americans can get ...
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
No. Criminally this was a manslaughter case if it was anything at all. One that had to be brought in Missouri. Drew didn't particularly harass the child. One element of harassment is the repetitive nature of the offense. You don't just pester someone once; you do it over and over again. Megan didn't get an email every day for a year saying "Nobody likes you; today's a good day to kill yourself."
I see. So Drew was able to cultivate this false relationship with the girl in order to inflict emotional damage all with a single message? It didn't take a pattern of repeated communications to pull this off?
" an adult should still not be allowed to bully a child without legal consequences."
let me fix that: an adult should not be allowed to harass a child without legal consequences. This should be fairly obvious, we don't have a law against that already? I mean I don't think Lori Drew should serve a life sentence, but I'd be very happy if she served at least 6 months, and several years would not be unreasonable since this was no accident, this was a targeted attack at a particular teenage and Lori spent quite some time harassing the child, even going to far to pretend to be a child herself.
How is it that an adult harassed a child to the point of committing suicide and all we could throw at her is a TOS violation? Men just trying to have sex with teenage girls get jail time, but succeeding in coercing suicide gets nothing?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"I'm not so sure that the 19 year old's...."
what 19 yr old? Lori Drew is 40+, and she's admitted to everything to police, there pretty much was no one else responsible.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Criminal responsibility? Sorry. If I call you a flaming homosexual moron, and you go commit suicide, I've not committed a criminal act. Of course, that goes both ways - if you call ME the same thing, and I commit suicide, you aren't criminally liable either.
If you call me a "flaming homosexual moron", you have no idea of what my mental state is. You don't know me. I am a complete stranger. However, this case didn't involve complete strangers. This case involved an adult who had some knowledge of the mental state of her victim. This involved a case of an adult who went out of her way to cultivate a lie; create the deception of a personal relationship with the girl. This adult set up an emotional unstable teenager to be her most vulnerable. And then that adult let loose with an insult that would take the most advantage and do the most damage in this crafted situation.
This is not a case of flaming on an Internet forum. This is not heated words or throw-away insults. This was something far beyond the pale of what you're describing.
No, not jail. But you should probably go back to Philosophy 101: Intro to Logic for using such a bad analogy.
Certain portions of any society's population are more easily victimized (and more vulnerable to predation or exploitation) than others. Our legal system takes that into account, as it should, and offers those groups greater protection. That is why an adult can be prosecuted if they allow an infant to drown in a bathtub, but not if instead it had been a non-physically-or-mentally-handicapped adult that drowned. It's also why it's considered a greater crime to murder someone with a handicap, a child, or a senior citizen.
The fact of the matter is, many mental disabilities make the sufferer more susceptible to suggestion or external influence. The victim in this case was an adolescent girl suffering from clinical depression. In fact, she was even on multiple mood-stabilizers. It should be quite obvious that someone in that situation is already predisposed to self-harm and suicide without others bullying them. But when someone deliberately causes psychological harm on such an individual, the situation becomes even more dangerous. In this case, it was a grown woman preying on the psychological vulnerability of a 13-year-old child, and the results proved fatal.
If I approached a man standing on the ledge of a cliff and intentionally frightened them, and as a result they lost their balance and fell to their death, I would certainly be held accountable (and charged with involuntary manslaughter). If a suicidal person is standing on a ledge on a tall building, and I tell them to jump&mdashand they do, should I not be held accountable as well? Now, in this case, the woman had to make much more of an effort to get this girl to commit suicide. I'm certain she had no intent to kill, but she is still potentially liable for involuntary manslaughter or at least criminal negligence (though not likely as this is a clear case of malicious intent).
"I am sure that eventually the horrible wrong she committed will be balanced - Karma has a way of working things out !"
...... I mean, seriously? So, what are you suggesting? If you were to create your own legal system, would bad karma be the sentences?
Seriously?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
>The parties involved in a contract will always be material. duh.
The parties are almost never material. When I buy lunch from a restaurant, I enter into a contract to give the restaurant money in exchange for food. As long as I get food and they get cash, it is basically true that no other information is material to the transaction. I can tell them that I'm the Sultan of Brunei and as long as the "Sultan of Brunei" pays in full for his Supersized Fries, it's all good.
>False clearly implies intentional. Incorrect can be accidental.
No, false implies wrong. Intentional versus accidental goes to state of mind (mens rea, if you want to sound like a lawyer). In any event, intent is not in play here. In the example that I gave in the previous post of promising to cut taxes in exchange for your vote, I may be deliberately lying because I actually plan to raise your taxes. Despite my deliberate deception to get something of value, that valuable item being your vote, there is no crime. Your earlier statement to the effect that giving false information to get something of value is always a crime is incorrect.
>Contracts are entered by two parties in agreement If one party is falsifying its identity there is no agreement.
Incorrect. As noted in the Sultan of Brunei example above, identity of the parties need not be material.
If identify is material then giving a false identity may affect the contract. However, even in that case, it need not void the contract. For example, in a contract involving exchange of cash for goods, if I give counterfeit cash then I have violated a material term just as I would violate a material term by misstating my identify where identity is material. However, that need not void the contract. The contract may still be valid and enforceable, and it may be that I am forced to come up with real money.
Finally, in answer to your original question of how accessing the system without authorization is not unauthorized access, it actually comes down to the penalty, not the conduct. As the judge explained on page 21 of the opinion, what Drew did could well constitute unauthorized access. However, for reasons that he went on to explain, although she might be civilly liable in some other context, she could not be held criminally liable for the conduct alleged in this particular court case.
oh.... i see what you did here....
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
There was no intent to cause physical injury. This is like yelling fire in a theater and someone is trampled to death in the crush at the emergency exit. There was no intent to specifically harm anybody, yet a reasonable person would understand that someone could be killed as a result of such misbehavior.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Home Buyer: This is such a beautiful home, why is the price so low?
Realtor: The owners said that the husband got a new job, selling Jolt Cola next to Mosque's in Baghdad. The husband is a Born Again Christian.
Home Buyer: That's different. Why are there so many For Sale signs on this street. Except over there?
Realtor: Oh, well, that's the home of Lori Drew.
Home Buyer: You brought me to the street that Lori Drew lives on? That's Messed Up, I think we're done doing business, forever.
*cough*Just-world fallacy*cough*
"In closing, you are a miserable piece of shit and not one single person worth a damn would miss your ignorant ass if you were gone. Fuck you."
tell me how you really feel, stop holding back, give it to me straight i can take it!
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
In his laboratory, fighting school bullies of course ; )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CybozuChzNw&hl
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
When you make speech subject to jury review regardless of how seemingly reasonable that is you gut the idea of free speech. Additionally, while I think this woman is a worthless piece of crap why is she responsible for the actions of another who harmed themselves. Personal responsibility plays a part in all things and we're so ready to find others to blame we ignore that. Just because she is worthless, mean, and stupid does not make her responsible for another's actions.
A few things of note here:
"Speech" covers a very broad area, and some of it has to be subject to review. If I advertise that my magic potion can cure diabetes and eliminate the need for the consumer to take insulin, and someone dies because of that, shouldn't I be responsible for that "speech"? If I incite a mob to kill someone, shouldn't I be responsible for that? Speech has consequences, and "freedom of speech" doesn't cover all sins. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
In the case at hand, one could argue that an adult would be responsible for his/her actions, and should have been expected to handle the situation better. But this was a child with mental health issues that were apparently known by her killer (which is a word I use very deliberately).
Personal responsibility is all well and good for an adult, but we don't hold children to the same standard in civilized countries. And we do hold adults responsible for exploiting children. I can't think of a more clear-cut example of someone exploiting that vulnerability than the case we have here.
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
The only reason this case was pumped up was for political reasons. Bullies existed offline when I was growing up, and I had to deal with child and adult bullies. So how is this new? Because it's on the internet?
12 year olds shouldn't be on social networking sites in the first place. If they aren't old enough to distinguish reality from the internet, they should not be online. The same with violent movies and video games which also might cause suicides. Lori Drew was what we'd consider a bad person, and a bully, but alternatively you can turn the internet off, disconnect, block, ignore list, all which work better than suing.
In this case the girl is dead so it's too late, and the stuff Drew said was just wrong to say to a 12 year old, but since we cannot rid the world or the internet of assholes, and we have too many assholes to sue each one of them, we have to find a better solution. Maybe create an internet for kids only, or put some sorta age limits on social networking sites.
That might make her sore, but I don't see how that would preclude trial?
forgive me, I couldn't resist.
I'm not sure that under Missouri Law the situation is so clear cut.
Section 565-021states that second degree murder is when a person, "Knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person." Drew, while perhaps a despicable human being, Neither set out nor intended to do physical harm to Meier, not in any provable way. Emotionally upset? Perhaps, but the wording is pretty stark here so it would be futile to try and claim Drew's actions were ever intended to be physical in nature.
This section also has a second clause, defining second degree murder as: "Commits or attempts to commit any felony, and, in the perpetration or the attempted perpetration of such felony or in the flight from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony, another person is killed as a result of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of such felony or immediate flight from the perpetration of such felony or attempted perpetration of such felony." You might be able to gain more traction with this approach. However, the only "crime" that Drew was guilty of was the weird "violation of ToS" runaround that was rightly thrown out. If Drew's actions could have somehow been linked to a felony (and I'm sure some RIAA lawyer could figure out that torturous linkage somehow), then you might have been able to chain a second degree murder charge on her this way. As that was never going to happen, the second degree murder case for Drew is nonexistant.
You might be able to pull off a manslaughter charge under section 565-024, Involuntary Manslaughter, if you could prove that Drew's reckless behavior (1st degree) or criminal negligence (2nd degree) brought about Meier's death. Again, though, this is tough to link. Under section 562.016, reckless behavior is defined as a conscious disregard of "a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation." There are several hurdles here that must be passed and, if Drew were to be convicted under them, that sets an uncomfortable precedent that sort of allows John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory to become the de facto law of the land and anyone who has ever flamed anyone else might suddenly then be held accountable under law. If we're going to throw up our hands and scream bloody murder when Amazon yanks back a book, crying that they're not the police and don't have a legal right to do that, then enshrining either Facebook/MySpace's ToS or Penny Arcade as the law of the land must surely be equally as abhorrent.
Criminal negligence is much the same, but the wording goes: "he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk...". That "fails to be aware" might be something to hang Drew on if Meier had previous suicide attempts, however it's sort of a Catch 22 argument. Could Drew's actions have pushed Meier over the edge? Certainly, but then, if she's that fragile, couldn't anything have pushed her over the edge? How can you argue the uniqueness of Drew's behavior being the deciding factor?
This is why Missouri chose not to prosecute, which led the Feds to step in and try to Capone Drew, nabbing her on the squirrely ToS violation. It didn't work and shouldn't have worked, but it means Drew gets away, at least from a criminal standpoint, with being a real waste of flesh, water and air. Hopefully, she'll get rammed in civil court.
It also points out the simple fact: Due to a level of informational sharing and processing that we as a civilization have not seen since Hammurabi pointed at a slab of stone and said, "I've got something to say!", our legal system is simply not equipped to handle edge cases that are suddenly not so 'edgy' in terms of the Internet. For instance, what counts as harassment online? Sure, a huge email campaign may be obvious,
People who hate Lori Drew, wanted to form a lynch mob using the law and the courts.
This is wrong, it was the wrong tactic from the beginning and I said that many months ago.
I'm not surprised that it failed, anyone who knows the law at all knew it wouldn't work.
But assume somehow the precedent was set, and now if you hurt a powerful persons feelings they can form a lynch mob and put you in prison? I'm sure many people would like that, but that is not justice.
Actually did meet in person. The boy didn't exist but at least 2 of the perps knew Megan well. As for the parents, parents doing a bad job parenting was a contributing factor. However the perps intended to do harm and accidentally killed her. Which is similar if I intend to beat someone up and accidentally kill them.
If what she did was criminal they could have charged her with harassment. It's not a crime to trick a minor or an adult over the internet, nor should it be a crime. Yes there was more to it than that, and those aspects could be a crime depending on the details of the case.
The fact that she used a fake profile is not and should not be a crime. The fact that she tricked the child might be immoral but it should not be a crime. It should only be a crime if the child asked to be left alone, over and over again, and this individual would not go away. Then it should be a crime.
But no I don't think it should be a crime to hurt a child or adults feelings over the internet. Being an asshole should not be a crime.
No matter what anyone says to you, if you decide to commit suicide it's your fault.
You are the owner of your emotions, not anyone else. Nobody but you is responsible for how you feel, and if you don't like how someone is making you feel you can stop talking to them.
If you talk to someone and call them a douch bag and they go and commit suicide you are not responsible for their suicide, they are.
The only emotions you are responsible for is your own.
No matter what you charge her with, she's not a murderer. She's a bad person, she's a heartless cruel person but she is not a murderer.
Prison probably wont change anything in this case because this is a unique case. The reason this case is unique is because the girl was 12 and this woman was in her 40s. If any new laws should be created it should be to ban under 13 from using social networking sites. Why on earth should kids even be on social networking sites?
I wouldn't mind if it were illegal to allow those under 13 to use the internet unsupervised. But to sue Lori Drew would be to blame the internet for Megans suicide, and that is not fair.This situation is an accident, and Lori Drew is a bad person who should have known better. She will never find a job again, she will be demonized for the rest of her life, and her reputation is ruined, that is worse than being in prison.
Incorrect. As noted in the Sultan of Brunei example above, identity of the parties need not be material.
it need not be, but it is when one of the elements of the contract is that your not using a false identity. If I say I will sell you a meal for $10 if and only if your the sultan of Brunei. Its sure as hell is material.
As the judge explained on page 21 of the opinion, what Drew did could well constitute unauthorized access
OK if the judge admits that the first element of the crime may have been met what the hell are we bitching about the TOS for. Oh I see now hmm thats some quality judging there he actually validates "ignorance of the Law" as an excuse. I stand behind and reaffirm my STUPID.
But Harassment should be defined very specifically to mean that the minor said "leave me alone" or blocked the person, and the person continued to contact the individual. That is what harassment is. Just insulting a minor should never be illegal and if it is illegal, then we need to keep minor from Missouri off Slashdot so that none of us get sued if they commit suicide.
I favor using the technology to solve most of these issues, banning, blocking, ignore lists, and if all of that fails then use the law. The law should be the LAST resort.
Basically Lori Drew is a typical asshole. She hurt a childs feelings, the child killed herself, and now people are angry and looking for laws to use against Lori Drew.
I don't think it should ever be a illegal to hurt someones feelings because then any minor you piss off can sue you.
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she: ...
(3) Knowingly ... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making ... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is ... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly ... causes emotional distress to such other person; or ...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to ... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be ... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
2. Harassment is a [class D felony if] ...:
(1) Committed by a person twenty-one years of age or older against a person seventeen years of age or younger ...
That is the new law. And I think it's poorly written because it tries to claim a child is anyone under 18, which is completely ridiculous. Megan was 12 so I can understand, but if someone is 15 years old they should know better than to commit suicide over being insulted on the internet, even if its by an adult.
Also it means any child can claim something you said hurt their feelings and because it's so subjective then you are guilty until proven innocent.
1. A person commits the crime of harassment if he or she: ...
(3) Knowingly ... causes emotional distress to another person by anonymously making ... any electronic communication; or
(4) Knowingly communicates with another person who is ... seventeen years of age or younger and in so doing and without good cause recklessly ... causes emotional distress to such other person; or ...
(6) Without good cause engages in any other act with the purpose to ... cause emotional distress to another person, cause such person to be ... emotionally distressed, and such person's response to the act is one of a person of average sensibilities considering the age of such person.
2. Harassment is a [class D felony if] ...:
(1) Committed by a person twenty-one years of age or older against a person seventeen years of age or younger ...
You cannot talk a person into killing themselves if they don't already want to. You cannot talk a person into doing something they truly don't want to do.
What Lori Drew did is talk Megan into doing what she wanted to do. It's morally wrong but it should not be illegal. And also the new Missouri law is beyond ridiculous, it says that if you hurt anyones feelings who are under 18, you committed a crime. Let's be realistic, if you are in Missouri it's best that you don't talk to anyone under 18 on the internet because you can be sued more on the internet than if you hurt their feelings in person.
Ultimately the solutions they are coming up with are worse than the problem.
Huh? No one said she should be charged with murder (which is what would happen if she were held responsible for what the girl did to herself).
I'm having a hard time understanding how Drew isn't responsible, since part of what she did was to tell the girl the world would be a better place without her.
Drew deserves the worst society could possibly do to her. I am utterly without sympathy for that pathetic piece of crap.
If you have bad Karma, you go on the blacklist. You get put on the blacklist and thats the green light for anyone to victimize you.
Lori Drew should be put on the blacklist, not because shes an asshole, or a bully, or even because she bullied a minor, but because she does not show remorse for what she did. Once on the blacklist, nobody will hire her anywhere, when burglars are looking for a house to rob they'll choose hers, when hackers are deciding whos computer to hack they'll choose hers, when con artists and predators decide who to prey on, they will choose her.
Being on the blacklist / having bad karma means nobody will feel any sympathy or compassion for you. If you go to prison and get raped in prison, nobody will care because you were a rapist.
Where the fuck were her parents?
Doing their best to be parents. Before you piss all over them, how about you read some goddamn background?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You pretend to be a friend to your target, you build up and flatter them for a period, you build trust. You spend months doing this. Then you suddenly change. That's the harassment. You should be charged for that. If it can be proven that your target was not of sound mind and might have been easy to push to suicide and you knew it, that's worse than harassment.
If you hang a noose in front of the house of a black person, and it hurts their feelings, should you be charged and go to prison?
I've read the background. It literally shows that they would get into fights, with their 12 year old daughter, because she'd go on the computer after being told she couldn't...time after time after time. They REFUSED to be parents and simply stood back as she did whatever the fuck she wanted.
Men just trying to have sex with teenage girls get jail time, but succeeding in coercing suicide gets nothing?
This is obvious - sex is worse than death.
Have personal responsibility for your own mind. If you commit suicide it's no one elses fault but your own.
Personal responsibility is all well and good for an adult, but we don't hold children to the same standard in civilized countries.
Depends on how old the dead girl was. If instead of killing herself she would have been caught dealing drugs (or killed someone), would she go to prison? If so, it means she was responsible for her actions, because if a very young child commits a crime the parents are held responsible. When the child is older (the age depends on the country) he/she is held responsible for whatever crime he/she committed.
One can only hope that family and friends of the girl uses that same loophole hat got Drew off the hook to make the rest of her life a living hell.
Lori Drew seems to be a disgusting and cruel harpy, but what happened to her had nothing to do with the rule of law or justice and everything to do with abusing the legal system to try to try punish her for many things that weren't crimes. Violating a website's TOS being de facto turned into a crime? Please...
The precedents this would have set (had it been allowed to stand) would have been horrible for everyone who loves anonymity on the internet (among other things).
It's so sad, what happened to Meghan Meier, but Lori Drew wasn't ultimately responsible for that - and it is my opinion that the people who think she was are the type of people who like to pass reactionary legislation without really looking at the full picture.
Now there is all sorts of bad state legislation flying around to keep an eye on.
I'm sorry but if posting a completely fake profile on a website with the intention of harassing another individual is not considered 'unauthorized access', can someone please tell me WTF is?
Unfortunately, if posting a completely fake profile on a website with the intention of harassing another individual is considered 'unauthorized access', then so is merely posting a completely fake profile on a website.
She was 13. Children of this age are not typically tried as adults. That's what juvenile detention is for. And the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to execute a child, meaning that it is unconstitutional to hold a child to the same standard as an adult. (There are some circumstances under which an adult may be executed, so this difference alone means we always treat children as different.)
Maybe someone should get on lexus-nexus and post all her info to 4chan and fark and all the rest of the shady underbelly of the net. Someone somewhere will have the time to truly make this woman suffer for her actions.
I'm fairly certain that all her personal information is already readily available online. I don't know what acts have been taken against her by her fellow citizens, but I certainly wouldn't shed a tear for her, whatever they were/are.
For the love of all that is holy, please try to exercise some common sense! Please?!
If I tell my child, "Don't go down that dark alley.", and he/she goes down the dark alley anyway, and someone shoots her, are you seriously contending that I, and not the goddamn shooter, am responsible?!
That's what juvenile detention is for.
What is the purpose of separating child criminals from the adult ones? If it is so that the adult criminals don't prey on the (physically weaker) children then it's jail just with a different name and the children are responsible for their actions (since they (and not their parents) were sent there). If the juvenile detention is different from adult jail in more ways than just the age of prisoners then you can say that it is different. Otherwise it's the same as prison for men vs prison for women.
Anyway, I do not live in the US, so I know little about its penal system.
no, but if you watch the child do it time after time, and every time you say "no sweetie, really, don't do it" without ever imposing some sanctions on YOUR CHILD then maybe when they do get shot people may be justified in saying "if only the parents had done some parenting". they allowed their child to repeatedly defy their rules, and now they have to live with knowing that if they'd just stuck to their guns their daughter might still be alive. obviously the people who drove her to suicide shoulder most of the responsibility (though i'm glad this shitty ruling was overturned) but the child should never have been in that situation in the first place, and that's mostly on her parents.
do not read this line twice.
That's what juvenile detention is for.
What is the purpose of separating child criminals from the adult ones? If it is so that the adult criminals don't prey on the (physically weaker) children then it's jail just with a different name and the children are responsible for their actions (since they (and not their parents) were sent there). If the juvenile detention is different from adult jail in more ways than just the age of prisoners then you can say that it is different. Otherwise it's the same as prison for men vs prison for women.
Anyway, I do not live in the US, so I know little about its penal system.
Juvenile detention is not meant to be a kiddie prison. It's more like a reform/boarding school kind of situation.
If I told you to jump in a river, would you do it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I agree and disagree. I agree on the stoning part but that's my personal opinion of her being a cuntbag, I would also have her parents stoned right along side her. Where I mainly disagree with you is that it should be legislated. There are enough laws in place to cover what she did without creating new ones that have far reaching effects. I also don't hear enough people who want her condemed pushing to have her parents right along side her. Those people are the most likely the ones responsible for their childs suicide if the girl herself isn't. Either the girl is responsible for her own death (the stance I keep) or her parents and Lori Drew are (the stance people who disagree with me should keep if they want to remain logical). Lori Drew harassed her causing her emotional distress, that's unfortunate and shows what a total shtibag she is. But humans bear the responsibility of dealing with that sort of thing, life isn't love and unicorns but stress and pain. Parents should be there for their child to help them get through those tough times, hers weren't and ignored everything telling them they should be helping her, child negligence. Neglect coupled with not having the tools to be able to handle that sort of thing is what lead to her death, Lori Drew just gave the final push, her parents are the ones who put her on the cliff naked and alone.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
No, but I'd call you much worse.
Since you've met me zero times, no. If it was daily, probably yes.
Yes. Also a breach of the peace.
Possibly slander; civil, not criminal, matter.
Possibly libel; also civil matter.
Now your turn: how many of those are relevant to the case in hand - i.e. how many can you prove BRD that Lori Drew did?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't think that the latter two are defamatory (slander, libel, etc). After all, if I post to all of the world that so-and-so is an asshole, that is a matter of opinion and not fact, so it can't possibly be slander.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Sorry, but that's crap.
Short of locking your kid up, he/she is always going to be able to find a way to defy the rules. Parents can't be held responsible for everything their children do. That's especially true when the rebellion in question is over something that should be safe to do. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teenagers go online every day without any harm at all befalling them. It's not the big, bad Internet's fault. It's this worthless piece of crap of a human being who decided to torture a 13-year old girl.
Besides that, we are fast approaching a time when it will be literally impossible to "stay off" the Internet. If anything, the girl's parents are guilty of not giving the girl practical guidance, rather than failing to make sure their guidance was followed. Staying off the Internet wasn't the solution to the problem in the first place.
The solution would've been to find out who was sending the message and take action against them. By "action", I mean talking to the parents, if it turned out to be a minor, and talking to the police, if it turned out to be an adult. As others have pointed out, harrassment is both a crime and a violation of most ISPs terms of service. At the very least, the parents could have, if they had been more savvy, gotten the account of the perpetrator pulled. But that still doesn't make the parents responsible for the death. Not in any rational way, at least.
The fundamental issue here though is that the jury acquitted Drew of the charges involving actual malice.
The charges that were left were sufficient to have thrown Megan Meiers in jail too had she not committed suicide. After all, as Wu notes in his case, she violated the terms of service too.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
For having written "Das Leiden des Jungend Werther"
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hitler himself chose when and how to die, some people probably wanted to choose for him.
The fat businessman dies from old age, a person who was good all his life also dies of old age, so how is karma fulfilled for the businessman?
Parents should be there for their child to help them get through those tough times, hers weren't and ignored everything telling them they should be helping her, child negligence. Neglect coupled with not having the tools to be able to handle that sort of thing is what lead to her death, Lori Drew just gave the final push, her parents are the ones who put her on the cliff naked and alone.
I don't think it's that simple. Sure, they made some mistakes, but I'd hardly call them negligent. They were getting the girl treatment for her depression, after all. They weren't just ignoring her.
Hmm, perhaps I has misunderstood something I had read. My understanding was that while she was seeing someone it was due to another concerned adult, not actively initiated and supported by her parents.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
She was never tried for charges that involve malice. Missouri never tried her because the 19 year old who did most of the bad stuff already had immunity.
Pretty sure it's already illegal, but since she was never charged with it the logical conclusion is that the case was weak at best.
We'll just change the law retroactively to satisfy all the kneejerk dickheads, shall we?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What are you talking about there were 3 conspirators:
Lori Drew
Drew's daughter who was a friend of Megan's
Ashley Grills a 19 year old employee of Drew's.
Oh, and Megan Meier violated the web site's terms of service too. MySpace said you had to be 14 or older to use the site.
However if what Megan did wasn't a crime, and what Lori was convicted of doing was a crime (the misdemeanor counts did NOT include a tort component) then the law is arbitrary and capricious and cannot be applied in this sort of way in a free society.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
Like women should be stoned for adultery under Sharia law?
Just asking ...
The problem here is that this woman is a petty, vile, remorseless cunt (an applicable use of that word in this case which nobody can deny) that did a despicable thing that absolutely contributed significantly to the death of a child. Because the case was so mishandled (there are already laws which should have allowed certain prosecution without the ridiculous liberty-curtailing precedents involved here), the only way to make sure she gets what she deserves is to put the civil liberties of every person in the country in peril.
No, it doesn't. She should have been charged with a crime specific for what she did. There apparently was no crime they could charge her for, so they used something ridiculous and hoped it would stick.
I find both despicable. I find people like you even more despicable. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
If you call yourself Christian I quote Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". If you're not, I say we are a nation of laws not men.
Now, after this comment is moderated down and I get really depressed at the loss of karma and jump off a bridge, do the moderators share any blame?
Seems a lot of people here want someone who is alive to be at fault here. That way we can blame someone living and go after them. That the person responsible might be dead feels inadequate. We want someone living to blame, dammit!
The problem is, the person truly responsible for Lori Drew's death is Lori Drew herself. No one shot her in a dark alley, nor did her parents push her in front of a train. Teenager or not, harassment or not, she made the conscious decision.
Actually, if you had been following the case and had read the indictment.....
She was tried for 3 misdemeanor counts (jury convicted) on the basis that violating the ToS was a misdemeanor in violation of the CFAA.
She as also tried for 3 felony counts (jury acquitted) on the basis that violating the ToS in furtherance of intentional infliction of emotional distress (a civil claim) was a felony violation of the CFAA.
She was also tried for a variety of conspiracy counts both misdemeanor and felony, and the jury acquitted on all felony counts and deadlocked on one misdemeanor count.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
go hang out on 4chan for a minute and tell me that the internet should be safe for children. that's like saying central park should be safe for children: it sure can be WITH PROPER PARENTAL SUPERVISION. shit, even some filtering software. but asking your child not to do something that you as a parent deem detrimental to their health? fuck that, TELL THEM. disconnect their internet.
oh, and i'm pretty sure i never said her parents were responsible for her death, just that they were irresponsible as parents. unfortunately, they lost their child because of it.
do not read this line twice.
The fact she did this using the Internet shouldn't matter. If an adult were harassing a child, without the Internet, and drove the child to suicide would she just be let off? She did this on purpose and should suffer a serious punishment. I think she should face a similar to punishment to what she'd have gotten for killing the child.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
What you are describing might be fraud but doing nice stuff isn't harassment.
but I've actually read up on this case.
First, the mythical message where she told her to kill herself or that "the world would be a better place without her" has never been found (even if it was found that she said the world would be a better place without her, how the hell can you call stating an opinion a crime? Good god, I'm terrified of the kind of politicians you vote for with views like that...) - on anyone's myspace account or server. Secondly, the girl killed herself after having an argument with her mother about her spending too much time online and her swearing .
Lori Drew being mean to the girl had nothing to do with her committing suicide. It was her crappy relationship with her parents that resulted in her suicide and her parents, like most Americans these days, wanted a scapegoat to avoid taking the blame for being crappy parents.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
The victim in this case was an adolescent girl suffering from clinical depression. In fact, she was even on multiple mood-stabilizers. It should be quite obvious that someone in that situation is already predisposed to self-harm and suicide without others bullying them. But when someone deliberately causes psychological harm on such an individual, the situation becomes even more dangerous.
I used to have depression (probably technically still do, but whatever) and have spent my entire life with pretty much everyone treating me like shit and had plenty of people tell me that I should kill myself when I was in middle school / high school. You know what? I never did, even though I thought about suicide plenty. There is no one to blame for that girl's actions but herself. No one can make you kill yourself. People who kill themselves are ones that are going to do it and then society likes to blame SOMEONE because they can't accept that some people just hate life and would rather die than live in this crappy world.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
No it doesn't. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to say that there is something to that, karma is total bullshit. I mean, Hitler committed suicide before we could get to him -- how's that for karma?
If you really buy into the karma theory, then you know that the balancing of karma can occur over multiple lifetimes. Just because you die before karma balances doesn't mean there will be no balance. Remember that most religions which have a karma concept also incorporate the reincarnation concept.
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).
Speeding is not a crime. It is a traffic infraction. If speeding was a crime, a speeding ticket would result in a criminal record.
Isn't it obvious what should happen now? We are the lords of cyberspace, and this is a call to action. This is a call to arms.
It's about time for those of us with the technical skills and social engineering talents to step up and "harass" this woman. I'm willing to bet /. won't step up, but I'm pretty sure I know a few other gathering points for web minions that will.
Maybe someone should get on lexus-nexus and post all her info to 4chan and fark and all the rest of the shady underbelly of the net. Someone somewhere will have the time to truly make this woman suffer for her actions.
Sorry, 4chan is busy outing the "Church" of Scientology right now; can I take a message?
$ make available
What wasn't repeated and intentional about it? Lori Drew posed as a 17 year old boy over a length of time with the intention of eventually dropping the hammer on her by having his fake 17 year old boy "dump" her and tell her she should go kill herself.
That was entirely premeditated, intentional, and repeated. This case is ANYTHING but a case of someone saying "you smell like a poopy head" and then the person killing themselves five minutes later. This was an orchestrated conspiracy among several people to manipulate and harass this little kid.
Negligence is if I forget to set my parking break and my car smashes your fence at the bottom of the incline. Pointing the car toward your house, dropping a brick on the accelerator and then laughing as I watch it smash into your family room is hardly negligence.
And don't forget the thing everyone seems to keep glossing over.
This 30/40 year old woman was POSING AS A YOUNG BOY ONLINE TO ENGAGE IN INTIMATE CONVERSATION WITH THE TWELVE YEAR OLD GIRL.
I mean, seriously. When the fuck did THAT become legal?!
I'm pretty sure if your next door neighbor was pretending to be a child so that they could engage in that kind of talk with your underage child, there'd be some ass hauled to jail fucking STAT. Why is that not even a consideration here in this case?!
Anonymous Douchebag:
She was under the care of a psychiatrist since the third grade, including taking numerous medications. Who, pray tell, do you think took her to the appointments with the psychiatrist and paid for the medications? Are you truly that much of an idiot? Try researching the case before you spout your mouth off.
Actually, she had been seeing a psychiatrist for 5 years, and had been taking various medications, none of which (because of her age) could be given to her without consent of her parents (and some of which are actually controlled substances). All of this means that the parents had to have taken an active role in her treatment. Here's a good article on the whole thing.
I understand that some people are just contrarian by nature, and want to blame the parents when everyone else wants to blame Drew, and I'm certainly not saying that the parents did everything right, but this does not appear to be a neglected child, in the sense that her parents saw that she was troubled and did nothing.
In a just universe, Lori Drew would be stoned to death by angry townspeople using the sharpest rocks possible. (Obsidian sounds about right.)
Like women should be stoned for adultery under Sharia law?
Just asking ...
Well, since you're just asking, no, this has nothing to do with Sharia law. Stoning is a punishment that's much older than Sharia law, and was used for much more than just adultery back then.
The reason I specified stoning is because it's the most direct expression of a community's condemnation of a person, because everyone with a rock participates. Remember that I specified a just universe, in which (presumably) people could agree on the concept that a 40-something woman anonymously tormenting a teenage girl is inherently evil and not fit to live among the rest of us.
I think you meant Megan Meier, rather than Lori Drew. Drew was the harasser, not the harassed party. (At least, in respect to Meier. Drew is apparently getting some much-deserved harassment herself now.)
On a literal level, of course, you're correct: No one killed Meier. She killed herself. But law and morality separately both acknowledge indirect responsibility for death.
To give you an example (although I'll admit this is more extreme than the case in question):
If you were to pose as someone's doctor, and tell them that they had a terminal illness that would cause them to die a painful death (or if you were their doctor, and decided to do it), and they decided to kill themselves, rather than to die that way, would you or would you not be responsible for that? (Assume that it's not the correct diagnosis, and you know it, for the sake of this discussion.)
Certainly, it was the person's own decision to kill themselves, but it's not like you were just standing there minding your own business. If not for the information you provided, they would be alive. And you would reasonably be expected to anticipate that suicide as a potential reaction to the diagnosis.
The main difference here is that Drew could reasonably say that she didn't intend for the suicide to happen. But given the totality of what she knew, Drew certainly acted with reckless disregard, because to any reasonable person who knew what she knw, that was a possible result of her actions.
go hang out on 4chan for a minute and tell me that the internet should be safe for children. that's like saying central park should be safe for children: it sure can be WITH PROPER PARENTAL SUPERVISION. shit, even some filtering software. but asking your child not to do something that you as a parent deem detrimental to their health? fuck that, TELL THEM. disconnect their internet.
I'm not saying that her parents should be nominated for Parents of the Year. I would argue that disconnecting the Internet altogether is the wrong solution, because it doesn't teach the child how to deal with the Internet (which, as I said, is becoming pretty much ubiquitous, at this point). But doing the wrong thing and being irresponsible are two different things. A lot of parents simply park their kids in front of a monitor and don't care or understand anything about their Internet access, and don't have relationships with their kids where the kids can tell them things. This doesn't appear to be one of those cases.
It also seems to me that the parents didn't deem the Internet detrimental to her health. Otherwise, the discussions they had about it would've been very different (from what's been reported, at least).
As for the Internet in general: MySpace is not 4chan. Granted, the Internet gives you access to both, but I haven't seen any evidence that the parents didn't know what she was doing online. In fact, this seems to indicate that the parents were involved with her computer use, and, with the exception of the day of her death, did insist on being present when she was online. Now, admittedly, I don't know how much of that is actually true, but it's at least consistent with the way things seem to have come out.
oh, and i'm pretty sure i never said her parents were responsible for her death, just that they were irresponsible as parents. unfortunately, they lost their child because of it.
You are saying they were responsible of her death, if you say they "lost their child because of" their actions.
If I told you to jump in a river, would you do it?
No, but:
a) I'm not clinically depressed
b) I'm not 13.
c) Telling someone once to jump in a river is very different from constructing a persona for the expressed purpose of tormenting someone over a sustained period of time.
Drew was dealing with someone she knew was emotionally vulnerable and unstable, and she took advantage of that. If you simply ignore those factors, you'll never get a full understanding of what actually happened. This wasn't some anonymous flame war among adults (or even children).
You would be just as responsible as the shooter, because if you had raised your child properly then they would have listened to you and would have the sense to not go to places like that.
Great. So by that logic, parents are responsible for their children getting molested by Internet predators, women are responsible for getting themselves raped, and people who live in high crime neighborhoods are responsible for getting mugged.
Thanks. Good to know...
Now, back here in the real world, we actually hold the perpetrators of such actions entirely responsible for their crimes. "Well, if they hadn't have been there, I would've never been able to do it" isn't a defense.
My question is, why do people want to take the responsibility away from the people who do the evil acts, and on to the people who are the victims of the acts? Is it really so important to defend one's right to be an a**hole online? Because that's the only advantage I can see to defending scum like Drew.
The comment that you made that I quoted, scares me a lot more than anything Lori Drew did. Your justification doesn't make it any better.
The time for kicking Drew's ass was before the child killed herself. Imagining any kind of punishment now is just barbaric. She should be punished as the law specifies - no more and no less. It's in the US constitution.
Yeah well, if this was the RIAA or MPAA...when are people going to learn that the courts are NOT for the people. They do not dispense justice. They are there to keep the weak, and powerless in check, to stop them, in any way, means or shape from moving upwards in the social world and threatening the rich and the powerful.
The bitch should have been found guilty, lock, stock & barrel and locked up for a VERY long time.
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
Wrong. It's because you think it makes you sound like some uber-tough vigilante.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some part of "possibly" you need explaining?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
First of all, I wouldn't go so far as to call karma a "theory", since it has no basis in fact. Second, I would propose two alternatives and let the reader decide which is more likely:
1.) Human beings somehow discovered some deep, dark, unobservable secret to the Universe
OR
2.) Someone just made all this shit up to control people/make themselves feel better.
I think it is pretty obvious which option here is more likely.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
1) The talk has to be highly explicit, essentially pornographic to qualify.
2) I don't know of a single case where a person was charged solely for this.
Wrong. It's because you think it makes you sound like some uber-tough vigilante.
Glad to hear those mind-reading lessons are giving you more confidence. Keep a it. It might work someday.
An "uber-tough vigilante" would probably express a desire to do such a thing themselves. And public stoning isn't vigilantism. In societies that practiced public stoning, the stoning is part of the justice system, whereas vigilantism is a reaction to an inadequate justice system. IOW, if there's a trial and you don't get the result you want, and then you stone the person, that's vigilantism. If the community decides the person is guilty and fixes the punishment at stoning, that's not vigilantism.
It kind of helps to define your terms before you assume to know people's motives.
The time for kicking Drew's ass was before the child killed herself.
Frankly, that would be less just, not more just. It's the consequences of her action that justify the response. If she had done the same thing, and the child hadn't killed herself, I don't think you'd see the same reaction from most people. She'd simply be another immature middle-aged woman who needed to get a life. The fact that a death resulted is what makes it worth punishing her severely. (Just as a drunk driver is punished more severely when their actions result in death.)
In retrospect, though, I'll say this much: I should've specified that the communal stoning I mentioned was not meant to be in reaction to an "innocent" verdict by the court. In a just universe, the community itself would decide her guilt or innocence, and affix the punishment. In this case, the judge tossed the verdict of the jury (which, incidentally, is exactly the kind of thing that leads to vigilantism). We've got the jury system for a reason. Judges should respect it. It's bad enough that we insist that our juries be ignorant of most of the pertinent facts in a case in the first place (because such facts may be "prejudicial"). When they actually do come up with a just verdict, a judge shouldn't be able to just flush it.
"There's little doubt that Dre should be held accountable for this. "
WHOA WHOA WHOA! Leave Dr. Dre out of this!
If it hasn't been done, has there been a civil suit filed? With the lower standard of proof and the exemption of double jeopardy, it should not be difficult to win.
Then again, what was the point of all this? Pretty troubled girl dies, person does horrendous acts against pretty troubled girl, person must be punished.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/files/my_space_lori_drew_indictment.pdf
You can see the 4 counts.
Here's a hint:
a) The girl was Clinically Depressed b) Her PARENTS should have been observing what she was doing a bit more closely.
Every indication we have at this point is that the parents were observing what Meier was doing closely, other than the day that she died, when she stayed on the computer when her parents told her to get off (because they couldn't be there, apparently).
"Friend Game" -- 1/21/2008
Would I nominate them for Parents of the Year? Probably not. They could've been more understanding to what she was going through at the time, or taken it more seriously. But at the same time, these don't appear to be parents who simply let the computer babysit their child.
You can see the IIED part on page 9.
The prosecutor argued that there were other included charges, which lead to the misdemeanor convictions (i.e. that unauthorized access in furtherance of a tort included unauthorized access) and so these were added. So the indictment listed four counts, but she was acquitted of five counts and convicted of three misdemeanor ones.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Children getting molested by predators, internet or not? Yes, the parents are responsible.
Could you explain your rationale for that? There are plenty of situations (online or off) where parents couldn't possibly have control over what happened to their children. As a parent, you'd like to protect your child 24/7, but it's not a practical goal. Put bluntly, shit happens, and if someone molests a child, it's the child molestor's fault, not the parents (unless they had knowledge of it, or they happened to be the molestors).
Women being raped? No, because women are adults and therefore not under the guardianship of their parents.
That wasn't actually my question. I'll rephrase:
Are the women who get raped responsible for getting raped? That's what I was asking.
People living in high crime neighborhoods being mugged? No, because they choose to live in those places and are presumably adults so they are not under the care of their parents.
Again, it's not a question of parental care in this case. Are the people who choose to live in that area (either because of financial reasons or because it's their chosen neighborhood) responsible for getting mugged?
The point I'm trying to get across is this: It's the people who commit the crime who are guilty. The victims, or the victim's families, may make themselves more or less vulnerable by their actions, but the ultimate responsibility for evil acts rests with the person who commits the acts. "But they made it so easy..." isn't a defense.
We aren't defending the right to be an asshole online. We are defending the right to not be sued or imprisoned any time someone gets their feelings hurt or tries to pin the blame for their actions on the words of another.
This case isn't merely a matter of someone getting their feelings hurt. There are lots of ways and reasons a person can get their feelings hurt online, as I'm sure all of us know. This case involves someone maliciously picking on someone they knew was vulnerable and weaker than them, and intending to cause them harm (although not necessarily the harm that actually resulted, admittedly). Calling some random person you "see" on a forum an asshole is a completely different matter, because you don't know anything about them and can assume they can handle the assault. This was a very different situation. I think if the person doing the harassment (who innitiated it, I mean) had been under 18 and/or hadn't known Meier personally, this would've been written off as a tragic Internet coincidence. As it is, this is more akin to the asshats who watched someone commit suicide online and egged him on during the process.
We are defending our right to free speech. We are defending our rights to not live in a police state. We are defending our rights to live without thought control.
Free speech doesn't mean the right to say anything you please without consequences. Like every other constitutional right, there are reasonable limits on free speech.
The scope and severity of the issues that would follow a sentence for Lori Drew are obviously far beyond your comprehension. Think precedent. If they give Lori Drew a prison sentence for merely writing some words, then what comes next? Someone gets their feelings hurt or someone states an unpopular opinion and that person gets thrown in the slammer too?
The prison sentence wouldn't be for "merely writing some words". What you're missing is that there was a great deal more intent and knowledge involved here than that. It wasn't some drive-by flame war. It was very deliberate. The closest analogy I can think of would be something like PrankNet, but even there, the targets are not personally known to the "pranksters". The situation with Meier is more akin to s
I've read the background. It literally shows that they would get into fights, with their 12 year old daughter, because she'd go on the computer after being told she couldn't...time after time after time. They REFUSED to be parents and simply stood back as she did whatever the fuck she wanted.
Can you show where you found that information? That's not what I've read concerning it. What I've read is, she was supervised online, except for the day the messages started coming, and that in fact, the parents had been monitoring her use (even reading the "boy's" profile and messages) up to that point.
Reference Article
I've read lots of blog comments claiming she was unsupervised/running wild, etc., but I haven't read anything from a reputable source to that affect.
Sorry. I thought I replied to this already. I guess not.
Juvenile detention is more like a boarding school than prison. The main idea of it is to get the child back on the right track, so to speak (operating under the assumption that the child isn't already a lost cause).
Respect is earned not given for free.
And no we should not be concerned about other peoples emotions unless we personally care about those people. If it's your friend or family, or if you need them for some reason then perhaps you should care, but even then you have to draw the line somewhere. There is no way to live life without hurting peoples feelings.
Then stop talking to me. It's that simple. There is no reason to go and commit suicide just like theres no reason to go on a killing spree. It's never an excuse and no you can never blame someone else for what you do.
It is impossible to coerce a person into suicide. People have free will and suicidal people are mentally ill, they are not coerced by others anymore than you can blame society for the suicides.
Fake nice for the purpose of making the later mean worse.