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.
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 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.
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.
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?
Yep, because a lot of people thinks the act of "bullying" is "normal". I personaly calls this "bullshit" and I will sent anyone trying do bullying someone to the hospital ASAP.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
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?
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?
" 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
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).
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 ?
No, it means that the prosecution was completely incompetent. Drew was charged with unauthorized access to a computer system because she violated the Terms of Service of the web site, which nearly everyone would agree should not be illegal. The case actually had nothing to do with harassment, abuse, or manslaughter.
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 ...
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.
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 think a much better question is, "Why are you (and lots of others, apparently) so interested in getting away with being a mean-spirited shit to people most likely to suffer real emotional hurt from it under the guise of 'freedom of speech'?"
Whatever happened to the notion that others' feelings ought to matter to us as much as our own?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You cannot talk a person into doing something they truly don't want to do.
Sure you can. It's called "charisma." And anyway, you don't talk them into doing something they don't want to do. You convince them that they want to do it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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."
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
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.
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).