Lori Drew Trial Results In 3 Misdemeanor Convictions 568
grassy_knoll writes "As a follow up to an earlier story, the Lori Drew 'cyber-bullying' trial has resulted in misdemeanor convictions." grassy_knoll quotes from the AP story as carried by Salon: "The Los Angeles federal court jury on Wednesday rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.
However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization.
The jurors could not reach a verdict on a conspiracy count.
Prosecutors said Drew violated the MySpace terms of service by conspiring with her young daughter and a business assistant to create a fictitious profile of a teen boy on the MySpace social networking site to harass Megan.
Megan, who had been treated for depression, hanged herself in 2006 after receiving a message saying the world would be better without her."
Adds reader gillbates: "She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines — a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym."
Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shit (Score:5, Funny)
Oh YOU'RE the extra pickles guy.
I always get your damn burger after I've ordered no pickles. Dammit.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Herein lies the problem with the American way of life. If someone is an asshole to you they KNOW that you cant reach over and smack them in the face.
It's why these jerks on the highways and roads, tailgaite you, cut you off, and generally put your life in danger for their convenience. If they knew that I would stop my car and kick their ass, they would not do it.
Honestly a lot of people in his world need to be smacked in the head, all the way to having the ever living crap beat out of them. If that happened more and Judges had 1/4 a brain and said," you deserved to be smacked.. you cover all court costs and his costs as well." Then the world would be far more polite and less jerkwad filled.
Yes that applies to cops too.. if a cop is an asshole, we deserve to be able to wait for him after work and kick his ass.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a "fighting words" [wikipedia.org] clause in the US. Though, I was thinking Texas had something that if you used fighting words, you had the "right" to deck the guy saying them without having to prove any kind of self defense for punching him in the nose.
"He Needed Killing" (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, in Texas, don't they have enshrined in their legal system the doctrine of "He done needed killin"
That's been unavailable as a defense for probably more than 100 years.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shit (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, as a general rule, most criminals are not exactly the smartest bunch in the lot. They just have to be smart enough to avoid getting caught enough times to make the risk/reward ratio pay off. Yes, there's a chance the police will catch up to you, and also a chance that a homeowner will fill you full of holes. You weigh that against the(unfortunately) very likely chance that you will get away with it.
Depending on the influences of the criminal, there will be varying degrees of risk that he will be willing to endure for his activities. Take someone who's smart, who carefully cases his targets, ensures the owners won't be home and a lack of credible potential witnesses, knows how to cover his tracks, keeps his mouth shut, and knows when to quit. This criminal will accept far less risk than a broke cokehead on the verge of withdrawl. The cokehead might not even care if the owner might have a gun. Probably doesn't even care if he KNOWS the owner has a gun. He'll still go for it.
So yes, guns won't stop all crime. Just like the death penalty won't stop murders. However, they do give the owner the capability of defending himself, family, and property that he wouldn't have otherwise.
What the Castle Doctrine defense offers the owner is the lack of hesitation. While you're preparing to pull the trigger, you don't want to have to take time out to consider if you should wait until your assailant takes one more step toward you so he won't fall outside of the house, or make sure he's directly facing you so you won't accidentally shoot him in the back. It makes the rules you have to follow in a crisis situation much simpler and much easier to prove you were following those rules in good faith.
-Restil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."
--"The Tower of the Elephant", Robert E. Howard
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I could mod you up (and if you weren't at +5 to me) I'd give you points. People have no disincentive for anti-social behavior because we've let our legal system castrate us.
This topic always makes me recall how Buzz Aldrin was confronted by a moon landing denier, and Buzz jacked him [youtube.com]. Personally I think the world would be much more pleasant if there was a legal basis for bloodying the nose of somebody who desperately needs it.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, I'm an alcoholic and drank heavily throughout my twenties. (And worked at various dot-coms in the good-old days. Was fired from a couple less liberal environments for showing up drunk in the morning. (I'm reminded of Lionel Hutz, who offers Marge a drink and pulls out a bottle. She says "It's 9am!" And he says "That's all right, I haven't slept for days." That was me.))
Anyways, I was a complete dick. I said really hurtful things to people. Sometimes people come up to me and say "hey, remember when you said 'blah blah blah' to George?" No. I really don't. I'm an alcoholic.
If you could be convicted for being a complete and utter asshole IRL, I would be in jail right now. Serving out a sentence for things I don't even remember doing.
(I quit drinking 4 years ago and am doing much better thank you.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a difference between being a complete and utter asshole and talking someone to death.
If talking someone to death were a crime, my high school Algebra II teacher would be serving multiple life sentences.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow... what a way to justify your own inappropriate actions... to throw out a blanket policy that Everyone has harassed someone to the point of regretting it, just so you feel better about the times that YOU did it in the past.
So, how does it feel to be wrong? I mean, you are sure that everyone here has harassed someone to a point where they might have felt bad about it. I've never done that. I know others that have never done that. This makes you wrong. Don't even bother to argue that... you said everyone. I'm part of that Everyone, and I'm here. Some of us actually take responsibility for our actions, and the words that come out of our mouths. Some of us think about what we say before we say it, and if we say biting things, we mean to be biting. I understand that this is a foreign concept to you. Don't argue that it's not a foreign concept to you either. You've already proven that you need to be reminded how much words can hurt someone. That means you forget how much words can hurt people. That means you don't always think about what you say. That means that you don't take responsibility for what you say. That means the concept of ALWAYS thinking before you speak and ALWAYS taking responsibility for your words and actions is a foreign concept.
Lori Drew knew full well what she was doing was malicious. She just thought nothing was wrong with what she was doing. She thought her actions were correct for HER and her life. She just did not put any real thought to what she was doing. She enjoyed being mean to that child, and she enjoyed making that child's life hell. Then she applied her own twisted morality to it, and thought, "Aww, what a baby... can't take the heat."
Well, this woman got off light. I say an Eye for an Eye. I say that if you want to teach people to take responsibility, you must show them that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Execute her. I don't really care if people think that is absurd or too harsh. If people do not fear and respect the consequences, they will continue to behave badly. Lori Drew's punishment should be so harsh that she not only never EVER wants to act that way again, but that she should spend her remaining life making amends... considering her actions already cost someone else (someone who was not fully developed enough to realize their potential and understand life) her life. Lori Drew's life should be forfeit. Ok. Maybe not Executed. Maybe a lifetime of public service helping kids with self-esteem issues.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, but, that is not against the law...if it were, well, the prisons would be bursting at the seams even moreso than they do now..
I hope this gets tossed out on appeal. While what she did was reprehensible, this sets a dangerous precedent. You can get a misdemeanor conviction with jail time and heft fine just for joining something like myspace under false name, etc?
Even if you think she is a bitch and should get some punishment for what she did....I'd hope you would not like to have a precedent of this type of conviction that could be used against someone doing something as innocuous as joining a website under a false name....
Re:Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but fraud and harassment are. And this sounds like a pretty clear case of using a pseudonym in a fraudulent manner in order to harass an individual. I for one do NOT hope that the judgment is vacated.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Informative)
As I said before...trouble is, she wasn't convicted of this really. She was convicted of basically breaking the myspace EULA. She wasn't convicted of harassment...
Re:Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
"No, but fraud and harassment are."
As I said before...trouble is, she wasn't convicted of this really. She was convicted of basically breaking the myspace EULA. She wasn't convicted of harassment...
I feel you, and I hold out hope for the appeal but even if that never comes you can still take some small consolation in knowing the authorities won't be on this like white on rice. What I'm saying is the state needed to punish her, so the state found a way. It was about her, not about using a false name. It's similar to marijuana tax stamp laws currently enacted in a multitude of states. They are going to get you on something if they want to.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
personally, i won't be taking any consolation in knowing that a precedent was set that gives authorities in the U.S. more leeway in harassing the innocent. if the state "needed to punish her" then they "needed" to make a valid case on harassment charges. aside from online banking, i'm not sure that i've *ever* signed up at a website with my real personal info, and i'm sure i'm not the only one. the idea of being on the hook for a year in prison and a hundred g's for each such instance makes me real glad i don't live in the U.S.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's pretty obvious that the law hasn't quite caught up with the societal changes caused by the Internet. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the laws that sound like they should apply can't be made to apply.
I don't think it even sounds like it should apply. This conviction is equivalent to saying that if you sign up for one of those grocery-store "discount cards" using a fake name and address, then you would go to jail. After all, you violated their terms of service by lying on the application and used that violation to obtain discounts that you had no right to which is fraud.
Even with the DA's hand-waving about using false information in violation of a TOS is not a crime as long as there is no criminal inte
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'm saying is the state needed to punish her, so the state found a way. It was about her, not about using a false name.
And the fallout from that misguided deed will be far worse than what was gained today.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's similar to marijuana tax stamp laws currently enacted in a multitude of states.
No, it is similar to civil-forfeiture laws that were used to punish people they couldn't otherwise convict but then turned into a free-for-all where grandmothers lost their houses because a grand-kid stayed with them and smoke a couple of joints while he was there.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
All that this case has shown is that seducing a child by means of a false identity for the purposes of causing emotional harm is going to get you a jury conviction. Most likely regardless of the actual charge. If Lori Drew hadn't been targeting a specific person as revenge, and if she hadn't known that the person she was seducing was a child, she probably would have gotten off pretty easily.
Re:Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. It isn't about the fact she created an account under a false name. It's what she used it for. Anonymity is good when you aren't using it to harm someone else. She was fully aware of the potential for harm in her actions.
Her behavior afterwards was like "What's the big deal - some little kid wacked herself - maybe mommy should have watched her more carefully".
The problem is that there aren't laws that govern cyberbulling that have any teeth to them. That will change soon.
I have kids of my own - one, now 14, who is bullied because he's much smaller than other kids his age, is smarter than several of them put together and has mild Asbergers. The school has a "Zero Tolerance Policy". Yet, when a kid threatened to slit his throat, nothing was done about it - we weren't even called by the school.
Life's tough on the kid and my wife and I worry about him all the time as he gets depressed easily. It's tough seeing him go through what he does every day.
As for her - Screw this bitch. What I would love to see is that nobody give her even the time of day. Fire her from her job - don't employ her. Heck - fire her husband too. Make her life miserable. Raise her credit card rates to 25%. And, please...don't give her her a book deal or pay her to speak. Let her suffer for what she's done. She deserves to live and rot in Hell.
Maybe, if there's a God, the fact that she was convicted of a crime may allow the girls parents to sue her for everything she's got - and actually win.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yes, it is, if you use that pseudonym to chat with teenage girls and you encourage them to kill themselves and they follow through. Be very afraid."
That's not relevant to the crime she was charged with. If none of that had happened, she could still have been convicted.
This is an example of government using a bad law to reach a popular result. In this case, we tend to like the result, because it was used against a person who well and truly sucks.
If you trust that the government will never use these charge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Attention ladies and gentlemen.
You should all commit suicide, because someone on the internet is about to say something mean to you.
You -- not the parent poster (Though he's included), YOU the person reading this, are really stupid. You're probably ugly too. And fat.
Don't bother arguing that you shouldn't. Somebody you don't know MADE FUN OF YOU. ON THE INTERNET. This is serious business.
Re:Shit (Score:4, Funny)
Oh no! Someone made fun of me! On the Internet!
Goodbye, cruel world!
Re:Shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, she didn't "innocuously" join a website under a false name. She did it for one purpose. To harass and bring emotional damage to a child, an emotionally unstable child at that.
I also blame the parents of Megan for even letting her get on anti-depressants at such a young age. Those meds are harsh and should be only used under the care of a very, very good psychiatrist, note that I did NOT say psychologist. Huge, huge difference. I noticed a trend where a lot of non-medically trained psychologist are making recommendations about MEDICATIONS to their clients (they call them patients). This is very scary. Only a MEDICAL doctor should make those calls. Yet parents hear crap like ADD or ADHD from just a psychologist and run to their primary care doctor and tell him/her and bam the child is on very harsh drugs that DO have long-term effects and have been shown to cause suicidal thoughts. SSRI's [fda.gov].
Hell, I am only 35, I was never drugged out by my parents for "mood swings" or my "lack of attention". I spent most of my time in high school with a boner and looking out the window. I turned out OK and with a good career.
"Modern" parents, stop, stop, stop, drugging your kids because they don't fit into some model mold you created in your head. They are freaking kids for crying out loud.
Would Megan still be alive if she never took SSRI's? No one could say that. However, I personally believe she would.
Should we make this skank mother pay for what she did to Megan? No. She didn't break any laws, so let's not create new ones just for this waste of life.
I personally don't want to have to worry about criminal charges because I didn't adhere to some big corps. EULA. Jeez.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Funny)
I spent most of my time in high school with a boner and looking out the window.
Vegetation fetish, eh?
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you familiar enough with Megan's medical history, her treatment history, her symptoms and her prescribed medications and dosages to speak intelligently about them with the treating physician? If so, then you should write a paper, or at least an article on the subject.
However, if you are basing your statements off the fact that antidepressants are carelessly over-prescribed in some cases, and completely unnecessary in other cases, without knowing for fact that this was actually the case in Megan's case, then I postulate that you don't actually know enough about what was going on to blame the parents for anything.
What happened here was pretty messed up. I don't know exactly where I fall in all this, legally speaking. Morally speaking, I'm pretty clear on the subject. But to blame Megan's parents for letting her be prescribed antidepressants, without being able to speak in depth about what was being treated, how and by whom, is pretty weak. Being a parent is hard enough as it is.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if you are basing your statements off the fact that antidepressants are carelessly over-prescribed in some cases, and completely unnecessary in other cases, without knowing for fact that this was actually the case in Megan's case, then I postulate that you don't actually know enough about what was going on to blame the parents for anything.
No. His statement was a lot more profound. He was questioning the wisdom of EVER perscribing powerful psychotropic drugs to teenagers who are acting normally (depression, violent behavior, and suicide attempts are normal for teenagers) given their brains are not yet fully developed.
Many people do not realize that not only were most antidepressants not tested on teenagers, but many of them weren't even tested for depression. They were developed to treat other, more severe, mental issues and depression is an off-label use. Many people are stunned to hear that drugs like Paxil and Zoloft were not clinically tested for depression. And there is a huge difference between clinical depression (crying uncontrollably 24/7) and the very mild depression these drugs are generally prescribed to treat. They only tested them on people with serious depression.
This is not to say long term studies haven't been done. A few have (you can count them on the fingers of one hand, I think there's 4 now). And the results aren't promising. Most importantly, they tend to show that taking antidepressansts does not have to seem have much of a positive impact on behavior when compared to doing nothing.
I think associating SSRIs with suicide as a side effect is a bit of a red herring. I think the bigger problem is that parents have a child with serious depression, pump them up with drugs, and consider that "doing something" instead of dealing with actual issues. Like the fact that you're a lousy parent.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, she didn't "innocuously" join a website under a false name. She did it for one purpose. To harass and bring emotional damage to a child, an emotionally unstable child at that.
Since technically suicide is a criminal act and this grown woman contributed to it, couldn't they go for contributing to the delinquency of a minor instead?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I also blame the parents of Megan for even letting her get on anti-depressants at such a young age.
Actually there was never any true-and-lasting contraindication for anti-depressants in teenagers. There was a period of scare, but people soon found out that adults had the same problem too. Typically this results from lack of compliance to the anti-depressant and then having rebound depression.
Those meds are harsh
In my experience having worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over 8 years every patient reacts to every medication diff
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you for the most part. However, this case had A LOT OF EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE attached to it.
Kind of like the PATRIOT acts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
how so? i register on websites with pseudonyms all the time. this does not trouble me at all (other than the fact a grown woman would conspire with her daughter to bully a neighbor's kid, especially a young girl with emotional problems).
the problem isn't with the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in this particular case. the problem is with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [wikipedia.org] itself. this incident actually resulted in the death of a girl and was motivated by deliberate malice. a maximum (which are rarely handed out to members of privileged social groups) of 3 years in jail and $300,000 doesn't seem any more ridiculous than handing out such punishments to well-intending security experts [cnet.com].
i would be more disturbed by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act being applied to non-malicious teenage hackers breaking into un-secured government networks out of curiosity. if they can be faulted for "damages" that include the time spent investigating the intrusion and fixing the pre-existing security flaws, then certainly a grown woman can be punished for causing the death of a little girl.
in any case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act needs major reforms, and perhaps making such ridiculous laws applicable to the general population will open people's eyes.
let this be a warning... (Score:4, Insightful)
if you sign up under a pseudonym... don't kill anyone.
(and before everyone screams at me, yes I understand just how badly this precedent can be used)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:let this be a warning... (Score:4, Informative)
...I'd have to ask an attorney whether any US states do.
They do in Texas.... [weblocator.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Few people (even in the computer industry) know about the debt we all owe him.
Re:let this be a warning... (Score:5, Interesting)
IAAL and I can tell you any case that intentionally and unreasonably pushed a susceptible person to suicide would be punished, at least if the defendant had reason to know of the weakness or susceptibility.
It's not about doing it online or whether it was done under a real name. It's about what was done and how culpable and causative the conduct was.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the girl also confronted her mother shortly after the "World would be better off without you" comment. In fact, according to several news sources, she got into an argument with her mother right before she went to kill herself. How can it even be guaranteed that the cause of her death was the comment by Drew and not in fact by a combination of side-effects from anti-depressents and just a shitty day in general?
Actually, there is an answer to your question. It is the concept of "Without Which Not" causation. The jury should be asked to consider would the suicide have happened without Lori Drew's conduct. If not, and if the suicide should have been forseeable to Ms. Drew, she's liable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym.
This has nothing to do with registering under a pseudonym. This has to do with psychological stalking and trauma. Please pull your head out of your ass. I'm sure it's hard to breathe up there.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If she was guilty of psychological stalking (which she was) she should have been charged with stalking. This is a clear misapplication of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. They really shouldn't. The law should be to protect the innocent. If a few of the guilty remain free that is an unfortunate cost of the system, but one we should accept.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym.
This has nothing to do with registering under a pseudonym. This has to do with psychological stalking and trauma. Please pull your head out of your ass. I'm sure it's hard to breathe up there.
The take home is, victimizing someone is bad. That it happened via the internet means they've had to fudge things up a bit, but I don't think this means flaming someone on a website means the cops will come-a-calling.
In this instance the woman was clearly a nasty piece of work, so I'm glad they found a way to punish her. I would not expect someone posting nastiness here would get into trouble with anyone except the mods.
I think some people make the mistake of assuming that things done on the internet which would result in fines or punishment in the real world are somehow 'freedoms that need defending' on the web. I'm not one of those people.
I don't mind argument, rudeness, flaming, or anything like that, I mean, that I just accept as background noise, but this incident went way beyond anything like of that nature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The take home is, victimizing someone is bad. That it happened via the internet means they've had to fudge things up a bit, but I don't think this means flaming someone on a website means the cops will come-a-calling.
In this instance the woman was clearly a nasty piece of work, so I'm glad they found a way to punish her. I would not expect someone posting nastiness here would get into trouble with anyone except the mods.
I think some people make the mistake of assuming that things done on the internet which would result in fines or punishment in the real world are somehow 'freedoms that need defending' on the web. I'm not one of those people.
I don't mind argument, rudeness, flaming, or anything like that, I mean, that I just accept as background noise, but this incident went way beyond anything like of that nature.
That means if anyone registers on MySpace or Slashdot, for that matter, with false information and flames you. And if you later commit suicide, that person who flamed you could be charged with a crime. The precedent is set, these cases will be much easier to prosecute in the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh...but, the law does not make distinction. Well, in this case, there is no law..but the stretching of one law that is not applicable really to punish a bad act that wasn't against any law on the books (believe me, they tried to find one). So, this precedent is bad in that it uses a law that was stretched...and nowhere does this precedent draw th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think some people make the mistake of assuming that things done on the internet which would result in fines or punishment in the real world are somehow 'freedoms that need defending' on the web. I'm not one of those people.
Well, in this case, the only way they could nail her was because she used the internet. If she had harassed the girl in a way that didn't involve a computer, they wouldn't have been able to use the "unauthorized access to a computer" angle at all. So really, this went exactly the other way round than you think it went: not more "freedom" on the internet, but less.
And it's not about "freedoms that need defending", but rather about due process or "state of law" (Rechsstaat [wikipedia.org]). In a democracy, you condemn peopl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Lori never instructed or suggested the girl to commit suicide."
Instructed? No. Suggested? What was the message? "The world would be a better place without you", or some such. Suggests something to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with registering under a pseudonym. This has to do with psychological stalking and trauma. Please pull your head out of your ass. I'm sure it's hard to breathe up there.
This is sort of an interesting part of the case. I had first thought you were completely wrong on this point. But it turns out, I misled myself.
My initial reaction is that this isn't a murder case. In fact, there was even contention whether the girl's suicide should even be mentioned in the case. The judge eventually allowed it despite the Defense's protests. Defense attorney H. Dean Steward even called the girl's mother's testimony about the girl and her suicide "totally improper in a computer fraud c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the outcome of this case, violating a web site's terms of service is a crime, not just a contract issue.
The MySpace Terms of Service [myspace.com] prohibit harassing other users. They also require accurate contact information.
If a website operator can put you in jail for TOS violations as opposed to just closing your account, then as long as they can get a prosecutor to play along, they can put you in jail for signing up with bogus information.
>This has to do with psychological stalking and trauma. Please
Somewhat fitting. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that putting her away for life is appropriate, let alone the death penalty.
That being said, I also don't like the idea of an adult conspiring to harass an emotionally unstable child (aren't they all).
This is a good decision, so long as it is upheld. 300K fine and a (relatively) short jail term is enough to ruin a life for anyone not upper class, and will likely act as a deterrent to others that think that conspiring to harass someone online is just fun and games.
Now mod me to oblivion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many teenagers (girl or boy) honestly talk to their parents about their problems?
Re:Somewhat fitting. (Score:5, Informative)
True. But where were her parents? Pretty sad the girl lived in a household where she couldn't talk to her folks about what was going on.
I'm usually on the side of parents taking responsibility for the welfare of their children. It bothers me to no end when parents seem to think others should assume that responsibility. However, I'm not so sure this is one of those situations.
From the Wired blog [wired.com]:
Then on October 15, Josh sent Megan a message saying that he didn't want to be friends anymore. The next day, Josh told her he'd heard she wasn't nice to her friends, and that's why he wanted to sever their ties.
Megan became upset and Meier, who had to leave the house to take her other daughter to an orthodontist appointment, told Megan to shut down the computer. Megan didn't do as she was told, however, and got embroiled in an electronic brawl when at least two other people began attacking her online, culminating in the final message from "Josh".
When Meier came home she found Megan still online and in tears. When she appealed to her mother for support, Meier chastised her for being on the computer when she'd been instructed to shut it down, and suggested that Megan had brought some of the attacks on herself by continuing to communicate with her attackers.
Megan, in mental anguish at this point, told her mother, "You're supposed to be my mom. You're supposed to be on my side."
Thirty minutes later, Megan hanged herself, Meier testified.
I'm sure the mother wishes she could have had that moment back; handled it differently. However, this certainly doesn't seem like a case of an inattentive parent who didn't communicate with their children.
Re:Somewhat fitting. (Score:4, Insightful)
My friends wonder why I'm always willing to listen to them regardless of what time it is or what I have to do; this is the reason why. Sometimes we just need to know that we aren't alone in the world and even though a person might not agree with our actions still is there for us.
What I want to know is why Lori Drew started the whole thing in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I want to know is why Lori Drew started the whole thing in the first place.
Because her friend (who the prosecution gave immunity) suggested it as a way to get revenge for the victim calling Drew's daughter a lesbian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it seems exactly like that. From what I have read and heard it seems like it was the culmination of things that pushed this girl over the edge. I know my mom would never turn down me or any of my siblings for support no matter how badly we disobeyed her orders. Especially if we were to the point of tears. This girl was being attacked from every angle, including her mom. It's no wonder she reacted the way she did especially when she is on medication with a reported side effect of suicidal tendencies.
Again - I'm sure the mother wishes she could relive that moment and handle the situation differently. But handling the situation badly is not the same thing as being inattentive. And it's not the same thing as being unavailable.
I'd further point out that the problem here wasn't the advice. It was spot-on. The mother was available to give that advice and she was aware of the situation enough to give the right advice. The problem was in the delivery.
As a husband and a father, I know that being "there" is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
umm.. were you a teenager?
a) "ooh it's their parents fault for not being there": the "previously treated for depression" kinda blows that away..
b) depressed people aren't usually trying to get better, despair sets in it doesn't matter anymore.
Making snap judgments and automatically blaming the girls parents is bullshit.
and to the next comment in this thread:
"if she had perfect parents, she likely wouldn't be depressed and suicidal."
that is bullshit as well, the "where were the parents" argument does
I'm not troubled... (Score:5, Insightful)
"She now faces up to 3 years in jail and $300,000 in fines - a troubling precedent for anyone who has ever registered with a website under a pseudonym."
I'm not actually troubled much by this at all. This is what happens to someone who falsifies their information to use an online service TO A BAD END.
That's actually a good precedent.
Can it be warped? Sure, but so can everything else. I personally feel that three misdemeanor convictions are a PERFECT fit for what happened, and would like to see similar charges brought against future 'cyber bullies' going forward with similar results. The penalties sound a bit harsh, but I'm sure they will be whittled to 90 days in a white-collar work camp, just as they were for the 'Spam King'.
Re:I'm not troubled... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, there's going to be a lot of outrage that she wasn't convicted of more serious offences, but there's a limited scope to what can be done to her.
If you make it too severe, then in similar cases where the defendant is totally innocent, you're going to have problems.
This is much like the attempt to reclassify downloading music and movies as a felony. Is it against the law? Yes. Is it a crime equal to grand theft auto or murder? No.
What this woman did was cowardly, stupid, abhorrent and vindictive, and almost certainly led the young girl to kill herself due to being bullied and psychologically manipulated by a grown (physically) but immature (mentally) woman who should really know better.
There is possibly a case for manslaughter, but in that case, you'd likely have to prove that the nasty cunt set out to kill Megan, instead of just set out to bully her, and you run the risk of her being acquitted.
Perhaps one day she'll feel guilty for killing a child, but the law and justice system just isn't set up to put her away for that, at least not without endangering the system itself.
Re:I'm not troubled... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if it were a real teenaged boy who used his real name and information and he harassed the girl and drove her to suicide? To me, the falsification of information seems irrelevant.
Not the same thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
An adult harassing a child is not the same as a child harassing a child. Adults should know better.
Re:Not the same thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but that's got nothing to do with my point which was in response to BobMcD's point of making a big deal out of the fact that the information was falsified. OK, so what if Lori had used her real name and information? The fact that she drove a girl to suicide is the problem. The fact that she used false information is, again, irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's completely irrelevant.
If it were a real boy who really felt that way then his motivation may be expressing his feelings rather than (just) hurting the girl. It's not pretty but telling someone you don't like them anymore is something a lot of people would have done at one time or another.
With an invented boy
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, I don't think it's irrelevant in that it speaks to intent.
Perhaps in your boys case the real intent is also purely to harass. Can you reasonably infer that intent though?
In a moral sense you are right, the significantly objectional part of the action wasn't the falsification of information.
In a legal sense it is relevant though as someones actions speak to their intent.
Re:I'm not troubled... (Score:4, Insightful)
A teenage boy having a disagreement with a girl and having it result in suicide is tragic.
An adult, pretending to be a teenager who intentionally manipulates a child (which is what young teenagers are) is criminal.
If you, or anybody else on Slashdot can't figure out the difference you need to grow up.
An adult is expected to be able to draw conclusions about their actions and the resulting consequences. They are held to a higher standard than teenagers and children.
If a teenager intentionally harassed a child and the child committed suicide it is entirely possible they could be found guilty and sentenced appropriately; however it would be more difficult to show their intent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the intentional manipulation of a child was part of a crime she was charged with and found not guilty of (violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act with the intent of inflicting emotional distress), and, I believe, part of a crime she was charged with and on which a mistrial was reached (the conspiracy charge), and part of the crime she was found guilty of (since among the bases for the three counts of violating the Terms of Service were
Re:I'm not troubled... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not actually troubled much by this at all. This is what happens to someone who falsifies their information to use an online service TO A BAD END.
Thank goodness it's the government who will decide what a "bad end" means!
What Pisses Me Off... (Score:5, Interesting)
is that Ashley Grills, who wrote the actual message about the world being better off without Megan Meier, had immunity protection from being prosecuted, for testifying against Lori Drew! This woman is just as evil as Lori Drew, and should be punished as well!
Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Precedent (Score:5, Funny)
Owning a crowbar is not a crime. Using it to bash in the skull of your neighbor is a major felony. Likewise, it isn't illegal to have a pseudonym.
But using your pseudonym to bash in the skull of your neighbor is a major no no.
So the Scientologists can get rid of 4chan now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I philosophically disapprove (Score:3, Interesting)
While Megan's death is tragic, I cannot approve of this abuse of the justice system being twisted just to find something, anything, to nail Lori Drew with. It sets dangerous precedents in an already fucked-up-beyond-repair system.
Certainly Drew deserved punishment, but if everybody using the internet was punished for causing emotional distress over the internet, we'd all be in jail. Keep in mind that that is all she did. She didn't go kill the girl with her bare hands.
I think a public beating would be more appropriate and cheaper to society as a whole. Give the bitch a few emotional and physical scars of her own to remind her that shit like this will not be tolerated. But computer crimes? Seriously, what the fuck?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. Many people on /b/ maybe. Would that be bad? The concept of free speech derives from the idea that anything is allowed unless it harms people. The ancient "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" analogy is exactly on the spot. Sure, *you* didn't hang the suicidal girl, but then *you* didn't trample all those people who died in the stampede. Free speech should protect us when we criticize powerful people. It shouldn't mean we get to be assholes.
I can understand you are torn betwee
The biggest WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
...to me is that it seems the only thing she was really convicted of was "accessing a computer without authorization". Does that mean that if we talked over IRC or some P2P chat or sent an e-mail or whatever where you didn't explicitly agree to a ToS regarding the service, that this would be completely legal? Because if that's the case, it's an absurd penalty for breaking a ToS and pretty wierd that there's no other law to deal with somebody harassing a kid to death. Or maybe I'm completely misreading this?
misdemeanor manslaughter (Score:3, Interesting)
"In a majority of jurisdictions, however, the offense is committed when death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor."
Works for me
Personally I would have thought the adult womans malicious acts of emotional abuse on a child would have constituted reckless endangerment then they could have gone for felony murder.
Makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who cannot understand why they went this stupid direction rather than processing using a relevent law. (Yes I know they said they they could not find any law applicable...)
To me this seems just as bad as when some companyt slaps "on the internet" onto some existing thing and try to patent it/otherwise claim control over it.
Surely mental torture is covered by an existing law. "On the internet" is neither here nor there.
Maybe it's just me but I'm sick of this "on the internet" bollocks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a relevant law.
If this was a physical site, violating the license which allowed one to be premise for the purpose of harming another would be civil, and potentially criminal, trespass. On the internet, and you are violating a diffe
Conspiracy charge results in mistrial (Score:4, Informative)
Scaremongering (Score:3, Insightful)
this is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
#1. What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and disgusting, but not illegal.
#2. She is not responsible for Megan's suicide in any way shape or form any more than you'd be responsible for my suicide if you told me to "fuck off and die" because you don't like this post.
#3. Using dubious interpretations of the legal system to persecute those who some feel have violated the social compact or acted outside of the bounds of what we consider to be normal decent behavior, yet who haven't violated a law is not only wrong, it's extremely dangerous and undermines everything that this country is supposed to stand for.
#4. Some people need to come off of it - your need to feel some sort of vindication by seeing that this woman is punished does not outweigh the damage done by this ruling to the rest of our rights. I am sure she is suffering for this, and I am sure she didn't really think that this girl would kill herself. Even if she did, that isn't a crime. People are responsible for their own actions - the world is a mean place, and if you're looking for someone to blame foir her suicide it makes more sense to blame her parents (though I don't think they are to blame either - depression is a bitch).
Pay attention to the facts (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not about using a fake name to sign on to a web site! such actions do not fall under this law!
This is about providing False information to access a computer (Which really is all that hacking is) with the intent to cause harm or damage. The are TWO clear elements of this crime
1-unauthorized access
2-intent to inflict harm.
you must do both to be guilty and the jury decided she did (correctly in my opinion)
She should face Pedofile crimes (Score:5, Interesting)
for trying to seduce a minor under an alias.
Why do men who do that get felony convictions but women like Lori Drew who do it get a slap on the wrist and misdemeanor charges instead of being a convicted sex offender? She solicited the girl for sex and then told her the world would be better off without her and caused her to hang herself.
The average Internet troll does not seduce the victim for sex, but rather does personal attacks on them instead.
Only Kuro5hin and other shitty web sites do the "Shotgun mouthwash now!" troll. Some victims fall for that troll and kill themselves, is that the same as what Lori Drew did?
Re:It's far more troubling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but it's not "murder". It was a terrible thing that she did and she should be punished for it, but it was not actually murder.
In any case, we live under the rule of law. And one consequence of that is that sometimes people do terrible things that are not covered by the law. In that case, these people should go free. It's terrible, but it's vastly superior to the anarchy that results when there is no rule of law.
Re:It's far more troubling... (Score:5, Insightful)
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I brought up anarchy because it's what punishing this person implies.
It may or may not be reasonable to cover the law such that this offense can be punishable the next time it happens. That's really a separate debate, but I'm not arguing against it here.
What's unreasonable is deciding that this person must be punished even though her action was not against the law. By all means, advocate that the law should be changed. But if you believe in the rule of law at all, this person should be set free!
As for the d
Re:It's far more troubling... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you argue that she should be punished even if the young girl had just shrugged it off and got on with her life?
The punishment should be based on an act, not on somebody's reaction to that act. Either an action 'ABC' is a crime or it is not - that should not depend on someone's reaction to 'ABC'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? So if I accidentally shoot someone while hunting, and that person gets hit in the arm and has to have surgery, I should get charged as heavily as if that person got hit in the head and died?
As far as this case goes... it's not murder, certainly. I don't think she should be (and isn't) held accountable for the death of the person. However, if she actually was messing with the girl's mind and thus had power over her and told her to kill herself, basically, and she does it... she actually DOES dese
Re:It's far more troubling... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an interesting interpretation of the law or morality but I don't think you'll find that it matches the real world even a little bit.
Forget to feed your baby and he cries a lot and shrugs it off: no consequences.
Forget to feed your baby and he dies: you go to prison for a very long time.
Go 25MPH over the speed limit and get caught by a cop: expensive speeding ticket.
Go 25MPH over the speed limit and kill a van full of girl scouts: you go to prison for a very long time.
Plan to kill somebody and screw it up: go to prison for a little while.
Plan to kill somebody and succeed: get the chair.
Need I go on? Outcomes matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either an action 'ABC' is a crime or it is not - that should not depend on someone's reaction to 'ABC'.
Okay, I guess I can try to murder my friend who is allergic to peanuts by putting peanuts in his food, and get away with it. Hey, feeding peanuts to someone isn't a crime!! So even though I knew he was allergic to peanuts and he could possibly die, I shouldn't receive any punishment, right?
The crime in this case should be that Lori Drew tormented a girl who had depression and risked the girl's life by psychologically hurting her. Since there was no "Making a Myspace persona to incite an individual's sui
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whether punishment should be based on outcomes, or not, in fact it is. It's called the "thin-skill rule" or the "eggshell skull rule". The rule says that defendants take their victims as they find them. [wikipedia.org]
This means that if a defendant tortiously or criminally torments someone, traumatizing him so badly that he kills himself, then the defendant can be held liable for the victim's death. This rule applies even if the defendant could not foresee the unexpectedly dramatic results of his actions, such as might be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry dude, murder it is not. She was not charged with a murder or a homocide. She was not charged with anything but a breach of the terms of service. That is it. The charge was and is fair. If you want to prosecute somebody for murder you need to find an appropriate indictment. In fact, one could argue that this woman is not going to get a fair trial due to the extreme publicity of this case and thus these charges could be tossed out on an appeal. All a good laywer has to do is to find a hole in defen
Role of SSRI anti-depressants? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Meier was taking Celexa, Concerta, and Geodon.
Celexa is an SSRI anti-depressant medication. SSRI meds are associated with the following side effects:
Manic Reaction (Mania, e.g., Kleptomania, Pyromania, Dipsomania)
Abnormal Thinking
Hallucinations
Personality Disorder
Amnesia
Agitation
Psychosis
Abnormal Dreams
Emotional Lability (Or Instability)
Alcohol Abuse and/or Craving
Hostility
Paranoid Reactions
Confusion
Delusions
Sleep Disorders
Akathisia (Severe Inner Restlessness)
Discontinuation (Withdrawal) Syndrome
On September 14, 2004 the FDA added a Black Box Warning in regard to antidepressants & suicidality in those under age 18
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/slides/2004-4065s2.htm [fda.gov]
On September 14, 2004 the FDA mandated that pharmacies provide to all parents or guardians for those younger than 18 an Antidepressant Patient Medication Guide. This guide reads (in part) "Call healthcare provider right away if you or your family member has any of the following symptoms: Acting aggressive, being angry, or violent & acting on dangerous impulses." This Antidepressant Patient Medication Guide also states "Never stop an antidepressant medicine without first talking to a healthcare provider. Stopping an antidepressant medicine suddenly can cause other symptoms."
On December 13, 2006, the Black Box Warning for suicidality was updated to include those under age 25. The Black Box Warning is included in the insert to the drugs and in the Physicians' Desk reference.
Note how Meier was also taking Geodon, which is used for schizophrenia, acute mania, and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. She was clearly being affected negatively by the anti-depressant Celexa. Instead of taking her off the medication her doctors gave her more medication!
The role that these drugs played in the suicide of this poor girl haven't been investigated. That doesn't excuse the behavior of the women, but does it warrant jail time and a large fine? Shouldn't her parents, doctors and FDA officials, pharma companies also be liable for putting her on these meds?
correlation versus causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Note how Meier was also taking Geodon, which is used for schizophrenia, acute mania, and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder
That is stated in the article
She was clearly being affected negatively by the anti-depressant Celexa. Instead of taking her off the medication her doctors gave her more medication!
I could not find anything to support that claim. While indeed the symptoms could have been side-effects of the anti-depressant, it is also possible that those symptoms were present before. The wikipedia article also mentions that she was under the care of a psychiatrist from age 3, so there was probably quite a bit going on that wasn't disclosed in that page.
I agree that the anti-depressants do have negative side-effects for some patients, that has been demonstrated. However, the links you provided don't support your claim of her other psychiatric symptoms being the direct result of those medications.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And how right you are.
Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to commit suicide? A person extremely, extremely depressed, or a person that is very depressed but not extremely so?
If you answered the person extremely, extremely depressed, you answered incorrectly. Those currently being treated for depression are often at risk because once they are lifted out of their extremely depressed state they are able to start forming plans around suicide and actually carrying them out. Antidepressants can put