Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Being Mean Online a Federal Crime?
Remember Lori Drew, the Missouri woman accused of playing a cruel prank on Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl who killed herself afterward? On MySpace, Drew allegedly pretended to be a boy who at first befriended Meier, a former friend of her daughter's, and then turned on her, saying "the world would be a better place" without her. After looking into the case, local and state law enforcement authorities could not find any criminal laws that Drew had broken. But last week Thomas P. O'Brien, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, brought four federal charges against her: one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. Each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. "To my knowledge it is the first case of its kind in the nation," O'Brien said. "But when an adult violates terms on a MySpace account to gain information that creates this type of reaction, it caused this office to take a really hard look."
A little too hard, I'd say. O'Brien is by no means alone in wanting to hold Drew at least partly responsible for Meier's death, but the law does not allow him to do so. So instead he has resorted to legal contortions aimed at converting Drew's violation of MySpace rules into a federal crime. (The rationale for indicting Drew in California, by the way, is that MySpace is based in Beverly Hills.) There are plenty of reprehensible things people do that are not and should not be crimes. One of them is being mean to emotionally vulnerable people. Since individual reactions to insults are unpredictable and highly variable, a rule that criminalized speech when it leads to suicide or other forms of self-harm would chill any expression more negative than "Nice day, isn't it?" Because there is no such rule, O'Brien has twisted a law aimed at fraud, spying, vandalism, and child pornography into an excuse to punish a woman everyone hates.
Back in 2003, George Washington University law professor Orin Kerr warned that broadly construed laws against unauthorized computer access could "criminalize contract law on the Internet, potentially making millions of Americans criminals for the way they write e-mail and surf the Web."
Naga Sadow|5.19.08 @ 12:46PM|#
So . . . basically everyone who posts here could be charged with a felony? BULLSHIT!
Naga Sadow|5.19.08 @ 12:47PM|#
I'm going to lobby my congressman for exemptions to trolls like Edward, Neil, and Joe!
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 12:50PM|#
"Since individual reactions to insults are unpredictable and
highly variable, a rule that criminalized speech when it leads to
suicide or other forms of self-harm would chill any expression more
negative than "Nice day, isn't it?""
That is a real danger. The woman who did this is a bitch who should
be shunned from mainstream society but criminalizing what she did
would be very very dangerous.
|5.19.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Well -- it would lead to shorter and less interesting
threads:
joe: You have some excellent points there, Neil, about the merits
of a Republican president. I gainsay there would be positive
aspects to that.
Neil: Well, I agree Obama would be the best far-left Muslim
president we've ever had.
Naga Sadow|5.19.08 @ 12:56PM|#
J sub D,
I think you're safe on that one(great picture by the way). I have
this feeling that Edward is used to rejection from hot women.
Episiarch|5.19.08 @ 12:57PM|#
These types of cases suck, but are the most important to defend. This woman is a piece of shit, but what she did isn't criminal, shouldn't be criminal, and cannot be allowed to be defined as criminal.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 12:58PM|#
"I agree Obama would be the best far-left Muslim president we've
ever had."
I think the anti-Obama forces do themselves a disservice when they
try to perpetuate the rumor that he is Muslim. How can you
simultaneously say Obama agrees with everything said by Rev. Write
(a Christian preacher) AND claim he is a Muslim. There seems to be
a disconnect there.
|5.19.08 @ 1:00PM|#
three counts of accessing a computer without
authorization via interstate commerce to obtain
information to inflict emotional distress.
Where do you aply for authorization to access a computer to inflict
emotional distress?
|5.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#
It's too bad a girl had to kill herself, instead of learning the
most valuable lesson when dealing with the Internet:
Most people aren't who they say they are, or as mean as they come
across as.
Having said that, I'm Jamie Kelly and I fucking hate all you
assholes.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#
"Where do you aply for authorization to access a computer to
inflict emotional distress?"
The Ministry of Love in London, Airstrip One.
|5.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#
BTW, don't kill yourself in your grief at that last statement. I don't like butt sex from fat, tattooed men.
|5.19.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I don't like butt sex from fat, tattooed men.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...
|5.19.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I love y'all! Seriously, I post so rarely, but it's just
wonderful to come to these threads and find people who agree with
me.
The death of this girl was tragic. The way this woman acted was
cruel. She should be shunned, she could be sued. She shouldn't be
charged criminally. Everything is not - should not be - a crime.
And yet, most people want someone punished, criminally, when
something tragic happens.
Everyone I know think this woman should obviously be charged w/
SOMETHING (well, not my public defender Father in law, but everyone
else).
I (the daughter of a personal injury lawyer) just think she needs a
heck of a lawsuit against her. And a really miserable remainder of
days.
|5.19.08 @ 1:13PM|#
1) Lori Drew would seem to be an awful person incapable of
acting like an empathetic adult. 2) Preying on the emotional
vulnerability of a (probably emo) 13-Y.O. is fucking
reprehensible.
Despite all this...it's like everyone else says. If fucking someone
up emotionally is a crime, that's also a whole awful can of
worms.
That said: I'm not sure this Lori Drew person could be a fit or
responsible mother.
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Where's all the hate for enforcing a contract coming from?
Myspace and this woman had a contractual agreement...she broke the
contract.
Maybe this should be a civil case instead, but surely punishing her
behavior (i.e., breaking a contract) is not out of bounds.
And clearly this is an interstate contract, so the feds seem like
the proper authority.
No?
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 1:21PM|#
http://www1.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.terms
Section 8.2; 8.5, and 8.7, at least, were violated.
BakedPenguin|5.19.08 @ 1:21PM|#
And a really miserable remainder of days.
Like almost everyone else here, I agree that this should not be a
crime. I also agree with the above statement - it's good to know
that the "emotional distress" she caused will be paid back to her
by nearly everyone who finds out what she has done.
|5.19.08 @ 1:24PM|#
No?
No.
The federal government is only empowered to enforce interstate
commerce as it applies to criminal activity, not civil
matters.
At best, the state may have in interest in seeing if she is fit to
retain her parental rights. There also may be a civil action
against her for infliction of emotional distress.
To criminalize her actions is to criminalize being a jerk. And if
that were the case, everybody'd be in prison, with joe in
particular on a greased rail to the death house.
|5.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
humpf.... Raich will allow this. All you gotta do is
somehow invoke interstate commerce, and, whaa laa, federal
case.
I would like to thing that in the future, Raich will be
considered a case like Dredd Scott, Korematsu, Plessy vs.
Furgeson.
Of course I have little hope; Wickard v. Filburn seemed to
be universally mocked for its utter stupidity only to be used as
precedent for Raich.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 1:32PM|#
"Maybe this should be a civil case instead, but surely punishing
her behavior (i.e., breaking a contract) is not out of
bounds."
If she signed a EULA or something like it she should be sued for
that. If she broke the EULA in this case it is serious, far more
serious than handing your copy of Windows XP to your neighbor who
can't stand Vista. I hope she did and I hope she looses her house,
her car and all of her designer shoes over this. But SHE SHOULD NOT
GO TO JAIL.
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Jamie,
Like I said, seems a civil case makes more sense...you seem to
agree.
But they are hardly criminalizing her "being mean/being a jerk"
with this case, imho...
Seems like the case is more about the fraud used to gain personal
information about a minor...which might have gotten away with had
she not been an abusive jerk...than the "jerk-like" behavior she
engaged in once she had that information.
I don't see how this case is setting the precedent that is alluded
to above.
|5.19.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Myspace and this woman had a contractual agreement...she
broke the contract.
Because the law being used is not simply a law about violating TOS.
It's about unauthorized access and subsequent commission of
particular acts.
The H&R post should have also included
Orin Kerr's follow-up to his initial paper on the
subject.
And here is the statute in
question.
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 1:39PM|#
In other words, I don't see the slippery slope towards on-line
insults leading to jail time...even when using anonymous
identities.
Just don't see it.
Sulla|5.19.08 @ 1:40PM|#
"Maybe this should be a civil case instead, but surely
punishing her behavior (i.e., breaking a contract) is not out of
bounds."
Generally speaking, there is no real concept of "punishment" in
contract law, which is why any thought of criminal penalties for
breaching the EULA is particularly ridiculous. At least under the
common law, contracts are thought of as means to allow parties to
order commerce in a mutually beneficial fashion, so people must be
free to efficiently breach a contract. The purpose of a remedy for
a breach of contract is not to "punish" the breacher, but to make
the innocent party whole. Liquidated damages must be reasonably
related to the damages of the innocent party, otherwise they will
be thrown out as overly punitive.
The better approach is to see her actions as a tort, where her
actions can be "punished".
Sulla|5.19.08 @ 1:42PM|#
In other words, I don't see the slippery slope towards
on-line insults leading to jail time...even when using anonymous
identities.
Just don't see it.
It does seem like a stretch, but it is still worrisome to expand
contract law to include the idea of "punishment."
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 1:46PM|#
MP,
Thanks for the article/link.
I disagree with the assessment in "problem two."
Ignorance of the terms is not a defense.
|5.19.08 @ 1:46PM|#
Again, this is not a contract law question. The TOS violation is only being used as a bridge to classify Ms. Drew's usage of myspace.com as "unauthorized access".
|5.19.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Where's all the hate for enforcing a contract coming from?
Myspace and this woman had a contractual agreement...she broke the
contract.
That would not make it a penal case.
Maybe this should be a civil case instead, but surely punishing
her behavior (i.e., breaking a contract) is not out of
bounds.
Really? Where do you draw the line then, Neu? Because you are
talking about punishing with jail someone who was just being mean.
Do you nearly understand the implications of that?
And clearly this is an interstate contract, so the feds seem
like the proper authority.
It is A contract, Neu. The Feds have no authority pursuing this
case, unless by contorting the vague laws that exist right now. If
you agree they can, then not one is safe, and anything you do can
become a crime, by caprice of the State.
In other words, I don't see the slippery slope towards on-line
insults leading to jail time...even when using anonymous
identities. Just don't see it.
Would it be that you simply refuse to see it, considering this is
another notch in your State-lovin' Totem pole?
Windypundit|5.19.08 @ 2:02PM|#
I don't see the slippery slope towards on-line insults
leading to jail time
Insults, no, probably not. But imagine the legal carnage at the
online dating sites! Did you say you were 6'1" and an investment
banker when you're really 5'11" and a bank teller? The Terms and
Conditions said you're not supposed to lie, so it's off to federal
prison for you!
|5.19.08 @ 2:03PM|#
The slippery slope is making violation of a private contract a
government crime. This is really, really scary.
Also, humans should be responsible for their own suicides for
fuck's sake.
John|5.19.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Yeah, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a tort so
maybe the civil side is the better route...IIED is probably
open-and-shut here...however im not that sure the criminal side is
any worse than the tort action if you set aside imprisonment.
Certain speech is still prohibited in tort, by state action, and
people lose homes, savings, etc. to judgment
The author here seems to suggest that the subjective state of mind
determines the crime in intentional infliction cases. However that
is not true, usually the standard is "would a reasonable person in
the same or similar circumstances have experienced severe emotional
distress as a result of defendant's actions"
Also the author implied that causal "nice day" talk could lead to
liability, but I think you have to actually intend to inflict
emotional distress or at least do so knowingly.
I don't mean to nitpick but I think the author is being a little
cavalier with his slippery slope argument and failing also to
recognize that the state already sanctions this type of conduct
through punitive/compensatory awards in tort.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 2:05PM|#
There is a whole body of law that protects the interests of
minors with respect to their interaction with adults. It would seem
that if the victim was 23 instead of 13 things would be entirely
different. Yes I realize that is irrelevant to the specific
charges. My question is why it should be?
Course, if it was my kid the Drew would do well to pray for a long
incarceration. And, predictably enough, this wouldn't likely happen
to my kids.
John|5.19.08 @ 2:08PM|#
contract here seems pretty irrelevant except as an in on the "unauthorized" part of the crime definition, which is pretty standard, e.g. I can enter you home or use your car if we contracted for me to have that right, but it would be a crime if i just took your car or snuck into your house.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 2:10PM|#
The slippery slope is making violation of a private contract
a government crime
That slope has been down in the ravine for many decades. Private
contract only counts if it is a government approved private
contract. I'm sure you can think of many private contractual
contract arrangements that would land you in jail. Like having two
wives and buying a hooker (or a joint). Or maybe you'd like to
offer an adults only apartment rentals. Maybe you don't want to
hire fat people. Feel free to fill in your choice-de-jure
Ben in DC|5.19.08 @ 2:25PM|#
I think that the article, and a substantial amount of the posts in this thread misinterpret what has happened here. It's not the mean comments that got this woman in trouble... it was the misrepresentation of herself as a teenage boy...and I hate to say it, but as far as government over-reaches go, compared to the many overreaches we see detailed on Reason.com, this is one that I like to see... compare this attempt to chill fraudulent dealings with minors to the attempts to shut down dancing and pool halls... here, at least, the conduct that is to be chilled by government intervention is reprehensible.
NP|5.19.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Lori Drew is an infantile scumbag whom most of us would be glad to see behind bars, but Jacob's right, O'Brien is overreaching in this case. Let's just hope that she's at least mature enough to see the (well-deserved) negative attention she's gotten as the punishment it is.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 2:32PM|#
It would seem that if the victim was 23 instead of 13 things would be entirely different. Yes I realize that is irrelevant to the specific charges. My question is why it should be?
After RTF indictment, I realized that this is not irrelevant to the
charges at all. It seems to be a major factor. Sort of like if Drew
was soliciting a 13 year old for sex instead of for death.
greenish|5.19.08 @ 2:34PM|#
So obviously. a lot of people really dislike this person now, and want to see her suffer, which is, I think, totally cool. But just reaching straight for the prosecution - what a lack of imagination! Whatever happened to vigorous ostracism?
|5.19.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Meier (the dead girl) committed fraud as well. You have to be 14 to sign-up for MySpace.
|5.19.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Wine Commonsewer, the examples you give seem to be cases where federal law prevents you from entering into certain types of contract or punishes behavior whether you've contracted to do it or not. That really isn't the same as punishing someone for failure to comply with the terms of a private contract.
B|5.19.08 @ 2:46PM|#
If police are going to claim teasing makes a suicide more closely akin to a homicide, than the jails are going to get a lot more full. Yes it is a shame that some unbalanced kid killed herself over such a triviality, but what this woman did should in no way be criminal.
B|5.19.08 @ 2:47PM|#
"This is how joe can destroy us all...
All he needs to do is kill himself."
Please, don't get my hopes up.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Oh Woofie, there ya go, blaming the victim. [taps foot insistently]
Fluffy|5.19.08 @ 2:50PM|#
I honestly don't really dislike this woman, nor do I see any
reason to want her to suffer, to be punished, or to lose a civil or
criminal case.
As I understand the sequence of events in this case, the girl who
committed suicide had been involved in harassing/bullying the
woman's daughter, so she invented the fake identity to insinuate
herself into the online social world this all happened in and
indulged in a little harassment of her own.
I honestly don't have the big problem with that which all of the
rest of you seem to have.
MP, thanks for posting the statute. First of all, I think many
aspects of the statute are absurd. For one thing, I don't think
speech that would not be criminal if conducted in person can be
magically tranformed into criminal speech if it occurs online in
violation of some company's EULA, sorry.
Also, I think this prosecutor's interpretation of the statute is
relying on the legal conceit that the EULA violation "resulted in
harm to a person", and that seems like an awfully broad
interpretation of someone's suicide. Ultimately I think a person's
suicide entirely belongs to them and them alone, unless someone
mechanically assists them, and being mean to someone cannot in the
absence of such assistance can't be said to "cause" a suicide.
MAYBE if the fake identity had entered into a fake suicide pact
with the girl, I could ALMOST [but not quite] see the prosecutor's
case here. But that's not what happened.
Basically the prosecutor's entire case is relying on the fact that
people don't like this defendant to make absurd new case law and
stretch an existing statute in a ridiculous and abusive way. This
prosecutor is a much more loathsome person than the defendant could
ever be, no matter how many 13 year old's she trolled or
rickrolled. This prosecutor is the kind of guy who would have
prosecuted a black person with no evidence in the Old South,
counting on the jury's prejudice to win his case.
|5.19.08 @ 2:52PM|#
I blame the dead girls parents. It was their responsibility to monitor her computer use.
ktc2|5.19.08 @ 2:52PM|#
This case REALLY, REALLY made me want this woman punished
severely . . . but after much deliberation it simply isn't a
criminal matter.
She's a hateful evil bitch and I'd love to see her face and name
widely published along with what she did so everyone who sees her
can tell her that.
B|5.19.08 @ 2:52PM|#
" think the anti-Obama forces do themselves a disservice when
they try to perpetuate the rumor that he is Muslim. How can you
simultaneously say Obama agrees with everything said by Rev. Write
(a Christian preacher) AND claim he is a Muslim. There seems to be
a disconnect there."
Yeah, ok, because what Rev. Wright said is so indicative of
Christianity. Why just yesterday, I opened up to the book of
Matthew and read the following passage: "And lo, jesus spake unto
his followers and said God Damn America, and may its chickens one
day roosteth."
Please. Nothing Wright said that has made him the pariah he is
today was even remotely Christian. And even if it were, it has been
demonstrated quite effectively that Obama will do just about
anything for political expediency.
NP|5.19.08 @ 2:58PM|#
greenish,
I agree with you on the prosecution part, but at the same time I
don't think "vigorous ostracism" is the answer. Remember, Lori Drew
(most likely) didn't mean this to happen, and similarly we don't
know what people we ostracize--that includes Drew--might do to
themselves. If another tragedy ensues then we will have to hold
ourselves partly responsible. That would be low and hypocritical on
our part.
Still, Drew deserves all the condemnation she has gotten so far.
What's really infuriating about her is that not only has she yet to
show any remorse for her actions, but she also had the effrontery
to confront Megan's mother to whine about the negative publicity
she herself had brought about.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 3:03PM|#
I blame the dead girls parents. It was their responsibility
to monitor her computer use.
Which, of course, goes to my earlier remark that this probably
wouldn't happen to my kids. Cuz we're nosy parents.
I read the indictment. It doesn't seem to be about breaking the
contract per se. It is about BREAKING THE CONTRACT WITH THE
INTENT TO SCREW WITH A MINOR in the same sense as lying to a 13
year old to get them to meet you for sex when you're really a fifty
year old bald paunchy loser.
That is somewhat different than just a flat criminal charge for
breech of contract. Now, if you want to argue that there shouldn't
be *those* kinds of laws, fine.
Of course we all know that the US Attorney is just trying to
finagle a way to shit all over this bitch, even if it means coming
up with yet another trick or technicality that the justice system
is good at.
For the record, I tend to agree that vigilante justice would be
preferred in this case.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Remember, Lori Drew (most likely) didn't mean this to
happen, and similarly we don't know what people we ostracize--that
includes Drew--might do to themselves.
One could only hope and good riddance. Sorry, that woman forfeited
her right to compassion when she set out to make a 13 year old
girl's life a living hell. For fun.
I'd be happy to mail her some rusty razor blades with instructions
on how to draw a hot bath.
Xmas|5.19.08 @ 3:12PM|#
I dunno. Lori Drew knew Meier was suicidal. Her daughter had
been friends with Meier and Meier's parents had passed on the
knowledge that Meier was suicidal.
Fraud aside, intentionally doing something that you know will harm
an individual seems to me to be some sort of criminal activity.
Taktix®|5.19.08 @ 3:12PM|#
I blame the dead girls parents. It was their responsibility
to monitor her computer use.
RAmen.
What if this had been a sleezy, 45-year old child molester rather
than a cruel, heartless bitch?
On that same note, shouldn't this prosecutor be going after the
Dateline people for falsely representing themselves (for
profit!)?
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Frank Towers,
Would it be that you simply refuse to see it, considering this
is another notch in your State-lovin' Totem pole?
Chill dude...I don't want to be held responsible for your "outrage"
induced heart-attack...
=/;^)
FWIW, John was more articulate in making the point I was dancing
around.
Fluffy|5.19.08 @ 3:38PM|#
John did make a good point.
Of course, I think that the "emotional distress" tort is grossly
unjust and tyrannical, so appealing to that tort as an example does
not impress me.
While I can see some limited role for emotions in tort law [for
example, the pain and suffering component that goes along with
"real" harms], assigning judgments for purely emotional "harms" is
absurd. It's absurd because the claim of harm itself is ridiculous,
and precisely because of the need to impose a "reasonable man"
standard to apply it. The state should not privilege one set of
emotional reactions as orthodox, and certainly should not be
handing out damage awards in defense of those orthodox
reactions.
NP|5.19.08 @ 3:39PM|#
TWC - I understand your sentiment, but again aren't we being
hypocritical to criticize her but also be willing to wish the same
on her? Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for Drew, but I
still don't think blanket ostracism is the right way.
Also, just to be equal time I was about to say woofyman does have a
point. Two things he should have added: 1) Megan's parents also had
the responsibility to teach their daughter that there are more
heartbreaking things in life than losing a boy she had never met in
person; and 2) nature may have had a bigger role than nurture in
Megan's suicide.
Neu Mejican|5.19.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
I don't see good support for this assertion in the constitution nor
the subsequent SCOTUS decisions...
No.
The federal government is only empowered to enforce interstate
commerce as it applies to criminal activity, not civil
matters.
Could you elaborate?
|5.19.08 @ 3:58PM|#
TWC:
Cuz we're nosy parents.
I have told my son (turning 12 next month) he should have no
expectation of privacy. Ever. Also, we know everyone, everywhere,
and if he thinks for a minute he can get away with anything, he is
sadly deluded. We have a couple of test cases where he thought no
one was watching and it came back at him in spades, so he has no
reason to doubt the veracity of my statement.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 4:04PM|#
NP, no hypocrisy here, I didn't sign up on Facebook and scam
Laurie Drew into anything. Preying on the weakness of others,
particularly the vulnerable, whether they are 13 or 33 is
reprehensible and is a pretty strong indicator of character.
Smiling at the thought of someone like Drew getting flattened by a
safe dropped from a 12th floor window is not the same as making the
arrangements (or giving the movers a frayed rope).
This isn't some teen age prank gone horribly wrong, this is a grown
adult deliberately setting out to inflict a lot of grief on a young
girl.
And, again, to Woofy's point about parenting, as I remarked up
thread, this kind of thing isn't likely to happen to my kids,
because we're paying attention to what they're doing and who
they're hanging around with.
With the caveat that good parenting sometimes isn't enough. Years
ago a little toddler drowned in Lake Elsinore right in front of me
on 4th of July. His parents were right there and, in fact, were
searching for him in the water the second they noticed him missing.
The next day the local rag painted the picture as if those parents
deserved a child endangerment charge. I was there and the reporter
wasn't. The reporter was a liar. And there was no way those parents
did anything wrong. The kid lost his footing and nobody could find
him in the murky water.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.19.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Six, I hear that.
My son, turning 12 in July, still thinks I might be a magic man
with eyes in the back of my head. A notion I completely encourage.
I WILL ALWAYS KNOW BECAUSE I AM YOUR FATHER
I have long ago forgotten the circumstances but when he was a wee
lad I caught him lying about something to which he incredulously
responded How'd you know?
Cuz I'm your father!
|5.19.08 @ 4:13PM|#
TWC -- well if your son picks a college out here on the East Coast (Long Island), when the time comes, I got your back.
NP|5.19.08 @ 4:46PM|#
TWC,
I agree with you that Drew deserves censure particularly due to her
age, which is why I denounced her as "infantile" earlier. I just
don't think she deserves the level of your condemnation, especially
because it's not clear that she knew Megan had a history of
depression. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this
one.
And I think Megan's parents might have gotten a bum rap. From what
I've read Megan's mother actually confronted her the night of her
death about her crude online messages and told her to get offline
immediately, so it looks like there was as much monitoring of
computer use as in probably many if not most households.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Why just yesterday, I opened up to the book of Matthew and read
the following passage: "And lo, jesus spake unto his followers and
said God Damn America, and may its chickens one day
roosteth."
Rev. Write did not say he WANTED America's chickens to come home to
roost. He said that they WERE comming home to roost. There is a
difference. Actually, several times either Israel or Judea saw the
wrath of God for various reasons. Also the Bible says something
about
From the Bible, Galatians VI (King James Version):
Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Roosting Chicken|5.19.08 @ 5:32PM|#
"All take the sword, perish by it" (Mat 26:52)
"Who will render to every man according to his deeds:" Rom 2:6
)
"God is not mocked, a man reaps what he sows." (Rom. 3:8)
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 7:12PM|#
"In anarchotopia we could just lynch the cunt."
The views of the above poster do not reflect the views of actual
anaracho-capitalists. Actual anacho-capitalists would shun her,
disassociate with her, and refuse to buy or sell anything to her
refuse to speak with her. But we would not kill her. Though she
might kill herself.
|5.19.08 @ 7:39PM|#
This case REALLY, REALLY made me want this woman punished
severely . . . but after much deliberation it simply isn't a
criminal matter.
She's a hateful evil bitch and I'd love to see her face and name
widely published along with what she did so everyone who sees her
can tell her that.
ktc2 -- so if this woman commits suicide and leaves a note citing
your hateful comments above as the final straw, would you be OK
with being hauled off to jail or having your statements plastered
everywhere so people can ostracize you?
Irony detector on the fritz today?
|5.19.08 @ 7:46PM|#
One could only hope and good riddance. Sorry, that woman
forfeited her right to compassion when she set out to make a 13
year old girl's life a living hell. For fun.
I'd be happy to mail her some rusty razor blades with instructions
on how to draw a hot bath.
A living hell? If I were to get a nasty email from somebody, I
would put the sender on my "throw all future emails into the junk
mail folder" filter.
Is it really that hard to ignore somebody being obnoxious on Teh
Intertubez? The girl could have simply, you know, avoided the parts
of the internet where this obnoxious woman hung out.
She CHOSE to commit suicide. No one else is culpable.
Yahoo Answerer|5.19.08 @ 7:55PM|#
I have never used MySpace so forgive me if I sound ignorant. Isn't it possible to block another user on MySpace?
|5.19.08 @ 8:29PM|#
Neu,
Chill dude...I don't want to be held responsible for your
"outrage" induced heart-attack...
Don't worry about me, dude. Worry about yourself and your
incapacity to see a very serious encroachment of our civil rights
due to one outrageous (but nevertheless non criminal) act.
SIV|5.19.08 @ 8:43PM|#
The law aside, this was an adult woman elaborately posing as a child for the express purpose of inflicting deep emotional harm on a specific 13 year old girl.If a parent or sibling of the girl killed the cunt I would no bill any charge whatsoever as a grand juror or nullify as a juror.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Yes, this would be called Jury Nullification.
http://www.fija.org/
Neu Mejican|5.20.08 @ 1:15AM|#
Francisco,
Still uptight I see.
You see it as outrageous...I see it as unlikely to lead to any
precedent.
Let the process work...if it is really that outrageous, it won't
stand up in court.
|5.20.08 @ 1:42AM|#
As I understand the sequence of events in this case, the
girl who committed suicide had been involved in harassing/bullying
the woman's daughter ...
Got a source for that? The versions I've read say the Meier girl
stopped hanging out with the Drew's daughter and they were "afraid
she might" be saying something nasty about their kid online, but
there was no mention of any such trash talk or harassing/bullying.
Would be interested to hear if there are any such actual
reports.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.20.08 @ 2:09AM|#
If I were to get a nasty email from somebody, I would put
the sender on my "throw all future emails into the junk mail
folder" filter.
No Prole, you mischaracterize, it was a scam, a sting if you will,
she set the girl up. Deliberately. This was nothing like receiving
an obnoxious email. Did you read anything about the case?
While I might agree that we make our own choices irrespective of
how others may try to manipulate us, the girl was 13, the bitch was
fifty years old and she deliberately targeted a vulnerable young
teen age girl who thought that she was flirting with a 16 year old
boy. Drew's whole point was to cause as much grief for this girl as
possible by making her believe something that was patently false
with the sole intent of fucking with her. That is reprehensible and
anti-libertarian (drink).
I'd gladly provide the rusty razor blades and spit on the Lori
Drew's grave.
That doesn't mean I think she is legally culpable, but it does mean
she's a worthless human being and deserves not a dime's worth of
compassion.
Since we live in a relatively free society, you are welcome to
contribute to her legal defense fund.
|5.20.08 @ 3:36AM|#
Neu Mejican: Where's all the hate for enforcing a contract
coming from?
So you favor of 20 year sentences for breach of contract? I
wouldn't have guessed it from your previous posts.
It's disingenuous to pretend that this is a matter of contract law.
A contract is not something you enter lightly. The TOS of a website
is something routinely ignored. The "information" that Drew
accessed was information easily available to anyone registered with
MySpace.
Do you thoroughly read the TOS of every website you use? Would you
be happy to go to jail for 20 years because you had insignificantly
violated a TOS you hadn't read while looking at a member profile?
Note that that TOS might contain any ridiculous demand- perhaps it
demands that you use only IE. So you would go to jail, for 20
years, for using Firefox to view the site.
Maybe Lori Drew should be charged with something, but the charge
they are hitting her with is ridiculous, and I would be very
surprised if a similar charge could not be stuck to you, Neu
Mejican.
Of course no prosecutor is interested in you, so you are safe, but
I tend to think it is a bad idea to give prosecutors a charge that
everyone is guilty of. That's not a slippery slope- it is the gulch
at the bottom of one. If they want to hit Drew with a charge they
need to find a real one. Since there doesn't seem to be one, they
need to let it go.
Brian|5.20.08 @ 4:24AM|#
I'm divided on this because I really do think the woman who did
this deserves to suffer, but...
Ultimately, I have to agree with the article that this is a Federal
overreach that would end up setting a bad precedent.
The ideal outcome would be for O'Brien's charges to be dismissed.
And then for Megan's parents to beat the crap of Drew, be charged
with assault, but get off with probation. And then sue Drew for
every cent she has, take her house, and throw her out on the
street.
Neu Mejican|5.20.08 @ 10:27AM|#
dpsc,
I guess you didn't read my post.
I explicitly mentioned I thought it was more appropriate as a civil
case.
And, of course, there is a difference between violating a TOS, and
violating the part of the TOS that says you aren't supposed to use
my computers to perpetrate fraud to harass a 13 year old
girl.
So, no, they are not prosecuting her for something that they could
pin on me...or very many other people.
|5.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#
And now Missouri is contemplating a law making it a felony to be
mean to a minor.
So...go to jail for being nice to a kid, charged as a child
molester, or go to jail for telling the kid to go play in
traffic?
I'd rather go to jail for being mean to the soccer-mom's crotch
spawn. Child molesters don't last long in prison.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245