Remember Megan Meier, the 13 year old girl who killed herself after a 47 year old woman who lived in her neighborhood impersonated a 16 year old boy on the internet for the purposes of developing a relationship with Megan, and then breaking it off in the most emotionally devastating possible way?
Megan Meier died believing that somewhere in this world lived a boy named Josh Evans who hated her. He was 16, owned a pet snake, and she thought he was the cutest boyfriend she ever had.Tina and Ron Meier with a photo of their daughter Megan, 13, who killed herself last year after an online romance ended.
Josh contacted Megan through her page on MySpace.com, the social networking Web site, said Megan’s mother, Tina Meier. They flirted for weeks, but only online — Josh said his family had no phone. On Oct. 15, 2006, Josh suddenly turned mean. He called Megan names, and later they traded insults for an hour.
The next day, in his final message, said Megan’s father, Ron Meier, Josh wrote, “The world would be a better place without you.”
Sobbing, Megan ran into her bedroom closet. Her mother found her there, hanging from a belt. She was 13.
Six weeks after Megan’s death, her parents learned that Josh Evans never existed. He was an online character created by Lori Drew, then 47, who lived four houses down the street in this rapidly growing community 35 miles northwest of St. Louis.
Apparently, she's now being charged with a federal crime:
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."
Contemplating Ms. Drew's actions offers the unsettling feeling of peering, as through a cracked door, into the gaping maw of human depravity. But it seems to me that it isn't a legal crime.
The Victorians had the right idea about what to do with disgraceful but not illegal behavior: force the perpetrators to change their names, move to a distant town, and hope some day to live down their shame. They just had the wrong idea about what constituted suitably disgraceful behavior.
My understanding is that the Drews have already lost their business and probably have to move; I presume that shortly they will also lose their assets to a lawsuit from the Meiers. They will most probably spend the next five or ten years hoping desperately that no one recognizes their faces from the evening news. Bending the laws to prosecute them almost gives them too much dignity.
But wait: didn't she commit a crime by lying to Myspace and telling them she was 16 when she was really 47? Don't we have these sorts of laws to protect children from child molesters? I don't see why you have a problem with the government enforcing laws. Can you explain this further? Oh wait, you aren't a lawyer.
If the prosecution can show that a romantic relationship existed, can't they get Chris Hansen on the case?
I will more politely agree with freddiemac. Under false pretenses the woman established an online account with the specific intent of causing harm to a minor.
The underlying motivations are different, but the mechanisms used by this woman are identical to online sexual predators.
I have no problems whatsoever in prosecuting her. Any differences between her situation and prosecution of sexual predators should only be taken into account at the time of sentencing.
It's not about whether or not a crime was committed. It's about prosecutorial discretion, which many prosecutors automatically exercise in favor of bringing of any case that will get them on TV. (I almost said "all prosecutors," but that is unfair because if there are those who don't operate on this principle, we don't hear about them.
Dueling was also a particularly popular way of resolving non-criminal, disgraceful behavior. While it's hard to articulate a general case for settling differences with pistols at dawn, this does seem to be one of the examples where pseudo-judicial murder would be immensely satisfying.
What law is being bent?
Looks to me that the USA is applying specific statutes and not bending anything.
Instead of just throwing out a fairly significant statement like that and just moving on it would be great if you took the time to explain what exactly you meant.
Whoa Steve--you came to the wrong place! No Evidence Need to be Applied
Lying isn't a crime. If it was, we'd have to lock up the entire executive branch right now (for starters).
Wanting to harm minors also isn't a crime if that harm is hurt feelings. Otherwise, anytime you insult someone under 18, you could go to jail.
The prosecutors should be disbarred for violating their oath to follow the law. It sucks what this woman did, but just because it sucks doesn't mean it is against the law.
Actually, this is precisely a legal crime. Causing someone's death, even without the intention of causing it, is a crime, it's called manslaughter. If A tortures B, only intending to harm, but not kill B, and B dies anyway, everyone would agree A committed a crime. This was mental torture, and it's no different. Lori Drew didn't intend for Megan to die, but she DID intend to cause her tremendous harm, and that is criminal.
According to Wired she's being criminally charged for what is, essentially, a violation of the terms of service of MySpace.
From this site's ToS:
So, how many dozens of posts to various blogs on this site, in the past month, have violated that? How many of the posters could be liable for going to jail for that?
Oh, and how many of us post under a pseudonym, thus leaving us vulnerable to other charges?
DBB-
While lying and hurting feelings aren't crimes, conspiracy and accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress are crimes.
Duh.
Disgraceful? Yes. Criminal? I doubt it.
I was thinking this same thing since the word of her prosecution made the news. The problem, I think, is that people want the law to achieve perfect justice. If someone like Lori Drew does something that is universally and correctly perceived to be loathesome and evil, people think she should be punished. I agree, but I also know that the law doesn't punish everything that should be punished, and it does punish some things that ought to be allowed. The law is flawed, just as mankind is flawed. (And yes, I am a lawyer, not that a J.D. is necessary to understand law or justice.)
Human justice is imperfect. Trying to force old laws to adapt to new depravities will fail, and will weaken the rule of law in the process.
P.S. I've never seen a troll with his own blog before. Megan, you attract an unusual following.
I am with those who don't see anything excessively criminal and feel the suicide has to be tossed as motivation for criminal prosecution.
All across Myspace you have people faking identitity, stealing passwords, faking other's identities and engaging in various versions of insulting behavior. You don't toss people in jail because someone then takes essentially "words" to heart and kills themself.
I assume that all of those who think this is not a crime think that all forms of anti-stalking, anti-harassment legislation should be repealed.
The charge appears to combine a charge of what amounts to harassment with a crime relating to "hacking." Just because minor instances of both behaviours are not prosecuted, because of simple triviality, and the limited resources of all parties, including the victim, does not mean that serious instances should not be prosecuted.
The only complaint I can see about this charge is that the way it is phrased (in the news report) contravenes principles of clarity and fair labelling.
Welcome to federal criminal law. You can charge darn near everyone with some crime. In most cases prosecutorial discretion is the primary restraint on charging, not the law itself.
" ...accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress are crimes....."
Maybe or maybe not. But the question of whether it *is* a crime is an issue for lawyers and judges. The question that we ought to be debating is whether it *should be* a crime -- and a Federal crime, at that.
My $0.02 worth is "Hell, NO!" The greatest long-term risk that we face in this country is an out-of-control Federal government sticking its nose into every facet of everybody's existence. I, too, hate to see this sleazeball get away with what she did, but the proposed cure is far worse than the disease.
Lessee here...an adult accessed MySpace under false pretenses in order to simulate a romantic relationship with a minor, with the apparent intent of causing harm. Basic modus operandi of a child predator. Albeit the part that makes this a bit fuzzy is that she didn't try to set up a meeting with the minor. Isn't that how they usually trap the pedophiles, i.e., give them an opportunity to show physical intent to commit harm?
Okay, so which elements of the statute(s) that the Defendant is charged with violating do you believe the prosecution will be unable to prove?
What, pray tell, is a "legal crime?"
Thorley, a decent question, but the logically prior question is: which statute are we talking about?
And how can anyone have an opinion if we don't know which statute we're talking about?
The closest that I could find in my hasty search of the code is 18 USC 1030, but if anyone knows better, please tell us so we (that is to say, all y'all) can stop jabbering pointlessly.
What, pray tell, is a "legal crime?"
Violation of a Constitutional law as opposed to violation of an unconstitutional law, perhaps?
I won't pretend to a legal expertise that I lack, so I have no opinion as to whether or not the prosecutions statutory arguments hold water or not. I suppose that this is for a judge and/or a jury to decide.
I certainly agree, however, that it seems like this shouldn't be a crime (and certainly not a federal crime). I agree with Megan that the proper societal response is shunning.
That said, and just to play the devils advocate, perhaps a case can be made that it's too easy to escape the effects of shunning in our society. In many areas, people don't even know who their neighbors are and have only the most minimal of interactions with them. To be sure, this particular family seems to be suffering from their pariah status but I think it could be argued that in many cases, shunning would have only a limited effect on the sort of creeps that would do this.
If the effect of shunning is diluted, can a case be made that the legal system does have a moral obligation to act as a social cudgel to prevent this sort of adverse behavior? Or are the potential risks of legal abuse too steep?
I won't pretend to a legal expertise that I lack
That is a violation of the Blog Commenters' Code. You will be shunned.
Orin Kerr provided a good rundown at the Volokh blog as to why the Drew indictment doesn't seem to hold up under the particular federal laws at issue.
That said, the following Missouri state statutes of general application might be relevant here:
-- "Recklessly causing the death of another person" constitutes involuntary manslaughter under Missouri law.
-- "Knowingly inflicting cruel and inhuman punishment upon a child less than seventeen years old" constitutes the crime of child abuse.
-- "To engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and that actually causes substantial emotional distress to that person" constitutes harassment, and to harass someone intentionally constitutes stalking.
I wouldn't have any problem with Ms. Drew being indicted with any of those crimes.
It should not be criminally prosecuted to any further extent than verbal harassment is prosecuted criminally- the suicide is irrelevant.
The proper realm of punishment is public shaming and civil litigation, which the lady deserves in spades.
This case is complete bunk and I can't see how it could ever stand up in court. Some overzealous prosecutor is going to cost this woman tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight this nonsense.
The essence of this is that if someone hurts your feelings - on the Internet no less - and you are so unbalanced as to go off and kill yourself, they are liable? If this standard is applied universally, you can start lining up all the jilted lovers, schools, banks, corporate managers, tax agents, and so forth right out the courtroom door.
STC-
Substitute that 'someone' as 47 year old woman posing as 16 year old boy and 'you' as 13 year old girl, and I think the content of your sentence changes somewhat.
The essence of this is that if someone hurts your feelings - on the Internet no less - and you are so unbalanced as to go off and kill yourself, they are liable?
While I agree with your overall stance, I think that it's important not to minimize what Lori Drew did. This isn't simply a case of someone incidentally hurting someone's feelings, this is a case where an adult, motivated by a sense of vengence, deliberately and systematically engaged in the mental abuse of a vulnerable 13 year old child.
However you think society should react to that (even if you think there should be no legal or social sanction at all), I don't think that there's any real question as to whether or not Drew's actions were morally repugnant and well beyond merely hurting someone else's feelings.
Trying to minimize her actions doesn't really serve to make your case, IMO.
No, it really doesn't. This woman is a bit pathetic but do you really think it's a criminal offense to basically fabricate a personality on a message board and insult someone on the Internet? I am sure hundreds of trolls do this on a daily basis. You're so caught up in the emotion of some adolescent killing herself, you can't see the forest from the trees. This girl clearly had some mental problems.
I think this whole thing came about because this Megan Meier dissed Lori Drew's daughter or something like that. What if the outcome were instead that Drew's daughter had committed suicide as a result? Would that be a crime, too?
Or, your thesis is that it would be OK for a kid to insult another kid who subsequently committed suicide, but if the insult were from an adult it is a crime?
Insulting in general is OK as long as it does not lead to suicide, regardless of age differential?
What if an adult insulted a child on the Internet and the child committed suicide, but the adult was unaware of the age of the child at the time the insult was made?
What if a child insulted an adult on the Internet and the adult committed suicide!
This is just patently ridiculous.
You couldn't even prove - in my opinion beyond a reasonable doubt - that the insults of Drew were the sole reason for Meier's suicide.
There definitely should be a provision in the law, whether federal, state, or local allowing prosecution in a case like this. A middle-aged adult harassing and emotionally torturing a 13 year old.
There should also be some sort of age difference exemption like exists with most statutory rape laws in the country. Hypothetically, a 40 year old would be charged for doing this to a 15 year old, but an 18 year old doing this to a 16 year old would be fine.
As I understand it, any person who intentionally gains unauthorized access (by violating the MySpace TOS, the access was unauthorized) to a protected computer (which is any computer used for interstate or foreign commerce, which MySpace is by way of its ads), and recklessly causes damage, has violated the computer fraud act.
Also, under the same conditions, if that person's actions result in "the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals", they have violated the act.
And still, under the same conditions, cause (knowingly or recklessly) "physical injury to any person", they have violated the act.
For me, there is no question that she violated this law. As far as uniform enforcement is concerned, I'm sure there are numerous cases that this law could be applied, but there has to be some event that brings the crime to the attention of federal prosecutors. I think it's certainly justice that the heinous nature of Mrs. Drew's actions are exactly what brought these offenses to the prosecutor's attention.
Actually, the only unfortunate thing is that each count of the indictment only carries a maximum of 5 years, when the victim was a minor who could have had the rest of her life to live.
STC, I am afraid you are softening what was done here. This was not simply an "insult," but a deliberate effort over a period of time to establish a close connection with Megan Meier for the purposes of establishing trust - but for dishonorable purposes. At some point, it turned deeply malicious.
Megan's own personal problems are of no consequence. In the law, there is a "thin skull rule" that means you are liable for the consequences of your actions even if the victim was especially sensitive. For example, you brandish a gun toward someone to threaten them and they have a heart attack. Is that just an "oops?" Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater? There are countless situations where the law has established that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, even if those actions were unforeseen.
There is certainly a trail of messages that will shed light on this case, but it is absolutely worth pursuing. We are getting into new ground. Road rage, blog rage, people are simply less inclined to be civil if there is some distance or anonimity. Viciousness can have consequences...especially to children. It is time we establish some guidelines.
A question we might ask was: was Ms. Drew reasonably on notice that she might be committing a crime? If you read the language from the Missouri statutes I quoted above, it seems to me that she was. More generally, if I happened to discover a really novel means of causing extremely severe distress to a minor child, I think I might reasonably suspect that actually doing that to a child might be illegal.
The thing is, "cause" physical injury doesn't usually mean "convince somebody to hurt themselves." Normally, you'd have to be directly responsible for the injury. And the "modification of medical diagnosis" is almost certainly aimed at hacking into medical records, not convincing someone to kill themselves. Finally, "unauthorized access" should probably mean more than "violating TOS." It should be hacking in, not getting in with false info that nobody even tried to verify.
This seems to qualify as bending/stretching the law to me.
Further Rob Lyman's 3:02 post, the big problem with the federal indictment is that it makes violation of the MySpace terms of service ("TOS") a crime. The TOS is, fundamentally, a contract, and generally we don't prosecute people for breaching contracts, even when they do so knowingly and intentionally.
To all these people here that thinks that the law is being bent... I have but just a few questions...
Do you have any children of your own?
What if this young girl was yours or possibly your son thinking that nobody wanted them?
How would you feel about someone stalking someone in your family to either abuse physically or mentally?
Ask yourself these and other questions I'm sure others that have family members that they love "What if"?
My personal belief is that this so call "mother" Ms. Drew if in fact - can she call herself a "true-mother"? How could she possibly inflict such a heartless act on another mothers child without thinking if someone had planed this action out against her own - especially if her child had the same mental problems as did Megan?
I hope to see that Ms. Drew is not only found guilty - but that the sentence carries more than just 20 years... And that if in her mentally disturbed mind of hers is forever engraved with the picture of this young girl, hanging alone in her closet thinking that this world would be better off .......
I certainly understand your point, but even if "cause" doesn't usually mean "convince", it can. In this case, and using the "thin skull rule" as stated above, the victim had a pre-existing condition - depression. As a result, the impact of Mrs. Drew's behavior had a devastating effect, just like the "heart attack victim" example above
Additionally, I think it can be easily argued that Mrs. Drew's actions caused the "impairment" of Megan's treatment for her depression. The girl was under the care of a therapist and was on medication. Her interactions with "Josh" made her very happy, only to destroy her later. For someone suffering from depression, this type of severe mood swing can be devastating.
And specifically, "Terms of Service" are what define your right to access the site. Once a site learns of a violation, it will typically remove a user. In this case, unfortunately, the violation wasn't known until after the effects were felt. That certainly doesn't mean that the violation didn't occur. That's like saying you didn't break the law because you ran a red light when nobody was around.
It's actually unfortunate that the act is written in such a way that if Mrs. Drew had placed a virus on MySpace, that her penalty could potentially be more severe
The thin skull rule is a rule of damages in civil torts cases. It is 1) not applicable to criminal cases, and 2) not used for the determination of liability.
If I tap a guy on the shoulder and he dies because of it, I'm not a murderer--or even a tortfeasor--just because he had some weird unexpected hypersensitivity. What happened here probably qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress, and you could apply the thin skull rule to get damages for the death, but that doesn't add up to a crime.
MCW, I'm not saying you can't make the arguments you making, I'm saying these arguments constitute stretching/bending the law. I suppose if I were so inclined I could dig up legislative history and whatnot, but I'm not so inclined; I'll just say that reading sec. 1030 to cover this conduct strikes me as highly unreasonable and improbable.
Do you have any children of your own?
Yes
What if this young girl was yours or possibly your son thinking that nobody wanted them?
I'd be very upset.
How would you feel about someone stalking someone in your family to either abuse physically or mentally?
I'd want to kill that person in a very painful way.
As it turns out, my wish to kill people who harm my family does not translate in to "this statute obviously applies to these acts." So long as we're showing off our knowledge of law school terminology, I'll toss one out at ya: the rule of lenity. That is, criminal statutes are to be narrowly read so as to provide fair notice of what is prohibited. I don't think that if you'd handed me this statute a couple of years ago I would have said it covered using fake names to be an asshole on MySpace.
But Rob, in the age of Chris Hansen, what about a 47 year old establishing romantic relationship with a 13 year old over the internet? Ain't that illegal?
rickm,
It depends. No, really. Nothing wrong with striking up a friendship online, nothing wrong with expressing feelings online. Hell, nothing wrong with an adult and a teen entering into a sexless "romantic" relationship in (to borrow a word from Person) meatspace. It's a criminal issue only when the adult makes an attempt at doing something illegal, like sex with the teen.
Aside from which, I'm referring to a specific statute, 18 USC sec. 1030, which deals with (to my eye) hacking and online fraud. I have not attempted to consider state laws against online solicitation, stalking, etc.
I am in no way defending this woman's actions, for which adjectives fail me (SoV: you have virtuoso talent for insult, could you turn it on Drew for our entertainment?). I am not commenting on the possible civil remedies, of which there are a number of possibilities.
I am merely saying that this particular law doesn't apply to this particular conduct unless it is stretched like a condom at Consumer Reports' testing lab.
"And specifically, "Terms of Service" are what define your right to access the site. Once a site learns of a violation, it will typically remove a user. In this case, unfortunately, the violation wasn't known until after the effects were felt. That certainly doesn't mean that the violation didn't occur."
It also doesn't mean it's a crime. Turning TOS violations into federal crimes is really not a road we want to go down.
The salient legal question should be this: if the result of Ms. Drew's actions were that the girl Megan stayed in bed for a weekend wolfing down a few pints of Ben & Jerry's instead of killing herself, would anyone be contemplating criminal charges against Drew? Of course not. The girl's suicide is tragic, but blaming the Drews for it isn't fair. There had to be underlying issues that made the girl liable to commit suicide anyway if being jilted by an imaginary 'boyfriend' she never met was enough to push her over the edge. This was clearly a psychological damaged girl to begin with.
Anyone remember why Ms. Drew did this? If memory serves, it was because the girl had been similarly cruel (emotionally) to her child. If the Drew child had killed herself, would the Meier girl have been guilty of causing that suicide? Of course not.
I'm not a lawyer, or in law school. I didn't even graduate college, but I don't think any of that is necessarily relevent.
Maybe if I had gone to law school I would feel differently, but I doubt it. I did say "as I understand it" not "the following is fact." But that doesn't change my opinion that this behavior on the part of Mrs. Drew falls into these categories.
As far as lenity, I still am of the opinion that there is no ambiguity. Just as there are several ways to commit a murder with the same level of intent, there are several ways this act can be, and has been, violated.
I believe that it comes down to simply proving that she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I'm sure that there are elements of this case that still haven't come out, so maybe there is something more there. But presently, I certainly feel like there is plenty of valid evidence for a federal indictment. I don't believe the interpretation is vague or ambiguous. I don't believe this statute covers using fake names to be an asshole on MySpace, unless there are some damages as a result of this.
I'm not really trying to show off any "knowledge". To me, this is just a logical argument. I honestly believe that the only way that Lori Drew's (I guess I should say alleged) actions are not in violation of this statute, is just to ignore the statute.
But again, that is just my uneducated opinion.
Actually, Brian. What I was referring to was that once you have violated the TOS, you no longer have the right to access the "protected computer." The statute states that a person who "intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization" then recklessly or intentionally causes damage or harm...
I don't even think it falls into the criminal side if there is no damage or theft from the intrusion.
The TOS violation only establishes whether access was authorized or not.
Rob, you are correct, I should have been more precise in using the thin skull rule. My point is that the law, even criminal law, has long recognized that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, even if unforeseen.
I assume you are not saying that if I rob a bank brandishing a gun and threating to shoot people, I would not be held for murder if one of the customers has a heart attack. Even if I said, "hey, the gun was not even loaded." It does not matter.
It is unclear to me she is criminally liable here, but I also don't think that it is obvious on its face that she is not. (Suppose we find out that she knew of Megan's fragile state.) The facts are still unknown.
Come on, rickm, a romantic relationship? That's a stretch. In lieu of any actual transcripts I would expect that in general the communication was mostly mindless banter, the flirtatious aspect of it being that Meier assumed it was coming from a sixteen year old male.
Your grasping for straws really gets to what is the crux of this issue for me. Of course its shitty that a girl died. But it was a self-inflicted death and we are talking about establishing legal precedent here. Your distaste for Drew's acts does not justify groping around for some law to exploit outside of its intended purpose. This ultimately just pollutes the legal system even more than it already is. Holding a third party responsible for a suicide is a slippery slope. How do you prove that the acts of the third party were solely responsible for the suicide? Don't you create a scenario where someone can ultimately harm a third party or in essence hold them hostage by threatening or performing a suicide?
I have to laugh at your sanctimonious attitude on the FMMcA blog with regard to my prior comments. Your morality is so warped. If all of the people here getting so bent out of shape over one messed up adolescent girl and one very immature woman expressed even one tenth of the outrage over what American troops are doing to thousands of thirteen year olds - not to mention three year olds - in Iraq with real bullets and thousand pound bombs; not just nasty words; the world would be a lot better off.
Violation of a law, as opposed to activity thats "a crime" that doesn't actually violate the law.
Tilam: the bank robbery example would implicate the felony murder rule; you'd be put away because the death occurred as a result of and in the course of your commission of a passel of other felonies.
I'm not sure where suicide enters the picture; if you held some hostages and somebody killed himself because he didn't want to be a hostage, is that felony murder? I don't know the answer to that one, although my first instinct is to say no.
I'm not saying it's obvious that she isn't liable under some statute, somewhere (that's not obvious to me), I'm saying that 18 USC 1030 doesn't apply unless stretched.
I wonder if anyone's arguments here have ever changed anyone's earlier stated opinion. And if it did, would they say so?
My guess is that everone is right.
But wouldn't it be different to see a post that says, "You know Mr. X, I see your point. I hadn't thought of that way. I'd have to agree with you now."
Trust me. I know this is somewhat irrelevant to the topic, but I just wanted to share.
Of course, maybe someone will start to argue how relevant this comment was.
I wonder if anyone's arguments here have ever changed anyone's earlier stated opinion. And if it did, would they say so?
I've seen it happen twice that I can think of, on two different blogs. For my part, mostly I'm doing performance art for the lurkers.
I wonder if anyone's arguments here have ever changed anyone's earlier stated opinion. And if it did, would they say so?
I've seen it happen twice that I can think of, on two different blogs. For my part, mostly I'm doing performance art for the lurkers.
Hell, nothing wrong with an adult and a teen entering into a sexless "romantic" relationship in (to borrow a word from Person) meatspace.
I would like to be lumped with those who think middle-aged folk inclined to do this make a practice of keeping a civil distance from the youth of the nation.
The Victorians had the right idea about what to do with disgraceful but not illegal behavior: force the perpetrators to change their names, move to a distant town, and hope some day to live down their shame. They just had the wrong idea about what constituted suitably disgraceful behavior.
Miss Megan, what right idea would you substitute for theirs about what is disgraceful? And whence comes your confidence that you understand the moral and ethical life with more clarity than did they?
Agreed AD, I should have said "nothing illegal."
Rob, I have to say that I've enjoyed sharing an opposing viewpoint with you (my lack of education not withstanding). Thanks for the arguments of position rather than emotion.
MCW, always a pleasure. You will find me to be the legal scold here around these parts, with an irritating tendency to insist on reading the actual statute/case/rule rather than the press release.
I read it. Before I posted by first comment, I read it. I heard about the indictment, but never saw a press release. This was the first thing that came up. I read this board. Read the code. Read the history. Only THEN did I decide to have an opposing viewpoint. Just thought you'd like to know.
Lawyer or Not - To which I'm not.
But it's strange to read all the comments above when - to me. There is something missing in most of the conversations.
The fact is:
There has been a taking of life from a very young girl, a human being, A mother's child - a father's little girl that will never see true love that I would say that most here may be in one life time has truly experience. How can anybody just write this off as a unfortunate event?
Have we all become heartless to understanding true emotions. Weather or not she was mentally unstable.
Again.... This was a couples daughter, there life and there heart to which was ripped from them for no reason but another's heartless satisfaction.
MCW, it was clear that you had read the code from your comment, which used actual code language. But few people do, even when I post links. It's part of a larger social phenomenon, in which people confuse "is" with "ought."
It's part of a larger social phenomenon, in which people confuse "is" with "ought."
Finally, something we agree on. My day is done!
Anyone remember why Ms. Drew did this? If memory serves, it was because the girl had been similarly cruel (emotionally) to her child. If the Drew child had killed herself, would the Meier girl have been guilty of causing that suicide? Of course not.
If there is a criminal element at stake, that claim is irrelevant, given the ages of the involved parties. Minors are neither expected nor held fully liable for actions that can, in some instances, get an adult into very serious trouble. Statutory rape is an obvious example, but there are others.
Dueling was also a particularly popular way of resolving non-criminal, disgraceful behavior. While it's hard to articulate a general case for settling differences with pistols at dawn
I'll have a go: a vastly reduced need for lawyers, no more endless appeals, and as a society we would likely trade litigiousnous for improved marksmanship. How's that for tort reform?
My personal worry about a situation like this is that, if this woman does get prosecuted criminally and receives some sort of punishment, it sets a precedent. Say she ends up going to jail for 10 years for trumped up charges of some "crime" the prosecutors are able to convince a court she committed, I can imagine that some other 50ish-year-old asshole thinking to himself, "Eh, ten years... I could handle that if I could get that little prick to kill himself," regarding some 15ish-year-old kid he hates. Suddenly there would be a clear path to prosecuting people who use the internet to inflict psychological damage on others, leading potential criminals to weigh the "pros" and cons of such abuse and its possible applications. Then we actually might see *more* of this sort of sick behavior.
Of course, one could argue that by not doing anything it sets a precedent of non-prosecution, which could also lead to people thinking they could always get away with similar behavior...
If somebody on purpose and planned yells very loud behind somebody who is standing on the edge of a cliff ,if that person loses balance and falls down and dies ,then is this freedom of speech or murder ? The same is here ,Lori Drew knew that Megan was emotionally unstable and on the edge, she planned for weeks ( prosecution has witness to that )and suddenly the phony boyfriend yelled very loud behind Megan and she fell over the edge of the emotional cliff and died .
How come 49 year-old Lori Drew isn't being charged as a sexual predator as she has admitted the communication she was having with 13 year-old Megan was sexual at times?
Very good point by Jamie ,worth of notice by people dealing with this case
I agree with Megan's original statement.
Lori Drew should not be prosecuted. That would set a terrible precedent for enforcing a website's use policy as the law of the land.
If this is a serious problem, congress should write a law narrowly addressing the problem. It should not be retroactive. I know that the Constitution does not allow ex post facto laws, but no one in congress, other than Ron Paul, has ever read the Constitution, so it bears repeating.
In the meantime, maybe Lori Drew can live down the shame in 20 or 30 years.
This indictment will be dismissed before the ink is dry on the summons . . . . despite the fact that it originates in the clown car known as the 9th Circuit.
The TOS of MySpace will not be annointed with the power to actually define the phrases "unathorized access" or "exceeding authorized access", as stated in the applicable federal statute. That function is reserved for duly elected members of Congress, or the federal judges approved by same. For the life of me, I don't recall casting a vote for the TOS-writing general counsel of MySpace, especially for the purpose of defining substantive federal criminal law.
If The Atlantic's TOS require you to be a left-handed Hispanic Buddhist in order to post comments, you are not a criminal simply because I asphyxiate from laughing uncontrollably at those of you who supporting prosecution, and who happen to be WASPs.
But only about her cell phone. Drew declined to discuss other aspects of her role surrounding the October 2006 suicide of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old girl who lived down the street. Megan had an on-and-off friendship with Drew's teenage daughter.
Megan hanged herself after she received several mean messages from the fictional boy.
A Nov. 11 story in the Suburban Journal about Megan's death exploded into a national, then international, story. As a result, Lori Drew became the target of widespread cyberspace harassment. Personal information, such as her cell-phone number, which she had used for 10 years, appeared on Internet sites.
No criminal charges have been filed in connection to Megan's death but the Los Angeles Times reported last month that a grand jury is looking at whether Drew defrauded MySpace, which is based near Los Angeles.
Beitongyujue the Megane family Kuxun perpetrators few days without results, but in almost want to give up, a small dark green card be sent to the local police. "Megane family of neighbors Luoli. Drew, she may know who the perpetrators in the end."
Police in accordance with this card, Shuntengmogua quickly put Lori• Drew and their associates Clean Sweep. It is reported that Lori Shichuyouyin did: she and the victim had fornication Megan's father, after his father abandoned; What she is angry hard-ping, she has a positive adolescent daughters, Megan and the victim was a friend , And later the two girls falling out. What Lori is burned in anger, she found Megan in the social networking site MySpace insulted her daughter.
It is inconceivable that is: to report to the police Lori. Drew, and even her own daughter Sarah! The 15-year-old girl occasionally discovered the secret of the mother, that her name Josh • Evans, contacted Megan through her page on MySpace.com,and then said :He love her.
May 15, 2008, Sarah has the burden of proof in court, the mother of crime. She said Why doing that was to save her mother, What is more important is:she felt missed her friend Megan……
Has anyone heard or listened to what Megan's mother's statement was.In her words " I was upset with my daughter's language so I told her to get off the computer, she got upset and said I was suppose to be on her side and then she ran upstairs. How do we know the Mother didn't cause the girl's suicide. The last words she heard were her Mother's harsh word's to her. I say the Mother was the cause.People need to wake up and put the blame where it should go, "On the Mother". The mother in my opinion does not want to take any blame. Lori Drew should not have done what she did but I don't think she is to blame. Oh and let's make up some new laws and punishment along the way. I fear for this country and where it is headed.
Most of the post except the last Carol is on the right trail. Megan's mother is deflecting the blame from herself. She knew Megan's mental condition, and probably lied herself to register Megan, she was only 13, did not warn her of the dangers in MySpace, did not monitor her chats, found that Megan also used bad words and when Megan ran upstairs, she was angry that her mother did not take her side. Megan was more angry at her mom than what "Josh" said. Her mom is 99% responsible for Megan's suicide. Mrs. Drew could have been any kid on the block. Megan did not know any different. If Josh was a real kid would they hold him responsible? Teenage relations come and go every day of the week.