Why the Lori Drew Decision Was a Bad One

This story shows how far off track our country is getting. This was a mother!

No integrity. Our society just loves violence and utterly mean actions.

I don’t get it.

It might not have been this crime, but I definitely believe that a crime was committed.

Actions that are intended to cause harm to others are not protected by freedom of anything.

The intent was to hurt someone. Telling a teenage girl she should never have been born is about as vicious a hurt you can imagine to them.

You sound like a sleazy lawyer defending an admitted child murderer.

There are a certain percentage of computer users who, using fake accounts, backdoors, operating system vulnerabilities, and the like, to explore how security systems work in network based operating systems. This percentage of people I am referring to do not damage the remote computer systems, steal files, or lock their rightful users out– they simply explore the design and operation of these advanced computer networks. Similar to the argument in this article, their right to an education is impinged if they are brought to trial under the same Computer Fraud and Abuse act– simply for exploring. The Drew case, and the entire Computer Fraud and Abuse act that can lead to the federal prosecution of curious students of information technology should be overturned.

I mean, come on– just because MySpace and the like don’t want us to do certain things on their computer doesn’t mean they have the right to enforce what we do on their computers. It’s OUR lives!

so we continue to let people off the hook and let them get away with murder ( so to speak) , that is why the justice system is so mested up, along with peoples thinking that its ” not a crime ” to push someone to end their life. Easy to blow off a little thing like this… freedome of speach? Till it happens to you. Then trust me you would think differant. And yes all those people are guilty its called THE LAW, and so we continue to just let things slide and the next thing you know murder is no big deal.

You seem to have overlooked a few things. Malice, and forethought come to mind. This woman planned this out and went through with it. Regarding your claim that others are using bogus names to set up accounts; once again your argument is weak. If 1000 people see money laying in the street and they pick it up is the last person less guilty than the first? According to your reasoning the last people should not be guilty because all the others did it first. This woman planned this and knew what she was doing. To me she is guilty of murder and should go to jail. Unfortunately she will get a lesser charge, but she needs to go to jail.

American citizens are entitled to freedom of speech. Phantom entities represented by phony accounts are not. The decision should stand.

I disagree with you — the owner of a website can decide whether they want to provide their users anonymity or not. It should not be up to the whims of the users whether they should be allowed to lie.

Likely this law will only be used to prosecute criminals that committed other crimes. But at some point we all must realize anonymity & the internet as a place to do business and interact with others were going to come to a head.

I agree with the law and the decision, Lori Drew knew she was doing something wrong by mis-representing herself as a teen boy.

“Yes, doing so is technically a breach of the terms of service for sites like MySpace and Facebook, but those rules (which few people read anyway) are routinely overlooked.”

This is a crock of you know what. If I get busted for drunk driving, do I get to say “Yes, technically it is illegal but those rules are routinely overlooked”? No, I don’t. Saying “Nobody reads that anyway” is not a defense. If I sign a contract, I am held responsible for having read it. Especially if I am a 40 something year old who should know better.

This isn’t a free speech case at all, not in the least, and to imply that it is shows that you don’t know what free speech is. Free speech isn’t a license to say anything you want, no matter how stupid, and no matter how much it hurts someone else. The First Amendment doesn’t protect you if you yell fire in a movie theater and someone gets hurt in the panic. If one says something intentionally to inflict harm on another person that is not protected speech.

Yes this was a bad decision. She was found guilty on LESSER chargers. She should have been found guilty of all charges brought against her. What she did was inexcusable.

Anybody that would commit suicide because some online person was already emotionally unstable, if it hadn’t of been Lori it would been an F that made her kill herself. This lady should have been charged with harming a minor or something, because that was what was the real crime, not some vague computer hacking charge.

Legally, no, she should not be prosecuted. Morally, yes, the woman deserves more than what she got. However, trying to take her down via the legal system would breach the foundations of law in this country. So yes, she’s a despicable person, but no, she should not have been convicted of the “breaching of service terms” as she was. She’s just a soul-less person. (read:b****) I agree with the author that this ruling is not good for us on the whole.

I hope that sweat hog gets what’s coming to her… and her piglet daughter, too…

sorry don’t get your point. buying a gun isn’t against the law. intending to kill someone with it is. the mother used cyberspace as a psychological weapon with full intent to harm. This is not legally comparable to Judy Love in my mailbox trying to sell me fast acting viagra.

The article proposed that there should be no prosecution for fake MySpace/Facebook/etc pages, given the large number of harmless faked pages. Agreed. The decision was wrong on two counts: There should be no prosecution for fake pages, and there should have been far greater punishment for this woman’s crime. The “downgrading” of her charges put the charges not just in a lesser category, but into the wrong catergory entirely, one that should not exist. This woman should be charged at least with manslaughter, and any “downsizing” of her charges should still be within the list of killing someone.

Sorry, I cannot agree with this article. The premise here is that because many ignore the laws that the laws should not be enforced. The message sent with this rulling is clear, If you use myspace for fraudelent activities you can be held accountable. Based on the articles premise nobody should be held accountable for Drunk Driving because many are not caught.

So your point is that if a law is routinely ignored by you and your friends then it shouldn’t be enforced? Woohoo! No more pesky traffic lights!

You should probably re-read the “fine print” of the bill of rights since, FYI, you don’t actually have any right to fraudulently set up a false persona for the purpose of tormenting someone.

I personally think she got off light – she egged and bullied this girl and manipulated everything about being a teenage girl she could and got the girl to commit suicide. She got off light because she has no business doing what she did and she should have been drawn and quartered or hung like they do to people in other countries that do this kind of insane stuff. Parents are responsible and kids are not… this is a pure example of the opposite being done – this poor girl got lured into a potential emotional relationship and was spit out by a deceptive mother and she will ROT IN HELL FOREVER and I pray that young women is beaming with joy and an afterlife of purity… God Bless the just people that convicted this women and let the lawyers and pundits that defend this mother burn in hell forever.

As a former journalist, I can’t even begin to fathom how this situation has anything to do with free speech.

Ignorance of the law does not exempt one from it’s penalties, and those TOS are not written simply to keep a bunch of technical writers employed.

Lori Drew either chose to not read the TOS or read them and violated them. Neither one exempts her from not following them.

And as stated above, the First Amendment does not protect those who intend to cause harm.

This was a poorly investigated and even more poorly prosecuted case. In PA there are laws regarding harassment and stalking via computer, text messages, etc. I am sure that there are comparable laws which could have been applied in this jurisdiction. That being said, there must have been a lot more going on in this poor girl’s life that caused her to take her own life by hanging herself. Parents cannot allow children to converse online unmonitored.

The “court” did not “decide” it was a case of unauthorized access. Please get the facts straight before you cast an opinion. The United States Attorney’s office made the decision to prosecute and brought Ms. Drew before a federal grand jury which found, based on facts presented by the U.S. Attorney only, that Ms. Drew may have committed the crime of unauthorized access. The U.S. Attorney then brought the charges and the case went to trial. A judge presided over the trial, making rulings on issues of law only, and a jury heard the evidence and decided on guilt. While I may agree with your premise, you need to get the facts straight because if anything is going to be done it is going to be done at the executive branch or the legislative branch, not the judicial. It is the president who appoints the U.S. Attorney in the various districts around the country and it was the U.S. Attorney in L.A. who decided to go ahead with this.

Another point, there is no freedom of speech in a private forum. You can stand on a street corner and say anything you like as long as it does not incite a riot. If you go into the store on that corner to purchase a drink to whet your throat, and say the same thing, the store owner can kick you out and tell you to never come back and you cannot do anything about it. This case has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.

The Terms of Service or Terms of Use agreement is just that, a contract between you and the internet website. The internet is still relatively new in terms of regulation, with people still not in agreement on what or even if it should be regulated. People want something done about spam, about internet bullying, and about internet con artists, so at this point governments are still struggling to get it right. As with most laws in the United States, this one was made with good intentions. If you disagree with the result and want it changed you need to write your congressman, not your local judge.

And there is no question that Lori Drew is a sick, sick human being. She brought about this young lady’s death, bragged about it, and went to her funeral. In the best of worlds the law is changed and Lori Drew rots in hell.

I do agree that “freedom of speech” is limited to speech that causes no harm, under the logical “yelling fire in a crowded theater” rule of thumb. Those of you who yell about “freedom of speech” would yell “slander” (or “libel” depending on the medium) if someone spread lies about you, or urged people to injur you.

We have the right to speak our opinions, without fear of government prosecution. That was the first addition made to the Constitution, and still the most important. But we do not have the right to torment.

“doing so is technically a breach of the terms of service for sites like MySpace and Facebook, but those rules (which few people read anyway) are routinely overlooked”…

You want to overlook the law, because few people “read” these pages?

Few people may walk the street where a mugging takes place, is that a reason not to enforce the law?

You obviously have missed the main point here Intent

There are others out there on pages like myspace, who create fictitious accounts, with bad intents.

If you want your freedom of speech protected, then you should be willing to stand up and speak AS YOURSELF

The death of the young girl was indeed a tragedy. Who can fault her mother for seeking justice? I cannot imagine how I would feel if Megan Meier were my child. However, Megan’s mother, her legal team, and the media have all chosen to make this case about Internet bullying. The Internet is not the issue here. Regardless of the medium used, Lori Drew did a horrible thing. If she had sent letters via the USPS, called her via a cell phone, or talked to her face-to-face, the outcome would have been the same.

Unfortunately, this is one of those lose-lose situations. Megan Meier’s family must deal with their loss. Lori Drew must deal with her conscience.

if you dig a pit , you fallin it , if you work in a stone quarry , you get hurt by stones ,What you sow is what you reap GOD WORD

“Actions that are intended to cause harm to others are not protected by freedom of anything.”

That’s not the point. The point is she was prosecuted for “computer fraud” for breaking an arbitrary terms of service agreement written up by a private party. Anyone could now be prosecuted for violating a terms of service agreement if this precedent stands, regardless of whether or not they ever intended to cause harm or not.

If we want to make a law against cyber-bullying, fine, but we should not abuse existing laws and throw away freedom of speech in the name of mob justice.

I agree with the article. This is a matter for the civil courts. She should be sued for the damages that she caused, but not be held liable for criminal action.

Clearly the woman is a jerk, but murderer? Come on, kids send these messages to each other every day and they don’t all commit suicide. The young lady was unbalanced and didn’t seem to have any parental oversight in her life. I fake personal information on the internet all the time, like in this email, to keep my personal information away from marketers and crimminals and you should too.

This is Darwinian survival of the fittest in action. The winners made it. The losers died. Lori Drew and her daughter are obviously superior specimens of humanity… I think Lori Drew and her daughter are total foxes… very sexy… They carry 3.. or 400 pounds of lard very well. They should go on Oprah so that the same mob of New Yor-KAN Americans who trampled the WalMart worker can laugh and cram Twinkies down their gullets and sympathize with poor Lori’s struggles, watching it all on the wide-screen TVs they killed trampled someone to death for…

This country is doomed.

In my opinion this case was not pursued as aggressively as it should have been. This woman is guilty of abuse, stalking, and malicious attack. To the point of 2nd degree murder. She is also guilty of trying to live her own daughter’s life vicariously. She should be committed to an institution. Her daughter will need life long counseling no doubt – how would you like to be raised and mentored by someone of this nature??? And the mother of the victim was no help either. To learn of what some children have to endure in life is sometimes just so disturbing. Many are resilient beyond belief. Others are lead to the point of no return. This woman is despicable, and I am disgusted by her, and our society. All you have to do is turn on the TV and see the current theme in life that is labeled ‘entertainment’ is abuse and criticizing of others: ‘what not to wear, how not to decorate, hell’s kitchen” and on and on. We are advertising being rude , mean and hurtful as entertainment. Next we have the gentleman who committed suicide online while others egged him on. We have a host of people who have no idea of the power of this medium, nor, how real-life interacts with on-line life. This is an American tragedy.

I disagree. Finding her guilty will help to stop pedophiles who create accounts posing as teenagers so they can flirt with other kids. This kind of thing is a necessary evil, though it will be hell to enforce.

That awful woman abused a child. She should go to prison for a long time.

I hope people in Lori Drew’s community make her life very difficult. Force her to move to a place of terrible conditions where she belongs. I would punch her in the head if she lived in my town.

A lot of people are overlooking what the author of the article is trying to say. The problem is that the definition of a “fake” page is subject to too much personal interpretation, and that by declaring that a federal offense, we open the doors for far worse actions that what Lori Drew committed. As much as I personally hate Lori Drew and what she did, I also know that she alone cannot possibly be 100% responsible for Megan’s death. Certainly Megan’s own family must bear some responsibility, where else could she have learned that a total stranger should have control over her fate? Using this anti-hacking law to punish her when that isn’t why we want her punished only creates precedents that our society will later regret.

All of the people saying she needs to be punished, I understand where you are coming from. But think about the implication that we’re all committing a crime when we don’t give out our real information online. I never do, for privacy reasons. I don’t think this lady being found guilty of a crime is worth millions of innocent people suddenly becoming criminals themselves using the logic of the judgment.

Also, people are mean to others all the time. Yes, you’ve said something to hurt someone’s feelings before. We’ve all done it. No, we didn’t all create fake accounts to make someone miserable. But if the girl never committed suicide, we’d never be even hearing about this. All of those times you were mean to someone in your life, they didn’t commit suicide. But they could have. Is what you do any better or worse depending on how someone responds to it, which is out of your control?

Look, everyone knows this lady is a horrible bitch. And I’m sure she knows she’s horrible and will suffer for the rest of her life. The judgment isn’t really going to make her life much worse, it will only effect everyone else because now just about anyone online can be considered a criminal.

This woman is an evil person. Anyone who would torment another person with the intention of causing psychological pain is guilty of torture! If we cannot do it to POW and prisoners how is it that it is legal to do it to a teenager?

That said, the conviction is a misapplication of the law. The intention of the law was not to catch people who use phony names to create identities on social websites. It was to prevent hackers from attacking a computer.

The Bill of Rights needs to be expanded to include the right to anonymity. We have the right to post anonymously and to walk/drive down the street anonymously. We have the right to just be a face in the crowd … until we break the law.

The question is should we criminalize this woman’s behavior? The answer is yes. For the good of society we need to be nice to one another. It would be child abuse if the kid’s mother did this, it is just as abusive to have another do it.

This case went way of base. Maybe if these social websites actually enforced their own rules we would have less spamming and trolling. But the fake persona aside (and for a completely different conversation) what she did was bully. And she bullied under the guise of someone else. She should be charged with involuntary manslaughter for her actions. If a real boy would have done this in person he would be in jail.

It shouldn’t be overturned. It is against Myspace’s terms of service. There are already precedents in the courts about terms of service agreements and EULAs brought about by such heavyweights as Microsoft, Sony, and Time Warner.

Now, IF - something happens like what you suggest MIGHT happen, someone is censored while making fun of a public official, THEN - THAT case should be appealed up through the court system, not this one.

The horror of this case is about verbal abuse, and bullying behavior, not anything having to do with computers, and it’s not ground breaking in any way.

“The outcome would have been the same” and it would not have been considered a crime. Come on people, sticks and stones. Remember? It’s tragic yes but jail time for wishing someone dead or name calling? If I remember, Ms. Meier said some pretty nasty things to her own daughter as well. Is it less hurtful because it wasn’t delivered electronically?

Next why dont we start putting people in jail for cheating on their spouses, or saying bad things about their presidents, both things that many people consider immoral. Obviously what this woman did was wrong, but was it illegal no!! This little girl killed herself because she had emotional and mental problems not because someone said something mean to her on the internet. At thirteen she obviously should not have taken someone so seriously on a Myspace account. All of you people who think this is illegal, are un-american an basically spit on the constitution, this woman should be banned from using myspace and nothing more, or millions of more people should be jailed because a whole lot more people then her broke this same policy. Since when is breaking a company’s policy, or terms of service ever been illegal, this is a total joke.

> I mean, come on– just because MySpace and the like don’t want us to do > certain things on their computer doesn’t mean they have the right to enforce > what we do on their computers..

well, actually they do. THEIR computers. If you don’t like or agree with the terms and conditions, go buy your own damn computers.

As for the “freedom of speech” arguments, I can suggest some reading material so you can actually study the intent and scope of the protection before just flinging it out there. Absuing the protection in this way diminishes it’s true value. Speech is legally infringed in many circumstances; a balance of the public good/private harm is always a component. Like it or not, if you use speech to incite a riot or to cause harm, it will be treated no differently than using a physical weapon, as it should be. What possibly is the “public good” of this women’s speech? Furthermore, the speech was directed against a private individual (there are more flexible boundaries around speech directed at those in “public life” in order to specifically protect political discourse), and with the specific admitted intent of causing harm. Explain how this is any different than this woman showing up the girl’s house brandishing a gun. I haven’t read the full instructions to the jury, but this woman appears to have been at the least complict in the girl’s death.

Thw woman in question was/is a sick, twisted and morally bankrupt person. Would it be presumptuous to ask if our system of “entertainment” and our passion for “popularity” are also a little sick? Are we so pathetically ashamed of who we are that we have to pretend to be somebody we’re not?

Lori Drew’s actions DID violate a law, and her actions WERE intentional, meant to cause harm to a child. She knew this child, and knew exactly what to do and say to hurt her. I’m glad we found a way to legally punish her. We the People have allowed bad people to use loopholes to avoid punishment for far too long. Its time we made our laws work for US instead of just for big corporations, greedy rich people, and manipulative liars.

The failure here rests with the Missouri AG who thinks the cyberworld and the ‘real world’ are two different realms. The laws that work on the streets of St. Louis work on the computers in St. Louis.

Jeema said: “That’s not the point. The point is she was prosecuted for “computer fraud” for breaking an arbitrary terms of service agreement written up by a private party. Anyone could now be prosecuted for violating a terms of service agreement if this precedent stands, regardless of whether or not they ever intended to cause harm or not.”

It doesn’t matter who wrote the terms of the service agreement. YOU agreed to them, period. The idea that someone can do whatever they want, even if they agree to do something else is a fundamental flaw in societies thinking.

wonder how you would feel if this was your child …ya thought so..you would want this woman to rot in jail forever . One thing I don’t get is were were the parents of this girl ? and why didn’t she share with somebody/anybody what was going on ?

I have a daughter and there is no way she wouldn’t tell me about something like this we talk about this stuff all the time the INTERNET is not a safe place for children .

The word I would use to describe this mother I wont type here but she is just a waist of space what she did was the most vile crime there is ..she killed a child and for that she should be charged with premeditated murder .

Guys, the case wasn’t about Megan’s death. It was about a violation of Myspace’s TOS. With that in mind, it’s quite obvious that she didn’t commit a crime, since breaching the TOS isn’t one. It wasn’t about free speech, murder, fraud, or anything like that. That Drew intended to harm a child is irrelevant, since that was not what she was put on trial for (and the judge should never have permitted testimony on that).

But, as long as only bad people get punished, no one seems to care about the details. Fortunately we have some sensible judges on federal appellate courts, so this decision shouldn’t stand for too long.

No “boy crazy” 13 year girl old should be “friends” with a 16 year old young man, real or imaginary. Also, if you don’t like what someone says, block them, ignore them, get rid of your myspace account. If my daughter was suicidal, i wouldn’t leave her alone in her room with a damn computer. Kids need to be outside getting exercise, not training to be a bunch of worthless zombies on the stupid ass computer.

File a class action lawsuit against ALL PEOPLE who used a fictitious name and otherwise fake info about themselves on the web. Let’s get to the bottom of this once and for all. One problem, though, who’s gonna fund it?

Just a observation:

The writer Mathew Ingram lives in the world of many people, that somehow crimes commited on the computer or over the internet are not really crimes. We have a term “White Hat Hackers” these poeple just look for nasty ways to compromise your computer security but only for “professional” research. The knowledge they share is used to harm you, well thats your fault. However, if a person where to case out your house and share the flaws of your home security with a robber (who uses that information to break into your house) I do not believe people would consider this person a “white hat” criminal. The other great example is the use of Kazaa to steal copyrighted material. The same person walks into a music store and steals a CD they are arrested.

This case is the same. Lori Drew used a computer to abuse another human being. Attacking a person by phone or in public would not have been tolerated by the public especially when the attacker was an adult and the victim was a child.

This case will lay the groundwork for holding citizens just as accountable for their actions in cyberspace as they are on the streets.

You, as most apologists, seem to miss one of the key requirements of the federal statutes. Ms Drew was charged with aiding and abetting or in plain English assisting the crimes of manslaughter, assisting suicide, and conspiracy. That is no different than handing your cell phone to some one knowing that they will call 911 and make a false report of a crime to get police dispatched. I spent 25 years licensed as an attorney by the US Supreme Court and have represented numerous people charged with conspiracy (means you don’t have to pull the trigger) or aiding and abetting (driving them to the place where the shooting occurs) in the federal judicial system. These charges will not affect someone who has phony information that they put in a terms and conditions or a phony account. It is the second step which would involve financial or physical injury that triggers the penalties. As to your link to chilling free speech, that was settled along time ago by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who pointed out that there is no free speech right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater and start a panic. Tell me what the difference between the two are. You may not intend for any one to die in either case but if they do you have committed manslaughter. If in a drunken stupor you kill another driver are you not guilty because you didn’t realize that could happen?

Unequivocally, a very serious and hateful crime was committed.

Inflicting emotional distress on anyone, let alone a child AND by a grown mother in her late 30’s no less, is like a bodybuilder punching to death a 100 lb. skinny boy. It just shows how bitter and self-loathing someone HAS TO BE to want to inflict such pain in another innocent little girl. I truly feel fir the family left behind.

What she did was child abuse, plain and simple. She abused a minor leading to the minor’s death. The fact that she wasn’t convicted on something more serious is an indication of how far we’ve fallen.

So, where is the “hate” crimes law when you really need it? Any other time, I would be against its use, but this is a case where it really would apply…

My feeling is that if it had been your daughter who had been driven to commit suicide you would not be so quick to say that it was “not a crime” and underline that phrase. Is it possible that a law can be abused? Of course! Suppose you are a torist from another country and you forgot your driver’s license in your home country a police officer stops you while you are driving your father’s car. Let’s say that you are visitng because your father is hospitalized and is in a coma and you have no other relatives. You could be arrested for driving without a licence and stealing a vehicle and you could end up in jail for 20 years. So,I guess, we shoudl not have any laws against stealing cars. They could be abused. It is an incredibly stupid argument. Someone whose actions result in the death of another person should be punished. It doesn’t matter if the intention was to kill. Drunk drivers don’t intend to kill either. But they are punished.

Homo “Sapiens” is not often enough sapient. Sadly, the genetic legacy of our rise to the top of the food chain includes the genes of the predator. While many struggle valiantly to rise above the genetic legacy, some are mired in it. For them, life is about eliminative competition and not about the opportunity of cooperation. They are killing us – literally.

The internet was once a frontier – a new world, sparsely populated, where misanthropes could exist with little impact. But, we have watched it grow to a metropolis. Anonymity is largely incompatible with a well-functioning metropolis precisely because of the people referenced in the first paragraph. So, we are witnessing the end of internet anonymity because it must be. The only factor which controls the misanthrope (or sociopath) is accountability. Even that, as we know, is of limited power. Yet, it is “our only hope”.

The good news is that there are people like the ones who have responded to this column. People who think, who feel, who consider right from wrong in a broad social context. There are those who are our hope. There are those who can be anonymous and still will act responsibly. Yet, the others are still plentiful.

One of the great opportunities of the internet has been candor – voices freed from the sometimes stifling constraints of social graces. The best instances of this opportunity have given rise to speech otherwise reserved for the private heart. Yet, there are those who cannot rise to the occasion. There are those who know life only as a battleground and not as a Garden of opportunity.

We are witness to the emergence of the first (only?) human-created world. We are witness to its opportunity and to its limitations – the latter born largely from old genes. We can celebrate opportunity. Yet, it seems we cannot celebrate anonymously. The limits of “Sapiens” requires identity so that there can be accountability.

MikeM If you are dumb enough to take abuse over the internet, then kill yourself over it, I am glad, because it means you don’t get to procreate, and evolution will keep on working.

Please remember: Madalyn Murray O’Hair

“There is no God. There’s no heaven. There’s no hell. There are no angels. When you die, you go in the ground, the worms eat you.”

– Madalyn Murray O’Hair

She had her beliefs and landed up murdered. Karma is real. We should all just strive for a happy and content world, believe in our own faith, family and loved ones. Most, please love and protect our children by getting into “their” business and reading what is on their computers. It is no different then our parents searching our rooms or listening in on our conversations when we were young and QUESTIONING us. There are and always be horrible people out there that want to harm and bully those that are weaker then they are….. KARMA will play a huge part in their days afterwords.

Keep the faith! Please stay in your child’s business….. you could save their life!

This case highlights the legal vacuum around cyber-bullying.With no laws to prosecute this heinous fiend, all that could be used were hacker laws. It’s time that congress passed some laws that would prosecute these kinds of animals and prevent this abuse of a law in order to extract justice that is do desperately needed in the death of an innocent teenager.

This case has set a precedent in law that says: ANYONE FOUND USING A FALSE NAME, or, INFORMATION, WHEN REGISTERING FOR AN ONLINE ACCOUNT (if it’s against the terms of service–the thing you agree to when you setup an online account, but never read) IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. Each offense can be punished by up to 1 year in prison and/or $100,000 fine.

Drew is a winch! This is not the way to get her!

You could not be more wrong. You are asserting a fundamental right to deceive. The internet is horribly mean and nasty exactly because people can hide their identity. In my local paper online, they publish “letters to the editor”. These are signed letters by people that have the courage to put their views forward to the public. They are generally civilized and attempt to make sound arguments. Then there is a “post your response” section in which anonymous people make universally outrageous, mean, nasty, largely idiotic comments. And this is “moderated”, meaning the worst stuff is not posted. More should be done to require people to take responsibility for their actions, not less.

To be honest, I feel bad for the entire event. But this shows us how the legal system and several individuals looking for justice will corrupt and even cheat the legal system to get a guilty plea. This lady did something wrong and she should have been charged with a child abuse crime and not a vague computer hacking crime. And were was mom and dad during this whole ordeal. Did they even pay attention to their daughter who was obviously ill and needed help? Why didn’t they control her internet use or monitor her online actions? All parties are equally responsible for this tragedy and justice should be sought without playing the system. I fully agree with the article and the comments by Jeema. The real injustice is done to the victims for circumventing the system just to get a guilty plea of a lesser crime that really should not have been sought out.

I’m sure that the higher courts will dismiss this all they way.

She definitely should have been charged, the charge was just wrong. She should have been charged with stalking and harassment, for which there are PLENTY of laws on the books. As someone who was on the end of a stalker who harassed me via the internet, I don’t think there is ENOUGH out there. When you are stalked and harassed by someone you do not even know, or know where they are, or WHO they are, it is a VERY VERY unsettling feeling. Even as an adult it was very scary and upsetting. I finally DID find out who they were, and I DID file a report with my local authorities and SHE DID GO AWAY……

The Constitution does not grant anybody the ‘right’ to post on MySpace or on any particular social networking site; furthermore, the Constitution does not grant anybody the ‘right’ to knowingly publish false information. Therefore the ruling in this case has absolutely no bearing at all on first amendment rights.

Anyone here ever get one of those so-called grocery discount cards by giving a fake name and/or fake address? Then you violated the store’s terms of service. Not only that, but you did so with the intent to commit fraud – get cash discounts that store intends only for people who honestly apply for one of their discount cards.

How would you like to be fined $100,000 and a year in prison for that? It is exactly the same thing – violation of Terms of Service with intent to commit a criminal act (fraud) – as this case.

There are some things about this article that I agree with and others that I don’t. Let’s start with the facts:

1- A young girl is dead by her own hand. 2- A mother used MySpace as a tool to insult and torment the young girl. 3- MySpace Terms & Conditions were violated.

Now, the bottom line is that yes, Megan is dead and she killed herself. She may have even killed herself if this hadn’t happened. However shouldn’t WE as ADULTS be in a position to encourage children and uplift them? If that is what you believe then Ms. Drew should have certainly done the right thing by just leaving young Megan alone. If you believe that we as adults should have nothing to do with children that are causing problems and aren’t ours, then Ms. Drew should have done the right thing by just leaving young Megan alone. Either way Ms. Drew acted inappropriately and should have found a different way of dealing with her anger towards the young girl. As adults it is our job to show young people how to be adults. This covers both points one and two above.

Now for my third point. The Myspace Terms & Conditions section 5 states this: “The MySpace Services are for the personal use of Members and may be used for promotional purposes as well, but direct commercial endeavors may only be used if they are specifically endorsed or authorized by MySpace.”

This means that you can use MySpace for your own personal use and for promotion (such as countries, religious figures, even inanimate objects). So really, if you want to create a MySpace account for your dog, cat or pet rock, by all means go ahead. However if you want to sell pet rocks, then MySpace has to endorse or authorize it.

The Myspace Terms & Conditions section 8 states this: “8.1-is patently offensive and promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual; 8.2-harasses or advocates harassment of another person; 8.5-solicits personal information from anyone under 18; 8.7-constitutes or promotes information that you know is false or misleading or promotes illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous; 8.14-includes a photograph or video of another person that you have posted without that person’s consent;”

The ones I have left out above do not, in my honest opinion, relate to this case. Ms. Drews did act out of place even within MySpace’s own T&C’s. Legally they didn’t have a basis to go after Lori Drews for manslaughter because Lori Drews did not kill Megan, she killed herself. They got her for the one thing they could: using MySpace inappropriately, however much we want her to suffer it all comes down to what Kevin said at 7:06 on 11-29-2008: “Unfortunately, this is one of those lose-lose situations. Megan Meier’s family must deal with their loss. Lori Drew must deal with her conscience.”

Thanks for your time. Sean renniefactor@gmail.com

While agree with the author’s “slippery slope” comment regarding Lori Drew’s violation of the MySpace terms of service, the argument that she should not be held accountable for her despicable actions is absurd. She acted with cruelty and depraved indifference to a child’s life and directly caused that child’s death. What she did is morally repugnant and if not outright criminal by current laws, then the laws must be changed to outlaw what she did. Pinning her prosecution on the terms of service violation was a poor choice, in my opinion, and is likely to be overturned. Torturing a child to the point of inducing suicide is at the very least the equivalent of manslaughter.

I see by your picture you spend too much time on the internet. Get Real – this old broad was out to do damage to a 13 yo girl. She should have been convicted of murder, but if this “federal offense” is the best they can find to convict her of – Then they should give her the maximum sentence for it.

It is a TWO WAY STREET, someone has to type something nasty, then another party must read it. Then decide to get so upset they harm themselves. Therefore being a victim of “cyber-bullying” is a choice. If you don’t like what is on your computer screen, you don’t have to read it…

So your argument goes something like this. Since people already break the law we should do nothing when the laws of human decency are broken but to comment on how sad this all is. Although I am a strong supporter of the first amendment this is more akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Which is not protected speech.

This is clearly a case of child abuse ending in death. Lori Drew stalked a young, vulnerable girl, and then used a computer site to torture her emotionally. Since she did not care what the consequences would be she should be held accountable. She fed upon the tortured responses of Megan Meier. Obviously a sadist, Ms. Drew knew it would end in suicide. Was there no record of the communications? That appears to be the case as the only crime she could be accused of was this trumped up one. There has to be a way to get into the computers of each of the parties in this case to find what was said.

I would give her 20 years in prison for her involvement. The US laws suck the big one this country has the morals of of the the dumbest society on earth and the society that promotes violence.

Wow… All of you are totally wrong! Our society has gone off the deep end, but not in the direction from your warped sense of reality.

Does anyone remember the old rhyme, “Stick and stones can break my bones, BUT WORDS CAN NEVER HURT ME!”

The reality is that millions of children are bullied. Only a handful are weak enough to harm themselves because of it.

This woman got exactly what she deserved. She deceived the girl by posing as a young boy. Anything more than that would have been ridiculous!

Myspace and Facebook are just tools. When is bullying someone to death not a crime? Whether it be in person or using a tool, the act is still being done.

Just because you don’t read it doesn’t make it any less of a contract. If you click “I AGREE”, then you are AGREEING to the terms. Simple as that. You are getting a free service and all they are asking in return is compliance with their terms. If you don’t agree with the terms, make your own website, or go to a different one. Anyone who doesn’t read something before they sign it is a fool, to be quite honest.

This is utterly rediculous. This woman should be locked up for life.

And by the way, this is not my real name.

There are many evils in this world, but not all of them are in violation of law. Suppose a real boy had befriended Megan Meier, not on MySpace, but in the real world, and later began bullying her. Could he have been convicted of a crime if she’d killed herself? What crime? Not a “MySpace crime”, because MySpace wasn’t used. Lori Drew was convicted on a technicality because she happened to use MySpace for her subterfuge. None of the other hundreds of violators of this technicality have been prosecuted.

There’s no doubt that Lori Drew’s acts are a sadistic evil. But not every evil is in reach of the law. The prosecutor could find no appropriate law with which to charge Drew, because the real crime is not against the law.

Think that’s my real name? NOT! Or is it? Did I violate the TOS? OMG just because one butt-hurt teenager kills herself is no reason to ban American Idol. Heck, killing yourself is a crime too, in most states.

This is the lamest case evar, it’s truly unbelievable. Furthermore, the girl’s page was ‘fake’ too! Yea, Charles Manson has a myspace lol. And a Jewtube account….

For a fresh perspective, why not see: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Megan_Meier http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Lori_Drew Yea prosecute ED, go ahead. Make everyone’s day. Oh and googleing someone’s name is called ’stalking’, amirite?

Wake up, America, you are responsible for yourself, and monitoring your kids. The web is a big bad place, get used to it. Pathetic. Three years, 300k for creating a myspace account. Anyone that does so in their own name is an effin moron, obviously. Even the kid in question knew enough to do so. Anything else would be down-right UNREASONABLE, get it?

As a parent and a high school counselor, I have to say that personally I think it’s a shame she couldn’t get the death penalty. Not only did she deliberately set up an account for the express purpose of humiliating this beautiful young girl, she did it KNOWING that this young lady already had emotional problems. As far as I’m concerned, that is premeditated. So many people are trying to turn this into a matter of freedom of speech and rights to do what you want on your own home computer. It isn’t any of those things. It’s a simple matter of an ADULT deliberately setting out to do harm to a CHILD. That is not protected by any laws in our nation. Just because you have the ability to “hide” behind your computer screen doesn’t make it okay to do whatever you want.

Jack McCoy would have had this woman’s ovaries in a blender before letting her get off.

This is so stupid. Unless you can prove that this woman was a trained psychologist/psychiatrist who knew exactly how to mess up the victim to cause the death, she should be free. If it is established that the victim was basically mentally weak enough to go kill herself because someone said something to her online, is she still guilty of murder? NO. She is still guilty of the falsified identity, but the fact that she is prosecuted for this unrelated offense is pure vengeance for parents of the victim. These are the same parents who FAILED to keep their daughter mentally strong and confident. They are just trying to find something on this woman to send her to prison. Don’t be surprised if this case is overturned, and they go ahead and prosecute her for tax evasion. What these Parents are doing is the REAL crime against all of us.

So because the rules on MySpace are routinely “overlooked” there should be no consequences for doing so? Not even a misdemeanor? And you then start throwing out rhetoric about “free speech”? You madam are way off base. Throwing out rules and regulations (yes, MySpace as a business definitely does have the legal right to have rules and regulations for their patrons) just because some people ignore them is ludicrous.

Maybe if there were a few more cases like this where people actually received punishment for their ignorant abuse of the rules, people would start reading the rule and behave in a more socially acceptable manner. Our society can only function when people have the decency and intelligence to know the difference between socially acceptable and socially unacceptable behavior. That was rules, laws, and punishment are all about. Teaching the people in society who don’t have sufficiently natural decency (like Lori Drew) that there are consequences for ignoring rules.

She KILLED HERSELF, it was HER DECISION to read what the person, real or fake, said. If you get so upset by what someone else says, that you kill yourself, then you are an idiot. I am glad that little twit never got to breed.

All modesty aside, I received that highest grade in my Constitutional Law III class in law school – that is First Amendment Law (primarily Freedom of Speech, Religion and the Establishment Clause).

One of the biggest problems we have in this country today is the lack of understanding the foundation of civil rights in a democratic society. John Stewart Mills profound treatise, On Liberty, is a great place to start educating oneself.

What Mills noted was the notion that each citizen’s rights had no basis in law or fact UNLESS they exercised their own duty to respect the rights of others. For example: Under Free Speech doctrine, each speaker has the right to speak their opinion on a particular subject. If you interrupt the opposing party during their presentation, you have just violated your duty to respect their right to free speech, and thereby undermined your inherent right to speak freely.

In the case at hand, Lori Drew had a duty to not create circumstances where another individual would be harmed (psychologically or physically) by her actions, either directly or indirectly. When she violated that duty, she cannot now claim that the vicious attacks on her persona which have made her a pariah in our society are somehow a violation of her right to peace.

Whether the right in question is one recognized under the law, or one of common civility, either way it comes down to a universal code of RESPECT. The lack of respect in this society is what is causing it’s demise. This case is indicative of why the foundations of a civility are crumbling beneath our feet.

What a convenient damn life you must live Mr. Ingram… You are so far off base it amazes.

The article author basically said that all website EULAs are invalid and non-enforceable. If that were legally true, that would start up another round of lawsuits against companies.

That said, the decision was a bad one legally. What was the unauthorized access that Drew and her co-conspirators performed? The decision was a stretch. I think something along the lines of Cowan v. Doering would be more defensible if Drew knew of Meier’s mental disorder history/medicating which was likely since the families knew each other. Now Drew nor her family and friends are mental health professionals and Meier was not in their care, but surely knowledge of someone’s mental health (vulnerability) creates liability. Or make it indirect assisted suicide. Both of these are stretches but closer to the situation than what was ruled.

The amazing thing about all of this is the lack of any efforts in avoiding a repeat in the future. The young lady killed herself, a shame no matter how it is seen or who is to blame. Guilty, yes Drew is guilty of a crime against humanity and a fellow human being. Her actions were cold and cruel. But what about how this happened and what can be done to maybe avoid it repeating in the future.

This thing called the internet has presented things that a lot of laws were simply never intended to cover or have anything to do with and it will also and already has meant new laws. True, those laws are based on location and not the world and prosecution of the laws are near impossible in some cases.

You all do it, you post to websites while hiding your identity, same as I may have done here. Why on earth would you think even for a minute you are breaking a law anywhere? Seriously, for some reason when the internet was created there seemed to be a need and demand that users on the internet be allowed to be anonymous. If memory serves me it was about internet stalkers, yes those people that could be down the street from you or your neighbor or they could be thousands of miles away from you but it was possible a person could maybe find you. Amazing, you meet people everyday but because you meet them on the internet for some reason some people feel the need to deceive about their identity. Why should anyone really have that right?

If that IP address you connect from were truly like a phone number, assigned to your name… do you think Drew would have been able to do what she did or even would have considered it? Obviously she did it because she could. Far more things could be accomplished by IPs being assigned. Consider the spam that can’t be traced… but of course it can. Consider the malware, the phishing, all of those things could be greatly reduced if the IP being used to connect from was always traceable. Internet harassment would also of course take a big drop, people tend to be much braver online than they would be in person yet “Words can hurt”. People do have reactions to words.

Close down open proxies, dont let people fool you it all could be stopped if not for the privacy people seem to feel they have a right to on the internet. People should always be responsible for their actions and held accountable. Drew was guilty of greater crimes than convicted, there was just no law in place at the time that fit.

Craig’s response is painfully stupid. A child with depression and other emotional problems does not make an informed “choice.” She is vulnerable and the whole thing was a cheap shot. Furthermore, all of the wailing about our free speech rights is kind of beside the point. I am hardly losing sleep over the idea that the government is going to expend the time and money necessary to monitor every on-line identity — I wish that was all I had to lose sleep over. Once some crime or serious abuse is committed, however, (and I’d consider suicide serious) I’m glad there is a way to find out who’s behind it. The only people I see being in jeopardy from this scrutiny are pedophiles, stalkers, rip-off artists and their ilk. I have no sympathy for Lori Drew and would love to have her cowardly lardbutt in jail for the maximum term possible. She’s got to be the lowest lifeform out there and all the whining about freedom of speech makes me ill.

We have child protective service systems everywhere in this country to prevent adult abuse of children. Lori Drew and her husband were at least briefly “caretakers” of Megan while on a vacation trip, and she certainly had intimate knowledge of Megan via a trusting relationship. Why was this not simply prosecuted as child abuse? I believe we have an overambitious DA, a well-meaning but apparently hamstrung jury verdict that will be reversed. Are the Drews off the hook? Don’t know, but I would love to know that the laws we do have in place to protect children from malicious adults have been fully applied before we let them go.

I think they tried the wrong crime. I believe it is or ought to be a crime to emotionally or physically abuse a child or conspire to do so by an adult. The crime is not to create a phoney internet identity but this woman conspired with her children to abuse another child. This is as wrong as physical abuse or involvement with child pornography. Shes a sick parent and should be tried and penalized appropriatly.

All I knew so far before reading all your comments is that Lori Drew would face a lengthy prison sentence. The fact she only gets charged with breach of agreement is bogus. But to someone’s point about Lori Drew not being the only one who contributed to this girl’s suicide might not be so far fetched. Was this girl disturbed? Perhaps but the right kind of parenting negates all that. I’m just speculating but maybe this girl wasn’t raised well and that could of have led to her tragic suicide. But regardless I don’t condone Lori Drew’s actions. About this prosecuting people with fake accounts business, not everyone is going to do what Lori Drew did. People just want to protect their identities from hackers and all those punks. We need a more fair and balanced way to handle things like this

matthew, if you felt impassioned enough to stand up and defend this pox upon our society, perhaps you would be willing to be her next victim?

would you be willing to hang at the gallows with her?

both of you are miles away from the greatness that created our society. have you ever heard of something called the bible?

So if we are being illegal by creating a fake online persona like saying I’m living in a big city to have more interaction with people, am I going to be arrested for telling a girl in a bar I’m a doctor to get her to go out with me? Isn’t that the same thing? – How many other facets of life are we opening up to this and am I going to need a contract to have friends of any kind soon? Life is a personal interpretation of our enviornment and interaction. It is my right to go my own direction in it and put forth the parts of me that I want to show – good bad or ugly. People have manipulated their personal images since the beginning of time for their own gain. Most of this goes unnoticed and accepted as part of life, It’s when you cross the line into fraud, malicious manipulation and outright crime that it becomes wrong and deserves punishmet. Lori Drew clearly crossed the line by willfully manipulating a minor in order to hurt her and in this case kill herself. She might as well have pushed this teen into oncomming traffic. Getting her for a breech of contract is a pathetic excuse for justice. Then again, we don’t even blame abusive parents for the internal damage and resulting actions of their children. Why would we blame someone elses parent?

It seems that 99 percent of the folks responding to this article miss the point. Yes, Lori Drew is the most reprehensible of people. A bottom feeder, scum of the earth, whatever. She probably should face some jail time.

However, the article was not about her, but about the misapplication of the law. Now, it seems that precedents are in place to allow the government prosecute you in criminal court and send you to jail for any infraction of boilerplate in a civil contract.

Read the EULAs for your cellphone provider, Microsoft software or the Cardmember Agreements for your credit card.

For instance, if you use online bill pay or use an ATM, violations of your Cardmenber Agreement may place you in risk of jail time under the 1986 law.

Mathwew,

Are you out of your mind? The punishment for this woman should be increased, not decreased or “overturned” as you suggest. Ther are two points here. First, she contributed to the death of another. That’s called murder, or in lesser cases, man (oh let’s be PC, woman) slauder. In either case, evidence suggest that whe intentionally brough harm to this little girl. That’s murder in the first degree.

That the judicial system is not charging her for the more serious crime, is shameful, but stereotypically not surprising. Our society at large, still refuses to hold women responsible and accountable in the same way we do men. Women quietly and in fashion rejoice in this freedom. Murder by suggestion, is just another method woman ues to kill others, along with nagging, honey do lists, and excessive talking. To excues this woman of charges, adds to a long list of already proven excuses used successfully by women to avoid conviction. These include but are not limited to PMS, Pre-PMS, Post-PMS, minstrual period, bad childhood, spousal abuse (claimed or true), and others to be invented. Shame on all of us for letting this crime continue, shame on you for expousing it.

On the lesser crime of false ID, I agree with the ruling. Why do we allow people to take on false ID’s (pseudo names), and why to you support the practice? You suggest that this ruling will infrenge on our freedom on speach. How? Every person should be held accountable for what they say, and should sign their real names. To do otherwise is dishonest. Why should a person be able to say something under a false name, they other wise would not say if their identity were known?

I contend that you Mathew and your organization are contrubuting to the continued downfall of our society by promiting “freedonm of speach” all the while promoting freedom to comitt crimes and freedom to hide from responsibility of one’s actions.

Further, I find your requirement that I attach a name to my post, and give an email address, a direct contradiction to your position on ones ability to hide one’s identity. Just for the record, I don’t mind the requirement, and yes, the information you have is my real name and real e-mail address. As a man, I have no hesitation or reservation regarding signing my name to anything I say or write, or to holding myself responsible and accountable for my speach and my actions. Evidence would suggest that characteristic does not apply to you and your collegues.

Signed,

Hank Cowell

Hey Craig,

Ditto to you kid. Hopefully you’ll go into the priesthood or something.

Sorry Mathew, but you could not be MORE WRONG. Lori Drew is an adult her actions were those of an irresponsible 10 year-old. That she was not convicted of CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE is unbelievable. Her STUPIDITY initiated a course of events that directly led to the young girls death. Most schools have zero-tolerance policies regarding bullying. While I abhor the mindless application of zero-tolerance policies, especially when dealing with children, I believe adults should be held to a higher standard. We, as a society, failed to do that in this case. In essence, we have sanctioned her mindless, juvenile, bullying…………..it was a sad day for our society and a sad day for jurisprudence.

Your whole argument is fundamentally flawed.

This ruling does not infringe in any way on first amendment rights anymore than laws preventing false advertising or slander and liable; and if you believe that it does I kindly suggest you re-read the first amendment. The first amendment does not grant anybody the right to (a) knowingly publish false information nor (b) publish information on any particular website (e.g., MySpace) nor (c) violate terms of agreement which you agreed to; therefore this ruling has no bearing at all on first amendment rights. If there was any potential for infringement of civil liberties, the ACLU would have jumped to her defense.

Also, if you want to play the lame ’slippery slope’ argument then it cuts both ways. A failure to convict Drew would also set a precedent – that it’s perfectly acceptable and not punishable by law to knowingly publish false information even if it’s for the sole purpose of causing distress or harm to another person.

Failure to read the terms of service does not excuse or justify (legally or morally) violation of same. Unless you were deceived into agreeing, then you have legally and morally accepted responsibility to abide by the terms whether you read them or not. The fact that ‘nobody reads those things’ and that ‘everybody posts false information’ does not make it morally or legally acceptable (nor a constitutional right) nor does it give you justification for opposing the ruling.

Pulllleeeezzz… There’s freedom of speech and then there’s just really bad people that do really bad things and then hide behind freedom of speech. This mother was/is out of control. In fact, IMO she should lose her own children…she’s an unfit mother. Clearly something is wrong with her. There’s no “freedom of speech” issue here. Granted, most folks don’t read the small print. Most people don’t operate on the shady side of life, either. People who do bad things should be punished. Lest we all forget that life is precious – this woman MURDERED a young child and used her computer as the weapon! The foundation of freedom of speech as not built so that people could harm others through their words. I’m so tired of a few screaming ‘freedom of speech!” for the awful words/deeds they speak. This narcissistic mea culpa is nothing but crap. Murder is murder. Taking a life if taking a life, I don’t care how many which ways so Sunday you want to try and spin it. I say “let Lori Drew hang for her misdeeds!’ She’s lucky she didn’t murder my child.

i know that most people i know would not be pushed over that edge from someone i met online. when does personal responsibility fall into play. it was her choice to end her life over someone she could have easily ignored. im not saying its ok to do something of that nature but there should be no punishment for someone elses bad decision when if not for her offing herself there would be no problem.

Police coercion is against the law ” granted this was manipultion: so why shouldn’t it apply to adults who prey on the weak and defensless children ….this was a good decision as it sends a message..after all how are world wars started by words.

In France, freedom of speech is highly restricted. It is illegal to incite people to suicide, or to violence ot even to incite racial hatred or post injurous statements. The slander laws are broad. The abuse on the internet newsgroups is extreme in a large number of instances.

The fact is that the internet is now international and the laws of each country are different. It is not impossible that a slanderous poster in the United States could be arrested on visiting Europe, tried, convicted and sent to prison.

You miss the point of intent … she should have been found guilty of conspiracy – but I am sure there is a lot of plea bargaining that went on. Her ACTIONS were what got her in trouble – and less the cloaking device. She used very poor judgement in what was happening to this young child. This is a problem with this environment. Many people are unable to really experience the effects of what they do … almost like the japanese bombers who did not see their victims. We all have difficulty recognizing the immediacy coupled with a strange psychology of making our computers very animated – we relate to the virtual world as VERY REAL. Her emotions were all based on having a very real interaction with a person – made up or otherwise. It is fine to have alter egos, pseudonyms … but when those entities start behaving in ways to wittingly harm someone – the alter egos and pseudonymns are not the ones responsible – we ARE! It is now important, in our social virtual sphere to UNDERSTAND the laws that guide us even here. And I think a lot of people don’t. They understand that even breaking into someone’s email is breaking a federal law, as is accessing personal files on someone’s computer … the guy who did that to Palin got five years. There is little information out there presented that might help inform our actions as users. I think spaces like google NOW have to have an ICON that pops up that is about this very thing … it is a search engine for goodness sake. NOT hostile – but “user guidelines” with links to country laws. So not only become aware, but also recognize our own rights. There are so many issues not yet sorted out. But this is a landmark for which many will now be able to pursue cases – where WE have not been able to. Let me tell you – having had this happen to me … it is quite scary, and there is almost NO help out there. Some actions by users are not necessarily meant to be criminal, but they are ignorant.

Regarding your “Slippery legal slope”. They need to set a precedent here because even though she’s doing this through the internet which feels “virtual”, but in fact she’s messing with someone in real life, and a almost direct cause of her death.

this was a tragic case from the beginning, but what the trial should highlight is that we don’t have precedents to cover these kind of charges. this is why I’m an active member of EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) [http://eff.org] which looks at issues like this and helps as we try and find the right balance between our electronic rights privacy, versus the current/future laws.

also, this is one of the best throughout out posts I’ve seen on this case, while most are strictly emotional, there’s more to it than just that. thanks.

Society is in decline when the law places business interest above societal standards.

The court failed to condemn malicious intent to provoke suicide, but established a endorsed the whimsical use of EULA violations.

Why do EULAs exist? When IBM developed the PC it sought to dominate the computer industry through defacto standards established by its manufacturing dominance, and tried to protect that dominance by copyrighting that BIOS. No one could legally make a compatible PC without a functionally equivalent BIOS. But then investors hired someone to reverse engineered the IBM BIOS and the personal computer industry was born.The competition increased capabilities and dropped prices. EULA says you agree not to reverse engineer.

Who does that benefit? Hundreds of companies have developed products like WYSIWYG Word processing, spreadsheets, PIMs and other creative programs that we take for granted, but they have been since driven out of the marketplace by Microsoft’s predatory practices. MS simply reverse engineered applications they coveted and used their OS dominance to cripple the originator. We ended up with poor imitations of some outstanding products. The EULA didn’t protect those companies, but it does protect MS’s ill gotten gains.

The EULA agreement violations should be confined to issues of reverse engineering — not as applied here.

The real issue was that of malicious intent. The court ignored it; the court failed.

At 8:14 am Matt asked ‘when does personal responsibility fall into play.’

ALWAYS. Personal responsibility falls into play whether you are at home or in public, whether you are anonymous on the internet or not. Always. You are always responsible for your actions. Always.

The fact that you even ask this like it’s a legitimate question shows that you need to seriously re-think your moral compass.

I’d like to point out that several of the above commenters just committed a crime. Edwin Scott, Bobbb, Jeema, Mitch, DD, Rob all quoted other comments which is a violation of restriction (j) in this site’s ToS.

Guess you should have read them first, huh? Have fun in jail.

I hope the family of the young lady get an attorney and bring this sicko to court on civil charges. This lady got off way to easy! Bring her up on civil charges! Take everything she’ll ever have..she took your daughter

I think that there HAS TO BE some punishment for this obnoxious woman who acted with no regard for the person on the other end. I hope and pray that the girl’s death haunts her for the rest of her life and that she serves the max allowed by law. it MIGHT send a message to others that there are lines in society that should not be crossed. and if it doesn’t succed in that regard, it will at least send a message to the Drew woman that SHE crossed that line.

So I’m curious. If I go around and start telling people to kill themselves and they do, I’m supposed to get the death penalty? I think what Lori did was wrong, morally, but there’s also a family of a precious child that created an environment that allowed it to happen. I think there should be more jail time, a greater penalty and believe that what she did was child abuse and should be prosecuted as an abuser to the fullest extent of the law. But neglect is also abuse. How could her parents be so criminally unaware of their child’s activities that someone like Lori Drew could have that kind of influence? I know that they have suffered and probably do feel some guilt but if they are going to prosecute parents for leaving loaded guns unattended, then logic would follow that an unattended computer with an impressionable teenager is equally as dangerous.

On a different tangent, if creating an inaccurate, unreal, made up identity online is illegal, does everyone who plays World of Warcraft go to jail? And why is it just online? What is acting if it’s not pretending to be someone you aren’t. It’s not a criminal offense, it’s art. If I want to create an alter ego for myself on My Space that says things I don’t have the guts to say, who is it hurting? More people die in car crashes every year AND criminals often use them in the commission of crimes but no one is banning cars. And for the millions of “fake” accounts there are out there on myspace and facebook, how many have lead to serious crimes? With identity theft so rampant, putting all of your REAL information out there is a risk I shouldn’t be forced to take just to be entertained on these sites.

Wow, some of you people are really hateful. It is much harder to be a teen nowadays. Megan was having problems and this fake boy was probably a lifeline for an already troubled young girl. Lori did this to be cruel and try to see if Megan would speak badly about her kid. For a grown woman and mother to torture this girl is true EVIL. How anyone stands by her I can’t understand. This was not a one time little chat. Lori set her up so she could pull the rug out from under Megan. To blame Megan or Megans parents is equally cruel. I feel bad for any drew children that have a mother with no heart. She should never get a good nights sleep again. That would require empathy which Lori Drew has none. I bet she sleeps just fine.

WOW. If all those comment writeres who supported the verdict hate America so much why don’t they move to Russia or join Al Qaeda while they’re at it? Benjamin Franklin wrote that those who are willing to eliminate freedom in the name of security will get neither freedom nor security. What the suspect did was not worthy of federal prosecution. If it was then everytime you violate a contract, which is what a website’s terms and conditions amount to, you could end up in prison for 5 years and labeled a convict for the rest of your life. There is a reason why most contracts violations are subject to civil lawsuits, rather than criminal prosecution. This was a contract violation, not a federal crime. Clearly, the court has given MySpace new powers to make federal laws. Note that Myspace was never elected by anyone.

This adult created a fictious internet account to bully a a child. What makes it different from bullying over the telephone or in person? Potential employers and volunteer organizations have a right to know just how poor her judgement is and how sadistically she can behave. She should never be in charge of children or be put in a confidential/trust position. Hopefully this conviction will work to protect the community at large.

Yet another case of not guilty by reason of vagina. They should have hung that women!

Duh seems to be able to get it all together. To require personal responsibility of an emotionally damaged child but not the alleged adult who tormented her truly boggles my mind. What kind of culture are we when so many of us place more value on our ability to anonymously abuse another than on the welfare of a child? It is unfortunate that the prosecutors in this case did not believe they could make a child abuse or manslaughter charge stick, but I for one am more than willing to give up my right to absolute anonymity if it removes Lori Drews from society. That same coveted anonymity, being part of the herd, got a young Wal-Mart employee trampled to death by Black Friday shoppers. I think it’s high time we all reexamined our values and reset our moral compasses. By the way, while I’m not an eye-for-an-eye type, I loved the Jack McCoy comment.

If Lori Drew had methodically and deliberately tortured this girl (and had fun doing it) through the United States Postal Service, would she have been guilty of mail fraud at the very least?

If the courts look at everything on a case-by-case basis trying to find mitigating factors, i cannot see how they could have found ANYTHING to soften what Lori Drew set out to do, and did do.

It’s cataclysmic that the “nobody reads that stuff” defense was used, implying that ignorance IS a defense where computer crimes are concerned, which will only add to the reasons why America has been a laughing-stock around the world.

It’s stuff movies are made of, and the bad guy (or crazy lady) should get what they deserve in the end.

As a man of peace, I am put back by some who have replied here. To say you are glad that the Girl is dead or the woman should be put to death, realy shows what this world has become. I will let the law go as it will and Pray for all involved. The computer is a pndoras box and is wide open, God help us.

Lori Drew is GUILTY of: contributing to the delinquency of a minor, corruption of a minor, reckless endangerment, manslaughter and possibly first degree murder, but not Computer Fraud and Abuse.

Justice was served in this instance and the law was correctly applied.

This article assumes that the ability to access and distribute information through Facebook, or any other commercial web site, is somehow enshrined as a part of American’s freedom of speech. This is not the case – it is not a freedom of speech issue. At the heart the question is this: does a social networking company (or any company) have the right to dictate the terms under which the services are accessed by end users?

Clearly, a company has the right to create an online platform for any specific purpose they desire: they put up the money to create the servers and software. They alone have the authority to dictate the terms under which the services of their network are provided. If my business becomes successful enough, does it suddenly turn into a “public forum”, leaving me no longer able make or enforce rules of access or conduct by those who use the service? At some level of success, does the government take over … does the business become a user-run democracy that I’d be forced to finance? That just doesn’t make any sense at all.

The author says the reason for removing a business’s right to dictate the terms of service is that many (most?) users flat out lie that about reading the terms of service: that users don’t have any intent of following those terms even as they agree to them. In any other industry, entering into an agreement with the intent to not follow the terms is fraud. The author proposes a lesser standard be applied to internet companies … apparently based on the arbitrary distinction if the company provides “social-networking” services. It is difficult to see how such an interpretation could exist without destroying the basic concept of the unlimited right for individuals to enter into contracts.

So who gets to make the rules if the user’s desire to “speak freely” isn’t compatible with the terms of service of the private system? Does a user have the ability to unilaterally modify specific terms of service if they decide they don’t like specific limitations? I propose that rulemaking is the exclusive providence of the owner of the system being accessed, and further that a user can’t just decide to ignore parts of an agreement because “everyone else is breaking the rules also”.

If you don’t read the terms of service but agree to them anyhow, or even worse, state agreement with intent to break them, don’t be angry if you get penalized for violating them. You can’t commit fraud and then be protected from the negative results of those actions by claiming a non-existent (in the context) right to free speech.

If you don’t like the terms of the Facebook agreement, then pressure to create “better” terms should be put where it belongs: on Facebook. If you can’t get them to provide terms you like, find a different social site. IMO you are going to be hard pressed to find a site with terms of service that explicitly allow the actions of Lori Drew. If they were explicitly allowed, the social site could become liable for the results of such actions – causing a greater chilling effect on the whole class of service.

The punishment was the prosecution. This woman won’t go to prison, or pay a fine, but she has suffered months of emotional turmoil (as well she should), and racked up huge legal bills. She has served up a lesson for others, and has been the object of scorn, ridicule and hatred. She knows that what she did was wrong, or at least is viewed as wrong by others. The jury got it right. This was not a felony.

Michael said “Another point, there is no freedom of speech in a private forum. You can stand on a street corner and say anything you like as long as it does not incite a riot. If you go into the store on that corner to purchase a drink to whet your throat, and say the same thing, the store owner can kick you out and tell you to never come back and you cannot do anything about it. This case has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech.”

For those that don’t know, the California State Supreme Court has ruled that stores are actually free speech zones. They can’t kick off their property for protesting or engaging in other free speech activities. This includes the right to stand in their parking lot and hand out leaflets, it also includes the right to picket and call on people to boycott the store itself. Anything you can do in a public forum, you can do on store/mall property now. The court based its ruling off of the fact that public land traditionally used as public forums is being eliminated through constant privatization and commericial development. To correct this, the CSSC has ruled that as part of the cost of operating in California, businesses must not impinge the speech rights of people on their property. Their decision, of course, applies on to the public areas such parking lot, or aisles, or other areas where the public is likely to tread. It does not apply to an office, changing room, or restroom.

The punishment was the prosecution. This woman won’t go to prison, or pay a fine, but she has suffered months of emotional turmoil (as well she should), and racked up huge legal bills. She has served up a lesson for others, and has been the object of scorn, ridicule and hatred. She knows that what she did was wrong, or at least is viewed as wrong by others. The jury got it right. This was not a felony.

Wow – there’s a lame argument – nobody reads the terms of service??? Even if true, the courts are filled with people who don’t want to be held accountable for the terms of a CONTRACT they signed because they “didn’t read the fine print”. They’re called litigants, and ignorance is not a valid defense. I doubt the mother’s lawyers would be dumb enough to try that as a basis for appeal. The only reason this woman was acquitted of the felony is that the jurors see themselves in her – we’ve become a nation of bullies with no personal responsibility, and they could probably see their niece or nephew, grandson or granddaughter, brother or sister, doing something equivalent. If she doesn’t get stripped of her parental rights, we should be ashamed as a country.

November 29th, 2008 8:01 AM PT Craig said: blah, blah, blah…

Wow Craig, was your mother a heavy alcohol drinker when she was pregers with you? You sound very unballanced. Let’s all hope you are sterile!

” her actions helped lead to the death of a young woman “

She was a 13 year-old girl ... not a woman.

If offensive speech was punishable, there would be absolutely no free speech in the US whatsoever. Speech can is only restricted when it violates national security in times of war, used to committ fraud or ID theft, or to incite race riots or other unjustified violent acts. Now if Lori actually went on her computer and used her account to deliberately get the girl to commit suicide and then bragged about it. Then, yes, she should be prosecuted for murder. But if her intent did not include making the girl committ suicide, then she has not broken any laws, except for perhaps cyberstalking which is not illegal in her state.

As stated earlier, if you don’t like the decision you change the law. As a political consultant that is exactly what I intend to do. Breaching a contract is just that. Breaching a contract. A breach of contract ought not be punishable with 5 years imprisonment unless the contract was with the government itself. I intend to make sure that MySpace remains incapable of making federal criminal laws in the US. Because this court ruling just handed them the ability to do just that and it needs to be seriously corrected.

We also need a uniform federal cyberstalking law. I don’t recognize “cyberbullying” as a seperate crime because what you call cyberbullying is actually the same as cyberstalking “the use of fake personas to cause intentional harm on another person.” If we start throwing terms around then it will only confuse the situation and make it worse. I believe most state cyberstalking laws are punishable by up to ten years imprisonment.

The outcome of this trial simply amazes me. Some of the previous comments here amaze me more.

If a person or group, in any way, contributes to the harm or abuse (physical or mental) or death of another (whether self-inflicted or not), it is a punishable crime in virtually all states. At a minimum, one would be considered an accessory to the crime. This has played out many times in courtrooms across the country. In this case, the woman, without question, knowingly contributed to the death of this girl (she knew the girl had psychological issues and suicidal tendencies).

To go off on a slight tangent: Unfortunately, this type of non-sensical, frankly juvenile (and in this case criminal) behaviour is being exhibited by too many “adults” in our society today. Instead of being parents or guardians, they want to be their childs “BFF’s”. They want to be the teenager again. Folks, please wake up.

LogicDictates

After reading a good sampling of the comments , I believe the count is guilty as charged. What makes America great is that we are in fact given the right to wander to the far fringes of civility . We don’t have the right to hurt someone in the process. It your stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet go ahead. It maybe your head in jepord Again after reading the sample I believe that most of our respondeants concluded that our society need to claim some of the blame for what is lacking in our children’s mental , physical, and emotional make up. Many of our sick parents are rearing sick children. We as a society are reaping our just rewards. Heaven help us. I might add the killing or that W-Mart worker is a sick sick commentary on Christmas. Santa shame on you

I can’t believe that there are no laws available for this type of thing other than internet related rules. Seems to me that the prosecution was lacking. Impersonating another, psychological intimidation, child abuse, ???, something. I hope her community treats her accordingly, as a pariah unfit to share their trust, a mean spirit devoid of dignity and humanity. I also hope that this woman is remorseful and thinks about what she has taught her own daughter and her immortal soul.

In my view, the verdict in this case was reasonable, if anything could be called “reasonable” in light of the human tragedy involved. Lori Drew was neither innocent nor a murderer. Her irresponsible disregard for the potential harm in the scheme she facilitated deserved not only moral but legal redress, particularly given her status as a middle-aged parent involved in conflicts between adolescents. Whether the legal validity of the verdict will be upheld on appeal remains to be seen, but the law has always used tools at its disposable to achieve justice, even when the tools were designed for different circumstances, and this is an appropriate mechanism if not abused. As mentioned in the original article, Al Capone, the murderous boss of the Chicago crime syndicate many decades ago, escaped imprisonment until he was finally convicted and sentenced for tax evastion – having failed to report the income from his criminal activities. My only suggestion for the future is that legal violations of the type involved in this case be further defined so as to exclude major penalties for terms-of-service violations in the absence of malicious intent.

Views like the one displayed in this silly op-ed piece are the reason the ‘net WILL eventually be (heavily) regulated. Even summoning up the necessary willful ignorance to try to claim that what Lori Drew did falls under”freedom of speech” protections is an example of how self-serving internet businesspeople will try ANY rationale, any justification to protect their ruleless cyber-playground. What Lori Drew did was a REAL crime that had REAL world consequences. A REAL PERSON was swindled, broken, and driven to suicide.

Jackass. Go peddle this juvenile tripe about your constitutional rights to someone who’s stupid enough to suspend logic and reason for their own private profit. Oh, wait, you don’t need to go anywhere – you work in an office full of those.

(molest – to annoy, disturb, or persecute – especially with hostile intent or injurious effect).

Lori Drew, supposedly an adult, used a fraudalent account to molest a child

This horrible woman should be sent to a mental institution without delay.

A parallel issue is the relative ease with which our online personalities can take on lives of their own. While we are as nice as pie in church and at the corporate picnic, we are perfect devils in cyberspace. It’s still crazy to me that this woman coldly and calculatedly faked a male personality to find a weakness in the poor girl which eventually led to suicide.

I wonder to what extent we all attempt to manipulate and abuse our neighbors while we claim to support family, honesty, dignity, etc.

This is on the same weird level as the people who trampled the poor guy to death at the Long Island Walmart–shoppers, hearts filled with love and the spirit of giving, stomping someone to death in the process of trying to buy Christmas presents for their loved ones. What a country. No wonder we got terrorism.

Bob said–”Now if Lori actually went on her computer and used her account to deliberately get the girl to commit suicide and then bragged about it. Then, yes, she should be prosecuted for murder. But if her intent did not include making the girl committ suicide, then she has not broken any laws, except for perhaps cyberstalking which is not illegal in her state.” Premeditated intent is the criteria for first-degree murder (that’s why I wrote “possibly first degree murder”). One’s intent is irrelevant to manslaughter and reckless endangerment.

Mathew, your argument is childish in it’s simplicity. “Everyone does it!” I hear 3 year olds say that. ANY social networking site is PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you violate their TOS, you CAN be prosecuted. And holding your breath until you turn blue won’t change the law. ;)

Look, charge her with an actual crime. Charge her with harassment, that’s what she did. Charge her with manslaughter. Charge her with conspiracy. Charge her with something that she did. What would she be charged with if it was done through letters? Charge her with that. DO NOT charge her with something as stupid as “unauthorized access” under the CFAA because of creating a fake profile. A good lawyer will get that overturned in a jiffy, either that, or it will set a chilling precedent for everyone else. Any profiles for pets now become felony violations of US law. That is how the law, and precedent, works. Just to be clear, based on this case, she is NOT being punished for harassing the poor girl, she is being punished for creating a fake profile on Myspace. Possible 3 years in jail for creating a fake profile on Myspace. Not what she did with the fake profile, but just creating it.

To me, that sets a very, very scary precedent. Shame on the prosecutors for being this lazy and not charging the woman for the crimes she DID commit.

I agree with what Dan said about the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Bill, apparently in the state of California, because the public visits the MySpace website millions of times a day, the website is no longer a private forum but a pubilc forum. Right now, as the law is written, everything you put on your myspace, is automatically public information. That includes all the personal info that you or your children post about yourselves. There are a host of serious problems this leads to. Stalkers and crazed ex’es are the least of your worries. If a university doesn’t like the opinions you post, they can deny your child admission. If a school doesn’t like your child’s opinion or your views that you post on Myspace, they can suspend your child or kick him out of school. Employers are wrongfully using your opinions which you posted on Myspace, to decide whether you should be fired or hired. Even when your opinions have nothing to do with your ability to do your job. So, in a very real sense, MySpace is not a private forum, it is public forum that is too often being used against you. It’s a situation that needs to be changed. We need a law that says your employer can’t go on to your Myspace page, and then punish you for your expressed political or religious opinions, or how you live your life if it has nothing to do with your job. There needs to be a law that says your child’s school can’t suspend him/her just because he posted on his Myspace that he doesn’t like Democrats or white people. The fact that such a law does not exist to protect you, has a greater chill on your free speech rights, than even making violating a TOS a federal felony does. Because it happens more frequently than the latter.

It is a good thing we have trained judges and officers of the law to conduct our trials according to the laws of the country. It is obvious from many of the opinions expressed on this thread, our country would be in one hell of a mess if our trials were run based on public opinion.

Guilty of what? Impersonating a teenager THAT IS ALL ! This woman did NOT contribute to the girls death. This girl was NOT tough enough to live, plain and simple. She obviously had severe emotional issues LONG BEFORE she hung herself. Suicide is an easy escape for the cowards of the world. If living was easy, everyone would be doing it! What’s next in this country? Being accused of torture for calling an obese girl fatty?

To push someone over the edge, mentally or physically, is beyond cruel. And yes cruelty should be considered a crime. To do such from behind a digital wall is worthy of the deepest condemnation. If only I were allowed I would personally put a large caliber bullet though her small caliber brain.

Now we are just getting absurd…

This was a 49 year old women who used a computer to create a false relationship with a 13 year old girl with the only intent was to inflict emotional damage.

I haven’t read all the posts in this string but it might be instructive to look into past prosecutions of “violation of terms” cases related specifically to the creation of phony accounts by internet users. I’ll bet these cases are only investigated and prosecuted when financial fraud, harassment and bullying, &c. are reported or involved. Btw, the article describes the victim as a “young woman” but actually she was a child, just 13 years old. And so we have the conspicuously offensive situation of an adult “going after” a child. Had she been an adult, probably this would not have been riveting front page news.

Is it against the law to shout “Go ahead — Jump!” at a potential suicide on a ledge? Is it against the law for an ambitious mother to confont her daughter’s rival, face-to-face, with taunts and contempt and encouragement to blow her brains out because she’s ugly and unpopular? I don’t think so.

To use other laws which a not relevant to the particular crime, to make an end-run in order to nab the perpetrator, is a common tactic. It was used against Richard Nixon, against Bill Clinton, against Scooter Libby, against Ted Stevens. And now against this mother. (Al Capone’s case is not comparable.) My term for it is “chickenshit prosecution”. Ingram is right: Where does it stop? Applying irrelevant laws to nail a perp for another crime may bring political satisfaction, but it sets a precedent for future abuse.

Bad acts not covered by criminal statute are torts. Torts are remedied in civil court. This is where the case should have gone in the first place, and I have a feeling it still will. The victim’s family should choose a venue, where case law is tough on such behavior, and bring a wrongful death suit.

The conduct here is reprehensible. It brought about the death of a girl. It is appropriate that the perpeptrator’s life should be ruined. A skillfully prosecuted lawsuit resulting in a huge financial judgment will ruin her life. This is appropriate punishment for “civil murder”.

Please don’t tell me that the Queen of England, Prince Phillip, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, etc. wanting to be my “friends” on FaceBook are not the real people. I am so hurt. LOL

But, seriously, you make very good points in your analysis. I always warn about slippery slopes of being a police state (on top of how Bush & Co. already have been spying on us). But, an alternate point of view is this.

Nobody goes to federal prison for stealing a hammer from Home Depot, but using it for pre-meditated murder would land them there. Law enforcement has to use what they can to put psychos like this MURDERER woman away while, of course, ensuring, you are not penalized for having a Gmail account saying you are a Prince of your own state. :-)

Also, someone’s point of view that the girl was weak (or would have killed herself anyway) is as foolish as saying a hit-and-run driver who crippled a polio victim didn’t make things worse as the victim couldn’t walk properly anyway.

Imran “Live, Forever” – http://neternity.org http://imran.com/media/blog/

This is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who is f_____ up enough to off themselves got that way a long time ago. It didn’t just happen because someone hurt their feelings on myspace. Perhaps the girls mother should take a look at her own shortcomings as a parent. How did this child get so screwed up to begin with?

This article is idiotic; you can’t go into a private business and cry freedom of speech when you get kicked off the premises for campaigning for your favorite politician.

I don’t think this is “close to impinging on free speech” because it is illegal to harass someone. I think its called libel. I don’t think the fed’s are going to start arresting everybody with a fake myspace page. Only those people who use them to engage in illegal activities.

>>>This is utterly ridiculous. Couldn’t agree more. >>>Anyone who is f_____ up enough to off themselves got that way a long time ago. That has been stated, and it make that whores actions worse. She KNEW that 13 year old had mental issues. Knew she was on anti-depressants. So as long as I target someone that’s unstable I can’t be held accountable for what I do? (rolls eyes) >>>It didn’t just happen because someone hurt their feelings on myspace. Right. a 49 year old adult psychologically attacked a 13 yaer old girl who she knew in real life. And discussed sexual activity. If this was a 49 year old man, it’d be a sexual predator case. >>>Perhaps the girls mother should take a look at her own shortcomings as a parent. It sounds like the mother monitored who was on her friends list on myspace. Perhaps you should know what you’re talking about before you post and show how ignorant you are. >>>How did this child get so screwed up to begin with? Who knows? How did you get as screwed up as you are? Everybody is born with different chemistry. Plus she was THIRTEEN. Her brain wasn’t fully developed. Lori was FORTY NINE. I can’t belive some people are defending that she-devil. Must be relatives. Or Lori herself since she seems to be a master of accounts under different names.

I’m not a lawyer but I view this as ‘entrapment’. An older woman tried to seduce a 13 year old girl, cause her emotional distress and not only succeeded but her actions were a contributory factor in that girl’s death. Lori Drew holds some culpability here as I view what she did as a crime – be it voluntary or not.

Perhaps I’m biased as someone with children but I have no pity for Lori Drew. I don’t believe that she should be put to death as others suggest but ‘involuntary manslaughter’ seems appropriate. I think she got away easy. I’m curious that if the tables were turned, what would Lori Drew ask for in terms of justice if someone did the same to her daughter?

It is ridiculous to even think that people are considering this an illegal activity in the first place. Yes, the mother showed extremely poor judgment; but are we to blame every possible negative comment that a teenager may encounter from someone as an illegal one? I really do not believe that this mother sought for this child to kill herself – even as far as she decided to go with it.

The fact is that this case should have involved her parents, too. Were they completely unaware of what their daughter was doing? Suicide isn’t usually performed so easily by normal teenagers. It’s clear that this girl may have been suffering from pre-existing mental impairments. If we’re going to take this case to this level, I think we should examine everyone involved. Because this case could have easily involved an actual teenage boy who said these things. Would that teenage boy had been charged for anything, too? These are serious legal implications that could extend farther than even just the Internet. As horrible as the loss of her life is, I don’t think we can really put the blame of suicide on someone; otherwise, we might up end with a longer list than we’d like to admit.

And one more additional comment. This was not ‘involuntary manslaughter.’ Yes, she was reckless in her decisions made with the account, but one cannot possible view this as involuntary manslaughter. The teenager decided to end her own life. Despite the fact her brain might not have been fully-developed (which occurs around the age of 25), she still shouldn’t have naturally had an inclination to end her own life. As I said, there were pre-conditions there that the parents should have been aware of. And if we are going to examine this a ‘blame game,’ perhaps we should be looking in all directions.

There are some really callous and heartless comments! Anyone in defense of this evil bi& Lori Drew needs to have their head examined! There is no question that Jerry Springer and all the other low life forms of entertainment in this world have taken their toll on humanity! It seems that people these days get their thrills from the degradation, pain and suffering and humiliation of others. The harsher the price the victim pays the more amusing it is for the twisted viewer. Values are a thing of the past. These are the last days! The decline of the American empire is fast approaching! God and Religion are out and Jerry Springer and his ilk are in! God have mercy on us all!

MM was 13 years old so stop holding her to adult standards. If you think violating TOS is a crime than go work for the Federal Prosecutors. MM had no adult supervision. Her parents did not divorce for the fun of it. The AG failed everyone.

>>>It is ridiculous to even think that people are considering this an illegal activity in the first place. Yes, the mother showed extremely poor judgment; but are we to blame every possible negative comment that a teenager may encounter from someone as an illegal one? I really do not believe that this mother sought for this child to kill herself – even as far as she decided to go with it.

Robert, please read all the detail of the case before you open your ignorant mouth. The parents DID oversee her online activity. The dead girl had a history of mental problems that Lori Drew KNEW about and decided to mess with her anyway. If the person posting possible negative comments is a 49 year old pretending to be a 16 year old boy, yes that should be illegal. They also discussed sexual activity. If this was a 49 year old man she’d be in jail without bail. A lot of people in jail didn’t intend their actions to lead to the consequences they did. That’s why we have degrees of culpability.

>>>The fact is that this case should have involved her parents, too. Were they completely unaware of what their daughter was doing? Suicide isn’t usually performed so easily by normal teenagers. It’s clear that this girl may have been suffering from pre-existing mental impairments. If we’re going to take this case to this level, I think we should examine everyone involved. Because this case could have easily involved an actual teenage boy who said these things. Would that teenage boy had been charged for anything, too? These are serious legal implications that could extend farther than even just the Internet. As horrible as the loss of her life is, I don’t think we can really put the blame of suicide on someone; otherwise, we might up end with a longer list than we’d like to admit.

Once again. Pleaser know what you’re posting about, because all you’re doing is pronouncing your ignorance. THAT’S WHAT MAKES IT A CRIME!!!! It WASN’T a 16 year old boy. It was a 49 year old woman. Who KNEW her. The only thing I can think of is that you are a jerk in your real life, and now you fear you may actually be held accountable for the evil things you do/say to people.

>>>And one more additional comment. This was not ‘involuntary manslaughter.’ Yes, she was reckless in her decisions made with the account, but one cannot possible view this as involuntary manslaughter. The teenager decided to end her own life. Despite the fact her brain might not have been fully-developed (which occurs around the age of 25), she still shouldn’t have naturally had an inclination to end her own life. As I said, there were pre-conditions there that the parents should have been aware of. And if we are going to examine this a ‘blame game,’ perhaps we should be looking in all directions.

Wow. Who made you judge and jury? Not only were her parents aware of her mental problems. Lori Drew was aware of the girl’s mental problems. THAT’S part of what makes this criminal IMHO. Dude, I hope I never have the displeasure of meeting you in real life.

>>>Values are a thing of the past. These are the last days! The decline of the American empire is fast approaching! God and Religion are out and Jerry Springer and his ilk are in! God have mercy on us all!

Actually, it’s generally ‘religious’ people that do these things. ‘god’ and religion are responsible for 99% of the evil in the world. If you read the whole story she was part of St.Peter’s chamber of commerce. So don’t say that it’s a lack of religion that made this happen. After all it’s the bible, that 2000 year old book of jewish fairy tales that says eye for an eye. Judgment etc….

I think this woman deserves to die a painful and slow death.

Once again, crazy suburban on both sides on the loose. I am truly sorry the girl is dead, but she was truly unstable and dellusional. She needed to be under 24 hour care and not walking around in society when people are going to call you names and not treat you kind or fair in many cases. So, what is next? Another girl calls another girl fat in school and the overweight girl kills herself? Now, we move to prosecuting the person? What happened to parents teaching their children “stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?” Where are parents raising their children to stand tall against all adversity? People want the easy route for their children and it’s never going to happen.

This mentally challenged mother should be locked away in a juvenile detention facility, because of her childish actions. She obviously is a threat to civilized society, and to children. Hope she gets the maximum possible and if we are lucky, she will self-destruct.

>>>Once again, crazy suburban on both sides on the loose. I am truly sorry the girl is dead, but she was truly unstable and dellusional. She needed to be under 24 hour care and not walking around in society when people are going to call you names and not treat you kind or fair in many cases. So, what is next? Another girl calls another girl fat in school and the overweight girl kills herself? Now, we move to prosecuting the person? What happened to parents teaching their children “stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?” Where are parents raising their children to stand tall against all adversity? People want the easy route for their children and it’s never going to happen.

Dude, I weep for anyone under your care. This wasn’t a case of a teenager harassing another teenager. This was a fully grown 49 year old woman that created a fake identity to harass a 13 year old girl that she KNEW had some mental issues. 13 year old shouldn’t have to worry about adults posing as kids. If Lori Drew was a man this would be a sexual predator case, becasuse sexual activity was discussed.

What nonsense!..The woman was participating in a cruel hoax against an underage teenage girl which resulted in a death..Are you people on drugs?..Of course she deserves to be tried and if found guilty convicted…Change the “computer/internet” for “forged diary” or “forged letters mailed to the girl”..I wish most of you whom commented were as worried about the vicitm as you were about the “perp” rights..Read the trial transcripts..you’d have to be not very bright to suggest she didn’t deserve some punishment..She was cruel, ignorant and arrogant..and she broke the law! Hopefully, some jail time and a huge fine..and I’d not let her keep her kids ..I’d suggest she’s failed the parenting portion here..She seemed gleeful when the neighbor girl suffered..She is an adult who tried to destroy an underage neighbor..and she worked at it very hard..Lock the bitch up! Try growing up and being an adult who is responsible for his or her actions and words..In the end it turns out she was a big fat bully ..one who broke the Law..

Anyone who comes on here defending what Lori Drew did is admitting they have done some crummy things they’d like to feel okay about.

Sad.

The relevant sections of the MySpace terms are:

Secion 8 Prohibited Content includes, but is not limited to Content that, in the sole discretion of MySpace.com: …7. promotes information that you know is false or misleading or promotes illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous;…

Prohibited activity includes, but is not limited to:

…6. attempting to impersonate another Member or person;…

This is not a case of someone trying to secure their privacy or creating a humorous profile. This is a deliberate attempt by one MySpace user to mislead another user into believing they are a different person. It’s the difference between introducing yourself as John Doe at a party and representing yourself as a doctor to gain confidential information. It’s not a slippery slope at all, it’s the reasonable extension of existing laws into a virtual environment.

So, you are saying that people should be allowed to violate federal laws for purposes of social engineering and manipulation of vulnerable minors? Because social engineering and manipulation of vulnerable minors falls under the umbrella of free speech?

I’m sorry, but if people violate the MySpace terms of service (which they must certify that they have read before they can set up an account), they do so at their own peril. If people have a problem with the terms of service, they should contact MySpace about changing the terms of service. They should not just break the rules and assume everything will be fine because they find the rule unreasonable or because thousands of others may also be breaking it. Thousands of people drive over the speed limit for a variety of reasons, but none of that prevents the police from issuing a citation if you violate the law.

GigaOM again not understanding the CRIME here. You people would advocate the idiot mom walk off with NO penalty?

Amazing, liberal mindset gone INSANE.

This was a crime of Child Abuse that resulted in death, and when the parents of that little girl confronted the perpetrator, her response to them was, “Get over it.” In my book, that makes her an unrepentant murderer who should go to prison for the rest of her life, both because she’s dangerous and justice demands it. Just thinking of that degenerate walking free gives me a migraine.

So a fat ugly middle aged adolescent gets away with basically killing a young girl. Bravo America.

I notice the term “Freedom of Speech”. The are restrictions to this. We keep noticing the use of this as if it was unlimited. It is not. Just say something your boss doesn’t like and see what happens!

As a parent, I have difficulty conceiving that I would want other than to have Lori Drew punnished for her role in the death of my daughter. However, given that I have the luxury of some emotional distance, it is clear to me that the conviction is for the wrong act. Mere words are not enough for criminal charges here; they belong in a civil matter. In it extremely important to remember that website terms of service are merely contractual. They are also generally non-negotiable, like signing for a car loan (if you want the car, you’ll sign the paperwork). In our society, we can not allow language on a website to become the basis to criminally entrap ourselves, the way Lori Drew has been treated by these adventurous officials.

The Internet has brought out the best and the worst of us. But day after day, the worst side is winning.

In the recent case of the Floridian who committed suicide, other people online egged him on…not unlike the sick morons who would yell jump to someone on a ledge.

You know what? I think it’s time for all of us to unplug. Get outside. Reveal your true identity and have face-to-face conversations with people instead of hiding behind the cloak of the Internet’s so-called anonymity. It’s a time toilet anyway.

And as for this so-called “mother” who taunted this poor girl, put her behind bars. It will make the rest of the twisted-minded out there possibly think twice about doing the same thing.

I agree with Gary Gedes’ comments.

The fully conscience intent of an adult who targeted the vulnerabilities of a child and used them to design site specific implements of torture caused the outcome here, not getting a bad grade on a report card.

Will this incident change this woman’s nature?

Without noteworthy legal response to the incident, and the outcome largely left to the unfolding of time- can we imagine the lessons that are being taught to the woman’s children?

And what is left in the lap of the family of the girl that died?

And Joe, I don’t know your age but the Christian country that I grew up in was a far better place than it’s become. Now I know it’s very cool and sophisticated to bash Christians, especially Catholics in this warped society of ours while lauding every other form of faith but sweetheart, you are dead wrong in blaming all the ills of the world on Christians. Try reading some actual history for a change.

>>>Amazing, liberal mindset gone INSANE.

Grow up. The fact you take this tragedy for an excuse to attack the left shows your sense of morality. Stupid Ditto-head.

Oh no there’s blame to go around. Jews, muslims, hindu, add your religion here. You mean the history the catholic church has written? I find your ignorance hysterical. But okay. Whay part of history do you want to discuss?

The inquisition?

The Crusades?

The IRA in Ireland?

9/11?

Salem witch trials?

The holocaust?

Gee Joe, I don’t remember mentioning the word liberal. Are you saying that liberals hate Christians?

>>>MikeM said:

>>>GigaOM again not understanding the CRIME here. You people would advocate the idiot mom walk off with NO penalty?

>>>Amazing, liberal mindset gone INSANE.

Sorry Kathy, but not everything is about you. ;)

But I do acknowledge your lack of wanting to discuss history all of a sudden.. LOL

And Joe, by all means, tell me all about the crusades. What started that whole fiasco again? Go ahead, google real fast. Witch trials? Pretty much caused by a hallucinogen Hitler wasn’t a practicing anything other than a nationalist. IRA, between 2 christian sects. 9/11, has anyone fully figured that one out yet? And by the way Joe, I’m not a member of any church including your church of liberalism.

Kathy I will also add they you, the ‘christian’, was the first person to use the word hate.

Mathew,….You said,…….”Anyone who altered their name, their age, or their gender for virtually any purpose — benign as well as harmful — would be liable to federal prosecution.”

It’s not “would be”,……IT IS. Yep, already so,…….that’s how they got the conviction in the first place. So hiding your identity is not a good idea and considered by law enforcement to be an action that a crook would use to avoid detection,……..just as Lori Drew did. Maybe a public flogging would be more appropriate in this case,……..

It’s true Joe, I do actually hate liberals but I don’t remember saying that I’m a Christian. Does a person have to be a christian to hate liberals?

>>>And Joe, by all means, tell me all about the crusades. What started that whole fiasco again? Go ahead, google real fast.

I don’t have to google. Arrogant Christians who thought their ‘holy land’ was being defiled by another religion.

>>>Witch trials? Pretty much caused by a hallucinogen.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!! An excuse/theory that can’t be proved and what christians cling to so their ancestors don’t look like the superstitious fools they were.

>>>Hitler wasn’t a practicing anything other than a nationalist.

He was a member in good standing in the catholic church until his death.

>>>IRA, between 2 christian sects.

EXACTLY!!!

>>>9/11, has anyone fully figured that one out yet?

Yeah kinda weird 7-8 years later and we don’t know.

>>>And by the way Joe, I’m not a member of any church including your church of liberalism.

The church of Limbaugh?

The girls mother is at fault, she attempts to live in ignorance and blame others for her shortcomings as a mother. The courts should be looking at removing custody of the girl from her.

If the girl has not been raised in a loving environment with a good feeling of self-worth for herself, she has only began on a most terrible life; one where she will be in constant need of making others responsible for her serious handicap(s.)

A most terrible situation. One where the messenger of doom is the one executed. The courts fail the American people in a similar fashion as the mother failed her daughter. Sad, so very, very sad …

JS

>>>It’s true Joe, I do actually hate liberals but I don’t remember saying that I’m a Christian. Does a person have to be a christian to hate liberals?

Well I hope you are strong enough to control your hate. It’s usually hand in hand but not 100% needed.

Now, go back to your hatred. At least you’re honest about it. I weep for people who know you though. Imagine… actually HATING someone for their beliefs.

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For a good person to do bad things you need religion.

It seems to me that there is some confusion between law and justice. The actions of the accused in this case demand justice. But the law does not provide an avenue for that justice. The slippery slope is when we insist on justice even if in the end the vehicle for that justice opens up the possibility of future injustices. There was no law that directly applied to this case. So the prosecutors had to dig and scratch and prosecute her based on what they could cobble together. In the end, the justice will be slight (3 years max and a $300,000 fine seems rather a slap on the wrist given the consequences of her actions), laws will still not exist that can deal with this, and precedent will have been set for potential abuse of existing law.

“Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For a good person to do bad things you need religion.”

That’s the great thing about freedom of speech. It allows people to say truly stupid things.

And this is a truly stupid example of free speech.

Yes Joe, I deal with my hatred toward liberals by pretty much avoiding them when I can and hope you can do the same with the conservatives you stumble across. And please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by saying that you don’t hate anyone. I suppose it may be a matter of linguistics. When I hate someone, I don’t wish them ill, I simply don’t want anything to do with them. But come on Joe, there’s a big old culturalSo war going on in this country and hate plays a very large part. As long as people that I don’t agree with, don’t infringe on me in any way-particularely financially and physically, I say live and let live. So live and be happy Joe.

>>>Yes Joe, I deal with my hatred toward liberals by pretty much avoiding them when I can and hope you can do the same with the conservatives you stumble across.

I don’t avoid ANYONE because of their/poiltical or religious beliefs. Why would I do that? If we had to avoid people who thought differently than us where would anyone go? Boy you are warped.

>>>>And please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by saying that you don’t hate anyone. I suppose it may be a matter of linguistics.

I don’t hate anyone unless they’ve done somehthng to me personally that is damaging.

>>>When I hate someone, I don’t wish them ill, I simply don’t want anything to do with them. But come on Joe, there’s a big old culturalSo war going on in this country and hate plays a very large part. As long as people that I don’t agree with, don’t infringe on me in any way-particularely financially and physically, I say live and let live. So live and be happy Joe.

So do you think it’s okay for YOUR views to infringe on others?? By spouting your hate on here I would say, like usual, a right wing hypocrite nutjob.

I think the cow should be BBQ’ed. What a monster. And that massive daughter should be fixed before she reproduces. These are not complete people. There is something missing. I bet they voted McCain/Palin.

>>>That’s the great thing about freedom of speech. It allows people to say truly stupid things.

>>>And this is a truly stupid example of free speech.

I know, I know, you nutjobs wished the 1st amendment didn’t include questioning your precious book of fairy tales.

So Joe, what you’re saying is you enjoy hanging with conservatives? Come on. And you have to be hurt personally to hate someone? So, you don’t hate the people that owned and abused slaves? I really doubt that. And if I hate someone and don’t want anything to do with them, I honestly don’t see where that’s infringing on them in any way. I’m not being at all hypocritical here but I think you may be trying very hard to portray something you really aren’t. I honestly don’t believe that liberals are aware that the bad feelings go both ways. The popular culture as a whole has supported the liberal doctrine to the point that liberals believe that they’re in the large majority and that just isn’t the case. This country seems to be split right down the middle and it could end tragically or there could be some sort of compromise-who knows. I’m honestly hoping for some sort of compromise at some point which of course means each group has to give a little and really, who cares whether or not we hate eachother as long as we all can coexist and not harm one another?

This woman should be punished only for saying nasty things. How the girl responded to the nasty statements is not important.

Harassment, sure. Breaking into computer systems, no. Murder, no way.

If the girl responded to a social networking site in such a way I doubt she would have made it through high school!

I am very worried about the trend of ostracizing anyone with intellect beyond the middle school level. I am so tired of hearing/reading the word “elitist”. The right did this throughout the election. Very similar to the Stalinists, Nazis and Mao. Go after the intellectuals. Turn the middle class against the educated. A few decades ago, the thinktankers were mostly conservatives. Now the Republican party caters to redneck trash. What happened? I resigned my 40 year affiliation with GOP and voted Obama. The inclusion of Palin was more than I could take. We must not glorify ignorance. And keep religion out of politics. Want to be just like Islam?

I hope she’s viciously attacked in prison and comes out feet first.

Well, I do agree with chris. But that sow still needs to pay. She is a sub-human piece of MO white trash. Send her to Detroit.

The writer is an imbecile or worse. He’s trying to use some logical argument that excuses a murderous conclusion. Perhaps it will happen to your family writer–then we can look forward to a re-publication of this article.

>>>So Joe, what you’re saying is you enjoy hanging with conservatives? Come on.

It’s true LeFou. Luckily I am not filled with hate by the talking heads of my side like Limbaugh/Hannity/Drudge/O’Reilly does to you.

>>>And you have to be hurt personally to hate someone? So, you don’t hate the people that owned and abused slaves? I really doubt that.

Didn’t know them. I can’t hate someone I don’t really know. It’s counterproductive. I think they were wrong, and they used the bible to support what they did, but I didn’t KNOW them so how could I hate them?

>>>And if I hate someone and don’t want anything to do with them, I honestly don’t see where that’s infringing on them in any way. I’m not being at all hypocritical here but I think you may be trying very hard to portray something you really aren’t. I honestly don’t believe that liberals are aware that the bad feelings go both ways. The popular culture as a whole has supported the liberal doctrine to the point that liberals believe that they’re in the large majority and that just isn’t the case.

Yep. I’d say the country splits 53% LIBERAL TO 46% CONSERVATIVE.

>>>This country seems to be split right down the middle and it could end tragically or there could be some sort of compromise-who knows. I’m honestly hoping for some sort of compromise at some point which of course means each group has to give a little and really, who cares whether or not we hate eachother as long as we all can coexist and not harm one another?

How nice of you to hope there is compromise now that you idiots don’t have control of anything. We tried it the conservative way and look where we are. In 2 wars, attacking other countries, broken economy, Strained relationships with our allies.

I say, let her pay not to go to prison….. Why should we pay for her prison time?? If people paid fines it would still work and us tax payers would be better off!!!!

“Yep. I’d say the country splits 53% LIBERAL TO 46% CONSERVATIVE.”

I doubt it. Lots of people voted against a “colored” candidate. On the other side, many people voted against a moron (Palin). I know many Repubs that were sickened by Palin and her message of ignorance.

>>>I doubt it. Lots of people voted against a “colored” candidate. On the other side, many people voted against a moron (Palin). I know many Repubs that were sickened by Palin and her message of ignorance.

Wouldn’t that equal each side out and get to wha I said. First off, if there were any republicans that governed on their supposed politicaql beliefs I would LOVE the party.

Can you nmae one republican president in the last 30 years that didn’t either grow the size of government, raise or create new taxes, or were fiscally responsible??? Unfortunately they’ve hitched their wagon to the religious right. That’s ALL they have right now.

The person who should be in the most trouble here is the mother of the dead girl. She is guilty of blatant child neglect.

I’m as liberal as the day is long but you can’t tell me that Ms. Drew isn’t a monster and monsters should be destroyed. There is such a thing as justice!

Ahhh, but it WAS a crime – just not the crime she was charged with. I cannot for the life of me understand why she was not charged (on a state level) with child abuse – both of the girl who hung herself and of Drew’s own daughter. Psychological and emotional abuse IS covered by child abuse/neglect statutes, and it is inconceivable as to why she was not so charged. Cyberstalking (which was the intent behind creating the false persona and deliberately targeting Megan with intent to harm, for the sole purpose of harassment) IS also a crime punishable by law.

I believe the girl’s mother has suffered enough. There is no excuse for that trailer trash Drew taking advantage of a depressed teen. She is a monster. Her fat daughter is obviously not the smartest cookie in the jar. Mother/daughter – both loser sub-human mutants.

>>>The person who should be in the most trouble here is the mother of the dead girl. She is guilty of blatant child neglect.

I pray you never procreate. If you already have I hope DHS investigates your household.

The rule of law must also rule in cyberspace. I just don’t know where some people’s heads are on this subject if they can hope for a brutal Lori Drew to win.

JoeFromQC – You are an idiot. People coming in here aren’t defending the woman who did this. What they are trying to say is this woman broke a lot of laws, none of them need to be charged as a computer offense. It is a dangerous precedent to set to make it illegal to be anonymous on the internet. Or at least as anonymous as you can be. This girl had mental problems, where were her parents? She should have been seeing counselors, not surfing the web. People don’t want to take responsibility any more. The woman who did this needs to spend many many many years broke financially while paying restitution to the family for her evil acts. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the 13 year old girl would have probably killed herself for some other reason like a real boyfriend dumping her or one of her best friends getting tired of her being depressed and cutting ties. Or even just a random bad day. It was bound to happen without parental and psychological intervention.

<>

Sooo…lemme see here…if I break into your house sometime, don’t steal anything or change the locks, just you know…look around, explore the design of your house and go through your drawers and everything…just for my education, ya dig… I should not be arrested? Simply for exploring? That is some argument, brother!

Your argument makes perfect sense to me. I mean is NormalNorbit or Zack in the Box a REAL name- guess it’s time to call in the Feds.

On a side note: Exactly how does one raise a daughter that is so fragile, desperate, and starved for love that she commits sucide over a stupid BOY!- a boy for Christ sakes- just think about that for a minute. How do you raise such a damaged child- do you just not give a @##$ about them? I don’t get it. My kid thinks the sun rises and sets on her and no dumb boy could EVER convince her otherwise. Parent your children.

>>There are a certain percentage of computer users who, using fake accounts, backdoors, operating system vulnerabilities, and the like, to explore how security systems work in network based operating systems. This percentage of people I am referring to do not damage the remote computer systems, steal files, or lock their rightful users out– they simply explore the design and operation of these advanced computer networks. Similar to the argument in this article, their right to an education is impinged if they are brought to trial under the same Computer Fraud and Abuse act– simply for exploring.

My first statement is in reply to this quote.

I don’t understand this at all. The girl thought that this was a real boy. She had no idea that “he” wasn’t who she claimed to be. And this girl killed herself. I hate to sound harsh, but like someone else said on here, I doubt she would have made it very long in life. The girl probably was depressed or something. Working in mental health hospitals part of my life, I’ve seen certain things that I’ve grown familiar with. No child should want to themselves. It’s not what they are inclined to do. For her to jump to that conclusion with just one break-up signals to me that she had issues she had to deal with. Where were her parents in all this? I think Myspace is full of trash. I don’t know what parent in their right mind would let their child on there.

In a country founded on the principle of law I see an rabid mob howling for a linchin’. What she did was morally wrong. But the strongest law they could get to stick was computer fraud because she violated an EULA. Think about that. They looked for something stronger and this was the best that they could do. Lobby the government to change the laws, but this pointless vitriol accomplishes nothing.

But back on the point of the article. EULAs are full of terms that were technically unenforceable because they were perfectly legal. This may no longer be true and if you have the maturity to step away from your emotional response to the particulars of the case, you have to agree that this is a bad thing.

Well, it isn’t just about using a fake persona, but what she actually used that fake persona for – harassing another user, which is part of breaching the myspace user agreement. Is this an issue of free speech? Not really. While it sets a precedent, it doesn’t mean the court will begin prosecuting anyone who breaches the agreement. It means that it’s more likely that they’ll be open to prosecuting someone who breaches an agreement if it results in something severe like this. While I see why some people don’t agree with the ruling, it’s not anything to be worried about. The reality is, Drew will more than likely not be sentenced to any jail time. It’s somewhat similar to prosecuting people who illegally download copyrighted materials. The court doesn’t go around prosecuting every single person guilty of this, but they will target people who do it to a more severe extent (eg, sharing large amounts of copyrighted materials).

>>>It is a dangerous precedent to set to make it illegal to be anonymous on the internet

Not illegal to be anonymous. But if your online actions lead to something like this in the real world YES you SHOULD be held accountable. I’m sorry if you’re an online jerk, and this means repercussions for you, which is the only way to describe your fear.

So, dude, are you saying nothing done online is criminal?? I wish that were the case, I’d be rich by tomorrow.

you got this legal argument all wrong. “Yes, doing so is technically a breach of the terms of service for sites like MySpace and Facebook, but those rules (which few people read anyway) are routinely overlooked.” — here, you explicitly admit that it is a breach of the terms of service and you’re right. the fact that thousands “overlook” a technically illegal action does not make it “okay”. your example of using tax evasion charges to hook Chicago crime boss Al Capone is actually a case FOR this guilty verdict to be upheld. otherwise, if you were in the 30s, you also have argued that since “tax evasion” is usually overlooked, they should let Capone get away with it.

I’ll start out by saying I’m a Law Enforcement Officer. In some cases, especially involving computers, the police community has found that our laws simply have not caught up to technology. I think this is the case here. Should there be a law? Perhaps, it appears something should be done.

What was done here though is different. An existing law was perverted in an effort to find some means of punishing someone. Instead of recognizing that the law has failed to protect this girl and creating a new law; which would have been the appropriate thing to do. While it would not have helped in this case, it is the proper method for creating a system of justice that does not attempt to pervert the law for it’s own purposes.

I’m sorry for what has happened, but if this stands every single one of us is capable of becoming the suspect because of expediency. Not too far from an Orwellian society are we?

Seems to me that allowing a suicidally troubled person to have free internet access with no supervision smacked of negligence. The mother of the victim is liable in this case as well. Another question is how this girl got so screwed up.

Since when are terms of service to be considered enforceable laws??? I can write anything I want in the TOS of my webpages. So anyone who signs up for my page is now legally bound by them? Wow, I’m putting up a celebrity gossip forum that includes signing over all real estate equity to me by agreeing to the TOS. It should be somewhere between the 121st and 344th clause as to be easily overlooked. But now I have legal precedent to make it enforceable.

I am sorry you have written so much about the obvious problem in the law regarding false or not set up of accounts to sites and this will need to be looked at as a legal attitude. BUT your preoccuption with this legal factor is mainly all you seem to be interested, I have no idea what this ‘mother’ said to the poor young girl who killed herself and it is terrible that people can be so mean but BY YOUR OTHER INTEREST IN THE LEGAL PROBLEM YOU ARE SHOWING A COMPLETE LACK OF COMPASSION for the young girl AND HER FAMILY, TRY AND GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT AT THIS TIME, please get real someone has tragically died and our response should be one of sympathy not concern about our own legal danger or otherwise.
What a sad sad thing to have happened.

jenni

Nathaniel Greene, are you an idiot or just ignorant of the legal system?

“Since when are terms of service to be considered enforceable laws??? I can write anything I want in the TOS of my webpages.”

of course, the terms of service ARE enforceable. it’s not there there just to annoy us by providing an extra scroll and click. and NO, you cannot put anything in your TOS and still make in enforceable.

there has to be a section there like “Governing Law, Venue and Jurisdiction” which basically states that laws of the State with jurisdiction will govern these TOS, and that ” if any court of law, having the jurisdiction to decide on this matter, rules that any provision of these Terms is invalid, then that provision will be removed from the Terms”

Nathaniel Greene, are you an idiot or just ignorant of the legal system?

“Since when are terms of service to be considered enforceable laws??? I can write anything I want in the TOS of my webpages.”

of course, the terms of service ARE enforceable. it’s not there just to annoy us by providing an extra scroll and click. and NO, you cannot put anything in your TOS and still make in enforceable.

there has to be a section there like “Governing Law, Venue and Jurisdiction” which basically states that laws of the State with jurisdiction will govern these TOS, and that ” if any court of law, having the jurisdiction to decide on this matter, rules that any provision of these Terms is invalid, then that provision will be removed from the Terms”

This verdict would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court and declared unconstitutional; you have a right to lie about certain things, under the first amendment.

However, I do believe Lori Drew deserves to be punished, but I do not believe that she intended for the girl to commit suicide. I think it’s more likely she was just trying to sever connections with Megan, but she went about doing it wrong. I think therapy and some guidance would do the world more good than throwing her in jail and fining Lori Drew.

Violating the TOS isn’t a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter. If MySpace wanted to sue for the breach they could, but violating a legal agreement between two private parties is not a federal crime. So the TOS shouldn’t be relevant to the criminal case.

This absolutely is a first amendment issue, because a federal law is being used to criminalize anonymous speech. MySpace can prohibit anonymous speech, but the federal government can’t. The federal government was the plaintiff in this case.

This GROWN woman goes on MySpace and impersonates a teenage boy all in order to find out if a teenage girl is talking smack about her daughter. Lori Drew knew exactly what she was doing, and that was harrassing a troubled teenage girl to the point of suicide. She should have been convicted of much more than she was, in my opinion.

When you agree to a site’s Terms of Service, whether or not you actually read them, you are held accountable if you should violate them. When Lori Drew set up the fake profile, she violated the Terms of Service. She should be held accountable for whatever occurred because of that violation.

So Ms. Drew got convicted of a lesser charge. Big deal. That still doesn’t give the Meiers their daughter back.

I don’t get how this case turned out to be about “privacy.” It’s not. It should be whether or not the woman should be held responsible for the death of that young girl. She clearly has mental issues if she finds pleasure in bullying a teenage girl. This should be what this case is about. Not about privacy and all that silly stuff.

I hope the conviction will be overturned on appeal (or thrown out by the trial judge prior to sentencing). Allowing this to stand would set a dangerous precedent. Many legal experts agree that the prosecution and conviction lack a good legal foundation. I agree with the position of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as expressed by Jennifer Granick, its civil liberties director: “This is a novel and extreme reading of what [the law] prohibits,…To say that you’re violating a criminal law by registering to speak under a false name is highly problematic. It’s probably an unconstitutional reading of the statute.” As stated by Joseph DeMarco, a former federal prosecutor in New York who has handled cyber crime cases, “This seems to me to be pushing the limits of what traditional law enforcement should be…You don’t normally send people to federal prison for annoying, bullying or obnoxious conduct.” A similar opinion was given by Matt Levine, a New York-based defense attorney and former federal prosecutor: This was a very aggressive, if not misguided, theory,…Unfortunately, there’s not a law that covers every bad thing in the world. It’s a bad idea to use laws that have very different purpose.”

I would prefer to live in a world in which I have the right to give inaccurate information to an internet service and in which I have the right to be obnoxious and unkind to people even if in rare cases such actions result in a tragedy. Far more harm will be done by abridging our rights of free expression to the extent implied in this conviction.

By the way, it is not completely obvious to me that Lori Drew “caused” this suicide.Megan was apparently under medical treatment for her mental problems. Was she being treated properly. Then how about the government’s star witness, who got immunity. From everything I read she was the person who did all the things that were attributed to Lori Drew.Finally, for all we really know, Lori Drew’s pretense may have temporarily delayed a suicide that otherwise would have happened earlier. In fact, Megan’s mother seems to have said as much when she described the fact that Megan was cheered up by the fact that Josh appeared to like her. I think it is more likely than not that Megan was in a downward spiral heading for suicide already. This little charade may have postponed it but it did not necessarily cause it.

All remarks on websites, that are vicious in nature, should be policed by those websites. If the site does not, then people making these remarks should be held accountable for any social damage they may cause. Well…that’s what a lot of people tend to think, anyway. But I’m trying to think of an example in this democracy, where saying the wrong or hateful thing is a crime. Maybe in a courtroom where you can be charged with contempt, but that’s only when one defies a judge’s order to shut up. I don’t know…but making ignorance a crime seems unsettling to me.

You have a very basic mistake: there is a huge importance in why the person created the fake persona. Is exactly as the difference between a murder on a first or on a third degree. If it was created to remain private, no one will be convicted, but if it was created to commit a crime (organize a terrorist attack?, recruit to the mob?, torture a kid until it commits suicide?) then it should be a crime. Is that simple: purpose is everything!

Personally, I find it hard to believe that what Lori Drew did to a child that she knew to be emotionally precarious can’t be addressed in some fashion by laws against child abuse. Wasn’t what she did to that child emotionally abusive? And isn’t child abuse against the law? Let me be clear, I absolutely detest Lori Drew. I think she’s beneath contempt, and she’s obviously raising her own daughter to be likewise. “Trailer trash” doesn’t begin to describe this worthless shred of human debris. I’m dismayed that prosecutors couldn’t think of anything more appropriate than arcane computer law to throw at her.

>>saberman: I would prefer to live in a world in which I have the right to give inaccurate information to an internet service and in which I have the right to be obnoxious and unkind to people even if in rare cases such actions result in a tragedy.

saberman, you’re a fucking retard. you should be gassed at Treblinka, and the world will be better off.

@Alice….. et’ al

“…but if it was created to commit a crime”… While Drew’s actions demonstrated that she intended to taunt, bully and/or harass Megan, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing that represents an intent to encourage suicide. People, please stop perverting the law to satisfy a mob-like desire for revenge. Drew should certainly be charged with violating any statute related to abusing (albeit verbally) children. Should be found guilty of such, then one can legally conclude that her behavior constitutes some culpability, until then, less Emotions = Vapor-like Spirits of the Law, and more Law = Spirit of the Law.

>>Matthew Ingram: What happened to her was definitely a tragedy, but it was not a crime. The Drew case should be overturned.

are you INSANE matthew? you want Drew to go free, huh? i hope your kids get bullied till they kill themselves, and preferably kill you first before they kill themselves.

>> saberman: I would prefer to live in a world in which I have the right to give inaccurate information to an internet service and in which I have the right to be obnoxious and unkind to people even if in rare cases such actions result in a tragedy.

saberman, you’re a FÚČĶĪNĠ reţaŕd. you should be gassed at Treblinka and the world will be better off without you

How about this nugget for freedom of speech:

What if someone was to hold a rally in New york openly preaching hate and violence against [insert any community/race/religion in here], and open websites telling people how to carry out crimes of intolerance… will they have immunity under ‘freedom of speech’?

There is a very common phrase I come across when words like ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ are tossed around: Your freedom ends where my nose begins. The moment one person’s freedom starts invading another’s, it ceases to be a right.

tell me, honestly, would no one have any problem with Al Qaida wanting to host it’s international conference in Washington? I mean, they to have freedom of speech, right? [for nitpickers, conference to be hosted by US branch of Al Qaida, US citizens.]

Has nobody here ever sent hate mail to some guy or girl that they hate. So now if that guy/girl commits suicide and they have our comments open, the guy that sent the hate mail is subject to murder.

If the girl was dumb enough to get caught up in a fake relationship online, and then commit suicide because the fake internet account broke up with her, screw it

Yeah. She committed suicide over a FAKE internet relationship.

“the world would be better off without you”

ok i have to kill myself now, seeing this text is just too hard to take.

has anyone blamed the parents for raising such an emotionally weak child?

Sorry but Lori Drew is a monster. I think 3 years is prison is definitely appropriate. She needs to think about what she did and pray for forgiveness.

“Has nobody here ever sent hate mail to some guy or girl that they hate. So now if that guy/girl commits suicide and they have our comments open, the guy that sent the hate mail is subject to murder”

Have I done it? Yes. But I was a teen and the other person was a teen. Lori Drew was an adult. She knew the girl had depression. She should have known better. And, frankly, she should have had better things to do.

i know of parents with false names on facebook just to keep an eye on what their sons and daughthers are secretly up to,

I see this as a good thing not bad,sort of voyeiristic but not harmful.

to falsely present oneself is fraud—a serious crime. To do this for the specific purpose of tormenting a youngster is obviously a very serious crime. For which we have created and maintained very expensive courthouses. over the centuries. We must be careful not to let lawyers not to pervert and corrupt these, as they have every other institution in our society.

All of the nimrods here defending this awful woman, or blaming the victim, very much illustrate how our society has gone to total Hell. Thanks for being completely immoral and clueless, folks.

That woman has been mean to someone through social network website. That is immoral, but not illegal. Someone show us the law that woman has violated. She has not committed any violence towards anyone and she has not stolen anyones property. What about the parents responsibility? This kid had been allowed to move around the web freely although the responsible people new she was unstable.

There’s a lot of revenge seeking people writing comments here. Someone might find the vicious nature of these words too much to take and kill himself. I might just give it a try… where’s my rope… And would those people please make their real identities public, turn themselves in and go spend the rest of their lives in jail for murder – in revenge for the suicide they caused? Wouldn’t that be principled.

It’s amazing that the 49 yr old Lori Drew was acting less mature than the teenager that she decided to harass. Yes, This woman’s behavior was morally wrong.

But lets not forget to also hold others accountable for this tragic event. Let us remember to question the parenting skills of Megan Meier’s mother & father.

Sure in the old days we only had to worry about protecting our children from dangers within our Local communities. Today, technology has brought the unbound world into our homes. Parents must take new steps in monitoring their child’s activities and behaviors.

Parents rely too much on other people(i.e. teachers, care givers) and technology(safe surfing, site blocking software, ip address router blocking, )to keep, what should be considered their most valuable possession, SAFE.

Even more so when you are raising a special needs child with mental illness that has been under the care of a psychiatrist for four years.

If your mentally ill teenage child engages in an online relationship with a boy or girl, Get involved!!!! Being that “Josh Evans” lived in a nearby town, Mr & Mrs. Meier should have told their daughter that if she would like to continue this friendship, they will need to meet Josh’s parents and until that occurs she cannot have contact. For Gods sake didn’t they even consider that this person could have been a pedophile?

Yes, times have changed… We lock our doors and think it protects us… We no longer leave our kids in the car to run in to the store to grab some milk in fear that someone will grab our child…We never did let our children talk to strangers, so why should we make exceptions when the contact is via a less personal method.

My God they are your children!! Everything that happens to them is YOUR responsibility.

So when it comes to the death of Megan, the Meiers are responsible too. Sure they lost their child, but should that be their sentence for their negligence ? If you say yes, I don’t think it’s fair that Megan pays the price for her parents mistakes.

how could a grown woman tease a 13 years old teen girl? what the h#@!

Let the punishment fit the crime…send her to a mental institution full of psychotic teens.. that should teach her!

Man this story makes me so mad!!!!! If this Bit@h gets off, I pray someone or everyone arounds her makes her feel like shit….. If that was my child I sware I would find a way 2 kill the bit%h!!!!! If America lets her go free….. then something is really wrong!!!!!

So you’re arguing that even though someone is in violation of a site’s terms of service, they shouldn’t be prosecuted because “most people don’t read them anyway.” Great! Let’s apply this fantastic third-grade logic to every similar situation… Want to share your cable or Internet service with every neighbor in your building? Just split the signal 10 times. Sure, it’s against their terms of service, but who cares? Want to go to work for Apple but then share everything you learn with its competitors? Sure, it’s against their employee agreement, but who cares?

The point is that the law isn’t there to hunt down and prosecute people who create duplicate accounts and then do little with them. It’s there to help prosecute people who misuse a computer to conduct a criminal activity. In this case, Drew’s action arguably led directly to a young girl’s death. If you’re a criminal or engaging in crimes, then this ruling should be a reminder that the Internet will not be a sanctuary for such activity.

And as for the red herring First Amendment issue, put it to rest. The Internet is a huge space allowing anyone, at anytime, to create any website or content they want and share it with the world. There’s no law that says Myspace (or any other company or private service) has to anyone who has an opinion to express it without restrictions.

Frankly, I don’t think she should of been given the charges that she was. I feel that charging her with unauthorized access was the wrong thing to do. Not only is there some serious legal problems, but frankly? I think Lori Drew is getting off way, way, WAY too easy. She should of been charged with murder, period. She killed that little girl IMO just as if she had strangled her with piano wire. Lori Drew should spend the rest of her life in prison and that’s that, kthx.

…and I wonder how much or little parents know about their children internet activity and acquientances. Not to mention what parents really know about their children growing pains?

Nuts! No one is going to prosecute anyone for creating a fake account or impersonating someone else unless they commit another crime using this action. That is the point here. PLEASE do not try to stretch this decision further. If you have a fake ID you might/might not get prosecuted. If you use that fake ID to gain entry into a bar and drink, you will be prosecuted. This is exactly the same. Anyone who commits fraud to commit a crime should be prosecuted.

Finally, freedom of speech STOPS at the door step of another persons hurt. You can say anything you want about a political figure or public person like Tom Hanks, but if you speak ill of your neighbors daughter you will find that thoes comments are NOT protected. This doesn’t mean that they are ‘illegal comments’ it simply means they will not be protected as free speech.

Drew is a sociopath, there is no conscious to bother her now or in the future.

As a mother that went trough the same thing dealing with a 13yo being preyed upon by a makebelieve boy, in notes before computers, I know how devastating it can be. My daughter did not have underlying mental problems. She did not confide in me and if my mother-in-law hadn’t found one of the notes and brought it to my attention who knows wh at would have happened. As it was my daughter was physically ill for several days. This was done by other children.

Don’t blame the girls mother, some times the child is more savvy than the parent. The one to blame is Drew and she is the one who knowingly pushed a child into committing suicide.

“Don’t blame the girls mother, some times the child is more savvy than the parent. The one to blame is Drew and she is the one who knowingly pushed a child into committing suicide.~ terry”

Terry, your nut’s

This poor little girl suffered from mental illness, her parents should accept their part in the death of their child. I only hope they don’t have any other children .

I think the appropriate charge for this act should be “risk of injury to a minor” … Though I think the accused mother is a bad person for doing what she did, I don’t know that the proper intent was there for “murder” … the intent I do see was to negatively impact the 13-year-old girl; but there has to be some accommodation made for the fact that the Meier girl had personal issues that led to an end result that could not have been foreseen. As one poster here pointed out, if suicide was the answer to the online ‘bullying,’ then it was just a matter of time before something made this poor girl end her life.

While I believe the Drew woman should be punished somehow for what she did, I do not believe it warrants prison time — if for no other reason than that we need to be more thoughtful about whom we imprison, because there’s really no room/money left to imprison people that are not a threat to the general public.

Everyone knows what the Drew woman did — including Drew herself. Public disdain and her own shame hopefully will humble this woman.

On a side note, to some of the folks posting here about who “should burn in Hell,” eternal damnation is not yours to prescribe, and damning someone is not the Christian way.

I believe, she’s guilty of being a web predator. She preyed upon the girl plain and simple. The fact that she violated the terms of service is irrelevant. All that can come from that s getting kicked off.

As for this law she was convicted under, I think it is potentially dangerous for some of the (“good”) reasons mentioned and maybe needs an overhaul.

Should she rot in hell? First you’d have to believe such a place exists and that means believing in and worshiping a twisted god that would allow – or even have a hand in- this sort of thing for some unfathomable greater purpose. Pull your head out! And Megan Meier is not smiling down beatifically from above. She’s dead and gone, period.

The best punishment For Ms, Drew, will be for her to live out the rest of her live in abject misery, utterly destroyed, finally taking her own life in the same way, once the true nature of what she is responsible for worms its way through her thick skull.

One should be able to create personas that aren’t actually themselves without fear of prosecution. Users do it all the time on our network.

By the way, I’m a dog.

http://Animalinternet.com Opinions written by animals

I think alot of people are missing an important point here. As a society, we feel it important to protect a vulnerable population (our children in this case) from being hurt by those who are in a position to know better.

The problem in this case is that the easiest path for the attornies to persue was to treat this as “unauthorized access.” If this had been a case of an adult attempting to sexually exploit a minor, then there are existing laws that would have been called into play in order to convict Drew. As there was no sexual aspect to this abuse, and this was done online, the legal system had no clear path to pursue.

The key point here, is that it was an adult taking advantage of a minor. If this case had involved two adults, then the assumption would be one of free will. It would have been a pathetic thing to do, but certainly not criminal.

I think what is needed, unfortunately, is to dismiss the conviction as it stands. As numerous other people have pointed out, to convict someone of the crime of “violating TOS” sets a broad and horrible standard. What, if any, laws are currently in place to protect minors from abuse or being “taken advantage of” by adults, I am not certain. If there is a gap there, then something new should be considered as what is really the button issue here is that a minor was effectively “abused” by an adult and driven to suicide.

This is not just an “online” issue, and I would hope that if new legislation is crafted, it is not the typically short sighted “internet specific” legislation that we see as a reaction to these sorts of situations.

As an added thought, I can’t for the life of me understand why the legal community seems so completely lost when it comes to the internet and computers. How long is the cycle to fully understand something new? 50 years? 100 Years?

One cannot define the act of not reading the TOS as “everyone does it”, as part of the agreement to use the service is that you do agree to abide by the sites terms. It is no crime to create a personna for a chat room, as this could be a nickname, but to actually mis-represent your identity is fraud, no ifs and or buts….. You cannot open a bank account using a false identity, as that is fraud, so why would someone think they could mis-represent themselves when entering into a contract (TOS) and that would be permissable? The First Amendment offers citizens “freedom of unabridged speech”, however, if an individual abuses or mis-uses this “right”, they should be held accountable. With all of our protections of our rights as citizens, comes the responsibility we exercise them within the boundaries of law (e.g. not to libel or slander another) Or to bear arms, but not to murder or assault. Just don’t ever believe that you will be able to hide behind these rights, if you are someone who abuses them….

Depraved indifference.

That is what this woman is guilty of. She harassed and manipulated a minor into killing herself. She gets off lucky to get 3 years.

If you do this on the Internet or you do this in person, makes no difference.

People need to know that there are consequences to their actions, REGARDLESS of what medium you do it in.

We’re about talking about Fraud and Abuse! The keyword is abuse. If you just make a fake persona without intent to harm people then no court is going to convict you. But if there is an intent to abuse, as there clearly was in Drew’s case, you should be convicted. Listen, I’m as leftist and liberal as they come, but this case doesn’t threaten individual liberties at all. This is about one person doing something incredibly heinous and abusive, and being severly underpunished… I’m surprised she isn’t being tried under more serious charges, perhaps endangering a child or something…

Since most people know absolutely nothing about law, I’m not surprised that so many people have completely misread this commentary. Look, folks, it’s simple: Terms of Service is a CONTRACT. Lori Drew broke a CONTRACT. That is a civil issue, not a criminal one. There is a difference. And there is a BIG difference between computer intrusion and simply violating the terms of service. Apparently, those who can’t see otherwise has never actually READ a Terms of Service statement.

You’ll have a hard time finding anyone defending Drew. I’m certainly not. But “bending the law” to punish her is a bad idea, for the exact reasons stated above. And there is absolutely no way it will stand on appeal. That’s a no-brainer. Count on it being overturned. Then, no doubt, there will be howls of outrage from stupid people about “activist judges” overturning the people’s will. But it WILL happen.

I am fully in favor of enacting carefully-drawn cyber-bullying laws (ones that use the same definitions and standards of proof as current “harrassment” laws). And, quite frankly, I think the prosecution dropped the ball, as, in my opinion, Drew certainly could have been charged under existing real-world harassment statutes, the online environment notwithstanding. Interactions between human beings doesn’t suddenly become cyber-reality just because of the communications medium.

But instead we got a dumb and dangerous legal decision. That’s unfortunate.

@Reason: You’re totally wrong, you’re missing the point….

@Tony: well said

@Chris: you are a sick human being, I can only hope you were joking in your post

The ability of most of the posters in this thread to be blinded by rage and entirely miss the larger picture is both astounding and depressing.

Sadly, this article demonstrates that Mathew Ingrams suffers from the same sickness that allowed this crime to occur in the first place. There is a frightening disconnect between our actions and their consequences.

Torture and harassment is criminal, regardless of how it is facilitated. Our courts typically have a great deal of latitude so that the sentencing can reflect the nature and impunity in which a crime was committed. The torture was perpetrated by an adult and its victim was child. Drew should not be treated any differently than a online predator targeting fragile children.

The disgusting irony in this case is the fact that Drew actually believes she is a “victim” and has little or no remorse for Megan Meier.

Like all we set up are factual accounts on social networking sites. Are you kidding me? Does that mean that when someone across the US on Match.com says they are HWP, and say their webpal flies back to find out they photoshoped their pics and they are really 400#, they can sue for damages and online deceipt? Does this mean that if the papers print inaccurate information and someone commits suicide after reading it, the papers committed a crime? This is about 2 suburb mothers too wrapped up in their own f-ing issues to be real. Drew was a fool to turn the account over to another teenager to dump the girl, instead of simply deleteing the accout or teller the girl she’d been punked, and the girl’s mom was an idiot for not paying attention to a distraught kid locked in her room online for days on end. This is sad & stupid at the same time.

Had it been a grown man, instead of a grown woman, who did this, do you think there would be this kind of debate? Or would he be labeled a predator and the book thrown at him?

A grown woman has no business harassing a 13 year old, mentally disturbed or otherwise. What she did was intentional and cruel. While I don’t agree with the charges levied, I agree that she deserves to pay for her actions. And the court of public opinion will likely be her harshest punishment. Good.

P.S. pardon the misspelling- too long out of school.

This is a case where local justice without recourse to laws or governmental direction would work.

SHUN Lori Drew, locally…; spread the idea locally and abroad by word of mouth.

It works; and it fits.

After reading through many of these comments it only goes to prove to me that the breakdown of human kind is real. I cannot believe the calloused, mean, hateful and unfeeling remarks I’ve read regarding this poor child’s death. It either proves that people can just be mean because they can, or that there truly are more uncaring sociopaths out there than ANYONE realizes. Because to say some of the things I’ve read on here are truly sociopathic in nature. THIS WAS A TROUBLED CHILD. I don’t understand how ANYONE could defend this woman’s actions in this event. It’s unconscionable to me.

It is truly scary and sad that so many people are truly so uncaring that they think this was “OK”. Laws and all that aside, this was a horrible action done by a horrible mean spirited woman. Reminds me of that woman who tried to have her neighbor killed over the cheerleader thing between their daughters years and years ago. What are they thinking?? AND WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING THAT DEFEND THIS SORT OF ACTION?? A bully is a bully. Bullies “get off” hurting others, and that has recently been proven. This is a sick perversion. How many children have to die over bullying before something seriously gets done?? How many PEOPLE have to die over bullying before something gets done??

I was bullied on this site, I would venture to guess most of the people that have posted on here thinking this is OK spend their spare time “bullying” others on other forums, or via email or sites like My Space…… I’d just like to ask what kind of “jollies” do you REALLY get from that?? Sick, sick puppies all of you….

Advocates for internet neutrality and the whole free speech argument are doing a disservice to the First Ammendment and citizenry as a whole. This lady created a fake persona with INTENT to inflict harm. There were dire consequences to her actions that she should be held accountable for. Now she couldnt be charged in a cut and dried manslaughter or some other commonly used statute, so prosecutors had to be creative in finding something she violated in order to serve justice. Its just like when a cop stops you for a busted tailight only to find a suspended license or a DUI, you wouldnt argue that you cant be charged for the DUI. Even in your argument you admit that she broke the user agreement. Its a slippery slope argument to state now we are all at risk of being prosecuted for violating the TOS. Truth is, we are liable if and only if we then go on to inflict harm or break a law or do something likely to attract legal action. Just because one guy gets busted for DUI doesnt mean we all will, but if we drink and drive, only then do we risk action. To summarise, creating a fake persona may fall under the First Ammendment, using it to commit a crime certainly doesn’t absolve you of any responsibility. A guy wearing a mask to incite a crime (think KKK) cant claim free speech rights if that alternate persona induces others to commit a crime.

“Realitycheck,” check yourself.

You are not grasping the difference between CIVIL LIABILITY and a CRIME.

Harrassment is certainly a crime. Violating the Terms of Service is INDISPUTABLY NOT a crime. Duh.

Computer intrusion IS a crime. It is NOT the same thing as Terms of Service. If it is, then any time you post something a website doesn’t like, you are guilty of a crime. LITERALLY. It’s that simple.

The feds no doubt had numerous sane options for their approach, but the Bush administration instead chose to conflate a contractual violation with a crime. It’s entirely consistent with their pattern of expanding the power of government.

What they did was clearly not anything CLOSE to being “creative in finding something she violated.” What they did was use a CONTRACT she violated, and misrepresent it as a totally unrelated CRIMINAL offense. And, once a sane court reviewsi it, it will be overturned, which is a tragedy, not because it shouldn’t be overturned, but because the government dropped the ball in the first place.

This doesn’t even have to be about free speech. It’s MUCH simpler than that.

“ed hinders” said: “Ms Drew was charged with aiding and abetting or in plain English assisting the crimes of manslaughter, assisting suicide, and conspiracy.”

For which she was acquitted. It’s not even mildy relevant.

If you are really an attorney, you’re not a very good one. Or possibly just a fascist who agrees with Bush adminstration’s expansion of criminal liability into private civil contracts.

Here is a link to MySpace’s TOS: http://www1.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.terms

Note this section: “MySpace.com may modify this Agreement from time to time and such modification shall be effective upon posting by MySpace.com on the MySpace Website. You agree to be bound to any changes to this Agreement when you use the MySpace Services after any such modification is posted. It is therefore important that you review this Agreement regularly to ensure you are updated as to any changes.”

Should anyone who fails to note such changes, and breaks a rule, be subject to criminal prosecution? If your answer is “no,” then you can’t support the Drew decision. And don’t try to say it’s different: there was no such distinction made in the verdict.

It’s the same thing.

I think the best justice would be for this crazy lady and her daughter to experience a bit of bullying as well. An eye for and eye kinda judgment. Sure, the law can be interpreted in a million ways but the bottom line is her bullying was behavior not suitable for an adult. I’d have no sympathy on this Drew if she lost her house, car, job, money, etc. Civil court is a good option but I like good ol’ fashion justice.

In regards to the girl that killed herself, I think her mom shoulda been more involved in what she was doing online to begin with. I mean, have we lost total control of the lives of our youth? When I was a kid I had to turn the tv off at certain times of night for bed. Her mom shoulda been monitoring her internet usage…period. Not to blame her but still….parenting has got to kick in sooner or later.

Also, if we as adults nurture our youth and give them a sense of self esteem and some positive reinforcement in the home then they’d be less inclined to define themselves or their worth by ugliness towards them from outside the home.

This article is shameless for stirring up another fake premise with no basis in reality. The right to privacy absolutely prevents exactly what this journalist is worrying about. The terms of service at MySpace and other social network sights provide a right to privacy firewall, requiring law enforcement to have reasonable cause to peek, and the right to privacy in place across the nation further prevents snooping by law enforcement.

The only fear to discuss here is fear itself, bought and sold by under performing journalists with less brain then sane.

Celebrate our new stupidity by reading more by this writer.

I think this article was very thoughtfully written. A lot of people like to make hasty conclusions when they here about something tragic like this happening without considering the legal ramifications of what they are championing. Yeah, sure, it feels great to see a criminal “get what they deserve” and we all seem to have this horrible pet peeve when we feel “justice has not been served” (while at the same time conveniently ignoring the subjectivity inherent in what exactly “justice” is). What they feel to think about, in their bull-headed haste to condemn, is that the justice system tries to place some kind of objective criteria upon what is an extremely subjective matter–justice and punishment. There is no universally obvious “right” punishment for, say, shoplifting (it’s not as though we are born knowing “oh, shoplifting deserves this punishment”)–the legal system has to manufacture one, and they have to be consistent. Without a strict set of guidelines that are followed, the system would break down into a series of personal vendettas, with little concern for punishment suiting the crime, or actual guilt versus innocence.

After all it may be “so obvious” that she should be punished, but is it? Who is to say what is and is not to be punished and what the punishment should be? Consider that the next time there is clamor for extra-judicial justice, and you will see that sure, today it may be someone who “deserves” it, but tomorrow?…what if many thought YOU deserved it? Without a concrete legal code that is consistently applied, “justice” becomes the instrument of those who posses the resources to convince others what “justice” is, without regards to any actual guilt–you could be guilty of a crime you never committed, as long as everyone else thinks you are.

Cool your head for a moment–we are, after all, adults. Things are rarely done without a reason; And think about it,

Seth Evans

this woman Drew shows us where our society is and where it is going. For a mother to deliberately and intentionally say the things she did and to carry out those actions should have to pay. the main point is not the child that had problems, it is the hateful,mean,cruel, attentions of an adult.it shows what kind of person she really is, she is a Poor excuse for a mother.

Let me point out that she was not convicted of having an alternate name, but of using it badly. Anyone not playing nice on the net under any name will find themselves under the law. We had to create laws that said murder by gun was bad, then someone killed someone else by bat or knife or poison. Law evolves and this one was simply about drawing a line in the sand saying, she crossed it. The law will evolve and change like all laws.

It was the right move, maybe not the right laws (not yet), but the right decision.

This is a terribly written analysis. You completely lost me at: “doing so is technically a breach of the terms of service for sites like MySpace and Facebook, but those rules (which few people read anyway) are routinely overlooked.”

So .. since no one reads the user ageement … we should just dispose with the legal ramifications?

This is incredibly lame (attempt at) journalism.

Part of my understands the inhabitants of the Web, being one myself not to agree with the outcome of this case. I mean my god, who wants to read the terms of service for everything they sign up on the web??

however we are talking about something very sinestet and ugly here, the death of a child caused by an adult. If don’t prosecute Lori Drew for breaking the law, even one we may not like, this person gets of scot free. Why? Because you don’t want to take the time and responiblity to read and follow the terms of agreement? Because you’re too busy, or too impatient to bother to spend 5 minutes reading? Poor you, but it’s time to get over it and grow up. Life is full responsiblties and the web should not be any different. Too bad if you don’t like it, but the internet can’t be a lawless place just because you want it that way. The internet is now a part of most people lives, and as such we need to follow the laws of the land. So it’s time to grow up, all of us, and be adults. We are responsible people (I hope) and need to face the fact we aren’t a bunch of spoiled little punks thumbing our nose at the rest of society and telling them to F**K OFF.

I find it disturbing that people are even considering that legal action is the right way of dealing with this. It is not the purpose of the government or MySpace to make the Internet safe for suicidally depressed 13 year old girls. Any girl mature enough to have a romantic E-mail exchange should be mature enough to deal with it if it turns nasty. Determining that is the sole responsibility of the parents.

People are really jumping to conclusions on this one. The E-mail that allegedly said “the world would be better off without you” has never been found and reports of it are based on statements by the parents only. And Megan had been on anti-depressive and ADHD drugs. I think if an expert looked at this, he might well find that the cause of Megan’s death was the drugs or the fight with the mother, not the E-mail.

Drew has never been charged with anything related to the death of Megan, which tells you that the prosecutor thought he couldn’t make such charges stick.

“WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING THAT DEFEND THIS SORT OF ACTION??”

Nobody is defending the action itself. What Lori Drew did was mean spirited. But being a horrible person or being nasty to someone isn’t a crime and it shouldn’t be. Or are you suggesting that we lock up everybody who sends a nasty breakup letter to their girl/boyfriend?

Watch what you say to any mentally ill person. You could be prosecuted???…something wrong with THAT too.

I think your comments bear some merit. But, I also believe Drew maliciously misrepresented herself. Her fraud and very bad intentions should have some negative, legal consequence. Particularly, when it involved a minor. If you think this was not the correct application of an unauthorized access law, then you should note which law(s) would have been more appropriate. To imply that no charges should have been brought at all (which I think your update does infer, in particular), in the name of freedom of speech, suggests a complete lack of perspective. Is Megan entitled to any social/civil expectations protected by the some constitution. Your qualification, “provided you aren’t trying to hijack the identity of a real person,” is very curiously worded. I guess it is okay to fabricate (hijack?) the identity of a fictitious person with the intent to do harm, hmmm? I really suspect that you don’t condone Drew’s behavior, but I certainly have to wonder based on the way you wrote your article. I think you need to make a better clarification in “Update #2″.

“To imply that no charges should have been brought at all (which I think your update does infer, in particular), in the name of freedom of speech,”

She shouldn’t be charged because she didn’t violate any laws.

“Megan entitled to any social/civil expectations protected by the some constitution.”

Thousands of teenagers commit suicide every year in the US, and nobody is legally responsible; that’s just a fact. If people were really concerned about protecting them, you wouldn’t come out of the woodwork now. But you really don’t care about teenage suicide, you just want to feel a bit of righteous indignation.

An artful dodge, Mike. You’re previous post notes, “It is not the purpose of the government or MySpace to make the Internet safe for suicidally depressed 13 year old girls.” Is there any obligation on the part of MySpace or the government?

Assuming that you can start with the premise outlined in the first sentence of the Constitution -

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Some might argue it is a matter of interpretation. That’s fine with me – as long as we start somewhere, I won’t ask to be the arbiter. I would just like the notion that “some” guideline exists.

It sounds like you want to be purely cynical or nihilist and possibly refuse any premise defined by the Constitution. If that is the case, then there is no reason to argue about any foundation for civil society. Survival of the fittest and the rest can eat cake.

Then you go on to talk about the thousands of teenagers who commit suicide and my sensational reach for righteous indignation. How about answering the question, Mike? “Is Megan entitled to any social/civil expectations protected by the some constitution?”

“Is Megan entitled to any social/civil expectations protected by the some constitution?”

Of course she is, and she got the full extent of those protections. The Constitution doesn’t protect people from mean language, not even children.

“It sounds like you want to be purely cynical or nihilist and possibly refuse any premise defined by the Constitution”

Quite to the contrary: I am on the side of the Constitution. It’s you who wants to turn the US into a totalitarian nanny state.

You seem to miss the point completely here.

She wasn’t convicted simply because she violated MySpace’s terms of service, but because that violation was intended to harm someone else.

Lori Drew was seeking to victimize someone, in a way that is no more defensible than a pedophile trolling for prospects. It is this INTENTION that necessitated the charges.

Mike:

Your comment is something I can work with: “Of course she is, and she got the full extent of those protections. The Constitution doesn’t protect people from mean language, not even children.” So now we have to interpret how mean mean language has to be before it exceeds, “…establish(ing) Justice, insur(ing) domestic Tranquility, provid(ing) for the common defence, promot(ing) the general Welfare, and secur(ing) the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

In fact, the constitution does protect citizens from certain types of mean language. Intent and harm are contributing factors when evaluating these certain types of mean language. An argument you may find useful is that Megan was going to commit suicide, anyway. Do you mean to suggest she would have committed suicide eventually no matter what or that someone legitimately who they claim to be would eventually say some typical, mundane insults at her after which she would commit suicide? Would you feel differently about this case if there had been other people who had dissed her or insulted her slightly less abusively than Drew and Megan didn’t make a suicide attempt? If that were the case, then maybe Drew’s comments were just vicious enough to encourage a distressed but otherwise not suicidal person to become even more depressed to the point of committing suicide. If you could follow that thinking, do you then feel there is some amount of culpability in the last scenario? I truthfully don’t know Megan’s history nor how stable she was emotionally. But, I don’t see Drew’s actions and motivations to be above scrutiny.

So why again was she not found guilty for her intent to cause harm through discourse?

A NYT article claims Megan “had a history of depression and suicidal impulses.”

from… Verdict in MySpace Suicide Case By JENNIFER STEINHAUER Published: November 26, 2008, NYT

It also states, “Although the jury appeared to reject the government’s contention that Ms. Drew had intended to harm Megan — a notion underlying the felony charges” what, the jury thought “The world would be a better place without you.” would make Megan blush?

Wow, just wow.

James, AFAIK, it hasn’t even been shown that the woman wrote “The world would be a better place without you.” Even if she did, that’s a common phrase.

You’re right: “wow, just wow”. This kind of lynch mob mentality gives us one ineffective, stupid child protection law after another, while American children as a whole are falling behind on safety, teenage pregnancy, education, and mortality.

“In fact, the constitution does protect citizens from certain types of mean language.”

Well, apparently it does not protect children from the kind of language that Drew used because she didn’t get charged or convicted for using such language. That is why the prosecutor invented unrelated charges. This is a cynical ploy by the prosecutor to score some political points.

“Do you mean to suggest she would have committed suicide eventually no matter what [...] I truthfully don’t know Megan’s history nor how stable she was emotionally.”

No normal 13 year old girl kills herself over a bunch of E-mails, so Drew isn’t responsible for the death. Drew did inflict emotional distress and should pay for that (that’s a civil matter).

The girl had body image issues and had been on anti-depressants and ADHD medication. I do wonder whether the parents and the psychiatrist were acting responsibly.

I’m not trying to defend Lori Drew’s action or character; she sounds like a horrible person. But justice requires that even horrible persons be treated fairly by the justice system. If we allow prosecutors to just make up charges, they’ll start doing it against political opponents; there is ample historical precedent both in the US and abroad, and such abuse of the legal system must be stopped, even if it means that people we don’t like go free.

I understand the “slippery slope” argument, but the fact is that when you join a site like MySpace, you DO agree to the terms of service. She broke the TOS and did so with malicious intent. The fact that everyone chooses to ignore the terms of service and MySpace doesn’t prosecute is irrelevant. Could it come back to bite people in the future? Sure could. Which is as good a reason as any to know what you’re getting into when you sign on with any website.

I agree with posters who say that the law was manipulated to get a prosecution in this case. Unfortunately, there aren’t many laws to protect children in online venues. Hopefully that can change.

Christy: the Internet is a public space, just like a train station or a street. It has its night clubs, sex clubs, and dark corners. Do you let your kids roam big city streets without supervision? No? Then don’t let them on the Internet without supervision. Dumbing down the Internet is not the solution (and it’s not feasible either). As for breaking TOS, that’s a civil matter.

I think the difference between Lori Drew’s myspace page, and Cheese Sandwich, for example, is that Lori set hers up with criminal intent and fraud. It is obvious reading Cheese Sandwich’s account that the owner isn’t pretending that they are, in fact, Cheese Sandwich, and it is further obvious that they aren’t expecting to victimize someone by doing so. Lori, on the other hand, did purposely deceive Megan, and further she’s an adult and Megan’s a child, so this is criminal intent to emotionally abuse a child. The sad result just clinches my opinion.

People using the tried and true “fire in a crowded theater” when talking about freedom of speech really should go look up that ruling.

In case you weren’t aware, that case was about someone accused of sedition for printing a communist newspaper, something which decidedly is a free speech issue (ok, press, technically), and Holmes was likening this to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The newspaper was shut down as a result of this case.

That test is a very dangerous and misleading one to rely on. Later rulings aren’t as sexy, but they really do set out a much better standard (overruling Holme’s standard in many aspects), which is one of significant likelihood of imminent incitement to crime. In this case, I think that is what this woman did: suborn a felony suicide.

No offense meant- I agree with you that the decision made was a bad one….. But this more than a legal/cyber issue -it is about about how shitty people can be to each other. A child took her own life due to a deranged adult who sought vengeance against her own child’s school rival . Ever seen “To Catch A Predator” ??? These guys catch a felony while Lori gets off with misdemeanors (WTF!!!!). I’m at a loss for words….. Here’s my opinion – ( I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO PROMOTE MY OWN BLOG – read it if you want to)

http://ghostfinger.wordpress.com/

Debate the law all you want -this story ended up with the loss of a child……

GhostFinger

We can all agree that MySpace is a social networking site. Some may say that it’s a healthy form of interaction with other human beings, a place to learn new ideas and thoughts, a place to make new friends. Wrong! MySpace is nothing but smoke and mirrors! Has anyone ever looked deep into MySpace? There are thousands and thousands of people that use MySpace as a forum to create fake profiles(men posing as women/women posing as men/adult men and women creating the profiles of pre teens/teens and young adults.) Then there is the deviant side of MySpace(bedwetting/diaper-wearing adults/prostitution and sexual liasons/drug sales and distribution/gangs and violence. The list goes on and on. In my opinion, MySpace is worthless! Except for the people who profit finacially or profit from the use and abuse of other human beings, MySpace is predator heaven! Take a real good look before you become the “pot calling the kettle black”.

Tina Meier is guilty of the exact same “crime” that Lori Drew was convicted of: violating MySpace TOS, by setting up an account for her 13 year-old daughter. (MySpace requires users to be at least 14 years old.) If she hadn’t done this then presumably the daughter would still be alive.

This case is insane and this mother is twisting the law for her own selfish purposes. Lori Drew committed no crime and if the girl couldn’t handle the internet then her mother should have kept her off.

The wrong law is being used to punish Drew.

But there does need to be a law to protect minors from fake personalities on the internet (internet personas).

In other words, in the interest of free speech, people should be allowed to create “internet personas,” but they should not be allowed to use those personas to trick known minors into communicating with them.

That is to say, there should be a law prohibiting internet personas from communicating with known minors!

If there had been such a law, Lori Drew could only have communicated with Megan Meier as Lori Drew (not as Josh Whatshisname).

That’s quite simple (isn’t it?)

No, not EVERYONE would be at risk if these charges stick to this awful woman. No, the WHOLE internet would not be at risk if this woman’s conviction stands. No, not EVERYONE has created a fake online account so they can harass children. Only a small sicko minority. I can imagine that there are folks who have created fake accounts so that they can harass someone; there are a lot of weirdo creeps out there who seem to enjoy bullying people, and they do need to be seriously discouraged and we need laws to protect children from such hateful wackos. (Did you read that recent article about how bullies enjoy bullying?) Yes, there should definitely be more safety on the internet. No, hate speech and criminal harassment should never be confused with the right to free speech.

So then by using the court decision here for future cases involving some pedophile predator lurking on the internet, they should be guilty of simply hacking instead of the real intent of their crime, and that is to emotionally damage a child. That is what occurred simple and plan. Child abuse!! Forget the hacking, or reading or not reading the TOA, what this woman did was clearly child abuse, and as such she should be charged with that crime. Would this case have been treated the same if the defendant was a man who manipulated some pre-teen/teen child to do something. The adult manipulation of a child’s psyche is what is at stake.

Why would a grown woman do such a school-girlish thing? Was she tormented by her friends’ parents when she was a teenager? The age difference and the fact a parent should set a good example for young people are the facts that make her actions so difficult to understand. If she was the same age as her victim, if they were in class together, I would never have considered her actions a felony, perhaps not even a misdemeanor — after all she had no clue the poor girl would kill herself. It is the age difference and the fact she is a parent that make this crime a crime. I am kind of the opinion it shouldn’t even be a misdemeanor, though I must admit if she croaked tonight after an accidental overdose I wouldn’t feel ANY remorse; she should lose her right to parent anyone. She should be ordered by the court to get in-patient psychiatric help. If she has any money her victim’s family should be allowed to rake her over the coals in civil court. Even so, if she was the same age as her victim I would not have sought felony charges, maybe not misdemeanor charges. More than anything she mainly offended my sensibilities. I would have a very hard time rendering an impartial unemotional verdict. I’m glad the jury had enough courage to proceed as they did. It could have easily become a mistrial.

the majority has never been so wrong. oh wait they have… time and time again actually. nevermind looks at majority comments yawns walks off

Wrong. When someone does something so bad, yet the laws don’t allow us to go after them, we have to use any laws we can find. This doesn’t open the floodgates for using those same laws everywhere. Paranoid much?

Yes, it is true that many people create fake personas on FaceBook and MySpace and it is true that many people do means on these social networks but most of the time it is fairly harmless. The problem with this case was that it was specifically targeted at one person and was specifically intended to harm this one person also it was an ADULT attacking a CHILD. This is what that fine print is there for…as a means to punish those who do this sort of thing. This case is not a slippery slope but a warning signal to all those out there who are doing this sort of thing that YOU CAN GET CAUGHT AND YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE FOR IT.

obviously, this made up myspace account was taken to far, as it was seemingly created only to purposely abuse another user. while there are millions of made up accounts on every networking site, not all of them are used to intentionally abuse or hurt other users. for the ones that do though, the ones that take their abuse to the highest level seen law enforcement, their horrible actions should not affect others that are non-abusive.

she should be put to death imo…if i were the mother of the girl, i would for sure have her killed…no doubt…then turn myself in…smiling about the good service i did for the whole world…the woman is trash…she needs to be disposed of as such…a child murdering piece of trash..and any who defend her are the same…just like you…

and ps…she should lose her rights as a parent, for she has proven herself a danger to children…

As I said in my FIRST comment, they did not charge this woman with the right crime. She should have been charged with cyberstalking and harassment, which in most states IS A CRIME. I know, I went through it, I filed with my local prosecutor’s office and with lesser things in the emails than what happened in this case, and I could have had the woman formally charged and arrested. I only choose not to because I just wanted her to go away. And when she did not show up for “mediation” they told me they could go ahead and arrest her THEY HAD PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, instead I ask that they write her a letter telling her that if she did NOT leave me alone, they WOULD press charges and arrest her. Sometimes I wish I had just sucked it up and done it, but all I wanted was to be rid of her.

So I KNOW it can be done, I did it. I looked it up BEFORE I proceeded and there are plenty of sites out there that discuss the legalities of cyberstalking and cyberharassment. I knew what to do, and had plenty of documentation. And mine were all private emails, not PUBLIC posts on a website like My Space. I will agree, she was charged with the wrong crime, or rather, she should have been charged with ALL THE CRIMES SHE COMMITTED. And certainly she did commit cyberstalking and harassment.

It may be fun and games to some of you. Some of you think a person is “weak” if they are “upset” but things they “read”. Well, you DO NOT KNOW who is on the other end of those things, where they are or what they might do. So until you’ve lived in someone’s shoes don’t sit there and speak about how one should “feel”. It’s not a “cyber game” when it’s real and when it’s happening TO YOU. It’s traumatic, scary, and can cause such stress that you are not able to function normally. I ran a HIGHLY successful online business and after this occurred, it caused me such stress with reading emails from strangers that my business is done, I was unable to function properly always wondering if that next person was her in disguise again. This person caused me great distress, and a loss of all income. OK, so yes, maybe I allowed that stress to happen to ME, but excuse me for BEING A HUMAN WITH FEELINGS. I’m not a freak-a-zoid with an ice cube for a heart. No, I didn’t kill myself, nor did I think about killing myself, but I was traumatized to the point I sought legal measures. And traumatized to the point of having PTSD. It’s real, it happens and it can be legally stopped.

ANYONE who uses false pretenses to stalk and cause emotional harm to another should be prosecuted for that. If done by phone or mail I can guarantee you they would be, this is NO DIFFERENT. These kinds of people are the ones that cause the laws to be put in place, NOT THE VICTIMS. If these soulless individuals out there that find pleasure in harming others didn’t do what they do, then laws wouldn’t have to be put into place. But every time someone does something like this, then steps have to be taken to protect the innocent from those who enjoy harming others. In this country we have a right to pursue happiness — WITHOUT BEING STALKED, HARASSED, OR HARMED. And NO ONE has the right to pursue happiness by harming someone else intentionally. We are not talking about something accidentally but intentionally and with premeditation to do so, HARM SOMEONE. Yes, Drew was charged with the wrong crime, but what she did was criminal and I think they messed up, but I’m still glad she is going to have to pay somehow.

People who derive pleasure from others pain need to find a new hobby, and get a LIFE. And ANYONE who thinks it is OK for anyone, adult or otherwise to try to cause physical harm to another person by bullying or stalking or harassment needs major therapy and soon, because they are part of the problem.

Oh, I forgot, for anyone who does NOT think all this harassment and stalking online ISN’T illegal, check out just this one site:

http://www.wiredsafety.org/information/about_us.html

I found plenty more to help me, including checking out my own state’s government website for their laws. Stalking is illegal, and printed emails are taken as proof. I did also get a PI to get her on tape, so I had extra proof. I was stalked once I do NOT intend to ever take it again, and I feel fortunate that I came out of it with the knowledge I now have.

So again, those of you who think it is a game, be careful you don’t get caught up in your “fun”, you might find yourself in court, and better yet JAIL…..

“Oh, I forgot, for anyone who does NOT think all this harassment and stalking online ISN’T illegal, check out just this one site”

If Drew’s actions had met the definition of stalking, she would have been charged and convicted under stalking laws; she wasn’t.

“check out just this one site:”

I hope wiredsafety.org has a better understanding of the law than you or all the other vigilantes that spread their ugly message around the Internet.

If this woman was found guilty of the charges that were brought up against her, then the internet would be a very dangerous place for Americans right now.

No anonymity A curtailing of free speech The threat of legal penalty against anyone who improperly read a websites terms of agreement