[...] believe she should have faced criminal charges for her acts or been convicted of computer fraud. This article in GigaOm sums up my objections well, and they boil down to a couple of [...]

[...] read the legal worries about the conviction of Lori Drew.  I’ve read techie concerns that argue free speech in cyberspace is now on a slippery slope.  I can understand how the Law was [...]

[...] from GigaOm The mother of a girl who committed suicide at age 13 after being subjected to an Internet hoax [...]

[...] Why the Lori Drew Decision Was a Bad One Update: Few online events have ended as horrifically as the Lori Drew case. Befriended by a boy on MySpace who later [...] [...]

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:
(link)
(link)
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 the