MySpace Suicide Charges Threaten Free Speech

Naturalist recommends a piece up at Ars about a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the EFF, CDT, Public Citizen, and a group of 14 law professors in the case of Lori Drew, who posed as a teenage boy to harass another teen online, eventually driving her to suicide. (We've discussed the case a few times.) "[The amicus brief argues] that violating MySpace's Terms of Service agreement shouldn't be considered criminal offense under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The groups believe that if the mother, Lori Drew, is prosecuted using CFAA charges, the case could have significant ramifications for the free speech rights of US citizens using the Internet."

Bad precedent...

The facts in this particular case point to a truly twisted individual, but this individual is unable to be prosecuted for major jail time under current, non "novel" interpretations of law. The proper thing to do is to note this case, and realize the perpetrator is not guilty of a felony, and create a new law to handle this case, rather than trying to find some way to twist the law to put this person in jail "for something", which will open the floodgates of abuses.

Re:Bad precedent...

create a new law to handle this case

I assume by "case" you mean "behavior".

What kind of behavior are you considering outlawing here? Being a dick? You want to outlaw being a dick on the internet?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA

Re:Bad precedent...

What kind of behavior are you considering outlawing here? Being a dick? You want to outlaw being a dick on the internet?

I can't speak for OP, but the behaviour we might want to look at is not simply being a dick, but conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice. to inflict serious physical &/or psychological damage on a specific individual. We might even want to extend it to a class of individuals to account for 'behaviours' such as planting epilepsy inducing graphics on epilepsy support boards and the like.

I agree with OP, that twisting an existing law for fear that this woman might get away with what she has done, when clearly she should not, is not an acceptable solution.

Re:Bad precedent...

conducting a calculated and sustained campaign of harrassment intended, with malice.

There's already a mechanism for dealing with this, it's called a restraining order.

How do you get a restraining order against someone who does not exist?

Re:Bad precedent...

While I think this is a sad story, and I feel for all involved, I simply cannot agree that a new law should be made to handle this case and charge the mother. Yes - she did a horrible thing. Yes - it is likely a cause that pushed the teen over the edge. No - it could not have in any stretch of imagination been the one sole contributing factor to the death. A straw on the camels back? Perhaps. But I think that anyone can clearly see the failure of logic in charging someone for a felony for placing a straw on the camels back, when there is in fact a bulging load there already.

Speaking from personal experience, you don't get that depressed from a single person posting on a website/sending emails. You don't go from being a happy-go-lucky normal individual to a suicidal person overnight, over a month or likely even over a year. I started being depressed often from the age of about ten or eleven. I had a suicide attempt when I was twenty three. I do not blame anyone directly. I was in a bad place, and in retrospect the problem lay totally with ME. Why can't people learn to look at their own issues before pointing fingers and pushing blame to everyone else so quickly?

Re:Bad precedent...

So that means that this woman shouldn't have to own up to her own actions?

I was driven to attempt suicide, in 8th grade, by ... well, it all stemmed from *one* incident, and then it snowballed from there. Eventually, the whole damn school would just relentless pick on me. I tried everything to stop it - ignoring it, fighting back, going through authority, nothing works like that.
Granted, some good things came of that, like the fact that I became involved in the OSS community as a way to escape (in fact, thanks to working on OSS in various ways, I'm able to be completely without my prozac ^-^).

Just because someone was 'emotionally weak' is no reason to excuse those who torment them. That's like saying that just because someone couldn't handle being shot at repeatedly that they 'deserved' to die.

Re:Bad precedent...

Next time I fill in a fake name or address signing up on a web site I should be charged with a felony?

This isn't about free speech

in my opinion. You do not have the right to torment an individual like this anymore than you have a right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or "I have a bomb" in an airport. AT some point, the safety of others does override your right to "free" speech.

Re:This isn't about free speech

What type of sick world do you live in where befriending someone you know is emotionally vulnerable for the express purpose of degrading and humiliating them does not classify as tormenting or cruel?

If you seriously see this as normal or even slightly acceptable behavior I have to strongly question your societal values and the people you associate with.

Re:This isn't about free speech

Its the god damn internet.

"It's"

The new Las Vegas

The internet does not grant magical anti-emotion powers.

Of course it does. What happens on the Internet stays on the Internet.

Re:This isn't about free speech

It was a classic case of trolling.

Shitcock is trolling.

Posting photoshopped pictures of Obama with a crackpipe between his lips is trolling.

Creating a persona as a Born-Again Christian and attempting to "save" people in atheist forums is trolling.

She pretended to be a boy who liked her, girl fell in love with her e-boyfriend, e-boyfriend then called her a slut and this that and the other thing, and the girl, who was mad fucked in the head and should have been receiving help went and offed herself.

That isn't trolling. That's a pure mindfuck and should be treated as such.

mad fucked in the head

I didn't realize the hoodrats knew about /.

It sucks someone died

No, it doesn't. Coming home from the grocery store and discovering half your eggs are cracked sucks. Having to bury your teenage daughter because of the actions of a sadistic sack of shit - that knew she had mental problems and exploited them - is a tragedy and a crime.

but there was nothing tormenting or cruel about what happened.

Dude. You need help.

Re:But it IS about the law...

There are plenty of laws that prohibit harassment. Here is an experiment you can try right in your own town/city. Go down town. Find some old lady walking down the road, and follow behind her calling out "fucking hag", "stupid bitch", "go die", as loud and as often as you find it within your power of free speech. No do this for most of the day, randomly switching out people (try to find the most pathetic persion you can, elderly, children, invalids, etc..) You'll quickly learn that there are plenty of laws that prohibit this type of behavior.

Besides, have you even bothered typing "harassment laws"?

Nothing tech about this case...

There should be nothing that compels this case to be brought up under ANY modern legislation pertaining computers. Computers and social networking were the means of the harassment... this does not mean there are any new concepts here.

Harassment and emotional abuse can be performed in person or over the Internet, and I've got to imagine that charges for wanton malicious actions against a minor will have much stiffer penalties than a simple ToS violation.

I don't mean to be too jaded here, but it doesn't much sense to me to be bringing an uncertain case against someone with a new law, unless the prosecuting attorney is seeking a landmark decision to put on a resume.

Certainly there must be a better choice than a new law when the actions of one lead another (esp. a minor) to suicide?

Civil Case

The girl's family should sue this woman in Civil Court for the wrongful death of their daughter. The burden of proof is much lower in civil court than in criminal, and they could ruin this woman for the rest of her life -- which is a hell of a lot more than she deserves, because she still gets to draw breath, but their daughter doesn't. And there daughter would still be alive today if not for this woman's depraved actions.

This time, you just gotta read the article!

The point isn't that the lady said bad things that drove a kid to suicide, or that the lady used the internet to do it. The lady should be subject to ordinary liability for that--just like any person who did the same thing on the street, or in the mail, or whatever. That's not the issue.

The issue is the terms of service agreement! That thing you click on and ignore so many times. That thing you send phony information so that the corporation doesn't get too personal on you!

If you type in phony information, (FRAUD, daddy), and then hurt somebody's feelings while on the account procured by fraud, the Federales can prosecute you for a crime. Think about the slippery slope this affords . . .

You gotta love the ingenuity of those federal prosecutors!

Freedom of Speech != Say Anything w/o Repurcussion

You have the right to say anything, and be heard, however, what you say can get you into trouble.
If you don't like the war, and you protest, and make speeches that the war is bad, and that you think the president is mistaken, that's protected under the freedom of speech.
If you don't like the war, and you protest, and make threats against the president, then you will be held accountable and the threats will be taken seriously.

If you are a psychiatrist whose job it is to help people through emotional problems, and you tell your client - you're fucked up, chances are that not only will the patient not get better, but you will be sued, and if something happens to the patient, like suicide, then chances are you will be prosecuted in some form or other.

If you are a normal person, who, by using a false identity, abuses someone or their character in such a way that it erodes their self-esteem, sense of self-worth, sense of self, to such a degree that they commit suicide, then you are most definitely guilty of abuse, both mental and emotional abuse, and should be held accountable as contributing to the death of said person.

This would be the case regardless of the technology used. The only thing this technology granted was a sense of anonymity that was properly given up due to the bizarre circumstances of the case.

If you were to stand at your fence in your backyard and belittle the child-next-door, calling them names, worthless, pieces of garbage, day in and day out, chances are you'd be faced with at least a law-suit if not a visit by the police. Why would doing this over the internet be any different? Should someone who intentionally abuses another person be protected just because they used the internet to do it? Should they expect a right to privacy or anonymity just because they tried to hide their identity before making those actions? I don't think so, and would hope that you wouldn't as well.

Hold on a second...

You clearly don't have kids - most teenagers these days won't let their parents into their life. Not because the parents are bad, but because society (advertising?) encourages teenagers to be self-sufficient and live their own life.

Sometimes, all the parents can do is be supportive and listen when their kid doesn't want to talk. If the kid won't talk to his/her parents... what did you want the parents to do? Tie them up and force them to speak?

Anyways, my point is that Good Parents don't always have good kids. And parents (unfortunately) can't always get their kids to open up and talk to them.

I guess your mom would kick you out of her basement if you were rebellious, so I can't expect you to understand.

Re:lolwut

If someone harasses you IRL, who do you blame? The... air that carried their words to your ears?

No, you blame the person who's harassing you, which is exactly what's going on in this case. Like it says in your own quote, the case is against the woman whose harassment drove this girl to suicide, not the web site she used as a medium.

Re:Die Emo Die

This is Slashdot. I bet 90% of us here would have come into contact with bullying or emotional harassment. Sure we've gotten our own back, but when you're a kid things are different. While I think the OP is being a little insensitive, I don't think you can draw a line from "Internet boyfriend acting like a dickhead" to "Ok I'm going to commit suicide".

Suicide is not a natural response to bullying, especially when that's not even face-to-face, which is what we experienced. If it was, most of us wouldn't be here. Either the girl had other problems which lead to her suicide (likely) or she was simply mentally unstable. In either of those cases the medium through which the straw that broke the camels back travelled is not relevant.

Re:Die Emo Die

Even if this adult perpetrator knew she was unstable? You must've had it rough. I didn't have any adult bullies in high school, just the stupid jock types my own age.

However, if violating the TOS is the only charge, as the summary suggests, then I reluctantly think she should be let off.

Re:Die Emo Die

She didn't know it was an adult bullying her. And it wasn't even a "stupid jock type" in a school environment. It was someone acting like a douche bag via text. Words.

My point is that kids get bullied everyday. Face-to-face. They get abused emotionally, physically. That's not a good thing. It's a terrible thing. But it happens, and only a small proportion actually kill themselves. This girl apparently killed herself because someone she'd never met was writing bad words about her. Bullying is not good and it's not acceptable. I'm not that it is. But it's also foolish to pretend that this one particular case is all that's needed to make someone commit suicide.

That's why I think there were other problems with this girl - be they other forms of bullying at school or some kind of mental illness. If the real problem is bullying or mental illness then THOSE are the issues that should be argued about and debated in the media and in Parliament/Congress. Not things like MySpace's Terms and Conditions.

Re:Die Emo Die

I think the point is that an adult with a fully developed brain deliberately set out to screw with a kid. Kids may do the same, but they're unlikely to be as competent at the manipulation because they don't have the perspective provided by experience and maturation of the brain.

Re:Die Emo Die

Yes that's also a problem. And she should probably be charged with harassment or something like that. But she isn't. Instead we're setting stupid precedents with far-reaching ramifications that won't do anything to stop bullying or punish bullies.

Seriously, my only point has been that the problem is bullying. Let's focus on that. If there isn't a criminal charge for the pre-mediated and long-term harassment of a child by an adult then there should be. Deal with that problem before screwing up things you don't understand.

Re:Die Emo Die

Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.

That happens to millions of people. Yeah, it hurts for a while, but you either move on, or you get so caught up in yourself that you keep dwelling in something that happens to everyone.

Your life is now nothing. The pain is massive. Emotional pain can strip you of everything; no form of physical torture can compare. It will consume and destroy you; if it passes a certain point and you DON'T kill yourself off, you'll be left a hollow shell incapable of really recovering. You'll live a life lost, where everything seems pale and insignificant, incomplete, and you smile at the simple things when you can but still find no satisfaction in the finer joys of being alive.

What? You're joking, right? That's pretty self-centered, ain't it? To compare something so temporary with actual torture, to say that something so common will take all joy out of your life. If what you say were true, NO ONE would be happy.

When someone's already having emotional trouble, and is going through a hormonal/emotional development stage, and is lacking emotional growth experience to cope, they're ripe for crafting this exact situation. Probably not enough to really trash their life if they survive it, but enough to make it obvious to them that life isn't worth living right now.

No. If someone really kills themselves over that, they were either raised to think they're the only human in existence, or there is something else massively wrong in their lives. I'm not trying to sound cold to the girl, but as far as I can tell, suicide is caused more by self absorption that this 'pain' you speak of. Either way, the parent poster is correct; suicide is not a natural response to bullying.