Lori Drew Cyber-Bullying Trial Begins 317
An anonymous reader writes "The cyber-bullying trial of Lori Drew opened yesterday. She was indicted for conspiring to access and accessing MySpace illegally in order to 'further a tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotional distress' (PDF of the indictment). The BBC has background on the case, the NYTimes covers the opening statements, and Wired has today's testimony."
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. But, then again, people are outraged over this; she supposedly broke the law to intentionally hurt someone.
She's a bitch, and shouldn't be allowed in society. People like this are worthless pimples on the ass of society.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of those hard cases which is going to make bad law. There was nothing legitimate to charge Lori Drew with, so they went reaching for any tool available -- in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has already been pretty badly stretched. If Drew is found guilty (and she will be, on the emotional factor), that sets the precedent that violation of Terms of Service is now a criminal act. Talk about a big stick for ISPs to beat customers with... (share your wifi, go to jail...)
Re:Dragging on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Resolved without a trial? You mean like "by death-squad"?
Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Overreaching (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't know whether or not to think of this as an immature prank gone terribly, terribly wrong, or a real attempt to prey on a weak girl's vulnerable mental state.
It's not both? This woman is a grade-A sociopath, regardless of whether or not she suspected her victim would be so gravely affected as to commit suicide. She needs to be institutionalized regardless of the outcome of her actions, it's just unfortunate that these kind of people are only brought to light when something tragic happens.
Charged with the right crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and possibly illegal, but I get the feeling that she's being charged with the wrong crime. "Accessing MySpace illegally?" Now, I don't have a MySpace page, but it was my understanding that anyone could open a MySpace page and use it to contact other people. You don't even have to give your real name when you do so. I'd rather see some harassment charges or even something along the lines of manslaughter. What she did was psychologically manipulate that girl until she killed herself. That was the crime. MySpace was just the method.
Impersonation and fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be happy... (Score:2, Insightful)
A better crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello!? This is a 30+-year-old woman lying about her identity in order to start a romantic relationship with a 13-year-old girl! Of course her intent was not sexual but if Lori Drew's HUSBAND had perpetrated this exact same "prank" I guarantee the not-quite-accurate charge would have been sexually soliciting a minor, not breaking a EULA!
The jury is sympathetic enough in this case that I think this charge could definitely pass...
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been reading about this case for some time. So far the known points are Lori Drew may have been aware that her assistant (Grills) and daughter were putting together a fake MySpace account to "befriend" one Megan Meier. The assistant and daughter exchanged messaged with the Meir girl pretending to be a boy from Florida who was interested in her. After something upset the real life relationship with the Drew daughter and the Meier girl, the daughter and Grills started using the fake MySpace account to send mean-spirited messages to Megan. Culminating in Grills sending a message telling Megan the world would be better off without her.
You may not have noticed, but the only involvement ever mentioned in connection with Lori Drew is that she may have been aware the account was created. She did not herself create the account. She did not herself send messages to Megan Meier. She did not tell Meier to kill herself.
How does this qualify as "Grade-A Sociopath"? I don't see that anything she did qualifies as wrong, let alone immoral, or illegal.
But Dammit! we need vengeance, and we already gave immunity to Grills if she agreed to testify, so...
everyone on slashdot will react to this (Score:5, Insightful)
as if the woman is prosecuted for saying she doesn't like gw bush online
no folks, this is way beyond simple thought crime
context is everything:
1. the woman knew the girl was emotionally unstable
2. the woman is an adult, the girl was a minor
3. the woman purposefully set up a fake account with the intent of faking a boy who was interested in her, got her interested in this fake person, and then started insulting her, in the role of the fake boy, and suggesting she commit suicide
in other words, an adult willfully manipulated an emotionally unstable minor over a prolonged period of time with the intent of causing her psychological harm
surely some of you can support any law coming out of this case. surely some of you recognize this case is an extreme outlier and can in no way be confused with everyday garden variety trolling and meanness
if the law is limited to the context of an adult purposefully causing psychological harm over a prolonged period of time to someone they KNOW is a minor and is emotionally unstable, surely you can see that the idea of a slippery slope does not apply
context is everything, and the context here is really extreme
Re:Overreaching (Score:5, Insightful)
If we institutionalised sociopaths then a large number of corporations would be looking for new C?Os and a large number of political posts would be open.
Not, actually, a bad thing, now I come to think of it...
Thats the problem - this is a fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the story its because they can't nail her for the suicide they are doing this because "they have to do something". Which makes this case all the worse. I am wondering if the "hate crime" angle wasn't explored, its as silly as the approach they are taking.
So basically she does something which causes another to harm themselves. Technically she didn't cause the harm and as such is immune to prosecution. So instead they will twist a law and trump up some charges on this twist in regards to rules violated no one would ever consider for serious prosecution.
Lovely, whats next. If crap like this succeeds it opens everyone up to any fishing expedition law enforcement cares to make
Re:Dragging on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post hurt my feelings so much that I attempted to commit suicide. You should be put behind bars for intentionally trying to hurt me through cyber-bullying.
But seriously, STFU.
Totally agree. If it hadn't been for this, she probably would have offed herself over something equally ignorant. Not to mention that this case is now about "hacking." Essentially, if convicted, it will make creating and using a fake account punishable by up to five years for each offense. I've created fake accounts plenty of times, enough that I would be able to spend the rest of my life in prison. We should really blame Hawthorne Heights and the like for perpetuating a scene that gives you more cool points the more depressed you are. Do I condone the woman's actions? Not in the least. Do I have sympathy for the mother of the suicidal girl? Yes. That being said, if you commit suicide over a myspace message, you were a ticking time bomb anyway.
Charged with the wrong crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Indictment Right / Law Wrong? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that the law should have to catch up. You know that whole no 'ex post facto' rule in the constitution? When anything you don't like can be called illigal by purposefully misinterpreting the written law, you have thrown a very important part of our constitution out the window.
Yeah, the woman did a horrible thing. And yeah, you could argue that there should be a law against it. But the point is that there isn't one. And if there's no law, than the justice system should have no power to punish you. If you really want to punish her, too bad. Change the law so that the next person can be dealt with legally and according to the rules laid out in the constitution.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
And... lighting the bomb doesn't count as "bad"?
No, you can't use the "It was BOUND to happen one way or another" excuse, either; unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence (IE the ability to see into the future) then you can't say for sure that she would have 'offed herself' as you so kindly put it.
Plus, there is the "thin skull" thing in law; basically, if you do something that wouldn't cause a *normal* person harm, but the person has a pre-existing condition (in the original case, a thin skull that was struck and killed the person) that causes the 'normal' action to be deadly, it's *still* murder. In other words, ignorance of a pre-existing condition doesn't exempt you from your actions.
Re:I have mixed feelings about this case (Score:5, Insightful)
"Personally, I would like to have seen a state prosecutor charge her with at least second degree murder because it's a very reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Meier wouldn't have committed suicide had Drew not done what she did, and Drew had a reasonable basis to know that her actions would lead to the girl's suicide."
IANAL but it's my understanding that the deference between first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter is premeditated, unplanned (ie: passion killing) and without the element of intent (wanted to hurt him, didn't mean to kill him) respectively.
So by your logic the grounds would be first degree murder since, by your words, she had every reason to know that her actions would lead the girl's death and her actions were conducted over a period of time. Not in the heat of the moment.
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
That opens a terrible door though. Do you really want the government with the power to declare an individual randomly "incapble of telling right from wrong" (maybe you voted for the wrong political party and now fit this criteria) and then institutionalized for it? Remember: it's for your own good.
Truthfully, I think it's clear that what this woman did was wrong, and she SHOULD be punished, but we need to find a non-biased, and clear cut way that doesn't involve personal judgements to explicitly DEFINE what exactly she did wrong, and to what level people should be punished for it.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that this case must not stand. For one it makes the ISP an agent of the state. For example to lie in a court trial carries a penalty. To lie in a cash transaction may carry a penalty. But lying in social situations is not something that carries weight. In essence it is like saying that a lie told at a cocktail party is the same as a lie told in court.
Further, people who go online in social contact areas have prior knowledge that all kinds of nonsense may occur. They are free never to enter or to surf to another type of site at any time. It's like porn. If you don't like it you change the channel or turn of the TV.
And I'm not so sure that anything done purely online can ever reach the edge of torture or harassment. We are not talking about Geronimo and a large group of hostile Apaches circling the wagons here. Vulnerable people need to buck up and stop expecting the world to conform to their tender needs..
Re:Overreaching (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone does something that is 'wrong' you make a law, you don't trample there rights and use incorrect laws.
Re:Impersonation and fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
"..., rather than whether or not she commited computer fraud?"
A) Is that a crime? as in written into law.
B) If it is, that would be hard to prove.
If there is no law, then she shouldn't be tried. Use this effort to make a good law, not to stretch existing laws far beyond their intent.
Laws are not for enforcing (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, everyone in America is breaking a law. Whether they are punished for the breach depends on how much money they have, who they know, who they have cheated, and if the public is aware of the crime or not.
They are there so if you get in the way of the powerful, they can throw the book at you. In this case, it's a good thing, since this person, for no other reason than malice, emotionally abused someone just for the "fun" of it. Other times, victimless crimes like possession are used to keep the prison population high and the ghettos under control.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
nothing new here unfortunately . I've long since grown tired of seeing people do things that are perhaps immoral, but not illegal, only to see some unrelated, irrelevant law bent in an attempt to make what they did illegal.
The "bad laws" are the problem here. Too many new laws are hitting the books either with little care taken to limit their scope, or to outright ignore limitations. Loopholes and overly broad definitions are woven in, under the guise that something in the legal machine will act as a sanity-check and "but no one would ever abuse the law". I'm not sure if they're being naive, or doing it on purpose. I know I've long since learned, anything that can be abused, will be abused eventually. It always works that way. Always has, always will. Make something open to abuse, and it will get abused, usually sooner than you expect.
When you make a law with the hopes that some sanity check will prevent abuse, such as interpretation of a vaugity in the law by a judge, you'll find that some judges are naive, some judges have an agenda, and some parties have bottomless wallets to tilt the balances in their favor. The latter of the three being the major problem lately. You can never rely on "the system" only interpreting a law the "correct" way. Either you spell it out, or may as well not even bother. Making a vague law is worse than making no law at all, because when you make a vague law, you transform a situation from being undefined, to being possibly legal or possibly illegal, depending on the day of the week.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong Way (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the big issues here are that the law is being misapplied to fit circumstances clearly not within its purview, and the action itself isn't actually criminal.
This is a perfect case for a civil suit instead. What they are doing is taking a "tort" (punished via lawsuit) and turning it into a "crime" (punished via criminal charges and prison).
This entire case should have been in a civil court from the beginning.
Re:Indictment Right / Law Wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's so special about the internet? If I do some offline trolling [kuro5hin.org] ("I guessed she knew Jarry then, but didn't say so. It seems that the married guy had a few beers, too, bacause he's telling me he was fucking Jennie when she was 15. She looks decidedly embarrassed. So I take a shot in her behalf. 'Oh, then you're a pedophile?'") and the guy kills himself over it. Is there a law that would have me incarcerated? If so, use that law for the internet. If not, then again, what makes doing it on the internet any different?
Re:Dragging on? (Score:1, Insightful)
For the love of all that is, people need to learn to take some fucking responsibility for the their own actions!
Is this woman a horrible person, yes, is she responsible for *murder*!?!?! HELL NO.
Re:technicality (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't how a fair justice system works.
If what she did was so bad and she should be punished but she didn't break any laws then bad luck she should get away with it.
The solution is to enact laws to make whatever is so bad a punishable offence. Now if she or anyone else does it again they can be punished.
One person getting away with something is completely irrelevant - and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. Just pretend they never found out "who dun it" like with thousands of other crimes if it makes you feel better.
If she's so evil she needs to be kept away fromk society, then she'll do it again and the new law can then be used. (and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state).
Re:Overreaching (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are only trying to do this route because there is NO law on the books against what she did. And allowing them to bend this law to get her would set an ominous precedent.
This is much like years ago where I think it was a landlord, or maybe a neighbor set up cameras in someone house to spy on them nude or having sex. While it was a reprehensible act, there as no law on the books against it, and they had to let the perp go free. Laws were subsequently passed against this act, and that is how this case should be treated.
That being said, I dunno how a law against this could be written to where it wasn't so overly broad that the mere flaming or bashing someone on the internet could result in prosecution because anyone could say they were being bullied. This would also probably hit some people that were fairly complaining about someone, or posting negative comments about them. It could hurt whistleblowers.
I dunno if you can legislate anti-bullying.
But, while this act was horrible, I think it is a case of where no law on the books is there to prosecute it, and I hope they are not allowed to try to bend a law that is clearly not applicable to this case, into a successful prosecution.
man you are ignorant (Score:2, Insightful)
it is cases like this that write new laws
duh
"and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state"
ignorant and retarded on so many levels. as if the creation of new law has anything do with a police state. as if your excusing of psychopathic murder is somehow no worse than what goes on in a police state, making you and your attitude worse than what you fear
Re:Overreaching (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it was wrong too, but if there is no clear cut law on the books to prosecute her with, then they should have to deal with that fact, and let her go.
They can not be enabled to stretch any law they like to try to catch someone doing something bad. That opens up a WHOLE new can of worms that we really don't want opened.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm a geek, I'm *intimately* aware of bullying[...]
Geeks are smart. You're clearly not smart so your assertion that you're a geek is false. You're more like those people who think they're geeks and only pretend to know what they're talking about, but really don't. Why do I say this? Because any geek would be smart enough to know that your experiance with bullying and 'torture' is has nothing to do with the case at hand. Your claim that it does, is purely idiotic. Hench, backing up my statement that you're not that smart.
For the love of all that is, people need to learn to take some fucking responsibility for the their own actions!
Exactly... like the adult who bullied a kid so much they they lit the bomb the kid was holding. Instead, said adult should have been offering support to clearly take away said metaphorical bomb, not purposely trying to inflict mental harm. She did not consider the consequences of her actions and should be held responsible for them. I agree with you.
Is this woman a horrible person, yes, is she responsible for *murder*!?!?! HELL NO.
So... you're saying she's not responsible for her actions then? What a hypocrite. If you had a clue (which you don't because we've already determined your not that smart) you'd also realize that there's more than just murder as a definition of harm that causes death along with different degrees of murder. We're not talking about 1st degree intential homicide, but we are talking about INTENTIONAL harm that DID result in DEATH. Yes, she should be held responsible.
Welcome to the real world. There are consequences for your actions and if you do said actions, you're responsible for them. Something this women is about to find out and something you apparently haven't a clue. But I don't blame you, you're not the brights bulb in the pack.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the greater things about humanity is the capacity to take terrible things in stride. A lot of people can make jokes about truly horrific things such as this girl's death or the Holocaust that, so long as you understand it isn't serious, are funny.
Monty Python's "No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition" is a great example of this by the way.
Face it, "trolled to death" is a funny phrase. It's just ridiculous. The majority of people can't imagine being so depressed that it could even happen, even with (potential) evidence that it really did.
Disagree with me? Watch this [google.com] and don't laugh.
Re:technicality (Score:2, Insightful)
-From nedlohs:
"One person getting away with something is completely irrelevant - and in the grand scheme of things completely unimportant. Just pretend they never found out "who dun it" like with thousands of other crimes if it makes you feel better."
Well I would love to see how unimportant this is in the "grand scheme of things" when it is your son/daughter/dog, whatever most /.ers have relationships with. I'm sure you'll be really proud of your kid for setting a standard for a new law.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
This, on the other hand, is trying to take a hacking law and apply it to something that is clearly not, repeat, NOT hacking. Cayenne's phrasing, "ominous precedent," puts it pretty succinctly. The government can't be allowed to apply whatever law it feels like because the other ones don't fit. That's why we have laws in the first place.
It's unfortunate that every time a mother with a teary eye shows up on the TV, people get whipped into an emotional frenzy without taking a moment to evaluate the unintended consequences of their desired course of action.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the love of all that is, people need to learn to take some fucking responsibility for the their own actions!
Every time I hear/read someone talking about people taking responsibility for their actions, they're always letting someone else get off scott free on their actions.
The girl killed herself. She has already paid for her actions. Now it's time for the woman to take responsibility for what she did.
Did she kill the girl? No. Did she contribute to the girl's decision to kill herself? Yes.
Why do you insist that certain people (the girl who killed herself) have to be responsible for their actions, while other people (the woman who helped drive the girl to do it) do not?
And drop the "I was bullied and didn't kill myself so no one else can use that as an excuse" bullshit. People are different. People's circumstances are different. If you got through your own torment and came out okay, then good for you. That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's circumstances, ever.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you can't use the "It was BOUND to happen one way or another" excuse, either; unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence (IE the ability to see into the future) then you can't say for sure that she would have 'offed herself' as you so kindly put it.
No, it's exactly the other way around. You can't blame the bully for the suicide unless you happen to have PERFECT evidence that the person in question would never have committed suicide at any point in the future EVER.
Come on, dude. Offing yourself because an online boyfriend you've never actually met said some hurtful things? That's just darwin in action. If you're not stable enough to take being hurt like this, you're not fit for survival, and you're not gonna pass the flawed genes.
Let me put it in another way. Let's imagine a situation where there was no conspiracy. Let's say an actual boy existed with the myspace page. One day he breaks up with the girl and says that she could "kill herself" because he's a fucking jerk. She goes and kills herself. Is he to blame at all, or was the girl just mentally imbalanced? Come on, I've had people tell me to go kill myself in REAL LIFE. I've gone through the middle school bullying where they really try to break you emotionally. This type of stuff isn't meant to hurt you physically. The bullies are being fucking immature jerks, but being a jerk isn't a crime, nor should it be.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Insightful)
...we do not legislate morality...
Is the question of whether or not it is okay to kill anything other than a moral question?
All laws are based on morality, and there are even many laws that enforce someone's view of "moral activity" despite having no bearing on anyone outside of the perpetrators (whereas something like murder clearly affects more than just those involved). For example, prostitution laws. Or how about laws against consensual oral and/or anal sex that exist in some States? Or, to delve into an issue of contemporary civil law, how about the law preventing people from marrying members of the same sex?
If Ms. Drew is legally responsible for this girl's death, then should rappers be responsible for someone doing drive-bys because they heard it in the lyrics, or, to use an old reference, should Beavis and Butthead be responsible for some kids burning down a trailer park because the cartoon characters were pyros?
The primary difference between this case and the examples you provided is that her actions were specifically directed at the victim with the intention of harming said victim. And she succeeded in doing just that.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:2, Insightful)
yes. People are not taking responsibility here. Like the parents who let an emotionally unstable girl go on the internet unsupervised or the fact that she tried to talk to her mom before she commited suicide. Lets focus on the person who said some mean nasty words to her.
She's guilty of being a big bad meanie on the internet. That's about it. No one can be held responsible for someone killing themselves other than the person who actually did the killing.
Besides that, wtf is violating the TOS BS coming into play? I don't see how that's even a crime.
Re:Dragging on? (Score:4, Insightful)
I got the impression she was a domineering helicopter mom constantly interfering in her daughter's life from the wired article. Her daughter got into a "fight" with Megan and it sounded like it was over and forgotten and/or forgiven but her Mom couldn't let it go. In most states the Mom might have easily been convicted of stalking, involuntary manslaughter, and conspiracy which would easily put her into 3 time loser category for an extra 5 years as well. Pathetic isn't the word I would chose, predatory is.