Version: 2008

November 25, 2008 6:55 AM PST

Trial ending in MySpace suicide case

  • 7 comments

Final day includes prosecutors urging jurors to convict Lori Drew on federal computer charges--and her daughter's testimony.
(From The New York Times)

The story "Trial ending in MySpace suicide case" published November 25, 2008 at 6:55 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Seattlite_1 November 25, 2008 8:02 AM PST
So because she didn't read the rules she gets off scott free?!?!? Just like laes ignorance isn't an excuse. I hope she gets thrown in jail for the maximum time. Anyone that would do that desrves it.
Reply to this comment
by ross613 November 25, 2008 9:11 AM PST
I'm a bit puzzled here. There's actually a law against "obtaining information to cause emotional distress (electronically)" in the United States? Isn't that a lot like having a law against rudeness to people? I mean - there's no question that causing emotional distress is unethical, but to have a law against "not being nice" seems a bit crazy to me.

There is a line somewhere in law where the state needs to reserve itself from becoming an instrument of legislating ordinary behaviour such as would impinge on the freedoms of individuals. I'd expect a nation with the rich libertarian history of the United States to defer to that notion in its body of laws.

As reprehensible as the defendant's alleged conduct was here, it's a bit of a leap to conclude that she alone bears responsibility for the young lady's suicide, even if she played some kind of role in facilitating it. We likely won't see them here, but I'm pretty sure there'll be a whole host of evils created through trying to constrain the social interactions people have online - between consenting adults, if not the larger group of individuals.

Or perhaps we are seeing them here. Can we know what really happened?
Reply to this comment
by malynj November 25, 2008 9:14 AM PST
If this doesn't go in the prosecutions favor, we may see some significant blowback on service providers. (both web sites and ISPs) This would seem to be more of a test of the AUP/TOU/TOS that most providers put in place as a click-through acceptance or site links of acceptance. If those types of acceptances are tossed out, or otherwise found unenforceable, something new will need to be found and put into place. (Heaven forbid people having to sign and mail-back such acceptances, but maybe even require micro-payments (5-cent , 50-cents, etc.) as showing a sign of acceptance.) In some corporate IT situations, signed acceptance forms are still used just in case other types are tossed out, but it seems to be getting less common even in those environments.
Reply to this comment
by aka_tripleB November 25, 2008 9:31 AM PST
"nobody reads them."

That might be true most of the time, but on occasion I do read some. Like the EULA when I put the digital copy of "Resident Evil: Extinction" on my computer. I did not like the part that says Sony can change the agreement with out notifying me. And sometime I'm going to find a way to strip everything from the video file so I no longer have to worry about it. But even when I don't read the EULA, I still understand that anything in it can fully be used against me. Arrogance is not a valid defense against a EULA.
Reply to this comment
by humanssssss November 25, 2008 10:40 AM PST
TOS is an agreement between two individual parties conducting commerce either through pay or non-pay. It is binding only based on the commerce conducted and should not extend further to criminal action unless criminal statues are violated within the jurisdiction that it is in. In order for TOS to be enforceable, it has to be legal. Furthermore, TOS cannot be used to criminally prosecute a person, only the laws with respect to the jurisdiction of said violation can be used to prosecute.

The law itself has to be constitutional for it to be enforceable. A law like this:

"conspiracy and three counts of accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress. "

is ridiculous. People make stuffs up all the time to inflict "emotional distress." This is especially true on April 1. Another point of contention about the Internet is, people read everything. They never took into consideration the voluntary action they took to read information that are bad to them and decide whether it is reasonable for them to take their life.
Reply to this comment
by tjhwznga November 25, 2008 11:33 AM PST
I think ignorance of the rules doesn't give someone a free pass to inflict pain on someone else. especially an adult who should know better. Her actions are dispicable and she should be held accountable. What kind of mother teaches her daughter that this is acceptable behavior. And the daughter isn't much better if this is how she treats in her word "my best friend." She knew that she was fragile, but yet kept up the harassment.
If she gets away with this, I hope her neighborhood makes her life a living hell.
Reply to this comment
by benjus73 November 25, 2008 10:39 PM PST
A question came up regarding digital EULA (End User Lisence Agreements). I cannot pin point where exactly this came from, but I believe it was in California that it was ruled an EULA was not an acceptable means of a binding contract and therefore void in a case like this. The reason being the exact same as the defense in this case. EULAs truly have held very little sway in courts and it does not surprise the defense chose the course of nobody reading them.

humansssss makes a valik point regarding the cinspiracy law. However if one bothers to read the law it can be understood why the prosecution ended up charging the defendant like thus. The law states that by using a computer to create emotional distress, that person has caused emotional distress, which is a criminal crime while potentially engaging in commercial behavior. By engaging in conversation with the victim the defendant implicitly was looking for some material gain (i.e. the victim's death), and therefore was in violation of the law. How plausible that is I don't know but the reasoning behind such a law is plausible.

The situation is a delicate one. You can't prosecute the person for murder. You can't prosecute her for assault. What can you prosecute her for if there is tangible evidence to suggest she did in fact cause that girl to commit suicide? There probably isn't a stature which pertains directly to this kind of issue within MO, as the likelyhood of something as heinous as this would be pretty slim. Odds are, this woman will not go to jail, or if she does, not for very long. The charges are shaky at best, simply because the law she allegedly broke does not apply to this kind of ordeal. That does not make it right, but in reality there isn't much one can do.
Reply to this comment
(7 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (0.00%) 0.00 10,428.05
S&P 500 (0.00%) 0.00 1,115.10
NASDAQ (0.00%) 0.00 2,269.15
CNET TECH (0.00%) 0.00 1,646.41
  Symbol Lookup
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right