Parents of MySpace hoax victim seek legal recourse
Getting ready for work this morning, I caught a Today Show interview with the parents of Megan Meier, the 13-year-old that I wrote about on Saturday, who committed suicide last year after being taunted on MySpace.
Meier believed she had been chatting on the social network with a boy named Josh. At first, "Josh" sent friendly messages, but after a few weeks, he abruptly turned accusatory and insulting.
Meier's parents found out several weeks after their daughter's death that Josh was actually not a boy, but rather the fictional creation of adults, including the mother of a friend of Megan's, with whom she had a falling-out.
In the Today Show interview, Tina and Ron Meier said that the FBI looked into the matter for some time, but was unable to find a law that had been broken. However, the two said they still hoped civil or criminal action might be possible against the adult cyberbullies.
"We are still continuing on with the fight on the criminal and the civil side," Ron Meier said on the show. A legal expert on the program suggested that a recent federal law prohibiting online harassment might be applicable.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina.
Mr & Mrs. Meier, stay strong.
Sure - the parents should've been more involved (at least enough to have helped the kid out some to prevent something of that magnitude). Sure - The Internet is no place for children outside of specially crafted and guarded areas, IMHO.
That said, the two adults responsible deserve to have their future income potentials gutted.
/P
That said what kind of "adults" would spend time doing such things to a 13 year old girl????
Myspace and Youtube are total trash. They are the Jerry Springer/Ricky Lake of the internet.
Sometimes I really wonder is the Internet more good or bad for society??
yea go blame the net or sites like youtube for your fears.... try talking to your kids and helping them cope with the world instead of shielding them from it and PRAYING it won't ever hurt them.... to keep kids from such a great tool as the internet is a shame. just like drugs kids will get to the net and if you don't teach them how to use it just like why not to use drugs then you are deluding yourself into false safety... you can only shield them so long so why not stop shielding and teach them to understand and protect themselves. Don't you think its better to teach them to fish instead of feeding them until they are 18/20 and praying the figure it out???
I'm glad nothing happened to you; but you're one of over 24 million users. So it's like saying you haven't been struck by lightning- a lot of people have, but even one person being struck is never a good thing.
Most young teens are hungry for attention, which is why their always stuck on their phone or computer. Obviously, if a 'cute boy' messages a young teen girl, she probably will accept because in doing so, she feels accepted. Its all a part of Maslov's Heirarchy of Needs. This is a reason why the web's golden rule of 'you must be 13 or older to sign up' needs to be changed to 15 or even older. And it's up to parents to check their kids aren't making accounts - knock once, quick walk in if you actually let them keep a computer in their room. If you see something minizmized or hear Oh my God and the such, demand to know what they were doing. Check their browser history. Wait for a friend to IM back. Be a parent.
Sure other sites and areas are problems. But Facebook managed to create a great solution; networks. For the teens, they can set their privacy settings so only people in their highschool can find them, thus feeling accepted but safe. Chatrooms are extinct; I don't know of anyone under 30 who goes on public chatrooms. It all comes down to monitoring; by the parent and maybe eventually the sites oriented towards young children.
The first is the idea that always occurs after these kinds of things, that the parents are to blame for this, is a warped sense of justice. It used to be that all people knew that it was up to all people to treat children with kindness, and those that would prey upon them were the scourge of the earth and the earth should be rid of them. What has happened in recent history is a strange change for many who see the prevention of the evil that occurred as more important than the liberty of all people everywhere. Rather than say those that perpetrate this kind of act need to be treated so severely that they become an example and byword for those that act in such a way, they say the children should be monitored continually. In other words, children should be the ones that are "in jail" so idiots like these can roam free. I'm sorry, it is a sad thing that my children cannot run around the neighborhood without constant supervision. Why do they need that supervision? Not because they are so young they would do something like jump in a pond or run into traffic (well, the two and four year old does need constant supervision for that purpose) but because there are people out there that will do bad things to an otherwise "safe" child. It would be better if people who would hurt children were punished so severely that the thought of it would give nightmares to small children.
As for the second point, those that are outraged at this ought to ostracize those adults that perpetrated this act. Even if it is not criminal, it does not need to go unpunished. The idea that someone has found a way to get away with murder is hideous. If I had any dealings with those people, I would no long have any dealings with them. They should not be able to buy food in a grocery store, they should not be able to buy gas for their car. They should not be able to work for anyone. Total and complete ostracizing would mean they would soon have the appropriate penalty.
isn't that backwards?
or is it there is no property to confiscate? no outnumbered and outgunned citizen to corner and psycologically bully until they snap. which automatically manufactures a spiritual death warrant.
then when the victim and all the immediate bystanders are dead, it was the "criminals" fault.
all those dead people with police lead in them are dead because someone[the criminal] made a personal decision without gov't approval and that's not acceptable. so all those people would be alive if the "criminal" had not broken a law of God spoken directly through george bush.
those people shouldn't have been hanging around where crimes are committed. if you peek in their windows at night or thermal image their home you would probably find out they were criminals. so they actually deserve to be dead. so we the police are heroes for saving you from them and yourself. [http://just thank God by praising g.w. and rewrite the constitution so we can vote him in again.all the other amendments have been rewritten. so, why not this one?|http://just thank God by praising g.w. and rewrite the constitution so we can vote him in again.all the other amendments have been rewritten. so, why not this one?].
it's ok to psychologically torture people until they snap. we do it all the time. besides the lil girl was on the internet. if you confiscate and search her computer you could find out she was really committing crimes on there.
this Godless country sickens me more daily.ned morlef
But more disturbing than that are the actions of authorities: If it had been an adult MALE that "carried on" in a sexually explicit way with a 13 year old girl, even if it WERE for the purposes of revenge for his teen daughter, he'd be locked up as a pedophile.
Second, there are al-READY laws on the books that cover this type of harassment. For chrissake: just implement them!
What is particularly chilling to me, is that Lori Drew knew that the victim was known to be suicidal in the past. That means that her statement to her that the "world would be better off without you" or whatever it was... is even MORE chilling: it means she was TRYING to steer this girl to suicide. It means she had a desire to push it in that direction, and did so.
Reminds me of Charles Manson. He never "technically" put his own hands upon his victims either, but he "made it happen" by manipulating people, I mean that's the premise upon which he was convicted: that he had INCITED it.
Same thing here. Lori Drew incited this suicide and should be just as responsible as Manson was when he incited those murders---and she should also be treated just like any other adult who engages in online relationships of a sexual nature with under-aged children.
Myspace Eligibility: "Eligibility. Use of and Membership in the MySpace Services is void where prohibited. By using the MySpace Services, you represent and warrant that (a) all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information; (c) you are 14 years of age or older; and (d) your use of the MySpace Services does not violate any applicable law or regulation. Your profile may be deleted and your Membership may be terminated without warning, if we believe that you are under 14 years of age."
Megans parents created the myspace account for her! Again, lack of parenting comes into play. Once again yes it is tragic that this child took her life, yet why didn''t Megans mother go after her and have a talk with her right after this incident happened?
Another tragic loss of life by parents unwilling to deal with the issues at hand and trying to put the blame anywhere but on themselves.
-
by shycelticwitch
July 2, 2009 12:50 PM PDT
- Lori Drew should be publicly stoned. It is the only punishment I can think of that fits the crime. After all, this is what she perpetrated against dear, blessed Megan by her actions online. SHAME ON YOU, LORI DREW! How utterly juvenile and intentionally harmful your acts were, they were made even worse by the fact that you tried to blame it on the victim herself. I have read recently that many of their friends and neighbors now shun them. AND WHEN THE REST OF THE PEOPLE DO THE SAME, IT WILL DO NO GOOD TO CHANGE YOUR NAME.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(26 Comments)There is a word for women like you... who act like dogs.