Indictment handed down in MySpace suicide case
In an update to a tragic case that I wrote about some months ago, a federal grand jury on Thursday indicted a Missouri woman who allegedly participated in a cruel online hoax that ultimately ended up with a 13-year-old girl committing suicide.
Lori Drew, from the St. Louis area, allegedly posed as 16-year-old Josh Evans on MySpace.com, striking up a relationship with neighbor Megan Meier, a former friend of her daughter's. After befriending Meier, "Josh" then abruptly ended the friendship and sent hurtful messages to Meier, who took her own life shortly thereafter.
According to an Associated Press report, federal prosecutors charged Drew with "one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."
The federal charges announced Thursday come after local prosecutors in Missouri were unable to find evidence of a state crime having been committed.
I'll try to get more details from the indictment.
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. 
The day that ridiculing someone equates to conspiracy is the day that are legal system is officially insane.
It's conspiracy because this stupid woman did it with her son. She conspired with her son to harass this poor girl. Rather than actually be a good parent and teach her son how to behave properly, she stooped to the level of a pre-teen girl and helped him hurt her as badly as she could from the anonymity of a fake MySpace account.
We adults generally understand the need to be responsible for our actions. This woman is not a child, as the girl who committed suicide was. She needs to be held accountable for what she did. How else will she learn to act like the adult she supposedly is?
This is a travesty.
This case is special because it's over on the Internet. Kids these days know their rights to freedom of speech and are smart to defend themselves VERBALLY (words). If not, they can simply LEAVE. Why attach to something that doesn't WANT you? You have no right for the attachment.
I used to know a girl who would want to kill herself if I leave her! Does that mean I'm responsible for her death?!??! If that's the case, so many girls that left their bfs are in big trouble.
All I care is that this woman caused a suicide, THAT IS MURDER
She needs to pay the price.
I hope she gets life in prision
People in this country used to be rugged individualists and stress self reliance. Now we are a country full of Wimps. If you want to find blame that the girl's ego was fragile enough that mere verbal and written harrassment "caused" her to commit suicide, then look toward the parents.
This lady was undoubtedly cruel, but anyone with a healthy ego would just block the crap and go on.
There are some of you who may say that words don't hurt or whatever. The reality is that a lot of people go online and spew the most venomous words that their little brain can put together. Why? Because they want to take advantage of the "false" anonymity of the internet. Some people can be very cruel when they think they can't be found out.
There are some of you who may say that words don't hurt or whatever. The reality is that a lot of people go online and spew the most venomous words that their little brain can put together. Why? Because they want to take advantage of the "false" anonymity of the internet. Some people can be very cruel when they think they can't be found out.
What goes around and comes around. Your day will come.
MySpace, a social networking site, is owned by Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc. The indictment noted that computer servers are located in Los Angeles County."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356056,00.html
Hope that clears things up for you.
What I say cannot be construed as true. Any foregoing is my opinion and self imposed opinions. You have the right not to read my opinions.
Freedom of speech is at a lost here. Those who find speech as a threat to their emotions are those who continue to engage in information seeking when the information is harmful to ones health to the point of suicide. If this case sets a precedent to free speech, there will be many coming forth in a dispute between two emotionally charged people engage in free speech.
I do feel for the death of the girl and her family. This is a travesty.
MySpace did had a rule once before not to allow anyone under the age of 18 to use. They changed their terms of use to increase their revenue by allowing children KNOWINGLY under 18 to be on it. Whether it is knowingly and unknowingly engage in communication, it is free speech. Opinions are opinions. And if information hurts you, you shouldn't value such information.
I couldn't believe she was charged in this case. This is incredibly ridiculous and will cause the future of lawsuit to increase. People can be held liable for FREE SPEECH. Anyone making any remote comment or insinuate others may be subjected to indictment.
Say today someone cussed you out, cussed you out for 3 weeks straight. Four weeks later, you commit suicide. Does that 3 weeks of cussing you out a reason for the suicide?
Usually in every website, the terms of use agreement does not collect information from anyone under 13 and anyone under 18 will require parental consent and permission. Where's the parent in this???!!???
Bomb, Air Plane
With Freedom goes responsibility and consequences should you abuse said Freedom.
A remote comment is one thing. To maliciously attack, continuously, with intent to mentally harm is another.
The said malicious Adult had more than enough time to back off.
Bring on the law suits. The more Bullies actually have to face consequences for their actions the better.
People need to identify who it is saying and assess what they need to do. The person taking action upon the "speech" are the ones at fault. Say a kid, 5 years old, threatens to blow up the twin tower. Is the kid credible?
Your ignorance of freedom of speech shows your lack of source of cause. This is why freedom of speech is degraded to nothing with people like you who never read study the Constitution. During the age of englightenment, these works were the best there were, and over time we have people like you damage the very foundation these great ideologies have known to have done.
People go in a panic because they are stupid causing others to die as well.
A user has the right to create another account, block, ignore, delete, and ban anyone infringing upon their "myspace" page. I don't think that's the problem. I think the girl is engaging in an attachment of the persona of having a bf. Even after many rejections the girl come back to ask for more pain. If she knows is not good for her, why continue? Because she recognized having this love or "depress" feeling to the point of killing oneself is better than nothing which leads to her further depressed to taking her life.
It reminds me of a girl who always tell me if I leave her, she's going to kill herself and to the point she's going to kill me AND herself. I tried to put her down easy but she never gotten the point. I had to everyday verbally abuse her for 2 years, telling her to back off.
To intently mentally harm? Oh my godness, if you know the speech is harmful, who's asking you to be around to read, digest, and process the speech? People have the right to leave, delete, ban, etc. on MySpace. It's not like you don't have RIGHTS to do any of these.
When I engage in some verbal arguments that make me feel sad, I leave.
Don't blame other speech for ones stupidity.
?Your ignorance of freedom of speech shows your lack of source of cause. This is why freedom of speech is degraded to nothing with people like you who never read study the Constitution.?
So sorry, we don?t live in an anarchy. While I?ll admit I don?t make it a case of habit to study case law, and have never read the Federalist Papers. I have indeed read the Constitution and disagree with your interpitation. So stop with the personal attacks.
This is a teenager vs. adult situation. The adult should have known better. The adult should have exercised better control when the teenager threatened suicide. The adult should never have encouraged said suicide. Exercising Freedom of Speech with an impressionable teenager? I?m not stupid enough to be taking that bit of snake oil, I?m not that impressionable.
Face to Face, a printed letter, e-mail, fax, my space, it dose not matter. (see below) There are certain social lines that should never be crossed. So sorry we don?t live in an anarchy.
Society as a whole has a right to certain expectations for proper behavior, which override basic freedoms. One?s right end when another begins.
Hilary Clinton, ?It takes a village to raise a child.?
There is one society expectation I can live with. I?m sorry if this is to repressive for you.
The Blue Sunday Laws for example, or a city?s right not to allow R rated movies. (which I disagree with. Check ID and be done with it.)
I?ll say it again, with freedom goes responsibility.
Abuse that responsibility and there are consequences.
Yell fire in a crowed theater and cause a stamped. Well good luck to you. (see below) While you make an interesting argument, anyone with a lick of common senses or a good history teacher would know that this act is a very bad idea.
I personally tend to drown out a child?s cries, unless the child is in distress. Working retail for 10 years, you learn the difference.
The Iroquois Theater Disaster, I wonder how many thought it would be funny to yell fire after 600 lost their live to a real fire. http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/iroquoisfire.htm
I searched but could not find any examples. I did find one reference to 100+ people dieing in a stamped in a church in AL about a year before the theater disaster. Something about fire being yelled in the church. No idea if there was an actual fire.
I really need to inquire for source information, but this is an immediate response, so we will have to deal.
Your argument is that the victims are to blame and not the yeller if there is no fire. I?m not buying it. The yeller more than likely knows he/she will raise a panic so has a basic understanding of human nature.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Schenck/
?. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking, or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 477. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi. But as the right to free speech was not referred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.?
What an interesting read. Such an ugly thing, case law. No wonder I don?t like to study it.
Of course, we are probably going to read the document differently.
Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The third and fourth paragraphs also make an interesting read. Further more I wonder if My Space can claim injury and sue for liable damages.
As to your girlfriend threatening herself and you.
Please contact your local law enforcement agency and/or suicide hotline. Get an intervention (Been there with a relative, never want to be there again.) and/or restraining order. Get a paper work trail. Let your friends and co-workers know to watch your back. Never go anywhere alone till things blow over. Get her parents involved.
If she should commit suicide, you at least tired. If you do not try to intervene, then there very well could be a liability issue at stake. By intervene I mean, hand it over to the authorities.
So much for moral responsibility.
Oh and the question "where were the parents?" She was on Myspace taunting a kid. Nice role model eh?
Why didn't the kid just block her?
Where were the girls parents?
I also agree with you that she should be facing murder charges. Unfortunately, she probably won't.
She's a grown woman. She has at least one child of her own. If anything she should have taken a step back and said to herself "how would I feel if somebody did this to my child?".
She didn't. Now an innocent person is gone and no matter how you slice it, whether it may or may not have happened later down the line as some say - she's responsible for it happening in the here and now.
It's incredible how people will twist "freedom of speech" to suit their needs.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
But, skipping the hypotheticals, let's look at the case. The conspiracy charge is a valid one - obviously, the prosecutors are going to attempt to show that Lori knew of the (apparent) instability of the kid and her actions were geared to provoke a very negative response, beyond mere malicious teasing of a random individual.
Keep in mind, this is a federal case. Our culture is already a litigious one. I doubt this case will lead to any significant increases in the numbers of frivolous lawsuits that are filed.
I think most people here already realize this. Why else would they be tossing insults so freely?
If it would've been another child with out the issues she had, they probably would of told the boy to f* off and moved on withtheir lives.
It is not the other mothers fault that the girl had problems.
- by EyeWierd December 11, 2008 6:52 AM PST
- It isn't just fair that most people would roll their eyes at the girl. Some people are extremely tender hearted, and this lady just took advantage of it. Why is this lady even doing such an immature stunt?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)