Comments on: Report: Guilty verdict overturned in MySpace suicide case

Lori Drew allegedly used a fake MySpace profile to harass a teenager to the point of suicide, but judge says prosecutors can't use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against her.

[solvback]

If the kid had wealthy folks the lady would be in jail.
Sad ain't it!

[shycelticwitch]

I would say that Lori Drew should be punished according to the natural law of man, but I don't think she's human. I disagree with the judge's decision, but take some comfort in knowing that this animal will not be amongst those who sit next to God on her judgement day. There is also some small measure of satisfaction in learning that the community she lives in has ostracized her, along with 90% of the rest of the human beings on this planet who have a conscience.

Those of you here blaming the parents and the victim herself will be accompanying Lori on her "trip south"

[GlennAllen]

If Megan's parents want to find the person(s) responsible for Megan's death, then they should go look in a mirror, instead of blaming her emotional problems on someone else.

[ddesy]

Are you implying that Lori's heinous actions didn't contribute to the problem? Wow...

[asimplemom]

I don't think anyone is "blaming" the parents or the victim, I think the point is missed that people need to take accountability for their parenting skills NOW, this being a HUGE EXAMPLE OF WHY!! This girls story is tragec, let's be a responsive and responsible society and learn by it at large, not think it is such an isolated case! Put yer pitch forks down and consider protecting your own kids now!

Anything you don't do to protect your kids is a CALCULATED RISK and that includes protection on the internet, horrid movies and overt violent stimulation from mixed media. I have been around the block and I don't choose this for myself, there is nothing entertaining are visual images or exposure to a dark existance. Choose your life. Choose the things in it. Make GOOD choices for your kids. The whole world is a nasty place, do people really think the trust system is going to help raise their kids? Or this condemning "god"? Where is this "god" who allows these things to happen in the first place? Jesus Christ wake up. Tsk Tsk human traffickers, god is going to send you down the big slide. Nope, that's just not PROACTIVE enough for me, I think I will use my own brain thank you!!

This exists and needs to be acknowledged, no one is going to protect your kids for you, time for people who OWN A COMPUTER to makes some RULES, load some CONTROLS and FILTERS that ARE AVAILABLE TO ALL USERS AND CONSUMERS! YES YOU CAN administrate the settings on your child's computer! Yes you can demand your schools do the same! THESE ARE SOLUTIONS, not "god" who is a figment of your imagination or condeming people to hell (which is supposed to be "gods" job according to the bible isn't it? As I understand it, no one but "god" is supposed to judge anyone so how is this justification working for you exactly?!

To say you can not "watch your children 24/7" is a lazy cop out. My child has a very filtered computer and a very good compass of right, wrong and the rules we wish it to live by = not to hard really. This is much easier than asking the world or "god" to do this for us.

"God" apparently has given me a brain to see that anyone not using theirs and condemning me to a trip "SOUTH" is not. Going to church amongst all the other hypocrites will also not make you immune from disease, theft, stupidity, obesity, infidelity, perversion, poverty, greed or any other human frailty. It will give you a justification for human existing in conflict with scientific proof, your choice but not every else is chosing church, your church or even your religion!!

FILTER THEIR DOG GAM COMPUTERS ! MONITOR YOUR KIDS COMPUTER USE IN THE OPEN!

[ddesy]

Saying that kids cannot be watched by their parents 24/7 is not a cop out at all. Kids will often do what their parents tell them not to even if you think they don't. I hear parents say all the time that they know their kid would never do things that in reality they do. It's wonderful for you to believe that your kids will always do what you taught them, but that isn't usually reality.

Are the parents supposed to sit in the school bus and in the classroom? Follow them into the bathroom? Where does it end?

Also, do you believe that all parents know enough to make filters work for their kids? I know many people who know less about their computers than their kids do. These kids can easily circumvent the protections put on the computers.

[ftroit]

ddesy:

it ends with proper upbringing and learning your kids weaknesses. Every human being, regardless of age and reason has faculties. if you potty-train a child, the child knows that when he/she has to doodoo, he/she needs to get a potty or go use the toilet. teach them, show them, they will understand. they'r not aliens. that's how we become responsible. set time for computer. if u set a rule that the kid won't use the coomputer unless a parent is sitting by to watch, and u make the kid understand why, the kid just like u potty-trained him/her will follow you and get used to it! Not saying that we're infallable. But there's a minimum of things we can do. For instance, while it is debatable, I WON'T let my 13 year old use myspace without me being present. (FYI, 13 years is the minimum age at which one can get a myspace account). Therefore, a kid at 13 on myspace or on the internet, is just like a bicycle on the autobahn. You need to be EXTREMELY careful. There are no excuses, can't say well, i'm working 3 jobs, can't say i'm tired. No excuses for a good parenting job.

One time i was chatting on my AIM and one of my buddies had her status message as : "My kids are using the computer, please watch what you say and the pictures you post". That sounded to me as very irresponsible and so i reproached her and said why is she trying to shift responsibility for raising and protecting her kids on to others? Why should people respect her wishes? Because she's God? I asked her that what if someone didn't pay any attention to her message and went ahead and displayed graphic material and her kids saw it, who will she blame? i Finally asked her why didn't she simply sign out of her AIM and then sign in again after her kids were done using the computer? As expected, she felt all guilty, logged out and we never spoke again? She was offended that I exposed her for what she is.

[pentest]

To put this into perspective for those too emotional to think rationally.

If this was upheld, someone violated TOS(say, sharing a world of warcraft account) would be a criminal act.

That would mean that corporations can write law when and where they want. Corporations already nearly own the US, but this would effectively end democracy.

That is why the judge was correct.

Pentest-

Agreed but then again what you are saying that the TOS is useless? So it holds no actually weight what so ever and can be discarded without anyone ever thinking that if they break the TOS they may get in trouble?

Not only did she break the TOS she willing admitted to doing so. They threw out the felony charges. Charges I believe that would have made more of impacted.

This woman terrorized, tormented, bullied and harassed a child. She knew the delicate state of this child but continued to harass her. She told the girl that world be better without her. I wouldn't never say such a horrible thing to my worst enemy let alone a confused a vulnerable child.

You don't keep loaded guns in the in the bottom of a cabinet and you sure as hell don't tell a depressed girl to kill herself. Lori Drew should be held responsible for the death of this child. She is a murderer and has proven that words can be extremely powerful weapons and she shows no remorse for her actions.

I hope the parents of Megan sue the pants off this woman.

[pentest]

If you break a TOS you lose the privilege of access that service.

If there are other issues like copyright infringement, then there is a civil case.

I have no problem if she gets sued by the derelict parents of this child, although they need to take responsibility also. What I have a problem with is people being charged with a crime for breaking rules of a service.

[asimplemom]

ddesy - it is a cop out! You can AFFECT CHANGE! It this mentality the same as your children are free to watch whatever television provides? You dont have to follow your children anywhere (and you would get the rebellious child if you did) but you can inform them about why you make these choices for them. Kids are not stupid, they are blank intelligent slates with parents being the highest valued opinion!

Chat rooms are garbage and even this is a false reality. I am done, I am just trying to gain the attention of one person to pause and think that the whole world is not responsible for what you can not teach or control of your child, you are as parent, as well you must protect them from the whole world not claim ignorance. Lori whatever is a horrid person, granted. What she did is horrid and wrong. No one is saying the parent is responsible for a tragic death. Parents at large however need to wise up and be PROACTIVE. There is no excuse for not controlling what a kid does on your computer - if you can buy it you can have someone set controls for you, even if you feel too inept. No, parents cant follow a kid to the bathroom but HELL YES you can make CHANGE AT SCHOOL! HELL YES you can filter good friends and family from bad! The LIBRARY? I am going to challenge this and look into book school and the library because I find it hard to believe! #1 POWER is CONSUMERISM, stop watching the garbage on TV and buying crap and you wont have it as a choice anymore! If you are buying NINTINDO and the like you are succumbing to your childs least needs, and shame on you!

Time for crafts! bicycling lates! (Oh and ANYONE can read for theirselves that antidepressants under 25 year olds can CAUSE SUICIDAL thoughts in young adults as well as prepubescents)
\
There is no pill with any quick fix for growing up - life is a *****, get out and enjoy it and teach your kids to enjoy the goodness of it, be smart, be tough and make good choices. If my child were giving any of their daily happiness or not to a TYPED INTERNET FRIEND, I would be having a big talk and going to the beach more, not getting a faster laptop and smarter prescriptions with head doctor appointments.

Im outa here - just posting food for thought not to offend

[dmc2010]

Ms. Drew (and, likely, her prodigy) should be sterilized and put away in some remote location for life. The facts demonstrate that she lacks any value to society, save serving as an example of how one should not act - as a person generally and parent specifically. With the challenges facing this nation, people like her are, ultimately, are a drain (rather than a contribution) to overall social well being.

[Had_to_be_said]

First, what this woman did was reprehensible, AND "criminal". Frankly, she COULD have been prosecuted a dozen different ways (and, in my opinion, she still SHOULD be).

HOWEVER, the actual prosecution of this entire case was a SHAM, PERIOD. It was being USED to promote an unbelievably dangerous and fundamental, direct, INTENTIONAL-ATTACK on the very concept of "the rule of law", and "due process" (namely; by advancing the agenda of making "corporate" -WHIMS- (I.E. "TOSes", "EULAs", etc) the same thing as "LAW". Basically, if this was allowed to stand... ANYONE, could effectively be "CRIMINALLY prosecuted", merely, for (in any way imaginable) "violating" any businesses, arbitrary, "end user agreements". Think of the, nearly, absolute (and utterly corrupting) POWER this would give corporations (and, politicians), so much for "...checks and balances".

THAT, is why this prosecution was so... BAD, and why overturning it was so... IMPORTANT.

If (like me) you want to vent your anger, over the horrible tragedy of this situation, then aim it at those that were actually responsible... and, especially, those that BUNGLED this case so badly (...by attempting to USE this situation as an opportunity to end-around virtually every fundamental-concept of legal-governance, and "the rule of LAW" ...in a, clearly-intentional, attempt to create the ability to engage in entirely-arbitrary, and state-sanctioned and abetted, "legal prosecutions" by, and for, "private", and political, interests).

[ftroit]

While i don't condone Lori's actions, it is sad that no one is saying what's at stake here: Absentee parenting.

If someone sends me (regardless of my age or say 16 years old) a distressing text or communicates with me (telling me to go hang and that the world will be a better place without me) on my myspace and this causes me to run a red light or hit somebody or even kill somebody, should we or the law rather blame it on the person who sent me the distressing communication and prosecute that person? Do we legally blame it on that person? Shooot, if that's the standard, then if anyone is planning to drive over the speed limit, all you have to do is get someone send you distressing messages to your myspace account. If you get pulled over, blame it on the messages.

In Lori's case, given the same facts, but only that the 13-year old victim, instead of taking her own life had taken the life of someone else (say, her parents), do we blame her or Lorri for causing these people to die?

At what point do we, parents, begin to take responsibility and stop shifting blame onto others? Do we really want the law to act as our nannies? If Lori's words caused the victim to kill herself (hence her words are the weapon), is there any reason we can't use the same logic to conclude that the computer she was using is a dangerous instrumentality and a weapon too (and by extension, her parents should never have given her one, and are therefore responsible too for her death)?

In the present case, we will see how the new cyber bullying laws will be written. As a parent, this whole situation saddens me. But I won't lose my sense of reason and fairness, at least not just yet. There are no laws yet to prosecute this woman. But one will wonder why the prosecutors had gone for very complicated laws. I realize that they were trying to send her in jail for a long time, whereas simple charges such as under harrassment laws would have only landed her a few of weeks in jail if at any

[Mayusan]

I still can't get over how there are people on here defending what Lori Drew did. I think they must know her in some way. you actually say that if we take away the rights for an adult to harrass, stalk and attack a child till suicide, that America will lose it's freedoms? OMG are you freakin serious? You must not be american cause you have a SERIOUS lack of understanding when it comes to our TRUE freedoms.

You can NOT hide behind the 1st amendment. the 1st amendment was NOT created so grown up fat slobs with no life can go online and mentally destroy a CHILD. that is not what the 1st amendment was created for. HATE is not protected under the constitution, nor should it be.

That's why if you say the "N" word you can get in trouble for hate speech. That's why if you threaten to cause physical harm to someone, you can be investigated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a hillbilly to know what this woman did was NOT protected by the 1st amendment.

Lori Drew is a fat 40 something year old woman who should be hiding from her new wife, Big Bertha, in jail. I don't care what the first amendment says, it does not protect perverted, sick women from reprocussions of attacking a child until she commits suicide.

people talk about the young girl being mentally ill... how mentally stable do you have to be to be a grown woman, posing as a young boy to destroy a child just because of RUMORS that she was talking smack about your kid when you had no proof that it was true?

she is an evil, disgusting, fat slob of a woman who deserves to be run out of town if she doesn't get put in jail with the good old tourches and pitchforks you see in the old frankenstien movies. She's a no good pimple on society and she should be locked away somewhere where.

Debate is protected by the first amendment. if I don't like cap and trade, if I think abortion is wrong, if I think this judge is an SOB for letting her off without even a slap on the wrist, I can express that. I can debate with those on the opposite side, I can even peacefully protest. I can write an article expressing my reasons for why I'm against this or for that. that is my first amendment right.

Hate speech, threats, and cyberbullying is NOT a protected right.

[pentest]

Violating a TOS is not a criminal act. Not sure how this is difficult for you to understand. What about the parents? Where is your ire for them? What about the prosecution bungling this case so badly and mischarging her?

The only person defending Lori Drew is a "person" who thinks it is OK to have sex with children.

[rkinne01]

What you have to remember is that this young girl had problems with depression. The parents may well have been at a loss as to how to help her, its hard to deal with someone who is depressed and there is no one universal method to help them. Therapy and medication can take years to work and may vary in success, if it works at all. We really have no idea what the parents role in this was, they may well gave been awful parents or they may have been parents who did they best they could with the mental illness this girl had. The fact the suicide came after a fight with her parents doesn't mean it was the final straw, it was likely planned ahead time.

As for Lori Drew, she should be charged for her role in this whole mess. She KNEW this young lady was in poor mental health yet harassed her anyway. I think she may have some mental health issues herself. What kind of person goes online because someone MIGHT be talking about her daughter?

[tommyferrell93]

Lori Drew is a monster and a murderer. This is a pathetic decision. I understand that it is not breaking a current law, but that's even more pathetic. How is this not a criminal offense? Drew's actions tortured a teenage girl into taking her own life. Maybe it's not murder, but it is definitely morally criminal and disgusting.

[pentest]

There is a difference between law and morals.

You really think that upholding arbitrary corporate rules as law is the way to go?

Just because you are upset doesn't mean you need to shut off your brain.

[asimplemom]

I dont think anyone here supported Lori Drew. What people are discussing is the law, and how to interpret cyber typed behavior towards another as illegal, or not.

Because we are not immediately hanging Lori Drew herself for the crime she is accused, or disagreeing that the laws by which they are trying to prosecute her perhaps do not apply, I don't think anyone is sided with that side of cow. It's slightly more complicated than that.

I don't think Lori is a murderer, mean spirited yes, a bad parent yes, cruel yes, but murder no. Do you think I am responsible for your response to me because I don't agree with you? Am I responsible for your spiritual obliteration if I don't support your disillusionment of a god? Of course not!

This is typing, no one should take typing to any personal degree. People should however take more responsibility for their parenting style. Ftroit I appreciated your thoughts, very original and thought provoking to wonder at what point and to how many degrees could blame stop or in this case continue if there were laws written to big brother responsibility for our own actions is due to the cause of others.

I noticed that MANY people have COPIED my typed style of EXPRESSING IMPORTANT words with CAPS. So, if I take OFFENSE (because you have no idea how sensitive, depressed and twisted I am on Sundays or the medication and its side effects I am taking) and I SHOOT MY FOOT OFF in the bathroom and bleed to death, in this reasoning, it is really YOUR FAULT (and you KNOW WHO YOU ARE) because you are mean to ME and MAKING FUN of me and my feelings are CRUSHED! Then, by the standards by which you are asking this woman to be convicted on, you would too be arrested (whereever and whoever you are) tomorrow.

I don't believe in "cyber-bullying" because there is an OFF BUTTON!! You can change, filter or prevent anything you want. I had a scummy neighbor hit on me with my aol chat account that I had given his wife, when I realized it was him I turned the computer off and blocked the id, problem solved! Could I have sued him for having to move? They lived next door, I would have really liked to but I learned that was not for me and not to give my information out to anyone!

Off to mend my foot......................

[pghcraig1]

While there may not yet be written law to define this act, what she did was morally criminal. And it is certainly biblically criminal. Therefore, I would personal go the eye for an eye route... and rip Lori Drews out so she could never see a keyboard again if it were me. I give props to the Meier family. If it were my child, I think I'd have nothing left to life for myself, and those people would be going down!

[pentest]

eye for an eye is NOT a christian tenant.

There is no such thing as "morally criminal". Morals and criminal law have an intersection but one is not a subset of the other.

[shycelticwitch]

Put aside (just for a moment) the fact that a 12-year old girl died as a result of another person's acts, and focus on the real issue here. A 40-year old woman who lied and broke all the rules of decency and common sense. She did so on purpose. She did so to seek revenge on a child. She portrayed herself as a teenage boy, and falsely exhibited affection under this guise. She perpetrated an act so horribly against the laws of society that her family is now suffering for her actions.

While I previously stated that she should be publicly stoned (like they did in the old days, for those who perpetrated especially horrendous social crimes), there is another alternative to "an eye for an eye". It would be a wise and proper thing to lock this woman up in a mental hospital, and make her stay there until she can give a reasonable explanation for her lunatic, antisocial actions.

Don't lock her up for murder, she didn't do it. What she did do is far worse. She took the very last bit of self-esteem from another human being and used it as a weapon against her. Making the punishment fit the crime is simple. Strip her of her dignity and social status, give her the scarlet letter.

And the parents of the young lady who died? While they may not have been able to prevent what Lori Drew did, they could have prevented the consequences by reading the child's daily logs (as I do mine, every night, no matter how late it is or how tired I am).

Parents of the world... if you think Lori Drew is an anomaly... think again. People like her are everywhere, and most especially prevalent in the cyber world.

Everything we teach our kids about self-esteem and standing up to peer pressure looks kind of silly when we adults run around with stickers on our Hummers that say my kid is smarter than yours." If your kid is smart, GREAT! GOOD FOR YOU! GOOD FOR YOUR KID! But keep it to yourself. There are millions of other children (and parents) who don't need a bumper sticker to tell them they are of good character.

GROW UP! Your kid is NOT better because you drop him off at school in a Lexus. Your "princess" is not prettier because she wears designer duds. Your child is not even "better" if his GPA is 4.0. Individual character carries you a lot farther in life than a fat wallet, good looks or mean spirit ever will.

Hopefully, Lori Drew will remember to spend the next 40 years of her life asking for forgiveness for her stupidity and self-importance.

[pentest]

The real issue is this lady was charged with violating terms of service for a website.It criminalizes a TOS violation, which would make something like sharing a world of warcraft account, posting naked pix of yourself in facebook, etc a criminal act.

Can't you understand what that means? It would mean that any arbitrary corporate rule would be a law, it would mean that we have no rule of law anymore.

It is alarming how many people have absolutely no reasoning ability at all.

[jokr8790]

One of the things that worries me about this is that cyber bullies now will think they have legal carte blanche to do whatever they like, including harass a mentally depressed teenager to the point of suicide under the belief that there ill be no legal consequences to them whatever. Frankly, I was under the impression that soliciting someone to commit suicide was a felony in every state. Furthermore, if Lori drew or any other person connected to this had any knowledge that this girl had been under treatment for depression than she should have been charged with homicide by evincing a reckless disregard for human life. In many states that constitutes either 2nd degree murder for 1st degree manslaughter. I understand Megan's family decided not to sue. I think that was such a wrong decision in that Lori Drew and her family she should be driven straight t the poorhouse.

[nomad67omad123]

I understand that facebook on the whole is little more than a general laugh but when items occuring within its pages lead to the death of anyone , this then forces you to wonder if ths sort of electrical community should be allowed to remain. Yes bullying has been around for ever and will remain for ever but that doesn't mean that a person can be allowed to bully some body until they then commit suicide. Then the American justice system baseically says that because it was over the net, they won't be held responsable