If Lori Drew Is Guilty, So Are Most Internet Users
from the being-a-jerk-isn't-illegal dept
While we can understand the anger some folks feel at Lori Drew -- the woman who some blame for the eventual suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier -- it was quite troubling the way in which prosecutors indicted Drew. Since there didn't appear to be much of a law concerning being a jerk online to a child, she was instead charged with computer fraud for using a fake name on MySpace. This is an extremely weak case, and Drew's lawyers have now asked for the charges to be dropped, noting that almost any internet user could probably be found guilty under the same rationale. This was pretty clearly a political attempt to prosecute Drew for something, even if there's little evidence that she actually broke a law. While many people who comment on stories concerning Drew do so out of emotion rather than logic, hopefully the judge will recognize that this particular charge is a misuse of the law in question.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, megan meier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yup most internet users do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup most internet users do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup most internet users do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
Disclaimer: This message is only intended to encourage educational development. You are of course a valuable and special person, so don't kill yourself, just go learn some basic writing and critical thinking skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if & Yup most internet users do
So should we charge Dorpus or Potato for internet fraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
The unfortunate reality is no laws were broken. Wrong. Yes. But not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but that's the kind...
once that is rationalized away, further poor judgement ensues and escalates. in my opinion, she should be ostracized by her neighborhood in a non-threatening but non-accepting way, but defining that would be almost as impossible as making that kind of punishment a part of the court system. teens vary a great deal in their ability to get a grip on reality, and the possibility that megan would hurt herself or someone else should have preceded her myspace creepiness. she's not a murderer, just an extremely stupid and self-absorbed (perhaps she was actively dissed while in her teens)woman who allowed herself to catalyze a suicide. i hope she is deeply regretful of her actions and will never again even consider using the secret agent routine to mind her children's business. i hope even more that she will learn when to butt out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but that's the kind...
Because I've seen Masnick exaggerate, hype, bend and stretch a story, but never slippery-slope all the way from parental involvement to nuclear war!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
The fact is she didn't break a law. Let the girl's family sue this woman for wrongful death, they'll probably win and Lori Drew will be paying restitution for the rest of her life. If you are out for revenge then that's something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
i tend to guess that ms drew was not a popular student when she was a teen, and was doing the same thing a lot of non-varsity dads do with their sons vis a vis sports or other manly activities. the crap i've seen and heard in my life as a dad of four kids...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wouldn't it be funny if
=====
back to subect: if Lori Drew had done all this using snail mail or other non-Internet related forms of communication what would have she been charged with?
i think thats is the only question to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Suicide of a Person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Suicide of a Person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Suicide of a Person
The intarwebz is available in non-English speaking countries. Not everybody with poor grammar is an imbecile, and not everyone with proper grammar is intelligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Suicide of a Person
'Pin' instead of 'pain' is a typo, not a mistranslation. Read before you post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Suicide of a Person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Suicide of a Person
If memory serves, they even admitted to having to come up with this to "set an example".
Before you tout how great an idea that is, remember that when everyone was cheering on the lawsuit that allowed some retard who had his gun stolen to sue the gun maker, those same suits allowed for fat bastards to sue McDonalds for "making" them fat.
Still sound like a good idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a grip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get a grip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morally poor but
As I have said in other posts if Lori is guilty then so should the parents be, for neglect.
If I left a gun lying around and my kid picked it up and accidentally killed herself or one of her playmates I would be held responsible. Her parents provided her with knowledge and an internet connection, and didn't supervise her. Imagine, the girl could have gotten a hand on someones firearm and taken a lot of people with her too over this and who would be at fault?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morally poor but
Lori was not nice, had morally bad judgement, but the parents also had bad judgement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Examples
So, to make it reflect more what happened in the referenced case, what if Joe used a fake profile on myspace, facebook, et al to arrange his trysts? Could he be charged with the computer fraud for violating the TOS and by that violation eventually caused Jane's suicide? Seems a stretch even there but I bet if you looked you could find a situation just like that and no one was charged with anything.
The case is tragic but I feel like this prosecution is all about legal theater (a DA's take on "protecting the children"). Maybe it would be better off if this case was used as a catalyst to improve help lines and other resources so that people don't commit suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Examples
Your first example doesn't take that into consideration since the context is entirely different.
Your second example gets closer but Joe needs to use a fake account to harass Jane, not simply to setup a tryst.
Anonymity is not illegal but using it to commit other crimes may well be. As an example, there is no law against me using Tor but there are laws against me using Tor to commit fraud or to harass someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Examples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Examples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Examples
She should have behaved better but behaving badly isn't necessarily against any laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She Should Be Sent Down For Something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: She Should Be Sent Down For Something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She Should Be Sent Down For Something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DA that filed charges
Fact is this was an unfortunate situation... That's all.
Bullying has been around as long as humanity, that will never change.
Ask yourself this... if that girl had killed 13 people then committed suicide would we still be soooo hot to blame the bullies? Cuz as I recall that's happened a few times in the last few years... In those cases we held the boys responsible for their own acts. Megan Meier (like it or not) did this to herself and her parents weren't active enough in her life to help her when she apparently needed it.
Am I blaming the parents? Yes... because ultimately when a child does something it is at least partially your fault... that's what you get when you sign up to become a parent... it's called responsibility.
Do I blame Lori Drew? YES... she may not be legally liable, but she's an idiot to say the least. I can only hope she learns something from the whole thing... which from the interviews I've seen, she has. It's a hard lesson, but one I think hit home.
Do I blame society? Yep... we don't get off that easy. We all love the anonymity of the Internet... last I checked, no one here used their real name and contact information in this thread. And we can all say some pretty cruel and stupid things, esp in forums and chat sites and social networking sites... for the most part anonymity can bring out the dark side of people. So how does prosecuting one person for doing something that everyone does to some degree help anyone? Answer: It doesn't!
Try this... lets see who in this thread can suggest a law that WOULD in fact be applicable in this case and would have prevented this tragedy... but also wouldn't screw each and every one of us in some way.
Lets ban talking bad about people online... lets ban pretending to be someone you aren't online (be careful using E-Harmony, or that chick you pissed off last week will have you sent to jail for false representation)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DA that filed charges
Translation: "I'm about to go to jail so I'm going to pretend like I've learned my lesson".
Ever been to a jail or prison? There's a huge percentage of people there that will claim they've turned to Cheeezus(tm) and that they've turned their lives around. Over 80% of those same people are back in jail within a year for the exact same crime. Fact.
Why? Because after a certain point in our lives, we know no other way to live and barring something like a stroke or brain hemorrhage, we follow the same path we always took. It sounds pessimistic but sadly it's just reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The DA that filed charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The DA that filed charges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The DA that filed charges
Just exactly which house is yours? Is it the one with the for-sale sign in the yard and portable basketball goal in the street?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ........
We're Americans. We don't have to think because we're always right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
has nothing to do with this..
Why do you continue to miss this fact Mike?
If I rip you off by using a fake account then I'm guilty of fraud but if the prosecution can't prove fraud(or even if they can) they will peer deep into my actions to see what else I may have done to lead up to the fraud and if they see I created a fake account to do it, they'll charge me with it. This is essentially how they nailed Al Capone with tax evasion. He was guilty of a gazillion other things but he got tax evasion. Do you see how this works now? It's absolutely nothing new and while it does suck if you're innocent, they don't often pull this unless you're flaunting the fact that you're an untouchable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: has nothing to do with this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: has nothing to do with this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: has nothing to do with this..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misuse of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misuse of law
For the record, this isn't a new law. Laws on computer crimes were enacted in the mid-to-late 1980's in most cases and covered this situation. You've never been charged for using an anonymous account because you've never committed a real crime involving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misuse of law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on ehrichweiss are you serious!?
If EVERYONE committed tax fraud then, I doubt Capone would have been convicted... it's not like they gave him a huge sentence for unpaid parking tickets.
And Al Capone did A LOT of bad things, all of them absolutely illegal... they just lacked the evidence.
Lori Drew did nothing illegal... NOTHING. Her acts were irresponsible and led to someone else committing suicide. But her acts in themselves were NOT illegal.
If someone had unplugged Megan's PC she'd still be alive.
I walk up to a co worker and say "go jump off a bridge", and they do it... Does that mean I committed a crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on ehrichweiss are you serious!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on ehrichweiss are you serious!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come on Moderation are you that dense!?
So you have proof that Lori Drew is innocent? Nope, you don't. That's just your agenda talking.
If you walk up to your co-worker knowing they have a mental illness and tell them to jump off a bridge, you CAN go to jail regardless of what you might hypothesize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come on Moderation are you that dense!?
It's a legal doctrine known as "presumption of innocence". Maybe they don't have it in your country but it is well known in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have a higher opinion of judges than I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrue, stick to the facts here...
There was no misrepresentation here at all... Again... It's the PARENT'S responsibility to protect their kids. If someone had told the 13 year old to get off the computer, or asked who she was talking to, or monitored her conversations, or asked why her mood was changing, or done ANYTHING for that matter, this wouldn't be an issue.
If my kid comes home depressed, I'm talking to him and watching his behavior for a while, PERIOD. If I see he has new friends... I'm keeping an eye on them until I'm comfortable I can drop my guard by half a click... but even then I will be watching. That's my job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
slowpoke-dept
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: slowpoke-dept
Uh. I think you got that wrong. That story was about the charges, which we wrote about in May:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080515/1832441128.shtml
That's nearly 2 months before the /. story.
*THIS* story was about Drew's response to the lawsuit.
So, no, it's not a "slow-poke" response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEHE Wow, ehrichweiss where are you from...
HEHE uhm, She's Innocent until PROVEN guilty... that's my proof.
And you just sound more and more ignorant making statements like "If you walk up to your co-worker knowing they have a mental illness and tell them to jump off a bridge, you CAN go to jail regardless of what you might hypothesize."
Unless you can prove that I KNEW before had that the person in question was mentally incompetent and that my actions would in fact lead to them carrying out my direction... the NO I'm not legally responsible. Drew wasn't a psychologist, she was just a stupid person that could have in no way known the ultimate outcome of her actions. Look it up... paste in some case law if you can find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all bull
One of my best childhood friends jumped off a building because he couldn't deal with people trying to finish his sentences for him.
He had a hair-lip and a significant stutter. So, who gets the blame for his death? The person that picked on the most? The most recent one to pick on him? How about someone that just tried to finish his sentence so they could move on to the next conversation?
Another friend from my time in the military got severely drunk and jumped from a bridge into a freezing river. How do we divide the guilt for his death? The ex-fiancee that broke off the wedding the night before? The companies that would not refund any of the money for the wedding plans? The would-have-been-father-in-law who never liked him, and probably talked his daughter out of the marriage? How about me, the best friend that went out drinking with him, consoling him on the loss and pain he felt, rather than making sure he didn't do anything rash? The bartender that let him have too much to drink? Or, how about the building watch that went to use the rest room, and never saw the kid leave the barracks?
The list goes on...
You know who is guilty of killing each and every one of these people? Themselves.
There is only one person to truly blame for the "murder" you may want to call this, and that would be the person who actually took the action to end that life. No one else can truly be blamed.
Sure, you can try and say that it was the woman that harrassed her that caused her to kill herself. But can you be 100% certain that person is the only one who made her feel suicidal? What about the rest of the kids at her school? Are you sure they never said anything that could have pushed her over the edge?
The simple fact of the mattter is you can not find someone guilty of killing another person unless they actually took some physical action to make it happen. A suicide is murder of self. No way around it.
As for those that claim the harrassing woman should still be charged with the girl's death, because she is "evil", it is time for you to break out the bible again. Guess what? Suicide is evil, as it goes against God's plan.
Should the harrassing woman be charged with something? Sure, absolutely, but what should it be....oh....I don't know...maybe....Harrassment?!?
That is about as far as you can really take it. Sad? Yes, but absolutely true, and not just from a legal stand point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all bull
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I blame society on the whole because we all should take some responsibility for the world and the environment we create. I've seen way too many parents take a "kids will be kids" approach to parenting... then when their kids grow up to be ass-hats, we wonder why the world is full of ass-hats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation - stick to the real facts here
You must not have any teen age kids of your own, or you would not make the stupid statement that the parents should have protected her by keeping her off the internet. Try keeping any teen aged kid off of My Space or other social network....come on, get real...they LIVE to be connected on the web or any other device that they can chat on. I hardly think you can expect the parents to have 100% supervision at all times...NOT very realistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderation - stick to the real facts here
You must not have any teen age kids of your own, or you would not make the stupid statement that the parents should have protected her by keeping her off drugs. Try keeping any teen aged kid off of heroin or other hard drug....come on, get real...they LIVE to be high on crack or any other drug that they can get. I hardly think you can expect the parents to have 100% supervision at all times...NOT very realistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem many seem to be mis-understanding is
In no way to I think was Drew did was right, but unfortunately, it just isn't covered under the law of our land.
Although, in many states, you MIGHT be able to make the argument of Negligent Homicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrue do you use the internet much?
YES, I have a 13 year old of my very own... and I watch who he talks to, and he knows I'll know... He knows I have his back and he knows I'll kick him in his back side if needed.
BTW, my son has ASKED for a Myspace account... we're still working out the details on how/if he can have one, and when he's allowed to access it... and who he'll be allowed to interact with while he's using it.
I won't have complete control... no parent can. But I sure as hell won't be clueless... I won't let him spiral into depression and never notice until it's too late. I won't let someone brain wash him into a false reality without asking a few questions.
I guess you're one of those parents that thinks it's better to be "friends" with your kids than parents... Well that explains alot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree Bob...
If I pour nails on a busy freeway and it causes an accident that kills someone, that's Negligent Homicide or reckless endangerment homicide.
If I put a tack in someone chair, in an attempt to be funny or a joker, and the sit on the tack, and get an infection, and die.... I might be guilty of poor choice, but not homicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The adult said things she knew would severely hurt the teenager
The adult knew better and therefore should be held responsible for her actions.
Just because it’s online doesn’t make it okay. There should be an online law stating that when someone’s intention is to do financial, emotional or physical harm to anther it should be a crime. There is such a law for this when it happens offline – why not online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When did they TELL her to do it? When did they MAKE her do it?
Personal responsibility is a lost tradition...this may be the way back to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban her from using the internet...
Ban her from using the web again. They do it to hackers, why not in this situation?
If she touches an internet connection again, she faces jail-time.
Maybe it will make people think twice about online harassment if they never get to touch a computer again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban her from using the internet...
I can't just say "you can't use the internet because you're mean."
If she is charged with something relevant and found guilty than yes, perhaps part of her punishment can be as you suggested, but not before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SierraNightTide...
Even better if you treat your kid like shit and the kid grows up to be a bank robber, are you an accessory to said crime? I mean your "abuse" led them down a bad path...
Your logic and reasoning are just plain flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not against the law to be a jerk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation - Control freak?
Anyway, the depression was diagnosed and the parents were treating the depression - of course in "hindsight" you are correct, they should have supervised her internet usage closer - of course they should have suspected that a busybody neiborhood mother with intimate knowledge of their daughter and her condition would pretent to be an interested boy from school and proceed to stalk their daughter online. So, it's seems a moot point, as you seem convinced you can protect your child from anything,,,well good luck with that...and I'm not trying to be funny.
Oh...you guessed wrong...I don't think it's better to be "friends" with my kids... I just try to be realistic and teach them to protect themselves as well as doing what a parent can normally do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrue, that seems like
Now that said... if the girl was that far gone and that close to the edge, then some kid at school could have told her she smelled bad and set her off... So why blame this one woman.
We don't disagree that this chick is a bad person, but I'm not one to abuse the law in the name of vengeance or vindication. Once we start modifying or making up new criminal law on the fly, we're all screwed. And I for one value the future of our legal system over one family's misfortune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shrue, that seems like
Now that said... if the girl was that far gone and that close to the edge, then some kid at school could have told her she smelled bad and set her off... So why blame this one woman.
We don't disagree that this chick is a bad person, but I'm not one to abuse the law in the name of vengeance or vindication. Once we start modifying or making up new criminal law on the fly, we're all screwed. And I for one value the future of our legal system over one family's misfortune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Nuisance
I'm not comparing this to the Lori Drew case because I don't know the details of what she was charged with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation - I agree!!
But...like I said, I basically agree that the parents should have done more to protect their child....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Guilty Right Now
As for kids - doing legal contortions wont protect them - good parenting is the best protection. My girls laugh at jerks online and they let me know when it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open and shut case: for a civil courtroom
That said, this seems like a pretty clear cut civil case. Drew had an obligation not to harass a teenage girl, the harassment could probably be linked quite easily to the distressed state that caused her suicide, esp. with documented statements like "the world would be better off without you".
I agree with the sentiments of others here that wrong was clearly done and clearly someone should have to pay - but if no crime was committed, then make her pay civil, even punitive damages.
Murder, manslaughter? No way. Fraud - really pushing it. Wrongful death, absolutely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depression in general
Suicide is like diabetes. Let evolution weed out the gene pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame the harasser?
Now, with that assumption, how should we feel about the jocks and football players who bullied Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and caused them to go on a shooting rampage at Columbine? Where those jocks "evil" for harassing Harris and Klebold? Did the harassment indirectly cause the deaths of all those people?
Sure, the jocks didn't know what the end-result was going to be, but they certainly should have known better than to harass and bully other people.
Yet, I don't recall anyone getting up in arms to prosecute the football players for harassing Harris and Klebold.
Like many posters are saying, there are a lot more issues here than the simple "woman harasses girl, girl killed herself". Where were the parents? Where there warning signs that they should have been looking out for?
Did the girl have any other mental problems, such as a family history of depression?
Or are we all out for some good old-fashioned mob justice? She done it, we know she done it, so let's string 'er up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawsuit anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurdity is not Proof
(Admittedly I'm paraphrasing and reframing your argument into my words. Please jump in if you think I've mischaracterized the argument!)
That ain't necessarily so. Just because a law, when drawn to its logical breadth, leads to absurd results does not by itself mean the law is vague or otherwise unenforceable. At most, it means it's an absurd law. But, that makes it no less the law, even if it's absurd. (You can hack at a criminal-sanctioned law for vagueness, but there's no constitutional obligation to have laws make any common sense!)
Judges aren't supposed to second-guess what the legislature hath wrought (or else they get labeled as 'judicial activists', no?). So, it's not the judge's job to rewrite the law just because he/she thinks it's absurd.
Rather than getting into arguments about what this means or whether it's enforceable, maybe the efforts should instead be to get a re-write of the CFAA (and its many state-level equivalents) to avoid another absurd result tomorrow. That won't help Lori Drew of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdity is not Proof
I think you have misrepresented his argument with the word "absurdity" and also what exactly the inconsistent thing in question is. Mikes' point is that the legislation in question is being misused, not that the law itself is poor.
It's the execution of the law he has a problem with not the law itself. At least, that's how I read it.....(I'm no authority really)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdity is not Proof
Wrong. Judges are supposed to interpret the law. That's part of their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurdity is not Proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absurdity is not Proof
I do think it's perfectly legitimate for any of us to argue that the DA failed to use his prosecutorial DISCRETION in a manner designed to move forward sound public policy. I'm behind you on that one. The whole concept of prosecutorial discretion has long existed to acknowledge the fact that prosecutors COULD bring many cases they choose not to bring. But, it's equally true that courts are incredibly reluctant to overturn a prosecutor's choice simply because they didn't think the prosecutor made a wise choice--So long as the choice was one that could logically be made under the statute, then the prosecutor's right to use the statute in that fashion is more or less unbounded by the law. (Imagine if that weren't true -- We tell prosecutors they can only prosecute if the crime fits within the logical bounds of the written statute so that we can protect all of ourselves from prosecutors enforcing laws that don't exist. The corrolary to that is that if the prosecutor can make a case under the statute as it's written, the prosecutor is within his/her rights to use it that way. Play by the rules -- It's a double edged sword!)
I know Mike didn't use the word 'absurd' - But he very clearly was using the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum. Go look it up. My point is that the premise of proving absurdity is not, by itself, a constitutional basis to defeat the use of the law, so reductio ad absurdum is not a legitimate argument to prove the law is improperly used here.
(And, no, I'm not wrong--Judges do NOT second-guess the legislature when they interpet. Rather, interpretation is the art of trying to figure out what they said and meant, but only then if the plain words of the statute don't themselves answer the question. If the judge hides behind 'interpretation' in the course of second-guessing whether they think the legislature did a good job, that's judicial activism, not interpretation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Absurdity is not Proof
People who like a judges decision applaud it, those who don't call it "judicial activism".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do know these people personally. Have any of you ever studied depression? Did you know Megan was being treated? Did you know you don't get over depression over night? Shame on all of you for passing judgment on people when you have never walked in their shoes and until you do - let the first one cast the stone.
When you are an adult and you deliberately cause emotional distress, stalking, harassment to a minor - there are already laws on the books that protect minors. There was nothing about electronic communications. Now there is - so watch out you adults that don't get it - you cannot and I repeat cannot act out with intent to emotionally or physically inflict harm upon a child! It is just that simple. Get it or don't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That doesn't have anything to do with anything. You're using your emotions instead of critical thinking.
When you are an adult and you deliberately cause emotional distress, stalking, harassment to a minor - there are already laws on the books that protect minors.
Except that since she wasn't found to break any of those laws, they decided to make up a new law to charge her with.
There was nothing about electronic communications.
Why does there need to be something about electronic communications? It doesn't make a difference.
Now there is - so watch out you adults that don't get it - you cannot and I repeat cannot act out with intent to emotionally or physically inflict harm upon a child! It is just that simple. Get it or don't!
If you're emotionally harmed by reading things on the Internet, then you have problems personal problems unrelated to things you read on the Internet.
Good luck with puberty, Denise. I hope that's your real name, because you could otherwise be charged with computer fraud under the new law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's this for logical?
I've been reading this site for sometime now. When patent hoarders sue everyone under the sun you get your panties in a bunch. Go back and look at all your logic then, they aren't breaking the law, in fact they are well within their rights. That doesn't stop you from trying to get laws cvhanged now does it? You seem to cheer when the slimmest gain can be made. Almost as if its okay to twist the laws in your favor but when it doesn't suit your needs you cry foul. How is that?
Should this woman be punished for her actions, yes. But they shouldn't have to twist a law to suit a DA's need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How's this for logical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward - stick to the real facts
["You must not have any teen age kids of your own, or you would not make the stupid statement that the parents should have protected her by keeping her off drugs. Try keeping any teen aged kid off of heroin or other hard drug....come on, get real...they LIVE to be high on crack or any other drug that they can get. I hardly think you can expect the parents to have 100% supervision at all times...NOT very realistic."]
The use of illegal drugs like crack and herion have nothing to do with chatting on My Space....how rediculous. I don't believe any parent from any time period ever would say anything of the sort...(maybe pot smoking, but not hard drugs, hehe!!). If they would say that, they would then become morons by definition...
I anxiously await your witty response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymous Coward - stick to the real facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward - stick to the real facts
I agree with your sentiment. It is the parents' job to keep a close eye on their children; it is the parents' job, after all, to teach their children how to be adults and deal with difficulties like this girl experiences. Children do not have the "right" to be online, on MySpace, etc. It is a privelege, and it is the parents' job to take that privelege away if it becomes clear that the child can't handle it.
However, srhue is right about your analogy, or "satire," as you improperly define it. It had no relevence to the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward - stick to the real facts
The original poster never claimed it to be an analogy, that strawman seems to have built by srhue and you, hegemon13. Furthermore, I would say that it is you who is improperly defining satire if you think it is the same thing as an analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward - stick to the real facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lori Drew keep your head up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a differnce between
Half the people reading this have harassed someone into some kind of depression, so they're using this situation as an excuse to validate their own behavior. You can deny it all you want, but it won't make it any less true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lori Drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lori Drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]