Defense In Lori Drew Case Rests, As Judge Considers Dismissing The Case
from the time-to-end-this dept
The case against Lori Drew looks weaker and weaker by the day. The defense has rested its side, and the judge is considering whether to dismiss the case outright after it was established that it wasn't even Drew who set up the account used to communicate with Megan Meier. Based on that, it's even more ridiculous (and it already was ridiculous) to charge Drew with computer fraud for violating the terms of service -- considering she wasn't even there to review the terms of service, nor did she actually set up (or use, apparently) the account. This case has been a travesty from the start. Yes, people somehow want vengeance for Meier's suicide, but trumped up bogus charges against Drew don't help matters. It's nothing more than a witch hunt against someone who it appears did not actually break the law. If people want the law to be changed -- then work to change the law, but don't twist the laws to convict Drew.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, evidence, lori drew, megan meier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Sick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if it was my daughter
"balls" to stick up to people like Lori? Or even as adults we just sit back because we are still afraid of bullies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if it was my daughter
If this is a real issue, if you think there should be a criminal charge here somewhere, then we need to enact the appropriate laws to make it so. It's unfortunate that those laws don't currently exist, but you can't just bend existing laws to fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if it was my daughter
This is why we have Rule of Law. Shit like what you said just leads to genocide. You need to grow up.
You don't pervert the law to fit your own desires. If a law is unjust, you fight to get it changed. If you need an example like that, various civil rights movements, particularly in the 1960's, are great examples.
Oh. And the people that are 'sticking up' for Lori are not doing it because they are afraid of bullies. They are doing it because they aren't short sighted enough to miss the consequences of their actions if they go down that path.
The values of this country have been falling apart well enough without accelerating the process. One of the bigger points was you don't punish people on whim. If there is no crime (as in the LEGAL definition of a crime) then there can be no punishment.
And this is a good thing. Like Larry Flint said: "If the Constitution will protect me, the worst, then it will definitely protect you."
People like you miNDY are why we have our rights being chipped away because you fear terrorists. Or feel its okay to "lie a little" in order use the judicial system for revenge (the Lori Drew case).
You make me sick. To be willing to sell your soul for perceived saftey, for abusing the system to punish those that have "done you wrong". Such childish desires.
What about Megan's parents? Where were they in her life? Why didn't they know about the boy on MySpace? Why didn't they see how depressed she was and try to do something about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh...
Drew didn't even send the final "wish you were dead" (paraphrase) message. The girl was fairly unstable already. The girl had every opportunity to end the communication. The parents had every opportunity to end the communication.
"Cyber-bullying" is nothing like real bullying. You can always block and email address, block a MySpace friend, or choose not to respond to a bully. In real life, bullies can follow you around against your will, physically harm you, and force you to hear things they say. Your computer, however, has a delete button. I think the parents are much more responsible than Drew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sick...
The only punishment Lori Drew will receive is the knowledge that she helped her daughter and co-worker taught a little girl until she killed herself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
How about I come to your house, get on your computer, set up a fake account and claim I'm you, and do this to someone (and, honestly, I don't care what I say to taunt or torment someone, it's ultimately the "victims" responsibility if they decide to make themselves assume room temperature) until they commit suicide. Well, it isn't MY fault. It's YOURS because it's YOUR name, YOUR computer, YOUR IP address, YOUR FAULT that said victim offed themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment
Now to say cyber-bullying is nothing like real bullying shows a huge disconnect! They are both exactly the same thing: bullying. We will never end bullying, especially since managers love it so much, but it is a potentially criminal act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong:
* In cyber-bullying you have a plethora of ways to block communication from the bully.
* In cyber-bullying there is no way to be forced into anything.
* In cyber-bullying there are no physical attacks on your person.
"We will never end bullying, especially since managers love it so much, but it is a potentially criminal act."
How can it be a criminal act? I don't think you know how the law works in the U.S. if you are saying that. Possibly there could be some tort or other civil case brought up by bullying, but not criminal.
Bullying happens. Particularly with boys. MOST boys learn to deal with it. This is why guys act the way they do, like that whole "You know how I know you're gay?" bit from 40 Year Old Virgin.
You just have to learn to not let it get to you, and usually returning the fire will gain you some friends (not from the bully you're making fun of usually) in the long run.
I don't know how girls deal with bullying. I know some girls can be bullys, but damn. Most cases of bullying are NOT harmful. It's those rare handfuls where an adult needs to step in and help the kid that are dangerous.
The fix for that? A good school staff and good parenting. Do your job, TEACH the kid.
Which brings up the most important point from this case: Where the hell were the parents of Megan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
In school, for example, you're required to be in the same room with a bully and can't block what they have to say.
Physicality is not the only difference. If you fail to see how easy it is to avoid people on the internet, then you need internet lessons before you get on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: First Amendment
If the bully is only on the Internet, you're right, though I'd note it's more difficult if a bully from school 'follows' you onto the internet, too. An emotional bully is especially apt to be effective online.
But none of that's the point. Bullying online does have different dynamics than bullying in the physical world, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
Cyber-bullying isn't the same as physical bullying, anyone who believes that is a complete moron. On the Internet, you can close AIM, stop logging into MySpace, block emails, delete them w/o opening them - you have innumerable ways to disconnect from the bully.
Are you telling me online relationships between two people who play World of Warcraft and the marriage you have with your wife in your house and in your bed at night are the "exact same thing" too? Because for all intents and purposes, you are saying the "e-counterpart" of a physical relationship (bully to victim, or husband and wife) are the same?
Really, did you even think about this at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment
Libel or slander, I'll accept (though I suspect that I shouldn't be).
Shit, fucking obscenity? Hell yeah it's motherfucking protected dickweed.
I hope you know that I say that will all kinds of love and merely trying to prove a point. The First Amendment isn't there to make you all warm and cosey. It's there so people can speak their mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
again....
"Based on that, it's even more ridiculous (and it already was ridiculous) to charge Drew with computer fraud for violating the terms of service -- considering she wasn't even there to review the terms of service, nor did she actually set up (or use, apparently) the account."
and what kind of free pass is that you think should be handed out? feigned or not, ignorance is not a defense or and excuse. if it is though, there are going to be a lot of things i will just "not be available" to review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: again....
If you don't review a contract you signed, you're still legally bound, just dumb.
Even at that, breaking TOS is NOT against the law; it would be a civil case, if it even went that far. Generally, breaking TOS just gets your account removed. This is not a criminal case.
As to your firt bit, it's not clear that anything said had any kind of sexual implications, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Adults are able to interact with children on a social level; that's not against the law, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: again....
there is some loose evidence that there was an online relationship of a sexual nature. maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. regardless of that, yes adults can interact with children...there is something wrong with doing so via an underage persona.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: again....
Also, your example is flawed. Software Licenses != Website TOS. Possibly you are thinking of the EULA, which is also different than the license.
Also read the details of the case. Lori Drew did NOT create the account. Lori Drew did NOT have direct access to the account.
I'm starting to have a feeling that this was a bit of a prank from Lori's perspective that got out of hand, or that she was told it was a prank or something. We may never know for sure, but either way I'm wondering if Lori is as sick as people try to make her out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: again....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: again....
So the teenage employee of Lori Drew's created an account to try to befriend Megan to get dirt on Megan to take to Megan's parents. They didn't get what they wanted, decided to end the friendship and close the fake Josh Myspace account, and in doing so, the teenage employee of Lori Drew's, sent an IM to Megan saying the "World would be better off without her"
Now, no one expected that would cause Megan to commit suicide, but it happened. Is Lori a monster? Not in my opinion. Was it a far fetched plan, that probably should not have been done? Probably. Heck, even Lori's husband knew about it. The plan was to get evidence to show Megan's parents that their daughter isn't the perfect princess that they think she is.
If anyone should be ostracized as monsters, it should be Megan's parents. If Megan's parents didn't think their daughter was perfect, the plan to befriend her over a fake Myspace account would have never happened. If Megan's parents didn't think their daughter was perfect, they would have monitored her internet usage more carefully. If Megan's parents were actually more interested in their daughter, they would have known she was unstable, and Megan would probably still be alive today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: again....
There might be something off or weird about doing so via a fake and/or underaged persona, but there's nothing wrong with it in a legal sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, you do have the option to ignore or block someone who is harassing you. You also have the option to file a complaint with your local law enforcement to make it stop. This will help with the eventual lawsuit you can file against the offender.
As far as the bully goes. Yes it was in bad taste and I certainly see a civil case against them. I don't think what they did was right, however we can't afford as a society to put everyone who hurts someones feelings in jail, it's just not reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was picked on a bit in school myself. Got into a few fights. Once you learn to deal with it, they stop bugging you. Never had that issue in high school because the bullies had learned I wasn't worth the trouble.
Kids make fun of people outside of their group of friends usually. Rivalries tend to do that, it seems natural to people. So really, you have to learn to handle being teased. If it goes beyond that you HAVE to either fight back or ask for help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I was bullied a lot, too. I don't think it was a good thing, I don't want it for my kids, and I don't think it's something we should allow just because "that's the way the world is." At the same time, I don't think we should be criminalizing it, either. There are constructive ways of dealing with bullies that don't involve the cops or government intervention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just kidding! But I couldn't resist....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their daughter committed suicide - where are they during this entire ordeal? Why doesn't she feel she can speak to her parents about it?
The one who is at fault is typically the one looking to blame everyone, and this is no exception - spinning in a circle blaming everyone for everything while in reality, it is their own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their daughter committed suicide - where are they during this entire ordeal? Why doesn't she feel she can speak to her parents about it?
The one who is at fault is typically the one looking to blame everyone, and this is no exception - spinning in a circle blaming everyone for everything while in reality, it is their own fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Key Point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the law should be changed
Someone may have already covered this, but free speech and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre are very different worlds.
Let's turn it around: if someone said such horribly cruel things to your child, which ended in their suicide, are you going to tell me that you wouldn't blame the antagonist? Are you really going to say, over your child's dead body, "well, that's free speech. Dead Little josie sure was an unstable idiot"? Even if your child was perfectly normal, or at least had lead you to believe they were?
And to those pedanticizing my comments: I'm not talking about any old thing that one might say that would have a vague possibility of leading to someone suicide, i'm talking about directly telling someone that you wish they were dead, think they deserve to die or that the world would be better without them. I'm talking about malicious intent, not telling someone thst the thanksgiving turkey is a little dry, after which the cook hangs themselves thinking they are a failure. Malicious intent is at the core of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the law should be changed
if they acted depressed I'd take them to a psychologist. if they were suicidal I would get them commited so someone could watch over them and then I would visit them as often as possible.
but the key difference is that I would involve myself in my kid's life. it isn't hard. it isn't always appreciated right away, but it works and makes things like this MUCH less likely to happen.
oh, I also strive to teach youngsters some very important words by a very famous man: "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."
Theodore Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the law should be changed
Further, not everyone who commits suicide is obvious about it. I've known several people who committed suicide and all of our friends said that the day before and even the day of that person's death, they never had any idea whatsoever of what that person was about to do to themselves. That's the difference between people who really are suicidal and people who are crying for help. The ones who really want to die don't make a big deal of it, they just resign themselves to their choice and do it. The point is you just don't ever know.
I do not believe that the deceased girl's parents are at fault here. People love the idea that anyone should be able to say anything they want to whomever they want, no matter how cruel, inhuman and horrific and expect that there should never be consequences. For a group of people who are always screaming "Where's personal responsibility? Damn this litigious society, people need to take responsibility for themselves" people really are jumping the fence on this issue. Where's the responsibility on the part of the adult who tells a teenager to kill their self? Where's the responsibility on the part of people to just be decent humans? Everyone wants to act like Lori Drew is being railroaded and treated unfairly. I just cannot fathom that someone wouldn't look at the situation and think that Drew is one of the worst people on the planet. No, I don't think she should be facing the specific charges against her currently, because they don't apply and it sets a bad precedent. However, I think manslaughter would be appropriate. And that is why I said that if there are currently no laws that apply manslaughter to a case like this, then there should be.
This case needs to set the example to people that you cannot go around telling people to kill themselves and feel like you have a clean conscience when they do so. Free speech should be protected at all costs, but yelling "fire" in a crowded venue isn't a matter of free speech, nor should it ever be. If by yelling "fire" you cause a stampede and as a result 20 people are trampled to death because of your lie, then you are a murderer. You killed 20 people, not the stampeding horde. The Lori Drew case is no different.
As anonymous pointed out, being who you are and saying what you feel is important, and that is a value that i hold very dear. But I would never with malicious intent tell someone that I think they should die, even if I thought that they should (which I wouldn't). There are lines of cruelty you just don't cross. If you hate someone that much, then just put them out of your life. Ignore them, stay away from them, cut ties with them - end your relationship with them and move on. What they do with themselves and their life after that isn't any of your concern anymore. There's no need to be cruel, even if you think it's justified.
But if there is no appropriate law currently that can charge Lori Drew with the responsibility of the girl's death, then she should have her child taken away from her forever. She should not be allowed to have a child because she is so clearly a danger to children. And I think that laws should be crafted so that anyone with malicious intent encouraging someone's suicide should face manslaughter charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the law should be changed
For starters, I'd blame myself for raising a horribly unbalanced child for whom a few harsh words would cause their suicide.
Hell, I had a friend tell me the other week she hates me and wished I would die.
Did I go off myself? Nope. A week later we got drunk together.
There are little shits in life you have to learn to deal with. Get over it or live in a bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the law should be changed
(hint: if a person is unstable, practically anything could set them off)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the law should be changed
This woman is NOT directly responsible for the death of the girl, she didn't pull a trigger, stab a knife, or tie the noose as you put it, the girl didn't avoid the bullying and did herself in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the law should be changed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is responsibility?
Everybody has to put up with shit from the jerks of the world. Megan chose suicide. That was her decision, and she is the only one to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where is responsibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to see this may turn out right.
Much like the idiot who leaves a loaded gun on the counter and a kid kills himself while playing with it, they left their daughter playing with a dangerous computer she was obviously ill equipped to handle. If this woman is guilty then so are the kids parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's to blame?
Megan? After all, she did kill herself. She must be to blame. Yeah, right. When people are suicidal they often feel helpless, lacking control. They are easily influenced and lack the emotional stability to see beyond the here and now. Megan was depressed, someone told her she should kill herself and she, unable to see beyond her moment of pain and anguish exercised her control.
The Drew family? Would Megan still be alive if the Facebook ruse didn't occur? Possibly. The Drew family knew that Megan had been counseled and was on meds. They knew that she wasn't stable. It's pure speculation to suggest that the Drew family knowingly pushed Megan to kill herself. However, what is known is that they psychologically manipulated an unstable girl until Megan terminated the relationship.
Basing the case on a TOS is absurd. It's not cyberbullying either. Some say Megan could have ended the relationship anytime she wanted, when she exercised her control she did just that. Its a civil matter, not federal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the poison that is cyberbullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the poison that is cyberbullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the answer is no, and that is because no sane person would kill themselves over mean comments. And once again, we can't afford to put everyone in jail simply because they insult someone or hurt their feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]