Prosecutors Want To Give Lori Drew 3 Years In Jail For Symbolic Reasons
from the sickening dept
As the sentencing phase of the Lori Drew trial moves forward, prosecutors are asking for three years in jail, well beyond what she should get based on normal sentencing guidelines. So, why? It's not because of anything she actually did, but because of what she represents:"Defendant has become the public face of cyberbullying. A probationary sentence might embolden others to use the Internet to torment and exploit children."It's hard to have any more direct proof that this case has never been about what Lori Drew actually did and whether it was a crime, but about some grandstanding prosecutors looking to create a PR campaign. Even worse, the prosecutors seem to be focusing on the cyberbullying issue even though that's not what the trial was even about. She was convicted of computer fraud in giving a false name to MySpace, violating its terms of service. The actual "cyberbullying" isn't what she's on trial for at all. It's really rather despicable to see the legal process twisted, in a Salem Witch Trial type of show, in which the sentencing recommendation has no relation to the actual conviction.
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: cyberbullying, hacking, lori drew, sentencing, symbolic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's what passes for "justice" in America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And so what happened? They twisted hacking laws to catch Lori on breaking MySpace TOS (which, apparently, the employee clicked through) and now they want to make an example aof her to show cyber-bullies. She wasn't charged with cyber-bullying, but that's what this is about. Which is even more dumb because most cyber-bullies are going to be (1) unreported, and (2) minors, so even when they ARE reported they won't be handled in nearly the same way. The whole thing is a travesty of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well, Lori, your trial has bumped CourtTV up in the Nielson ratings, and frankly, this is sweeps time, so we're gonna go ahead and give you the chair, mmkay?"
Anyone remember that game, SmashTV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SOMEBODY IS DEAD BECAUSE OF THIS!
"Drew was found guilty of violating MySpace’s terms-of-service agreement in helping to create a profile page that was used to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, who killed herself."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
HOWEVER, that is no excuse to twist the law to the degree that it has been in this cane, and then recommend a sentence for reasons completely different to the charges she was found guilty of.
The law doesn't disappear when it is inconvenient, regardless of the circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
IT WAS A SUICIDE !!
If you're a loser who can't handle the world you deserve to die. Pushing you in the right direction (which didn't happened here btw) should be regarded as public service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Though the cause of the suicide could be linked to Drew, that was not what she was found guilty of, so it should have no bearing on the charge of creating a false profile on MySpace and violating the TOS. It is a horrible misappropriation of justice to give someone an extraordinary sentence as "warning" to all the others out there. If this were to become the precedent, anyone who created a false profile on MySpace, Facebook, message boards or other similar sites could be put in jail for 3 years, even though their profiles would not lead to someones death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-myspace7-2009may07%2C0%2C3278963.story?track=rss
Sec ond-to-last sentence. Odd that they'd put that so far down in the article... You'd think they were trying to down-play the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Travesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travesty
I'm amazed the human race has survived this long, what with all these laws designed to protect people. How ever did we manage before they protected us?
Seriously.. thousands of people "hack" on a daily basis on MySpace, using it for Role Play games. They impersonate celebs, other people, create new people. If you shut down and prosecuted every MySpace troll, they'd have a few hundred users.
The suicide was tragic, the actions of Lori Drew heinous. But she did nothing illegal. Sad, but true. And the new law proposed to end cyber bullying could be frightening in the scope of abuse based on cases like the one above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Travesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Travesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Travesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who/what/where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who/what/where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who/what/where?
Nonetheless, Mike does a very good job. Hopefully you will become a regular reader and find that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who/what/where?
I had recapped the case in detail just yesterday. If I did it every time most people would get annoyed. Already people yell at us for recapping things too much.
I try to strike the right balance. I'm sorry you feel that it wasn't enough, but I don't believe it's a "massive fail."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who/what/where?
On the other hand, I do agree that -someone- failed, but in this case it wasn't Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. Megan decides Lori's daughter is no longer her friend.
2. Lori, her daughter, and a (co-worker? employee?) of Lori's make a fake account and befriend Megan.
3. Lori ends the fake friendship and account.
4. Megan kills herself.
How is 4. not an overreaction? How many people in the Country suffer under physical bullying which leaves *injuries* and don't kill themselves? There seems to be alot of assumption that Lori was purposefully trying to kill Megan somehow, which I find difficult to believe.
2. was the illegal act, but only under MySpace ToS, which is not a criminal issue.
Then again, I've not really been paying attention to this, as I'm mature enough to understand that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words and names can never hurt me. Maybe I missed something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't tread on me...
Lori Drew was convicted of 3 counts of unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information, in violation of 18 U.SC. 1030(a) (2) (C). There is NOTHING stating she caused ANYONE'S death in those statues. The law is very clear.
The country watched as an overzealous prosecutor attacked the 3 lacrosse players from Duke and the same overreaching ambition is happening here. This needs to be stopped before we are all in jeopardy of having our rights trampled on by our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lori Drew: kind of a bitch, mean to teenaged girls.
Yeah, I think that's a fair comparrison to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The laws are not keeping up with new scenarios like this one and because of that an evil woman who caused the death of a child and should be severely punished may not be. Mike, you are normally a champion for fixing things that are broken, like the business models for digital music and video. I appeal to you to reconsider your position on this one and recognize that fixing what is broken here is a lot more important than anything to do with the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> I wish it were possible to send her away for
> at least 10 years.
And you're the 21st century equivalent of a villager waving his torch or pitchfork and demanding vigilante justice.
Either we're a nation of laws or we're not. If we are, we don't get to put people in prison for things that aren't crimes, no matter how much we dislike them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 yrs to 13
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
computer hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: computer hacking
2. Cops never commit crimes. By definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: computer hacking
You sir are an idiot. Cops commit crimes all the time and go to jail, get tickets, get put on probation.
This is the whole reason there is IA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_affairs_(law_enforcement)
cops are not magically exempt from following the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: computer hacking
The police do that under special permission for the intent of tracking down pedofiles and criminals and not to harass innocent people. And yes, there are special provisions and arrangements made for police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Basically, I can acknowledge the stance that the punishment should suit the crime no matter how it is achieved, but only if it is a broad philosophical stance. I'm not sure that I am on board with that philosophy, but if it is what you believe (as some of you seem to) I'd be interested to hear it defended in that broader sense, beyond the bounds of this case.
But more importantly, whether you believe it is always or never or sometimes appropriate (the Al Capone example gave me pause, to be sure), the prosecutor isn't even talking about her crimes. He did not request this unprecedented sentence on the grounds of her moral depravity or the depths of her misdoings, but rather on the grounds that she is "the public face of cyberbullying", with mind given to the effect her sentence will have on society... this would maybe be less troubling if cyberbullying WERE her crime, but it isn't. Sentencing by public perception? I have a hard time with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm Justice?
The law is being twisted here and that is a shame when there are laws that would have worked just as well (child endangerment). I worry about what a ruling like this means for the future, but let’s not confuse twisting the law with an injustice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: umm Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: umm Justice?
Twisting the law is an injustice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: umm Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: umm Justice?
Ditto.
Justice is about being fair not about following the law.
Twisting the law is not fair and therefore not just. Neither is following an unjust law, but that is not what we're talking about here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: umm Justice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worse Congress feels the need to Do Something(tm)
No new laws are needed. This woman is already convicted, and yet those useless gasbags on Capitol Hill have to waste more paper making something illegal, illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worse Congress feels the need to Do Something(tm)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Naive
To make the history books and newspapers look better, we'll keep the two-ring circus called congress in session and occasionally throw a big party called an election.
Really, isn't is simpler to just let the king...er..CEO...er PRESIDENT do what he wants?
/end sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The deceased girl's parents dropped the ball for not paying very much attention to their child and knowing that she may be suicidal. The bullying woman sucks for being a bully and quite possibly taking this whole situation too far.
But the fact remain that she did not force this girl to kill herself. I don't care how 'emotionally unstable' the girl was, nobody killed her except herself. Don't misunderstand me: Suicide is tragic, and this is whole event is sad, but nobody committed any actual crimes here.
Bullying is not a crime. Its rude, annoying, and mean, but not a crime. Creating fake accounts on MySpace and other social networking sites is also not a crime, other than possibly a breach of the TOS. Breaching the TOS is not a criminal matter. Its stupid and a waste of time, but again, not a crime in the criminal sense.
Why is this so complicated for people to understand?
Putting this woman (who I agree is a total douchbag) into jail as an example may be 'satisfying' to many people, but the fact remains that if we start jailing people because we don't 'like' them then we are on a slippery slope all the way to the bottom.
And what awaits us there is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She indulged in child abuse, type = Psychological
She will not be punished for the death of this girl, so it is irrelevant what people think of suicide, or which 'side' they come down on regarding blame
Lori Drew faces criminal proceedings for her ACTIONS which were intentional, not accidental - child abusers deserve much more punishment - she is getting off lightly, even if she gets the maximum sentence
If it had been a man encouraging a child into sexual acts, no-one would see it as a 'grey area' - she abused a site to abuse a child - simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now how does one make a law against something like that? a law that will not be misused by overzealous prosecutors/cops shortly after (see recent sexting fiasco's for example)
You cannot really, though politicos will try just to be seen to be doing something
Other option of twisting existing laws to fit (which they are doing with Lori's case) has same problem, because once a law has become twisted it becomes very hard to untwist it as it sets a precedent other cops/prosecutors can and will use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one denys it was a overreaction by Megan but one thing you seem to be missing is Megan was known to have pretty serious emotional problems and one of the people who knew was Lori herself
Adults picking on a kid = Very bad
Adults picking on a kids with known emotional problems for childish and petty reasons and that leads to the kid killing themself = Get out tar, feathers and stones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait, what was I missing?
'Known emotional problems'... You mean puberty? If you meant something more serious, why was she not in a facility, or more carefully monitored by her parents? I'll make that rhetorical: Because it wasn't a serious emotional problem. It's like seeking 'emotional damages'.
I'm not trying to be callous or anything, but still. I'm having a hard time seeing a causation relationship here. Why not blame the fact that her favorite shirt wasn't clean, or maybe it was raining that day? After all, she had Emotional Problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If even her parents didn't think she'd commit suicide from bullying (by the fact that they did not take the proper measures to protect her) how in the world was Lori to know that!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are things you just don't play with.
I understand the fear of those who think that accusing Lori Drew of hacking might set an unwanted precedent, or that accusing her on the count that "she is the public face of cyberbullying" might have unwanted consequences, but she should be found guilty in SOME damn way. From what I've read, there are laws in your country regarding child abuse and child endangerment, laws that punish people for drinking while driving with a small child in the car (an example). Don't you think that what Lori Drew did, even if it's not contained in any law, should also be punished? She had the intention to do harm, and guess what, she did, beyond her expectations. That's what happens when you intend to do harm that is not physical, you can succeed better than you had imagined, and while such things are difficult to pinpoint and put a name/tag on, they shouldn't be left as such just because of that. After all, why would we all continue to obey the authorities, if they cannot protect us from harm done by those who find creative ways of not obeying and harming others? If one can get away, then another can get away too and guess what, that's also a road to perdition.
We are at a point where society has made us so obedient, that just beating someone when he did you wrong is out of our minds (most of us). If it is only the state that can protect me when someone harms me, then they better do it well, or I and many more might start refusing their protection, gradually or suddenly.
There was this case in Austria, of a Josef Fritzl who kept his daughter in a cellar for 20 years, having sex with her etc. Of course there is no law for exactly the horrible fact that he did, they sentenced him for imprisoning another person. The emotional harm he did to that woman cannot be quantified, just as we can not quantify the harm Lori Drew did to that little girl, but there is something in their deeds that can be quantified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are things you just don't play with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are things you just don't play with.
Not by the law, no.
There was this case in Austria, of a Josef Fritzl who kept his daughter in a cellar for 20 years, having sex with her etc. Of course there is no law for exactly the horrible fact that he did,...
That's not true at all. There are multiple laws that apply to his crimes. Rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment, incest, child neglect, and others. So to say that there are none shows either gross ignorance or deceitfulness or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are things you just don't play with.
Why? If she broke no laws, why should the law punish her? there's no law against saying "the world would be a better place without you," and frankly I hope there never is.
there are laws in your country regarding child abuse and child endangerment
If that's what she was charged, convicted, and sentenced for, I'd be completely OK with it. For whatever reason, they couldn't find a way of making such charges stick. So they twisted other laws around to get the vengeance they wanted. That's dispicable, at least at the same lever as anything Drew did, and I won't stand for it.
Don't you think that what Lori Drew did, even if it's not contained in any law, should also be punished?
That's an interesting question, and I'd actually think I'd say "yes." But not by the legal system. Her reputation is ruined and she has to live with knowing what she did (and if you're a religious sort, she has her final judgment coming, too). But the legal system was made to hold people accountable to the law, and if she broke no law there should be no mechanism to punish her.
If one can get away, then another can get away too and guess what, that's also a road to perdition.
This is only so if you don't believe in making new laws. Drew broke no current laws, but that's different than saying we shouldn't make new laws so that this can't ever happen again. (I don't think we should, for many reasons, but that's not the question at hand.)
I and many more might start refusing their protection, gradually or suddenly.
You probably should. I don't trust The State to protect me because I feel The State is one of the greatest threats to my wellbeing and happiness.
There was this case in Austria, of a Josef Fritzl...
So completely different from the Drew case I can't even begin to express it all but, as noted by the AC above, there are plenty of laws that Fritzl did break. All they could get Drew on was "hacking" and then only by making the claim that breaking TOS is the same as network exploitation.
we can not quantify the harm Lori Drew did to that little girl
And yet you're sure it's greater than 0. If you can't prove it, I don't want to hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is she being done for murder - No
Is she being done for child abuse - No
Is she being done for bullying - No
Is she being done for abusing a site, deliberately and with intent? YES
That is all - she deserves to be done for all of those crimes above IMO, but that she abused the site is good enough - it needs to be done, so that she pays for her actions which were the actions of an adult, and she sought out anonymity which she had to lie to achieve
That is all she is being done for, and she does deserve whatever she gets - I hope it is imprisonment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every suicidal's dream come true
On the downside there is no way I can convince a troubled teen not to do it, that it will get better. Not when they have a winning ticket of the LAST word. Only in America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every suicidal's dream come true
I see you shooting off your mouth, let's see you back it up with action now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every suicidal's dream come true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Metaphor....
When is twisting laws ok? Is it ok because of public perception? If the old man was a small child would that mean harsher sentence due to increased public perception.
I don't know the laws well and this is a bad metaphor but the point is it's insane to let anything effect the punishment of a person other than the actual crime or that persons criminal history.
Do you guys agree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Metaphor....
That reminds me of the case of the prison guard who was beating a prisoner and got so worked up doing it that he suffered a heart attack and died. They charged the prisoner with the guard's death.
I suppose there are some people posting comments in this forum that would see that as appropriate. I guess I'll just have to disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Metaphor....
Lori is a criminal in that she willfully used fraudulent means to access someone - she hid and thought she would not be found - she hid because she knew what she was doing was deplorable - we create laws to protect the innocent, punish the guilty and provide a deterent to people who want to commit deplorable acts
She did break the law and when it comes to reactions outside of the law, maybe someone will do something unlawful to her, something more harmful than just using words - she would then be crying out to be visible and helped
She was a coward, a deciever, a bully, a child abuser, as stalker, a fraud and a downright scumbag - sadly there are not laws to punish her for all that - the one for fraud will have to suit for now - within the law that is - it remains to be seen what sort of punishment people acting outside the law do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm disturbed by the callous attitude of so many on here - including Mike - who are overlooking the death of a troubled child and are aligning behind the adult who willfully contributed to that death. I am normally a callous bastard but when it comes to child abuse, all bets are off.
To all of you who are so willing to shrug it off and just say "where were Megan's parents", what do you know about her life? Maybe she was being abused by her parents and was looking for a friend only to be further abused. But it doesn't really matter because there is NO circumstance in my books that makes it ok for a predator to stalk and emotionally abuse a troubled child.
Mike - shame on you for supporting Lori Drew's case instead of pushing for a shale-up of the online predator laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh please. I'm not being callous at all. I talked about how sad it is that this girl died, but it's ridiculous to claim that Lori "willfully contributed to that death." There's been no evidence she was trying to drive the girl to suicide. It sets an INCREDIBLY dangerous precedent to charge Lori for *Megan's* actions. Yes, it's tragic. Yes, Drew's actions are despicable. But they shouldn't be illegal.
To all of you who are so willing to shrug it off and just say "where were Megan's parents", what do you know about her life? Maybe she was being abused by her parents and was looking for a friend only to be further abused.
So... uh... by your own reasoning, shouldn't her parents then be tarred, feathered and in jail?
Mike - shame on you for supporting Lori Drew's case instead of pushing for a shale-up of the online predator laws.
No, shame on you for trampling the rule of law in favor of a completely emotional response that blames a woman for the actions of someone else. That's shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FACT - she is being blamed for her own actions - fraudulent use of myspace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not illegal but still wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lori was a predator. You can't debate that. She is an adult and she disguised her identity and stalked a child with malicious intent. That by itself should warrant a more serious penalty than she will get because our online stalking laws are just as inadequate as our online content laws.
Lori's intent may not have been to drive Megan to suicide, but that is the result of her willful actions and she should be accountable for it. She specifically targeted this troubled girl for emotional abuse.
I don't know if Megan's parents should be in jail. Maybe, maybe not. My point was that the people who are cutting Lori slack on the basis of parental responsibility should make sure they understand Megan's circumstances first.
I was VERY clear that I am NOT in favor of trampling the rule of law in favor of an emotional response. I am for changing the laws so predators like Lori Drew can't get away without just punishment. You and many others here are taking the position that this is a sad case but Lori's rights are being violated. Give me a break. Lori is a predator. Her target is dead because of her actions. You tell us what you think is fair.
How do you remain credible now defending those who take a stand against something as comparatively trivial as copyright law? Aren't you being emotional? By your own reasoning in this thread, the law is the law and therefore not prosecuting everyone for file sharing would set an INCREDIBLY dangerous precent.
I am out of here Mike. I thank you for the opinions and debate thus far, but if you can't separate law from principle in a case like this, there is no way I can respect what you have to say in regards to new media or anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I am absolutely 100% arguing for what is right. Putting this woman in jail is absolutely 100% wrong. She did not break the law. You're rationalizing the fact that you want to punish this woman into making you think it's okay to totally abuse the system to get her in jail. That sickens me.
Lori was a predator. You can't debate that.
She was not a predator. You absolutely can debate it. All of the evidence suggests she was *dumb* but not a predator. She didn't "stalk." She tried to use MySpace to find out what Megan was saying about her daughter. It got out of hand, but it wasn't designed to harm the girl. That's pure conjecture. Yes, what she did was misguided. But it was not predatory behavior -- at least not from *any* of the evidence presented.
You're reading too much into this because of MEGAN's actions, not Lori's.
Lori's intent may not have been to drive Megan to suicide, but that is the result of her willful actions and she should be accountable for it. She specifically targeted this troubled girl for emotional abuse.
Again, no evidence of that. All the evidence I saw said she just wanted to know what Megan was saying. No one intended to "willfully" harm the girl. The final mistake (not by Lori, btw, but by the employee) was an attempt to end the whole thing. The way that was done was incredibly dumb, but it wasn't done with malicious intent. The intent was to get Megan to not want to contact "Josh" again.
I was VERY clear that I am NOT in favor of trampling the rule of law in favor of an emotional response. I am for changing the laws so predators like Lori Drew can't get away without just punishment. You and many others here are taking the position that this is a sad case but Lori's rights are being violated. Give me a break. Lori is a predator. Her target is dead because of her actions. You tell us what you think is fair.
You do seem to be making an emotional response, so I disagree. And I don't see how you change the laws. Look, people are jerks or are dumb. You can't outlaw it. Especially not based on how people react to the dumb behavior.
This is a tragic situation all around. What Lori did was dumb. What her employee did was even dumber. But Megan killed herself for a variety of reasons having to do with her own demons. Pinning it on Lori who was misguided, but mostly concerned for the welfare of her own daughter is ridiculous.
How do you remain credible now defending those who take a stand against something as comparatively trivial as copyright law? Aren't you being emotional? By your own reasoning in this thread, the law is the law and therefore not prosecuting everyone for file sharing would set an INCREDIBLY dangerous precent.
Um. I'm not going to go through a logic 101 course for you, but if you thought a little bit about what you just said you'd realize how incredibly ridiculous that sounds.
Saying that someone shouldn't have the law twisted to put them in jail doesn't mean that every law must be enforced 100%. I mean... come on. Get real.
I am out of here Mike. I thank you for the opinions and debate thus far, but if you can't separate law from principle in a case like this, there is no way I can respect what you have to say in regards to new media or anything else.
I am not separating law from principle. I'm doing the opposite. This is about both principle and law. Going after Lori Drew because of the end results of her misguided plan is really troubling. You're getting into thought police territory.
I am out of here Mike. I thank you for the opinions and debate thus far, but if you can't separate law from principle in a case like this, there is no way I can respect what you have to say in regards to new media or anything else.
If you really are so emotional over this that you cannot understand my position, then it probably is best for you to leave. Hopefully, one day, once you calm down and look at the situation, you'll realize that my position makes a lot more sense than you seem to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, but you are the one that is wrong here.
I have not seen any evidence presented that shows she wanted to harm the girl let alone kill her.
There is no law against being a jerk online or in real life. People are every day and most people don't commit suicide nor even consider it. Look at any thread on almost any message board/forum and you'll have trolls.
You can not retroactively change a law because you've now figured out you don't like what they did. What if they did this when they outlawed Alcohol? Everyone who ever bought a bottle of booze should now be thrown in Jail? What about when they made it legal again? Do you release everyone that was committing a crime while it was illegal?
If Megan was really that unstable she should have been seeing a psychiatrist and on medication. She also should have probably been in a facility for a while first.
I have a family member that was suicidal and this is exactly what happened to them. First all the knives, drugs and everything else was locked away in the house. They were evaluated and placed in a facility that keeps them under 24-hour supervision and starts treating them with a psychiatrist and medication. Then they are released from the facility when they are no longer a danger to themselves and they continue treatment with a psychiatrist. Today said person is living a perfectly normal happy life, with a lot of the people at the time having no idea what was going on or ever happened. So how could you blame an outsider that probably never new or even guessed the extent of the problem if something had happened to them as a result. Yes it would've sucked and they would've probably felt really bad about it for a very long time, but punishing them for my family members actions would've maybe placated the need for someone to pay but it would not have been right.
What if instead of using myspace Lori used a nephew or another male friend and had them find out the stuff in person? Then Megan still killed herself because someone said a mean thing to her? People, esp. high school/middle school kids say mean things to each other every single day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is how dangerous this case is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You write: "Yes, Drew's actions are despicable. But they shouldn't be illegal."
Why shouldn't these actions be illegal, in your opinion? An adult predator stalks a child. I don't understand your position. Not at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there was any evidence whatsoever that she was indeed a predator, the prosecutors would have charged her with that.
But, guess what? She was not a predator and they had no evidence. There ARE laws against being a predator. If she was then they would have charged her with them, not the anti-hacking laws that they charged her with.
Try to think it through a little bit here.
It would greatly help your side if you did because right now your argument seems easily shot down as 100% emotion and no rationale to it at all.
I will say it one more time. If she was a predator, they would have charged her with that, because there are laws against that, but they didn't because she isn't. Ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the logic here:
1. Lori is charged w/hacking
2. Media jumps on story, covering it closely
3. Lori is convicted
4. Prosecutor points to Jimmy Olsen w/his camera working for the Daily Planet and says, "look, now she's the face of interweb bullying. We must smite her!"
Why the fuck does Jimmy Olsen have ANYTHING to do w/justice, the law, or the sentencing process. Why is how long Lori is doomed to spend in prison being decided by the program coordinator for CNN?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective Outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Outrage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: by Cheese McBeese
This whole thing is truly American justice on a really good day. The judicial system is just as corrupt as the political system, and the only way to fix it, I suspect, is to burn it to the ground, and start all over brick by brick from the ground up. What a witch hunt!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you throw a TV out the window and it smashes on the sidewalk, nothing happens to you. If you throw a TV out the window and it hits a child and kills her, you go to jail. Same stupid act, different consequences, different legal penalty. Happens all the time in morality and the law.
And, toyotabedzrock, why are they making her seem as if she molested the girl? She willfully, gleefully, manipulated 13-year-old Megan Meier's sexual feelings for six weeks. How is that not psychological molestation? Try to picture yourself doing that to the 13-year-old daughter of one of your friends. You can't even imagine it, it's so heinous. Lori had no problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LORI DREW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
morality and the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lori drew case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lori Drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider this
If Mrs. Drew were able to in real time, live and in person, dress up like a 16 year-old and pretend to be the girl's boyfriend and then use information she had as a former friend of the family combined with the awesome power she had over this girl via being the first and only boy to befriend her to push this girl to kill herself -- what would the law say about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consider this
What she did was horrible, and she should get punished for it. Very few are debating that. The point - you nincompoop- is that the horror of it isn't because of the computer fraud. The punishment should fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this a joke!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]