Prosecutors Still Want To Pretend Lori Drew Was Convicted Of Harming Megan Meier
from the this-is-sickening dept
The prosecutors in the Lori Drew trial continue to make a mockery of the law. After pushing to give Drew the maximum three years in jail not because of what she was convicted for, but because she "has become the public face of cyberbullying," prosecutors are now demanding that Megan Meier's parents speak at the sentencing hearing, claiming they are Drew's victims. Except... that's simply not true. Drew was convicted merely of having "hacked" into MySpace's computers, because she broke their terms of service by not using her real name (even though she didn't even sign up for the account). The fact that Megan Meier later committed suicide has nothing to do with what Lori Drew was actually convicted of doing. The only reason to allow them to speak at the sentencing is to push for an emotional reason for the sentencing rather than a legal one. The whole thing is a rather disgusting display of a prosecutor abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law. Whether you believe what Drew did was horrific or not, there's simply no excuse for abusing the law in this manner.
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, megan meier, sentencing, symbolic
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? Overreaching prosecutors seem to be a dime a dozen these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
Better watch yourself. Mike mike take offense to your comment and commit suicide and then you would be put on trial for cyber bullying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
Wait a second, If the victims of Lori Drew should come and speak at the sentencing, shouldn't the owners of MySpace be there? I'd be sitting there with a stop watch to see how long the could go without laughing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
Conservatives, liberals, all the same idiots running your life because you think there are actually two sides.
And both of those sides have absolutely nothing to do with this entire thread at all aside from you trying to pull it in here.
In short, you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
So you support cyber bullying. Well I didn't grow up behind a computer and the way I take care of cyber bullies is to find them and let them meet a tire iron. The same way we dealt with assholes on my block.
Snort. If you're reaching around for a "tire iron" then you're so old that I'm not going to be too worried about meeting you on your block. Heck, I might even stand on your lawn for giggles.
Also, somebody alert the appropriate AG to this terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This publication supports cyber bullying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
justice, no longer blind
bad example:
let's say i poisoned my neighbor's dog. a despicable act, indeed. if convicted, can i be sentenced to death because the dog's owner gives an impassioned speech, complete with tears, on how he loved his dog? how a monster like me should not be allowed to walk the earth?
this is exactly why victims and their families should never have been allowed to speechify at trials. they turn justice into revenge.
i'm just saying, is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: justice, no longer blind
This prosecutor has done that fairly well on his own so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: justice, no longer blind
It's the result of the feminization of society in general and government in particular that in turn resulted from letting women vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: justice, no longer blind
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: justice, no longer blind
Maybe they aren't very feminine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: justice, no longer blind
> despicable act, indeed. if convicted, can
> i be sentenced to death because the dog's
> owner gives an impassioned speech, complete
> with tears, on how he loved his dog?
Ummm... no. You could only sentenced for whatever maximum the law allows. For a poisoned dog, that's probably a misdemeanor so the most you'd get is a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: justice, no longer blind
You will never get a death sentance for poisoning a dog. The result of victim's families speaking at sentencing can not be a sentance greater than the one perscribed for the crime in the first place.
Lets say that poisoning a dog has a perscribed sentence of 6 months to 3 years. The owner giving an impassioned speach tells the court the level of impact your crime has had on other people and is used to help him determine where in the range of 6 months to 3 years you are to be sentenced. If the impact is large, you will get something closer to 3 years, if it is small it will be closer to 6 months.
It has nothing to do with a distortion of the justce system (no longer blind), it has everything to do with the fact that breaking the law has an impact on others in society and one of the purposes of the justice is to levy a punishment commensurate with that affect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And obviously you are still emotionally as mature as a twelve year old.
As a good man once said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind". I'm no pacifist, but then I'm not a sadist either. I believe violence is a tool to be applied as necessary, and only when all else fails. Revenge is an empty thing, doubly so when its not even personal.
Who is more the monster? The one who did not wish for death or the one demanding it? How about the one hoping that the other falls into such despair they aren't killed by execution but instead take their own life?
Megan taking her own life was a tragedy but not so much as because she's dead so much as *her* actions have brought out the worst in people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your whole "eye for an eye" thing isn't really relevant either, I didn't ask for her to be lynched.
And no, I'm not a religious person but with all the fucked up things religious people spend their time saying/writing/doing, I'm pretty sure my statement is quite tame in comparison, so um... well done bringing *that* up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
She'll die one day anyway, and I'll enjoy my schadenfreude if it makes the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm just as guilty as she is
Just saying...
How many here have NEVER created a "fake" account on something like myspace/facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In closing, I'd like to reiterate: Megan killed herself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since when does that matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe YOU should get the facts straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess I'm assuming there is the possibility of civil recourse in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What she did is not right and if she goes unpunished then i think someone (i wish i was qualified) needs to explore changing laws to prevent people from doing this in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drew
Of course there's still no excuse for bullying. Especially when the bully is a good 15 years older than the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christ
A. Is anyone arguing that what Lori did wasn't a nice/decent/humane thing to do? It seems to me the scope of the articles have been that the prosecutors manipulated the law, as opposed to applying it, as a response to the public outcry. The fact remains that she didn't break any existing laws that aren't routinely broken by most of us, and to suggest that she do 3 years in the pen because she created a Myspace page under a false name ought to SERIOUSLY frighten people
B. Brent: please refer to respons "A", particularly in the beginning. But more importantly there are great many things that you and I, or even most people, would find "horrific" and "not right". Here's some of mine, for instance: not paying active servicemen enough, not giving vets enough of after retirement, joining the American Nazi Party, spouting anti-Semitic comments, producing the Jerry Springer show. I would qualify each and every one of those as horrific and not right. I also think that creating laws banning them would be dangerous and stupid, since my opinions should not define law. Why should yours?
C. "From what I know of the story, Drew created a false Face Book ID for the sole purpose of harrassing Meghan" - are the type of comments you get from people who get their news from...well, the news. That isn't even CLOSE to what she did, plus it wasn't her alone, plus the girl was already disturbed, plus plus plus. But hey, information clogs the headlines, so how about instead we print "Lori Drew creates Myspace account to harrass child" instead?
D. "She's a monster, I hope she remains in the public eye forever and ends up committing suicide herself" - Fair enough. None of that has to do w/the application of law.
E. I've made this point before, but it is deplorable that the prosecutors are seeking 3 years because Lori has become the face of cyberbullying. She became that face because the media CHOSE to focus on this story. Hence, she is getting three years thanks not to the crime she did or did not commit, but because the media coordinators focused on her. That is a complete joke and flys in the face of the "Rule of Law" we supposedly have. What Jimmy Olsen chooses to report or not report should have NO FUCKING BEARING on sentencing hearings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christ
Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christ
B. Brent: please refer to respons "A", particularly in the beginning. But more importantly there are great many things that you and I, or even most people, would find "horrific" and "not right". Here's some of mine, for instance: not paying active servicemen enough, not giving vets enough of after retirement, joining the American Nazi Party, spouting anti-Semitic comments, producing the Jerry Springer show. I would qualify each and every one of those as horrific and not right. I also think that creating laws banning them would be dangerous and stupid, since my opinions should not define law. Why should yours?"
Hey thanks for responding, i got kind of excited to see my name! Yeah, I wasn't sure if she had broken any existing laws, that's why i asked. I have to think that a grown adult going online and harassing a child/teenager (if that is in fact what she did) has to be against the law somewhere. I thought that might be the consenus of everyone and that something could be changed. I certainly did not mean that my opinion should dictate the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christ
I know, I'm venting. I actually agree that "abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law" is ridiculous. I even believe "there's simply no excuse for abusing the law in this manner", but boy do I wish for her life to be miserable forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christ
> existing laws that aren't routinely broken
> by most of us, and to suggest that she do
> 3 years in the pen because she created a
> Myspace page under a false name ought to
> SERIOUSLY frighten people
Exactly. I'm a federal law enforcement agent myself and this whole case should really make people uneasy. The lesson here is, if the government doesn't like what you're doing, you're going to prison even if you're not breaking the law.
And I say this even though this precedent will make working my own criminal cases quite easy for me. I'll be able to really rack up the stats from now on.
I don't have enough evidence to convict a guy of making counterfeit currency? No problem! I'll just subpoena his ISP logs, find out which online businesses he's patronized and nail him for violating a Terms of Service. After all, those things go on for pages and no one ever actually reads them, so pretty much everyone violates some clause somewhere at sometime. Did he say something provocative or racially charged on Facebook? Used a screen name instead of his real name on MySpace? Posted a fake product review on Amazon? All that and more can now get you 3-5 in a federal penn! Who cares about evidence when I now have this wonderful tool at my disposal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber what???
What the hell have we become? I have always thought that to bully someone, you had to do it up close and personal. My god, we have become afraid of our own shadow. What a bunch of wussys. Enough already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If not, Mr. Coward, you are now guilty of using a false identity online.
You hackers are evil. You should do hard time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Point 2, did she make the account? Or did her employee make the account?
Point 3, what law did she break? Twisting the law to convict someone of what is admittedly despicable, but isn't actually illegal, should worry the HELL out of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reiterated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether or not Ms. Drew "broke the law" is ultimately a decision to be made by the trial judge, and not by bloggers having only third hand accounts of the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or you know, maybe we ought to do our best to examine these things. I dunno, you tell me, since you're so smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isn't that why we have Jury trials?
Yes she was convicted of bullshit that should have not past mustard. But sentencing is about the harm the crime caused, sure the crime doesn't seem to fit right with the law applied but it didn't make her behavior exceptable and the jury gets to think about everything related to the crime when sentencing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?
Fine, what she did was bad, but there aren't any laws against it. If you think there should be, that's a completely different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: isn't that why we have Jury trials?
Ok, then why have the law at all. Just trot everyone out in front of the jury and say, "Whaddaya think, gang?"
The law in the case was proper. The application was not. What the prosecutor did here, regardless of all other outlying factors, was WRONG. It was a misapplication of the law. It doesn't make ANY difference who they're going after or what your opinions of them are. You can't charge people with crimes they didn't commit, end of effing story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just waiting for the second part
By this verdict,in the USA, if you provide false personal details to any web site that asks for them you can be convicted of "hacking" and sent to jail, got to love the "land of the free"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comment #25
This is exactly why jurors aren't supposed to read newspapers during a trial, and why some jurors are sequestered during a trial, and why some trials have to change venue in order to provide a more fair and unprejudiced jury pool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comment #25
This is why jurors are forbidden to read newspapers during the trial. This is why jurors are sometimes sequestered during the trial. This is why some trials have to change venue, in order to insure that there is an unprejudiced juror pool to select from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Squirt some more tears please...
Her parents are no different then those in the 80's attempting to blame Ozzy or Judas Priest for their teen suicides.
Instead of "cyber bulling" laws lets implement an internet leash law; no access to the internet without adult supervision for those under 18. Or maybe parents can just learn to say "No".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems to me you are afraid that your keyboard courage is going to be taken away. You won't be able to say and do things that you would never in your dreams actually say or do had anyone known you were the ones saying it.
What a bunch of wussies, you want to be able to hide behind the veil of the Internet and say your childish things and not be responsible for it? Hahaha, too bad. Were I the parent of that poor girl, I would have just went over to that woman's house and give her a beatdown and let them charge me with assault. My victim would have the benefit of knowing who was hurting her, unlike what she did to this poor girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the charge had been something like Involuntary Manslaughter (I'm no lawyer), and the evidence enough to convict, then maybe Techdirt would agree.
But the charges are for a bogus unrelated crime, and the standard for conviction of those charges have been set so low by this trial that you, with the fake name Anonymous Coward, could be guilty of the same crime.
We don't think the Internet changes this case. We think the law should not be twisted to find some way to convict Drew. You are a troll, nobody anywhere on this site has written that what Drew did "is OK". In fact, the article suggests what Drew did is horrific.
[s]But I appreciate your point of view. A world of spontaneous, rage infused "beatdowns" would indeed be a veritable Utopia. I can't wait to live in your world of certain and prompt justice. You are clearly a supporter of a just society, and rule of law.[/sarc]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a bunch of wussies, you want to be able to hide behind the veil of the Internet and say your childish things and not be responsible for it?
OK, really. You're putting us on, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to take money from me and give it to others? Is that fair treatment? Is it covered under the Constitution? Show me where it says that that is the way it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what?"
So in this country we are supposed to have a "Rule of Law" system, where disputes and crimes are settled by clearly defined statutes (as opposed to Mob Rule, which is what this case seems to have been prosecuted under, hence the application of the media's coverage into the sentencing consideration).
"What part of the Constitution gives the government the right to take money from me and give it to others?"
Well, I didn't say that the law had to be explicitly in the US Constitution, but the 16th amendment for starters:
"Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration",
which basically says that Congress can take your money and apply it to govt. programs, including Wellfare, Medicaid, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Very nicely pwned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The constitution explicity stated that slaves and some minorities were to be counted as 3/5 of a person, you ignorant fucktard:
"...including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
That's how it was originally written, then superceded by the 14th amendment. If you live in this country and don't want to bother to understand the single most important document in American existence, you DO NOT get to comment on the constitutionality of laws (that should be the rule, in fact put THAT in the constitution rather than any idiocy concerning a definition of marriage).
Tell you what, here is a hypertext version of the US Constitution, searchable via keyword thanks to its hypertexticity.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
God Dammit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm glad you've read the Constitution, it's more than most, but try to learn a little history before berating someone about how racist this country is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For instance, if my intention was to release an African American from prison where he was incorrectly imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit by saying, "He can't be convicted because he doesn't no any better", I'm doing something AGAINST racism by BEING racist.
So there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right... so I'm not sure what your point is. You think your racism is justified because you don't "mean" it? Because either you're an ass for saying "he doesn't no any better" or the constitution DID try to protect minorities by saying they only counted as 3/5th for the purposes of determining tax distribution and governmental representation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that's what we thought you said. And you're the one calling names?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it, who here believes chopping the head off of someone and eating them is the act of a sane person? Of course that person was insane. Will it get the person off? Of course not.
Drew here did something wrong and she was punished for it. End of story. Justice was served.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole technology angle is a red herring in this case. If you damage people with something stupid or cruel that you do, you have a moral and legal debt to pay. The internet is not a responsibility-free zone.
You and I have not killed any children with our fake internet names. If that ever changes, we will pay the price, just like this horrible fat old witch should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there were a way to charge Drew with her death I assure you they would have. But they didn't. They took hacking law and twisted it so that breaking TOS goes from a contractual issue to a felony. You don't see a problem with that?
No one here is saying the Internet should be a "responsibility-free zone." But why are you letting the Authorities get away with twisting laws like this? that's both frightening and reprehensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you damage people with something stupid or cruel that you do, you have a moral and legal debt to pay."
Then:
"this horrible fat old witch"
.....Simply stunning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]