US Prosecutor Wants To Appeal Lori Drew Ruling
from the really?--give-it-up... dept
This is incredible. Apparently the US prosecutor in the bogus Lori Drew case, which the judge finally tossed out in August is looking to appeal the decision. It's up to the US Solicitor General as to whether or not that actually happens, but just the fact that the prosecutor is still pushing this case is ridiculous. It was clearly an attempt to twist a law (unauthorized computer access) well beyond what it was meant to cover in an attempt to bring Drew up on charges because people didn't like the end result of what happened, even though she didn't break the law. The judge tossed it out because of how ridiculous it was. Also, apparently the cases that the prosecutor relied on in pushing the original case have now been rejected as well, making the argument even more tenuous. What a waste of time for a US prosecutor.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the same is true with the CFAA -- if you exceed the scope of the ToS and still use the system, you're not authorized to continue to access it, and that's a plain violation of the CFAA.
for instance, let's say the defendant uses someone else's password who willingly shared it. if the ToS says no account sharing, under this rationale, the defendant is committing a federal crime. however, the CFAA was aimed more at the defendant who steals a password... regardless of what the ToS says.
it really comes down to intent. what the CFAA is aiming to ban is hacking -- guys who intend to subvert security measures. the fact that the defendant in the lori drew case violated the ToS was only incidental. she wasn't trying to gain unauthorized access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will admit, I am not a lawyer (and by your later replies, you are saying you are), but I have yet to see one case that this is true.
If you can find me one, then I'll send you half of the money I get for your services. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you just click a button on a website, it is only binding if they are offering something for your $1M. If they do offer you something (and they can prove you weren't duped) you DO owe them $1M. They may have trouble collecting, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get over it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all right...
If not, the Appelate Court's decision can be appealed and the Supreme Court might weigh in on it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then I hope you don't live in the US. It was founded on mob justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-bullying Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as Orin Kerr points out in his post (but which your post glosses over), the government has 30 days after a ruling to file a notice of appeal. Filing one doesn't mean the government definitely will appeal, but it's necessary to preserve that option.
I'm with you on the substance of your post, and your attitude toward the case, but I mention this because it's not very helpful to have one of the top Google results for Lori Drew appeal" have some inaccurate text front and center.
And by the way, I really do mean that about law school. I know you're busy, and maybe it's unrealistic, but I'm guessing you'd be quite good at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that was a mistake that's been fixed. There are nice ways to point out a mistake and obnoxious ways. Which did you choose?
And as Orin Kerr points out in his post (but which your post glosses over), the government has 30 days after a ruling to file a notice of appeal. Filing one doesn't mean the government definitely will appeal, but it's necessary to preserve that option.
And what did I write in my post? "It's up to the US Solicitor General as to whether or not that actually happens..." Right. Which means that the gov't won't necessarily appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And in some cases, what may seem like little errors make a real difference in the substance of your posts. Recently, you made a point about a judge's ruling on a motion to dismiss (in the case involving claims against ratings agencies) in which you seemed to interpret the judge's denial of a motion to dismiss as a stronger endorsement of the plaintiff's theory than it actually was. While your post criticized the judge's ruling, it turned out you were OK with the case moving forward if there were evidence of real fraud. And, as discussed in comments to that post, in order for the case to move forward so that evidence of fraud could be offered, the judge had to let the case move forward. So that's a instance where you attitude toward a case, and the entire tone of your post about it, was (or could have been) dramatically affected by a deeper understanding of the legal procedures involved.
Understanding the significance of motions to dismiss, or the difference between dismissing a case vs. granting summary judgment vs. a verdict after a trial, isn't super-easy -- it takes little bit of study (either in law school, or even just poring over one of those "Nutshell" books). Knowing you from your writing and speaking, there is no question that you are far, far smarter than is necessary to understand those concepts. You're also quite good at explaining many tech-legal concepts in your posts, especially when it comes to bigger picture issues. You can certainly hold your own in debating big tech-policy and tech-law issues with the best and the brightest in the field.
Where there's a deficiency in your/TechDirt's coverage, it's in understanding some of the nitpickier details of the law. When one of your posts makes a minor mischaracterization, or you evince an insufficiently-deep grasp of, say, some line of First Amendment case law, it makes it tougher for you to get your argument across. It also makes it easier for someone like, say, Ben Sheffner to pounce on your mistakes or misunderstandings, and not confront the merits of your arguments. I find this especially unfortunate since I so often agree with you on the underlying substance.
That's why I wasn't kidding about suggesting you go to law school. Sure, you could sit down with a bunch of geeky lawyers and, before discussing whatever the big legal issue of the day is, get them to give you a quickie tutorial on some of the basics. But going to law school would give you a much more in depth understanding of some of these issues, and would be a heck of a credential (since you could then actually litigate one of these cases, or at least give legal advice to your clients).
Sorry if you took these comments as insulting, but they are honestly meant as constructive criticism from someone who greatly appreciates your blogging and other work on tech issues. So, in the nicest way possible, let me implore you to please (1) try (harder) to avoid making rookie mistakes on legal issues in TechDirt, and (2) at least *consider* law school, and (3) try not to be so defensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do try hard to avoid such mistakes, and often consult lawyers on certain legal questions. But little unimportant mistakes get through. And that's what I consider this to be. The vast majority of my audience doesn't care about the difference between a US prosecutor and a DA, and it's the sort of thing that someone points out quick enough and I adjust, and there's no problem there.
The blog has always been about getting my opinion out, and kicking off the discussion (and that means correcting little nitpicky errors like that). I try to avoid them, but honestly, is my time better spent figuring out of it's the DA or the USP... or in writing another interesting post? I'd argue the latter.
The only people who seem really upset by such mistakes tend to be the people who would never agree with me in the first place.
Again, I appreciate the feedback, and I take it to heart, but I'm not going to law school, and I'll probably still make such mistakes. And when they happen, point them out, and I'll change them, and we'll all be better off for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike's too mature to say it. But I'm not. Go lick yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]