Thanks To The Lori Drew Case, I Can Make Each Of You A Criminal

from the oh,-the-power... dept

We've already talked about how the Lori Drew case represents a dangerous slippery slope, in that it effectively turns just about everyone into an internet criminal who can face years in jail for "criminal computer fraud," simply because they disobeyed a website's terms of service -- even if they didn't read the terms or even approve them. With the initial verdict in, Orin Kerr -- who is involved with the case as a part of Drew's legal team -- demonstrates how awful this case is by changing the terms of service on the blog he writes for in order to demonstrate how easy it is for any website to turn pretty much everyone into a criminal:

New Terms of Use for the Volokh Conspiracy: In light of the verdict in the Lori Drew case, I have decided to promulgate new Terms of Use for the Volokh Conspiracy. You are only permitted to visit the Volokh Conspiracy if you are in compliance with the Terms of Use. Any accessing the Volokh Conspiracy in a way that violates these terms is unauthorized, and according to the Justice Department is a federal crime that can lead to your arrest and imprisonment for up to one year for every visit to the blog.

By visiting this blog, you promise that:

1. You will not post comments that are abusive, profane, or irrelevant. Civil and relevant comments only, as indicated by our comment policy.
2. You are not an employee of the U.S. government. Yes, that includes postal service employees, law clerks, judges, and interns. We're a libertarian-leaning blog, and we're for the private sector only. Government types, keep out.
3. Your middle name is not "Ralph." I've always thought Ralph was a funny name, and even odder as a middle name. No one with the middle name "Ralph" is welcome here.
4. You're super nice. We have strict civility rules here, and this blog is only for people who are super nice. If you are not super nice, as judged by me, your visit to this blog is unauthorized.
5. You have never visited Alaska. Okay, this one is totally arbitrary, but it's our blog and we can keep out who we want. Alaska visitors are out, too.

If you post an abusive comment; you are an employee of the U.S. government; your middle name is Ralph; you're not super nice, as judged by me; or you have visited Alaska, I have kinda bad news for you: You are a criminal, as you have just violated 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C) by accessing the Volokh Conspiracy's service without authorization or in excess of authorization. You are only authorized to visit the blog in compliance with the Terms of Use, and by violating these terms you have become a criminal by essentially "hacking in" to the Volokh Conspiracy.

Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, orin kerr, terms of service

Lori Drew Not Guilty Of Felonies, But Guilty Of Misdemeanors

from the twisty-laws dept

In the landmark cyberbullying case, Lori Drew was found not guilty of three felonies, but guilty of three misdemeanors. The jury is deadlocked on the fourth count of felony conspiracy. The three counts of "accessing a computer without authorization" relate to the creation of a fictitious account on MySpace that was used to engage in an online relationship with Megan Meier. This verdict is not surprising considering the emotionally charged nature of this case. Prosecutors were desperate to convict Lori Drew of something, despite the fact that she may not have technically done anything illegal. If what Lori Drew did was truly criminal, then laws need to be passed to make it that way. To twist around computer fraud laws to simply get a conviction not only sets a dangerous precedent, but it is not the appropriate way to serve justice.

Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, megan meier
Companies: myspace

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.

Filed Under: computer fraud, evidence, lori drew, megan meier

Lori Drew's Lawyers Worried About Finding Jury That Hasn't Prejudged Drew

from the tough-case dept

With the judge agreeing that the information about Megan Meier's suicide can be included in the computer fraud lawsuit against Lori Drew, Drew's lawyers are discovering that the emotional aspects of the case may be difficult to get past. In fact, in reviewing questionnaires that potential jurors were asked to fill out, many expressed outright disgust and "viciousness" for Drew. Once again, it's becoming increasingly clear, that it will be impossible for Drew to get a fair hearing on what the case is actually about: whether or not it's a violation of computer fraud and hacking laws to break the terms of service for an online service. Instead, people are focusing on Meier's suicide, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual charges. This is a witch hunt appealing to emotional responses, rather than reasoned ones. It's been rather depressing to see how many folks have no problem abusing the law in this manner. If the lynch mob aspect of this case is allowed to go on, it will eventually be looked back on as a mockery of the law.

Filed Under: computer fraud, evidence, jury, lori drew, megan meier

Bad Decisions: Judge Allows Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Computer Fraud Case

from the bad,-bad,-bad dept

While the entire lawsuit against Lori Drew is a joke, the one good thing was that it appeared the judge was going to exclude any evidence related to Megan Meier's suicide -- as the fact that the girl committed suicide has no bearing on whether or not Drew violated computer fraud laws. Unfortunately, though, the judge has now reversed himself and will allow such evidence to be presented at the trial. This makes the case officially ridiculous. There is simply no way that Drew can get a fair trial.

She is being charged with computer fraud. The fact that a girl eventually committed suicide should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not computer fraud happened. But, because of the emotional connection to the fact that a girl committed suicide, some folks want to string up someone out of revenge. Unfortunately, the emotions surrounding the case will lead way too many people to conclude that it's okay to find a woman guilty on an entirely separate issue that will set a horrible precedent. At this point, it's quite clear that the lawsuit has nothing to do with the actual law, but it's an attempt to punish someone because a young girl killed herself. It's understandable that people are angry over Megan Meier's suicide, but that's simply no excuse for twisting laws for lynch-mob justice.

Filed Under: computer fraud, evidence, lori drew, megan meier

Judge Likely To Exclude Evidence Of Suicide In Lori Drew Lawsuit

from the makes-at-least-some-sense dept

We've already pointed out how ridiculous it was that prosecutors charged Lori Drew with violating computer hacking laws. It was, quite clearly, a case where prosecutors were stretching the use of the law beyond its intention in order to file any charges in an emotionally-charged case. Drew, of course, is the woman who many people blame for the eventual suicide of teenager Megan Meier. Drew had created a fake MySpace account to see what Meier was saying about Drew's own daughter -- who had been friends with Meier. A few different people had access to the MySpace account, and eventually created a false persona of a boy who became friendly with Meier. In an effort to end things before it went too far, a friend of Drew's daughter tried to cut off conversation by being especially mean to Meier, which may have lead to her committing suicide. Meier's suicide is tragic, no doubt, but to go from there to charging Drew with computer hacking for creating a fake profile would set a very dangerous precedent. It could open up almost anyone to felony charges. No matter what you think of Drew or her actions, it's ridiculous to support this lawsuit.

While the judge in the case decided not to dismiss the case, he apparently has decided that evidence of Meier's suicide will not be allowed in the case. This, at least, is a good decision. The lawsuit itself has nothing to do with the suicide, and allowing it to be used in front of a jury would likely lead to the same emotional response that resulted in the original charges being filed. Of course, with the case getting so much widespread publicity, you'd have to imagine that many jury members will already be familiar with what happened in the case.

Filed Under: computer fraud, evidence, lori drew, megan meier

Judge Not Ready To Dismiss Lori Drew Case

from the needs-more-time-to-think-about-it dept

We've made it clear that we feel the criminal charges filed against Lori Drew for her participation in creating a fake persona on MySpace, which eventually resulted in the suicide of Megan Meier, a teenaged ex-friend of Drew's daughter is highly questionable. It is not against the law to be a jerk online -- and many people seem to be reacting emotionally rather than rationally to the facts of this case. Drew wasn't trying to make anyone commit suicide, and no one has explained how the lawsuit would be different if the fake "boy" had been a real boy. Since there was no real law broken, prosecutors twisted a computer fraud law in a way that would basically make most internet users felons.

However, while the judge in the case is examining various briefs pointing this out, as well as ones taking the other side, he's not yet ready to dismiss the case, as he rejected two motions to dismiss the case. However, that may change, as he says he wants more time to consider a third motion to dismiss the case, concerning whether or not the case actually states the offense. Assuming he agrees not to dismiss the case, the actual lawsuit will begin early next month.

Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, megan meier

If Lori Drew Is Guilty, So Are Most Internet Users

from the being-a-jerk-isn't-illegal dept

While we can understand the anger some folks feel at Lori Drew -- the woman who some blame for the eventual suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier -- it was quite troubling the way in which prosecutors indicted Drew. Since there didn't appear to be much of a law concerning being a jerk online to a child, she was instead charged with computer fraud for using a fake name on MySpace. This is an extremely weak case, and Drew's lawyers have now asked for the charges to be dropped, noting that almost any internet user could probably be found guilty under the same rationale. This was pretty clearly a political attempt to prosecute Drew for something, even if there's little evidence that she actually broke a law. While many people who comment on stories concerning Drew do so out of emotion rather than logic, hopefully the judge will recognize that this particular charge is a misuse of the law in question.

Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, megan meier

Missouri Makes Online Harassment A Felony

from the laws-passed-out-of-emotion dept

Laws passed as an emotional reaction to a tragic situation are almost always bad laws. The state of Missouri has signed into law a bill to make online harassment a felony. This is in response, of course, to the infamous "Lori Drew/Megan Meier" case that has received so much attention. Of course, when you look at the facts of the case, it's not even clear if this law would have mattered. Drew didn't set up the MySpace account to harass Meier, but to find out what she was saying about her daughter. The "harassing" messages were actually sent by another teen, and weren't meant as harassment either, but as an (extremely misguided) attempt to get Meier to stop contacting the "fake" person. It's certainly understandable that people feel that something should be done, since a young girl ended up killing herself, but rushing into laws won't necessarily fix the situation at all. Also, it needs to be asked: if the same set of facts existed, but the boy who made Meier angry was real instead of fake -- would he also have been guilty under this law? If so, a lot of angry messages between kids having silly school spats are going to be court material.

Filed Under: lori drew, megan meier, missouri, online harassment

Do Half Of Americans Really Want The Gov't To Regulate The Internet?

from the you-can-prove-anything-with-surveys dept

You can prove almost anything you want with surveys if you word them correctly. Remember a couple months ago, when we were discussing a study that suggested people in China were "happy" with the government's regulation of the internet? At the time, I noted:

Before people act surprised about this, take a step back and recognize that if you did the same study in the US, asking if the government should be protecting children from "bad stuff" online, many Americans would naturally say yes.

And, now it looks like a "public opinion" firm is proving that correct, leading to the publicity-generating headline suggesting that half of all Americans support regulating content online the same way content is regulated on TV or radio -- with 73% of all people saying that it should be illegal to be a jerk online. But is that really representative of what people think? Not really. At least the firm also reveals the actual questions -- from which it's easy to see why the answers came out as they did.

The survey starts out talking about the infamous Megan Meier-Lori Drew case, providing very little of the actual context of what happened, but instead suggesting that Drew sent cruel messages to a young girl to make her commit suicide. That's not accurate at all, according to most reports. While Lori Drew did set up the fake MySpace page, she did it to keep tabs on what Meier was saying about her daughter, not to harass her. And, the harassing "message" was sent by another young girl who thought it was a good way to get Megan to not want to speak to the fake profile again -- rather than to push her to commit suicide. But, none of that context is explained. Instead, survey takers are told that Drew set up a fake MySpace page with which to harass a girl, which resulted in the girl's suicide. They're then asked if they think that should be a crime -- to which many people obviously respond yes.

Immediately following this, they ask people if the FCC should regulate content on the internet, like it does on TV and radio. And, of course, since people are now in the mindset of thinking just how awful some content can be online, they're much more prone to say yes. In other words, the results are totally bogus. If the opinion firm, instead, went in the other direction and opened with questions about internet censorship, and spoke about how aggressive regulation of content online was preventing people from getting all sorts of information that could be useful to them, and then asked how they felt about FCC regulation of online content, I'd imagine a lot fewer would think it was okay. And, just for contrast's sake, we can point to another study from a few years ago that asked people about regulating content on TV. In that study over 90% said they didn't think content should be regulated on TV. That study is obviously questionable too, but if you combine both, you'd have 90% of people saying that TV shouldn't be regulated, but 50% saying that internet content should be. Something doesn't add up.

Filed Under: lori drew, megan meier, regulations, stats, surveys