backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by 16nm.. on Dec 3 at 1:43 PM


Megan Meier's neighbor Ms. Drew was found guilty of misdemeanor charges surrounding her allegedly spurring Meier to kill herself, but found not guilty of three more serious felony charges.  (Source: Myspace)
Family and friends search for closure in final verdict

The case of Lori Drew and her role in the suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier was a controversial one.  Meier was a teenager who suffered from bouts of depression, but was generally characterized and good-natured and outgoing.  When she committed suicide after an argument with her mother, it seemed like nothing more than a tragic case of teenage mental illness gone awry. 

However, then it came out that the argument with her mother was over cruel comments from a boy online who allegedly initially romanced her on MySpace and then turned hostile, eventually dropping a hint that the world might be a better place if she left it.  The only thing out of the ordinary -- the teenage boy, wasn't really a teenage boy; it was neighbor Lori Drew who wanted to allegedly "get Meier back" for supposed mean behavior towards her daughter.

When this came to light, federal authorities sidestepped local authorities, which would likely have delivered no charges.  They charged Ms. Drew with a variety of misdemeanors as well as four felony counts.

The trial was long and heated, with Ms. Drew's attorney arguing that Meier's suicide was less the result of MySpace, and more the result of a history of mental illness and that Ms. Drew could not be held responsible for not reading MySpace’s EULA, because "no one" does.  Meanwhile, prosecutors painted Ms. Drew as a mean-spirited woman who tormented young Meier and drove her to her unfortunate end.

In the end the jury found Ms. Drew guilty of three misdemeanor charges, while clearing her of three of the felony charges and reaching a deadlock in a fourth felony charge.  The result is that Ms. Drew will be sentenced to anything from probation to three years behind bars, avoiding felony sentencing which could have put her in prison for 20 years.

The reason the jury found her not guilty on the felony counts was due to lack of proof that Ms. Drew had typed the MySpace messages that drove Meier apparently to suicide.  The messages may also have been typed by Ms. Drew's employee or daughter, both of which were privy to Ms. Drew's scheme.

Tina Meier, Megan's mother says that despite the mixed nature of the verdict, that it's a victory.  She states, "This is about justice.  It's justice not only for Megan but it's justice for everybody who has had to go through this with the computer and being harassed."

MySpace Chief Security Officer Hemanshu Nigam also praised the decision, stating, "MySpace respects the jury's decision and will continue to work with industry experts to raise awareness of cyber-bullying and the harm it can potentially cause."

The greatest impact of the case may be to spur government officials to enact new cyberbullying laws, which could allow criminal charges for those who goad youth into suicide.  Meier's case is not alone in this respect -- recently a teenager was encouraged by hundreds of onlookers in a video chat room to take pills and kill himself, which he did, dying hours later as the cameras rolled.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ridiculous
By g35fan on 12/1/2008 12:32:36 AM , Rating: 5
ridiculous. Lori Drew obviously has some mental problems herself. Probably teased as a young girl and was living her own personal revenge through getting back at her daughter's teaser.

I've got $1,000 that says Megan Meier was on multiple medications and there lies the root of the problem. Freakin 13yr olds on anti-depressents. Now thats bad parenting. Most likely the school talked the parents into it however since schools generally get financial incentive for how many kids are prescribed drugs. - insane isn't it?




RE: ridiculous
By GlassHouse69 on 12/1/2008 1:17:34 AM , Rating: 4
If a glowing pixel can cause someone to commit suicide... I dont think this person would have made it in the real world.

I cant see pixels causing suicide. You just cant create an argument about that.

our society is retarded.

and yes, it is a good point that anti-depressents strongly increase suicide rates and tendencies for psychotic breaks in people under 21 years of age. Its a great market though for drug companies. 95%+ of people under 18 are covered with insurance either by emergency medicaid or parent insurance. Thats a 95% paying market for $$$ to be made screwing up young people's brain chemistry.


RE: ridiculous
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2008 1:24:22 AM , Rating: 4
100% agree, and its a joke this woman was even charged with anything in the first place.

" Its about justice " Oh really ? For who ? Megan, or the failings of the mother who can't blame herself or her daughter.


RE: ridiculous
By Samus on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 7:08:21 AM , Rating: 5
Hmmmm I'm looking for the crime here though.

Telling someone to leave that it's better off without you. How the hell is that a crime?

Assisted Suicide - Crime.

Suicide Pacts - Crime.

Murder - Crime.

Providing the means to commit suicide - Crime, but you need to prove they provided the materials with full knowledge of the user's intent. Good luck.

So, again I have to ask, what the hell was the crime here? People commit suicide by the thousands every single day, likely many for the reason of someone was causing them grief, be it a parent, friend, kids at school, whatever. No charges get filed in most of these cases.

Unfortunately this entire case reeks of an angry mob out for vengence because a "poor innocent girl" was "driven to suicide by an angry and vicious woman".


RE: ridiculous
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 8:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is actually how it is, for most rational people.

No, this is the emotional reaction to an event. This has no place in the legality of the matter.

quote:
Lori Drew could be considered as something of a sexual predator, as she used the anonymity of the internet to lure Megan Meier into what could be viewed as a sexual relationship.(pysih.com)

Your reaching here. I'd love to see the proof of this. As she was never charged with any crime having to do with the suicide or any sort of predatory behavior I would guess that there is no evidence to support that outlandish statement. I would also like to point out that you pulled that tidbit from "People you see in hell". Not a very reputable website to get legal information from now is it?


RE: ridiculous
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 9:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
Master Kenobi I do completely understand your position on this matter but your stance makes sense only in one place, it is obviously courtroom. Is there laws that can punish this woman for her behavior? maybe not yet, in a way this could become first of it's kind, a precedent case, so do not expect decision based on human morals, reasoning and principles, so I will not try to prove facts, verify sources nor would eagerly destroy yours, bu I do expect one thing, that these troubles that face Lori Drew for her offensive activity would serve as deterrent for others, whether it would be legal penalty or condemnation of ordinary people.


RE: ridiculous
By omnicronx on 12/1/2008 9:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not defending Lori Drew for her actions of pestering a 13 year old, but don't you remember high school? Stuff like this happens all the time in High school with actually children doing the act. If my 13 year old child was on anti-de


RE: ridiculous
By omnicronx on 12/1/2008 9:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
crap.. pressed enter..

If my 13 year old child was on anti-depressents (which i wouldnt allow in the first place) I would have been keeping a much closer eye on them, especially with their online activity. I have not heard one question aimed at the girls parents, with what actions they were doing to help their child aside from shoving drugs down her throat. If this had been a case of student on student bullying, this story would be about the parents and not about the neighbor.


RE: ridiculous
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 10:58:17 AM , Rating: 2
If my 13 year old child was on anti-depressents (which i wouldnt allow in the first place)

You see, sometimes there is just no choice. When you do all the best to help your child in need, and see how all your good intentions going down the drain and qualified psychotherapist tells you that your child's condition is so extreme that it needs drug treatment to deal with mental and emotional problems, there is no other way but to start treatment.
Yes, she was fragile, and we don't know if her life could be the happy one and would she ever enjoy it, but disturbing fact remains the same: ugly, ill-natured woman took advantage of troubled mind.


RE: ridiculous
By monitorjbl on 12/1/2008 1:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Look at that girl in the photo and tell me she was an extreme case.

This isn't about actual psychological conditions, at least not ones cause my chemical imbalances. From the evidence I've seen, everyone involved is pretty badly tweaked, but that girl was a victim of bad parenting, not nature.


RE: ridiculous
By othercents on 12/1/2008 2:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
I totally understand having to use anti-depressants on some extreme cases, but I also understand that they are over prescribed. The best way do work with people who have these issues are to help there self-esteem, but no amount of counseling would have have helped if there were outside influences causing the undermining of counseling. If an adult knew another person had tried suicide before then they should know that manipulating them this way could cause another attempt.

However there isn't any laws that stop this. There isn't any tracking setup that will prove that the person actually created the messages either. The owner of the account should be the one responsible for everything that happens on their account and at least be charged with aiding (once we have laws against cyber-bullying). From what I read the account was created for this purpose, so the intent is clear.

This case however had nothing to do with cyber-bullying and harassment. It defendent was charged basically with computer hacking (since there are laws against that). Maybe later they will find a way to deal with the wrongful death side of things.

Other


RE: ridiculous
By momwm616 on 12/2/2008 11:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
That website just gained credibility with me. While this woman was not charged in this girls death only god knows if she is responsible. She will pay I am sure of it. This will not happen through our legal system. It is not designed for the crime she commited.


RE: ridiculous
By maverick85wd on 12/1/2008 3:43:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
what the hell was the crime here?


I don't know, how about maliciously attacking a minor? Psychological assault is still assault. And seriously, this woman had years of life experience on that girl and should have known better. Yet people have the audacity to blame the parents for not monitoring her online activities. The parents thought she was talking to SOMEONE HER OWN AGE.

I find your argument of "it's not a crime" to be petty and not in good taste. Clearly this is an example of a case where little or no legal precedence has been established. Does that mean Drew was not in the wrong and thus doesn't deserve to go to jail for falsely creating a MySpace account with intent to inflict psychological harm? Ask yourself this question: If it was your kid, what would your feelings be then? Because if someone did something like this to my kid, there'd be no need for a trial.


RE: ridiculous
By g35fan on 12/1/2008 1:33:45 AM , Rating: 1
Good point. Don't forget that prescription drugs are imprinted in our brains from television ads. What is it - 30% of all ads are for prescription medication? Think of what that does to a developing child in this day and age. It makes it "alright" to be on antidepressents or any type of prescription medication - or any medication for that matter. There's a reason why the USA is the only industrialized country in the world that allows drug Ads on TV. Reason = $$$ and corruption. Lots and lots of it.

I think it's rather amusing on some sick level but the thing that really irks me is this - Drugs don't cure any disease. Just suppress symptoms. And of course the drugs themselves cause a whole bunch of other diseases that we're not even fully aware of yet.

If you ask me just about all doctors (besides general practictioners) are idiots. Same with psychiatrist and pyschologiest. I leave out general practitioners, which we have a horrible shortage of, because they are for the most part not motivated by profits.


RE: ridiculous
By omnicronx on 12/1/2008 9:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good point. Don't forget that prescription drugs are imprinted in our brains from television ads. What is it - 30% of all ads are for prescription medication? Think of what that does to a developing child in this day and age.
Its illegal in the US to have a commerical for a drug and while saying the name and what it does without having to disclose all side effects (risks and benefits, which can take up a lot of time in a 30 second spot). As such many companies forgo one or the other and come up with fancy marketing techniques so that people still know what they are selling.(Viagra does this very well) But do children as young as 12 know what most of these commercials are for? Probably not..
quote:
There's a reason why the USA is the only industrialized country in the world that allows drug Ads on TV.
Not true, Canada allows it, they just have more stringent rules. You can either show the product name or say what it treats, but not both, (unlike the US where you just have to list the sideeffects). Other countries follow similar rules, but mostly the reason that the US does it on such a large scale is because of private health care.
quote:
Just suppress symptoms. And of course the drugs themselves cause a whole bunch of other diseases that we're not even fully aware of yet.
Doctors are not idiots, people with no medical education making statements such as yours are idiots. Different drugs do different things, some suppress, some cure. Of course there will always be some bad doctors, but as in any field, there will always be the good and the bad, please do not make a generalization that you cannot back with any facts whatsoever..

I don't agree at all with giving children prescription drugs such as anti-depressants, or mood changing agents, but it really seems you have been watching too many late night infomercials with that guy that claims there are natural cures for everything, and the FDA is here to take over the world.


RE: ridiculous
By g35fan on 12/1/2008 2:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't say it was a fact - I said it was my opinion that doctorts/psychologists are idiots for the most part. And in my eyes a persons level of education has very little barring on my perception of a persons overall intelligence.

Just because someone goes to school for 7+ years doesn't mean squat to me. It's kind of a "book smarts vs street smarts" thing. I grew up with 2 people who are now doctors and trust me...they were and still are both idiots, lol. And not just in an incompetent way - just being tools of big pharms and totally being driven by monetary gain and egos.

Please inform me of ANY drug that CURES a disease please. I'm pretty darn certain there has never been one but maybe I'm mistaken. Again, in my opinion, we as human beings think we know just about everything but in reality we don't know squat. This is especially true in medical sciences.

Yes, I do know who Kevin Trudeau (spelling) is, lol. He's just another peddler/hustler trying to sell something obviously. Everyone's always trying to sell you something - either a product or an idea - never forget that.

We can agree to disagree on many points here but at least it seems we agree on the main issue here - children being given mood altering drugs is a terrible thing.


RE: ridiculous
By tmouse on 12/2/2008 9:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please inform me of ANY drug that CURES a disease </quote

Antibiotics, It also depends how you define cure, while insulin does not "cure" type 1 diabetes meaning it does not regenerate beta cells; the only cause of the disease is the lack of insulin so supplementing it is in fact a cure albeit not a permanent one. There are many drugs that cure.


RE: ridiculous
By Tuor on 12/1/2008 1:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that Megan Meier's mother broke MySpace's TOS by creating an account for her daughter. The TOS says that someone must be at least 14 years old to have a MySpace account; Megan was only 13 at the time.

A closer reading of the case makes it pretty clear that Drew was only tangently involved in most of what was going on. Her biggest mistake was agreeing with the idea to create the account and not thinking clearly about the possible outcomes.

Megan Meier was just a mental collapse waiting to happen.


RE: ridiculous
By MatthiasF on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: ridiculous
By MikeO on 12/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: ridiculous
By spread on 12/1/2008 7:13:07 AM , Rating: 1
While I do agree the woman involved is sick and needs some help, the girl killed herself because someone on the internet hurt her feelings and told her to.

Someone on the internet told her to go kill herself and she did it.


RE: ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 7:55:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Someone on the internet told her to go kill herself and she did it.

Ah, but not quite! The exact quote was "this place would be better if you left".

How you want to interpret this quote is up to you, but there was no death threat here.


RE: ridiculous
By spread on 12/1/2008 9:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
Now that you mention it...

It could mean alot of things. Move from the neighborhood, city, country.

Looks like suicide was on her mind to begin with. Maybe that's why she was hopped up on antidepressants.


RE: ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 10:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The result was not predicted, it was the option created by the mind of this 13 year old and it was acted on by the mind of this 13 year old.

This would be telling someone to get out of my life and them slashing their wrists. Are you going to hold me accountable for telling that person to get out of my life? They did what I asked/told them to do, however they provided both the method and execution on their own with no help from me.


RE: ridiculous
By MatthiasF on 12/1/2008 2:51:19 PM , Rating: 1
She was a 13 year old girl who just had the young (fake) man who she fell in love with suddenly teller he she was a horrible person, forwarded every intimate message she sent to "him" to all her schoolmates and told her she deserved to die. This was all in the course of a few hours.

That kind of sudden stress would destroy a normal child and obliterated this troubled girl.

Instead of anyone showing sympathy for the situation, they argue about how the parents were bad, or the drugs killed her.

No, she could have lived to be an adult, got herself off the meds and led a healthy life. There was a lot still possible for her, but was all cut short.

Instead of recognizing the vile act and commiserating, you're all debating minor little aspects of what happened as if they're the cause.

The cause was the harassment. End of story.


RE: ridiculous
By werepossum on 12/1/2008 5:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I do agree the woman involved is sick and needs some help , the girl killed herself because someone on the internet hurt her feelings and told her to.

This is what is wrong with American society in a nutshell. This grown woman made and executed a plan to deceive, devastate, and suggest suicide to ("the world" is not "the neighborhood"; there is no leaving it short of death) a young girl whom she already knew to be suicidal, and you see her as a victim. She is not a victim; she knowingly tried to drive a young girl to her death, either as the main instigator or as a willing conspirator. After the girl's death, she told investigators she felt no guilt for what she has done. This woman is evil, and should be in prison for a long, long time, preferably being harassed herself. A normal person would be horrified at even speaking sharply to a child who then committed suicide; this woman - this creature - obtained satisfaction from it.

I agree about the drugs, but doctors prescribing drugs are presumably attempting to help. This woman's only intent was to inflict pain and suffering, and when her actions helped result in the girl's death, she was not horrified, but satisfied.


RE: ridiculous
By spread on 12/1/2008 8:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
I never said the woman was a victim, I simply said she is sick.

There is something fundamentally wrong with her. Who takes this much time to plan such an elaborate persona to hurt some teenage girl her daughter doesn't like anymore.

Megan was the victim, and an easy target, for an online predator in her 40s.


RE: ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 7:13:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You, and everyone else above, who are excusing two adults of preying on a young girl are sick and demented.

Because in the USA, we have this thing called Laws. Laws are broken, and a crime is committed. In this case, no laws were broken. You, and many others need to learn that Morals, and Ethics do NOT necessarily equal a Law.

The fact that they nailed her for an EULA/TOS violation merely adds weight to how far the prosecution had to stretch the case. On an appeal I expect further charges to be overturned.


RE: ridiculous
By MatthiasF on 12/1/2008 2:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
Numerous laws were broken but because of the method of the attack (over the internet) and the circumstances of the harassment, the assailant could not be discovered without a reasonable doubt.

The woman getting off on the local and federal charges had nothing to do with her not breaking any laws, it was about not having enough evidence to convict.

Because she had an employee setup the Myspace account, passed out the login information for the account she used to harass the girl allowing several people to use it, the defense argued it wasn't her who did the harassment and even had an employee take the blame for saying the line that sent the girl over the edge.

It's the equivalent of a mafia boss getting off because he had his subordinates do all the work, even though he thought up the idea and was involved in every decision. Finding the evidence of the boss being involved boils down to testimonies and no hard evidence.

Good job on the high horse attitude, by the way. You made yourself out to be a bigger troglodyte than the rest by trying to make the defeat of justice legitimate with your completely inappropriate and misinformed notions of the case at hand.


RE: ridiculous
By Tuor on 12/2/2008 12:54:23 AM , Rating: 1
Two adults? IIRC, Grills, the employee (or whatever it was) of Drew, was 18 at the time of Meier's suicide. I guess qualifies as an adult, barely.

And who is excusing Drew? Do I think Drew is to blame for Meier's suicide? No. Do I think Drew did something reprehensible? Yes. And yes, I think Drew showed very bad judgement.

And yes, I blame the Meier for killing herself. I don't have sympathy for suicides. It's not that I'm excusing others so much as holding people accountable for what they actually did rather than trying to blame someone else. Meier killed herself. Drew acted stupidly and despicably.

Meier's mother was wrong to create a MySpace account for her unstable daughter, and she, IMO, should've been more supportive of her daughter in the face of what was being said about her and how badly she was reacting to it. I bet she regrets that now, but also think that at least some of her actions are based on an attempt to deflect guilt for her own callousness when her daughter needed her.

And yes, I do think Meier was a just a meltdown ready to happen.


RE: ridiculous
By 16nm on 12/3/2008 1:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
All teenagers have mental 'problems'. It just goes with the territory. All adults know this.

oxymoron: teenage mental problems

:)


By createcoms on 12/1/2008 3:11:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think this psycho mum has gotten her comeback from the neighborhood she lived in.

http://pysih.com/2007/11/19/lori-drew/

RIP Megan Meier, you were not alone in your pain despite it feeling that way.....




By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 6:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that link.
Does Lori Drew deserve Hell?
Yes.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 10:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
Community Justice is also better known as "Mob Rule". We do not tolerate such behavior in the USA, as we are a Republic built on Laws.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 11:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Community Justice is also better known as "Mob Rule"
I hear it only from lawyers.

Step out for a moment of your legally binding contract by witch you live your life, and look at the bigger picture of what is fundamentally right and wrong, though I understand that in this age it's buried so deep down beneath that without the help of qualified jurist it's hardly possible to find it. Viva Social progress.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 1:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
look at the bigger picture of what is fundamentally right and wrong

Right and Wrong is a matter of opinion and point of view. Right and Wrong are up for discussion regardless of the issue at hand. Laws dictate what is right and wrong in the justice system. Right and Wrong on the topic of whatever you or anyone else holds to be right and wrong due to your belief system is irrelevant.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 2:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
Right and Wrong is a matter of opinion and point of view.

Every action of human being that causes harm to another human being is fundamentally wrong. It is not matter of opinion, religious dogmas nor points of view, but congenital knowledge of, and in, our existence.
Ask your friend to inflict a slight kick in the crotch when you least expect it, this way you will know the answer why pain is not topic for heated debate but universal and inherent to all people.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 4:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every action of human being that causes harm to another human being is fundamentally wrong.

Bad example and here's why.

Buying a product that comes from a factory known to treat its employees very badly. Thus continuing the cycle of harm to these people.

In a war zone, dropping bombs on enemy troops. This causes harm on human lives.

I drive my car, thus creating pollution that causes breathing difficulty in kids in my area, thus harming them.

Giving aid to countries that oppress and treat its citizens very badly, thus aiding the government in continuing it.

Basically, your point of view on what is wrong is based on a religious or spiritual source and not in law. But thanks for playing.


By werepossum on 12/1/2008 5:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bad example and here's why.

Buying a product that comes from a factory known to treat its employees very badly. Thus continuing the cycle of harm to these people.

In a war zone, dropping bombs on enemy troops. This causes harm on human lives.

I drive my car, thus creating pollution that causes breathing difficulty in kids in my area, thus harming them.

Giving aid to countries that oppress and treat its citizens very badly, thus aiding the government in continuing it.

Basically, your point of view on what is wrong is based on a religious or spiritual source and not in law. But thanks for playing.


Thus speaks the moral relativist. There is no right and wrong; there is only what you can get away with, and what you cannot get away with.

Laws are of man. Without right and wrong, there is no reason the majority cannot pass a law requiring everyone of your skin color (or hair color/religion/ethnic background/sexual orientation/socio-economic class/etc.) to be shot like dogs on sight. This has happened over and over in history, and will doubtless happen again. No one is safe. Laws are either based on absolute right and wrong (i.e. delivered from G-d) or are based on what best serves the interests of those in power. Many - like you, evidently - prefer the latter. I prefer the former. In your world, Lori Drew is somewhat of a hero, having cleverly skirted the law to work her will. In my world, she is an evil creature deserving to have every hand turned against her.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 6:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, your merely echoing the spiritual beliefs in what you would consider for laws. Frankly "absolute right and wrong" is a myth. While I do not condone her actions here, there was nothing legally wrong with them. The lynch mob mentality I'm seeing and the outcry for blood as a result of this suicide case is rediculous and has no basis in the laws at hand.


By MatthiasF on 12/1/2008 8:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're far too shortsighted. The woman broke harassment, stalking and battery laws. What she did was illegal, just because they couldn't get the necessary evidence was more to do with the circumstances than any "truths".


By spread on 12/1/2008 11:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
She was absolved of those.

Stalking? Its too easy online, barely considered stalking. All the information was freely given up by the victim.

Battery? With what?
Am I battering you now with my typed words?

Somebody call the waaambulance.

Bottom line is that she was absolved of those grievances against her because the jury found there was a lack of evidence or it simply wasn't strong enough. The only thing she was convicted for so far was violating the EULA of the website which breaks a few cyber laws.


By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/1/2008 8:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bad example and here's why
Why?

Buying a product that comes from a factory known to treat its employees very badly. Thus continuing the cycle of harm to these people

It is called modern day slavery. World Health Organization works closely with governments to stipulate any possible prevention of this wrongdoing by dishonest business, supports and encourage people to complain to their local authorities if such bad practices take place. Because slavery is fundamentally wrong.

In a war zone, dropping bombs on enemy troops. This causes harm on human lives.

That is why people for ages write history books, to show the consequences of war massacre on human body and spirit. Not letting the situation to go as far and beyond the point of no return and no choice, trying to prevent new war of happening again.
Because war is fundamentally wrong.

I drive my car, thus creating pollution that causes breathing difficulty in kids in my area, thus harming them.

That is why so many articles even here on daily tech is dedicated to this environmental issue, this is why our best minds working over this problem on how to continue without drastic change and transitions to live our modern life and not causing health problems to ourselves. Because hurting yourself is fundamentally wrong.

Giving aid to countries that oppress and treat its citizens very badly, thus aiding the government in continuing it.

Every government is a result of past mistakes and decisions made by all native of particular place, until they will not admit that to themselves, they will all suffer from oppression.

Basically, your point of view on what is wrong is based on a religious or spiritual source and not in law.

I think people from time to time need to put their books away and look into inner self for finding the source of an answer.


By HinderedHindsight on 12/2/2008 12:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Community Justice is also better known as "Mob Rule". We do not tolerate such behavior in the USA, as we are a Republic built on Laws.


Keep in mind that this Republic long maintained laws which denied women and blacks the right to vote; these laws can be said to have been maintained by a "mob rule."

So if this is your claim to excuse Drew of any wrong doing and validate the verdict of the jury, I would say its shaky at best. You can find plenty of juries who upheld morally bankrupt laws in our history.

I'm not saying anything either way about this particular case. I'm just pointing out that this argument is perhaps not the most sound one.


Un-Necessary Abuse & Death of a Minor Child
By OldGaDawg on 12/1/2008 2:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
To read some of these posts here in are really Sick Folks . I can not imagine if any of these people here have any children of there own.
Never mind that a minor child is dead on account of an adult woman taking out her mental revenge on her - but that fact that this woman "Mrs. Drew" had knowledge of Megan's mental problems and that she was seeing a physician as well. My question to these that think that nothing should had been done to Mrs. Drew - What if it had been your child? How would you've reacted to seeing your child hanging? How much would you had wanted justice to prevail on knowing that it was an adult - to whom typed the last words that your child viewed " This world would be better off with out her"?
Mrs. Drew should had received the full sentence of twenty years with a probable parole after a certain amount of time served. But since she received allot less - she should serve the full sentence of three years / no parole and the find of $300,000.00 to pay.
The fact that all people has to check-off a box in showing if one has read the web-site agreement is really up to the one signing up as to if they've read it or not. You are still bound to the legal agreement.
I'm all for in helping Megan's mother in the way of preventing others to whom seek out to pray on other children and seeing that they too receive as much justice as possible for there criminal actions against minors.
Ignorance is not permissible in court and should not be allowed here.




RE: Un-Necessary Abuse & Death of a Minor Child
By JediJeb on 12/1/2008 2:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with what you say about Mrs. Drew being responsible and needing to face some kind of justice. But on the other hand Megan's parents are just as responsible for what happened as Mrs. Drew. They should never have allowed a 13 year old with mental problems to be involved in MySpace. A little research would have shown them the possible problems it could have caused. But if they did the research and decided to allow here to have a page there, then they should have activly monitored it.
Most will say " but my teenager needs their privacy" that is totally wrong. There are two ways for children to learn how to cope with things like this in their lives, trial and error, or mentoring from their parents, this is a result of what trial and error can do. Will the children be upset when parents poke their nose into what the child is doing? Sure, but in the long run letting them be a little upset is much better than losing them. Sometimes you have to be a parent first, friend second. If you allow your child total freedom at home, what happens when they get into real life and find out you can't always do everything you want to do? Parents need to learn to be parents again, not just someone who provides food and a place to sleep for their children.


By momwm616 on 12/2/2008 10:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that we need to monitor our children, but now haveing said that who are you to judge this moms parenting? My aunt lost her teenage son, If she read evryone talking about how it was her fault, then she would probably be the one who commits suicucide next, and as far as your saying now you would be responsible. The problem is that noone thinks of the things they say before they say it. I want that mom to know that I had a best friend who commited suicide at age 17. She would have done it no matter what her mom did. She did not threaten suicide at all. Tose are the ones you usually have to watch for. The ones who do not threaten it. There have been studies to show that suicides often come from the ones who show no signs at all. This mom probably thought that her childs medication was working. She probably regularly attended therapy. You have no idea what was going on. Lets show some support for the poor family of this tragedy.


By Teenagers Perspective on 12/2/2008 7:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
I completly agree with you when you say what if it were your child i even said that in my posting its amazing the way people think you know people should realize "you never know what you have until its gone" So many people are ungratful and ignorant that they dont realize whats in front of them....but even better put yourself in megans moms shoes or better yet megans what do you think they were going through can you even imagine no you cant cuz your stuck in your own perfect little worlds with no problems whatsoever right? ya i thought so!


Drew Got Off Easy
By mindless1 on 12/1/2008 1:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe Megan's parents did a poor job, but I can how it might happen that a child seemed troubled for one of many random reasons, then some social worker or parent decides to take the child to a shrink who does what they're best at - prescribing a bunch of medications.

What normally happens if what the shrink prescribes doesn't work? More and more drugs.

That may've left Megan in a bad state, but remember she was still alive. If you find someone weak standing by the rails at the Grand Canyon, you can't very well argue that you're not guilty of something by pushing them over because they were too weak to resist your push.

Drew deliberately schemed to cause Megan harm. Probably only psychological harm, but is it the degree of harm one intends that our legal system should weigh most heavily, or the actual result?

Considering Drew claims she would've needed to read a EULA to figure out that what she was doing was wrong, that she actually BRAGGED to other people about doing this to a 13 year old girl, the world would've been a better place if she, and everyone like her, were kept away from human beings.

Law is not just about justice, it's a deterrent and a way to remove people from society when they can't seem to get along to the extent that they harm others. With all the trivial things people can be put into jail for, it's only right that Drew stay in a cell for awhile so the other inmates can *let her know* how they feel about what has happened.

I'm not suggesting Drew should spend 20 years or more in prison because I honestly don't know enough about the details of the case or her character to make a guess about what it would take to make her realize her mistakes and effect a change in her actions henceforth.




RE: Drew Got Off Easy
By spread on 12/1/2008 9:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
When you break the law, you go to jail. The justice system does not function based on what's right. Its based on what is written as a law.

The lady did not commit any crime in this case. However, praying on a weak 13 year old girl and bragging about it does sound like she is fit for psychiatric care herself.


RE: Drew Got Off Easy
By MatthiasF on 12/1/2008 2:54:55 PM , Rating: 1
She broke numerous laws and committed a horrendous crime, but the evidence couldn't convict.

If this were done using phones instead of the internet, the bitch would be in jail.


RE: Drew Got Off Easy
By mindless1 on 12/1/2008 11:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
The justice system deliberately leaves laws vague so that they can be interpreted based on the moral standards of the judge and jury. Surely you can recognize this by now? Even whether someone is arrested at all has as much to do with this as the letter of the law.

However, yes she did break laws. Maybe you don't agree with those laws, it's your right not to, but let's consider the opposite requirement, do we really want the law to become even more complex to the point where it continues to try and legislate every single interaction withough again considering the context?

In the end, Drew did something we know was wrong and we know people like her shouldn't be around others if our society is to function without greater harm for having let her do this instead of assigning consequence.

Law has a goal, don't overlook that goal and think loopholes are a good way to live.


Mixed verdict?
By Howard on 12/1/2008 1:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is that? When you review something and it turns out to have pros and cons, the verdict is mixed, right?

Or did you mean a controversial verdict?




RE: Mixed verdict?
By Yawgm0th on 12/1/2008 5:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
No, there were multiple charges and they had different verdicts; some were guilty, some were not guilty. Mixed.


By that logic...
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/1/2008 3:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
...we should release Charles Manson! I mean he didn't kill anyone.

I don't understand how the jury could decide that just because she didn't do the actual act herself that she isn't at fault. Me smells bad jury instructions!

Anyone wanna drive to Missouri for a good 'ole fashioned tarring and feathering?




RE: By that logic...
By spread on 12/1/2008 9:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
Makes sense.

Manson is not a criminal. He's insane. He belongs in a mental institution, not jail.


Hmmm
By Trikat on 12/1/2008 10:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
I found it interesting that "The reason the jury found her not guilty on the felony counts was due to lack of proof that Ms. Drew had typed the MySpace messages that drove Meier apparently to suicide."
Seems like a great argument for getting away with dling music, games, movies, etc.
I know it has already been done for those music pirating trials...




RE: Hmmm
By Teenagers Perspective on 12/2/2008 7:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
i know i think that is a bunch of bull due to lack of proof well then bring them all in and sit them down it wont take long for the daughter to break!!! lol


evil internet?
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 11:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
..and that Ms. Drew could not be held responsible for not reading MySpace’s EULA, because "no one" does.


Let's read some of their terms:

Content/Activity Prohibited. The following is a partial list of the kind of Content that is illegal or prohibited to post on or through the MySpace Services.

1. is patently offensive and promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
2. harasses or advocates harassment of another person;
3.exploits people in a sexual or violent manner;
7.promotes information that you know is false or misleading or promotes illegal activities or conduct that is abusive, threatening, obscene, defamatory or libelous;

partial list? the rest is hidden from public view?
and also...further into their terms:

Member Disputes. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other MySpace.com Members. MySpace.com reserves the right, but has no obligation, to monitor disputes between you and other Members.

Myspace, facebook, etc.... are all terrible. Sure they have a practical use, but that's 10% of the usage. The othre 90% usage is for throwing your life away.... or as in this case, messing with someone else's life.

The internet isn't evil, it just allows those that harbor evil thoughts to express them.

It's amazing what the internet can do in the wrong (or right) hands.

1. It can disguise fiction as fact.
2. It can open doors that were thought to be locked.
3. It can take large protions of your social life and evaporate it.
4. It can create celebrity status for anyone.
5. It can elect a president.
6. It can create false security.
7. And... it can kill.

Wait...was I talking about Hollywood or the internet?




RE: evil internet?
By Teenagers Perspective on 12/2/2008 7:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
smart idea just put it out there i might just start posting things all over the web of the myspace terms for Megan....RIP MEIERS


Technology evolving faster than laws
By arrowspark on 12/1/2008 2:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
This whole concept of cyber bullying and goading someone to do something over the internet (be it suicide, mass murder, or whatever) is so new, I don't think any current laws properly deal with it and the punishment that should be handed down for such an offense.

I don't buy the argument that Lori is not responsible for Megan's suicide was. Would she not be responsible if instead she, her employee, and her daughter had done the same thing to Megan face to face as opposed to over the internet?

It's common sense to realize that Lori Drew took part is something very bad and should be punished in some way for her role in it.




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/1/2008 6:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
Common Sense != The Law.

In most cases you will find the two to be mutually exclusive.


By Teenagers Perspective on 12/2/2008 7:01:44 AM , Rating: 2
While i agree with your statements i think this is tragic her life ended too soon i know what its like to be "Cyber Bullied" if thats what you want to call it but i never thought of killing myself.....but i am NOT depressed you never know what Megan might have been going through there might have been other people telling her that, there also could have been other problems with her family she might have been fighting alot with her mom and when the supposed teenage boy who had sucked her in to a supposed relationship told her that the world would be better off without her maybe she agreed because of all the problems in her life...i think that Laurie Drew should have gotten 20 years because thats where sick twisted adults who would say stuff like that belong...if any adult can say that and not have any remorse what so ever belongs in jail for LIFE!! Just think what if that where your kid!!!




Internet community fails again
By FUhypocrites on 12/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Internet community fails again
By blissyu2 on 12/3/2008 1:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Kudos to you with those great comments.

Indeed, as I said in my comment above, the result (the suicide) shouldn't be the major issue, although it highlights just how bad this kind of behaviour is. Whilst some people do just use the internet as fun and games (and these are often the same people who are causing these kinds of problems), a lot of people take it quite seriously, talking to family, classmates, and making real life friends as much as they can. Why should they be prevented from doing this because someone decides to try to ruin their lives?

The internet should not be immune to normal laws. We should not need additional laws for such cases as cyber-bullying, cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking, cyber-smear campaigns or any other kind of deliberate attempts to cause serious damage to an individual, just because it is done on the internet.

If this crime had happened with letters, as only existed in the 19th century, the people responsible would have gone to jail.

Where exactly is the difference between a 19th century mother writing to a girl by pen and pretending to be a boy, and what this girl did here?

These aren't new laws. These are old laws finally being prosecuted properly, in spite of the internet's many loopholes.


bad parenting
By momwm616 on 12/2/2008 10:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
SHAME ON all of you that are condeming a woman who has just lost her daughter. My grandma tought me a long time ago that you could not judge someone unless you walk in their shoes. Now which one of you is willing to loose your daughter to be able to judge this poor woman. I do not think the neighbor should have been charged with a crime either. She will have to answer to god for this one. I have a thirteen year old daughter and can not say that if a doctor reccomended she get pharmeceutical help I would not consider the same as that mother. I am appalled that anyone wrote that her daughters suicide was that poor mothers fault. Mistakes happen and for those of you who think that you are to good of a parent to make mistakes then I bet you will be the one with a pregnant daughter or one who gets into alot of trouble. I seriously hope that the mother of that girl does not read any of your judgemental and sick comments. Do any of you people go to church? SICK!!!!




This is a groundbreaking case
By blissyu2 on 12/3/2008 1:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
I read that this is the first case of someone being found guilty of the "anti-cyber bullying" legislation, at least to the extent that it could lead to jail time. This is wonderful. Cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, cyber-smear campaigns and people who are using the internet deliberately to try to destroy people's lives (either people who they know or else random others that they have never even met before) are a serious problem on the internet. A number of web sites exist whose sole aim is to destroy lives. They poke fun of people and laugh as they make up stories, delving into personal lives and them displaying private personal information for all to see, in the hope that someone will over-react and commit a criminal offence - which they then laugh about. It is high time that these sites get prosecuted, as would happen in any country in the world, but somehow the internet is immune. It creates an atmosphere where people feel like it is okay to ruin lives. Okay, so it is fairly rare that the result of this kind of bullying is suicide - but that does NOT make it okay. If the result had been that this person's life, emotionally, was ruined, or that they made a number of bad choices, or developed a victim complex, it doesn't make it any less bad. Kudos that this kind of case finally led to a conviction. There is hope now to protect children - and adults - both males and females - from the kinds of people who feel like the internet is a free way to ruin lives for a laugh. It is in many ways a pity that she didn't get found guilty of the felony charge, but we need to take these things in baby steps. At least there is a conviction. Expect more similar convictions for bullies and bastards alike in the future.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki