backtop


Print 139 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on May 20 at 3:31 PM

Federal authorities sidestep state prosecutors, experts fear long-term ramifications

A federal grand jury indicted 49-year-old Lori Drew of Missouri last Thursday, for allegedly masterminding an online hoax that ended with the suicide of her 13-year-old neighbor.

FBI investigators, working in a joint effort between branches in Los Angeles and St. Louis, accused Drew of masquerading as 16-year-old “Josh Evans” to befriend Meiers on MySpace in October of 2006, touching off a close friendship with the with the emotionally-vulnerable girl via the fake account. News reports indicate that Drew intended to gain insight into Meier’s thoughts on her daughter, after the two had an earlier falling out. When the relationship turned sour, however, Meiers was found to have hanged herself, due to a series of messages that included comments that the world would be better off without her.

Drew now faces four charges: one for conspiracy, and three for accessing protected computers without authorization, and each charge is punishable by up to five years in prison. Drew says that she didn’t create the Josh Evans account, and that she never used it to send messages to Meiers.

The case represents the first time that federal laws on unauthorized computer access were invoked in a social-networking case, as previously they only saw use in cases against hackers. Given the lack of federal laws against cyberbullying – a fact that state officials cited when they refused to press charges despite considerable pressure – FBI investigators chose to prosecute Drew’s alleged violation of MySpace’s Terms of Service (TOS), which prohibits registrants from, among other things, providing false information about themselves, and using MySpace to harass, harm, or solicit information from other people – especially minors.

Legal experts fear a potentially dangerous shift in precedent, as the successful prosecution of Drew would allow authorities to press criminal charges for violating a site’s TOS, which many web surfers do on a regular basis:

“Empowering terms of use to be key pieces of evidence in criminal matters – when [they] are generally thought of by the people who are entering into them as purely contract or civil matters – is something that should be done carefully,” said University of Pennsylvania law professor Andrea Matwyshyn. “I think you're going to have strong disagreement as to whether this is an advisable course to take.”

Jennifer Granick, who works as the civil liberties director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, thinks such a prosecution would be far-reaching: “Theoretically, it applies to any use of a service in violation of the terms of service,” she says.

For example, if a website prohibits users from making negative comments about its owner, are users who choose to disregard this rule in violation of criminal law? When a user links a webpage that prohibits linking in its terms of service, are they subject to criminal prosecution?

Existing law does not provide an immediate solution, says Granick; rather, prosecutors are acting on outside pressure and the case’s emotional gravity.

If given the option to litigate, Granick told Wired’s Threat Level that she would be more than willing to fight on Drew’s behalf: “I think there is such an extreme reading here, and I do think it's dangerously flawed for other cases. I think it's scary and it's wrong and something should be done about it.”

For now, authorities scheduled Drew for arraignment in St. Louis, after which they will deport her to Los Angeles – MySpace’s headquarters and the location of its main server farm – for trial.



Comments     Threshold


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

My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2008 7:10:55 PM , Rating: 3
No lie. Bullying another school kid in my state public school system is now " illegal ".

This is a tragedy no doubt. But I just wonder where our society is heading when everyday things that you and I once had to put up with are being made punishable by law.

My problem with this is that, in the final analysis, you can't make someone kill themselves. Its, quite literally, a personal choice.




RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By ZaethDekar on 5/17/2008 7:16:01 PM , Rating: 1
You could do a school shooting. I mean, that seems to work for some people.

I think people need to just stop being a complete idiot.

Now if the bully hits you and you hit them back does that follow the self defense or what if he claims you are the bully first?

Pretty soon kids are going to be sueing class mates and teachers for stupid things.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2008 7:48:40 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Now if the bully hits you and you hit them back does that follow the self defense or what if he claims you are the bully first?


Thats my biggest problem with how society and the school system has treated bullyism ( there, I just coined a new word ) The laws and rules only work FOR the bully. If you beat up a bully YOU get in trouble.

The problem is bullies are not seen in the proper light. The bully is something to behold. For someone at a young age to realize thats its better to be the hammer than the nail is something truly enlightening. And whats the ONLY thing that stops a bully ? A direct confrontation with another bully. Usually a bigger one with a mean right hook.

Bullies cancel other bullies out. Its the school age analogy to our stance on nuclear armament in the 80's. We don't need more rules and laws. We just need more parents encouraging their kids to not take crap from other kids.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Tsuwamono on 5/17/2008 9:25:53 PM , Rating: 5
Actually in highschool i had this asshole push me around day in and day out(he was smaller then me too) and since I'm just a nice guy and i try not to fight i would tell him to screw off and be on my way. However after about 6 months of this i got pissed and grabbed him by the neck and threw him into a locker. I was then suspended and he got nothing for the 6 months of pushing me around. And just as a note, multiple teachers saw him pushing me around including the principal. Then when i retaliated they said i should have said something to them. I then replied "I knew it would be pointless since you retards walk by and see him pushing me around and do nothing. If you guys can't or won't protect me, I'll do it myself."

Not sure if the week suspension was for calling the principal a retard or for throwing the kid into a locker but i find it completely stupid that i was suspended at all.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By AlexWade on 5/17/2008 10:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
You are in America. One sure-fire way to get someone really mad at you is tell their kids what to do. I was spanked in school, believe it or not, in 1983. Just try doing that today outside of Catholic school. Lawsuit waiting to happen. Even if just touch the child, that would be a lawsuit. Someone is always at fault, especially when you can make some money for doing nothing but suing. Which is the REAL problem.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Tsuwamono on 5/17/2008 11:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in Canada, but ya, same boat.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By AlexWade on 5/18/2008 9:49:04 AM , Rating: 1
Oops, eh. Well, Canada is the 51st state. (Just kidding, Canada is far too clean to be in the US.)


By Spuke on 5/18/2008 10:57:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
(Just kidding, Canada is far too clean to be in the US.)
Speak for your own city.


By weskurtz0081 on 5/19/2008 12:02:05 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, there are schools in the US that still issue corporal punishment, and I went to one of them. It is a public school in Texas, I am not going to say where or what the name of the school is, because I don't want some idiot making a stink about it. But, I got pops a few times a year for doing stupid stuff. But, you took your licking, and then went back to class and continued to learn. In a few months or so, when I would earn another licking, I would get it.

It didn't scar me for life, and it didn't impede with learning. I can tell you this, it is a rural school district.... not in a city.


By dever on 5/19/2008 3:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to offer a potentially un-popular opinion here and suggest that a large portion of the problem is the lack of competition in schooling choices. The poorest citizens, not to mention the average citizen, effectively have only one option (re: no option) as to where to send their kid to school.

The ability of parents to practice choice and interject competition in the school system would not only add incentive for educators to teach effectively, but also to handle bullying problems effectively.


By Cobra Commander on 5/20/2008 11:09:24 AM , Rating: 2
Good for you. Seriously.


By JustTom on 5/17/2008 9:27:00 PM , Rating: 5
While I agree with you that very often victims get penalized for standing up for themselves the problem of bullying is not going to be solved just by teaching kids not to take crap from other kids. How do you handle situations of vastly differing ages or sizes? My step-daughter had problems with a girl who weighed close to 200lbs, short of hitting the girl with a crowbar no amount of standing up for herself was going to solve the problem. The principal of course was useless. He said that the girls would have to fix their own problems because problem solving is an important adult skill.

The true problem is we allow behavior in school that we would very often get you arrested any place else. When I asked this principal what would happen if I was to repeatedly smash his face against his very elegant cherry wood desk he said he would have me arrested. He had no answer when I asked if peer mediation wouldn't be a better course.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By mindless1 on 5/18/2008 2:59:12 PM , Rating: 5
Your ideas are terribly wrong. There's nothing to "behold" about a child that was not properly disciplined and causes disruption, usually assault, and interferes with the core reason every other child is in school. Children need a certain minimal level of security to focus instead of worrying about some bully.

The only thing that stops a bully is that they suffer consequences that offset the empowerment they had from bullying. A bigger bully doesn't stop the "smaller" one from continuing to bully others. More often you find a gang comprised of bullys which is worse than they'd be separate. Bullys tend to pray on the weak, or at least the passive so the supposed confrontations that would de-bullyfy don't equalize the situation.

Yes we do need more parents "encouraging" though that's not the right word. The solution is fairly clear, the bully is suspended from school, eventually expelled if it doesn't change. The parent is investigated if they aren't taking measures to resolve their child's behavior and ultimately through enough punishment of all parties not being responsbile there will be placement in the right facilities to remove those who won't change from the rest of society.

I have to say your idea about bully vs bully is just some overidealized nonsense. It's like saying we dont' have to be concerned about drunk drivers because eventually one drunk will collide with another and they won't be able to drive anymore, nevermind all the innocent people that might be ill-effected until that day comes if it ever does.

I'm not saying this as a passivist, sometimes an immediate end to a harmful situation is needed but not as a matter of policy when there are other alternatives. Plus, remember that that bully is also maladjusted enough that there needs to be intervention for his/her own sake so that they learn to integrate and coexist with the rest of society for a brighter and happier future.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Reclaimer77 on 5/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By killerb255 on 5/18/2008 8:48:22 PM , Rating: 4
...gotta love the black and white thinking that goes on here. Does everything have to be all good or all bad with nothing in the middle?

In other words, people are either pessimists or optimists, with one side labeling themselves as "realists" to avoid calling a spade a spade?

Does everything have to fall under an extreme? Are we so lazy that we have to label everything in black and white instead of digging deeper...or is digging deeper not as simple?

...or perhaps digging deeper means an oncoming wall of text that nobody wants to read? NOTE: this is probably true, since this itself is a wall-o-text!!!

Either way, "bully" is in the eye of the beholder.

There are plenty of explanations as to why one person may be a bully, and one explanation doesn't apply to every bully. Most revolve around one or a combination of three things:

A) hurt
B) fear
C) frustration

Scenario 1:
One may bully because they think it's the only way they can earn respect, as they see no value in anything else they have to offer to society other than their fist in someone else's mouth.
This is basically low self-esteem manifesting itself as high "image-esteem," dissociating their entire conscience to indirectly remove fear...

Scenario 2:
One may bully because they were either victims of a bully or may have perceived themselves as a "victim" in the past (whether they were beaten the crap out of or someone farted in their general direction and they got all emo about it). Usually, they'll think "Ah hell, if you can't beat them, join them!" or "If they can displace their fear, hurt, and frustration like that, I can, too!"
This could potentially cause a chain reaction of bullies creating new bullies--a defense mechanism known as "Association with the Aggressor"

Scenario 3:
A common explanation that's usually seen as a cop-out is "the parents weren't involved." There may be some truth to this in some situations: two parents working their asses off to make enough money to raise the family, single-parents being the sole bread-winner with the kid going to several baby-sitters or even being left home alone. Either way, the kid may see this as a lack of predictability, which leads to fear.

Scenario 4:
The "cool kid" could fear (they'll never admit to this) someone that's different from what they see as the norm: the idiot-savant; the introvert that has nothing to say unless spoken to; the kid with a lisp; the kid that stutters; the kid with a mental disorder like ADHD, something on the autistic spectrum, or dyslexia; the kid with a physical disfigurement; or the kid with a physical condition like cerebal palsy, to name a few.

Because they don't understand how that person is so different than the type of people they're used to, this generates all kinds of feelings they don't know how to cope with (the unknown, which is a lack of control, which is, that's right, fear). They could also fear being labeled as "different" themselves and lose their "cool kid" status if they don't eliminate the threat to their comfort zone.

Scenario 5:
The bully may have a differentiating feature from Scenario 4 and decides to bully others to redirect attention away from said feature.

Scenario 6:
Another bully scenario may be a bully being abused at home (hurt, fear) and feeling powerless to stop said abuse (frustration), so they'll take their anger (the combination of hurt, fear, and frustration) on anyone that lacks ability to fight back.

Scenario 7:
Some are bullies because of a combination of everything above!

This may explain a lot, but of course excuses nothing. Unless and until we find a way to deal with the root of these and other scenarios, bullying is going to continue and there will still be people that either:
A) turn a blind eye, hoping it'll go away
B) "become the bully" and participate in Scenario 2 above, even as an adult
C) enable the bully hoping that they'll stop bullying (kinda like giving a druggie in the family drug money to get them out of your face)


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By dever on 5/19/2008 3:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding your first point, Scientific American published a study a couple years ago that suggested that bullies were more likely to test as "high" self-esteem in various forms of testing.

In fact, it maybe artificially high self-esteem, that is a problem. The type of self-esteem that is not dependent upon any realistic interpretation of one's own worth. This is precisely what many of the pro-self-esteem group have fostered over the last few decades. Many have taken a small phrase like "self-esteem" out of context to justify short-circuiting the intiutive cost-benefit analysis that individuals naturally apply to their actions and resulting consequences.


By killerb255 on 5/20/2008 12:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
Often, pathological narcissists are considered to have high "self-esteem." The reality is that they have high "image-esteem" with low esteem to the true self. In other words, it's the image that they want others to see...the omnipotent, grandiose self rather than the true self that the narcissist sees as inferior (but would rather die than admit to).

Bullying can be a manifestation of this.


By killerb255 on 5/18/2008 9:49:07 PM , Rating: 4
Okay, I'll bite.

quote:
The bully is nothing but an opportunist. Your boss is the bully now. Your college professor is the bully now. The guy at the oil change place that sits on your car for an extra 20 minutes just because he knows you won't do anything about it is the bully now. Bullies are nothing but a societal reflection.


This opens up a different can of worms altogether: power, responsibility, and abuse.

In a nutshell, a bully is one that abuses their power.

The guy at the oil change that sits on your car for 20 minutes because he knows you can't do anything may be the bully, but if he works on your car the whole time, then he's not a bully, is he?

To make this less black and white, what if said guy delays the change by 20 minutes because of an emergency? The person waiting may see this as being bullied because they're only worried about themselves. On the other hand, a bit of communication could go a long way towards damage control.

Maybe that's what schools need...to promote communication and social skills instead of focusing solely on the academic curriculum. I'm sure some may argue and say that recess is supposed to cover this, but how much structure is involved in recess aside from the teacher(s) in charge chilling until someone causes a problem?

quote:
Aren't all children idealist ?


Yes. All children are also Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal, Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissistic, Avoidant, Dependent, and Obsessive-Compulsive to some extent.

The problem is that, while these are somewhat normal personality traits in children, those are actually Axis II Personality Disorders in adults! During growth, people depend less on these personality traits to form an individual personality type that is less childish and more functional (yes, I know this is subjective) in society.

When children express those personality traits and do not have a consequence that is detrimental to their comfort, they are more likely to carry on those traits as adults.

If the child commits said unapproved action or inaction and gets punished inconsistently, then they may get the idea of "I can do this if I want to, as long as I don't get caught."

A predictable, consistent consequence may give them the idea of "I won't do this because what happens afterwards will suck ass for me," which may eventually evolve as the child learns empathy into "I won't do this because the other person won't be comfortable."

So yes, all children may be idealistic, but as they grow up, realism should blend in. If not, then they're going to either have or cause problems later on in life.

quote:
And you call me an idealist ? How much money and effort have we already wasted with your nanny state policies.


His or her nanny state policy? How do you know this person has any influence on this whatsoever?


By killerb255 on 5/18/2008 9:49:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Meanwhile not ONE DAMN problem in our society has been fixed by YOUR over idealist concepts. People like you are a threat to the rest of us and frankly scare us.


How do you know that "not ONE DAMN problem" has been solved in some areas? Are you so omnipotent that you can see everything that goes on in every city, state, and country all at once?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not saying you're right either. Perhaps there have been some programs in rural areas that may have worked...but I'm not omnipotent, either.

Have you ever heard the old saying "It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease?" The negative squeaks and squeals, while the positive is often unheard of (unless it sticks out like a sore thumb or has the potential to cause negativity on another playing field). We hear about people that get murdered, raped, shot, crucified, etc., but how often do you hear about people that live what they perceive as a "good life"? Do we not hear about it because it doesn't exist? Or do we not hear about it because...oh wait! That's it! The positive stuff is boring! The positive stuff doesn't sell newspapers or airtime on TV!

quote:
Investigate parents of bullies ? Are you joking ?


Why not?

quote:
None of these examples would change the bully at all. You are simply taking the bully out of one envirnment and putting him in another. But hey, lets just push him off on someone else. That will work, but for how long ?


I do agree with you on this (surprising, eh?)

You're right: putting the bully in another environment won't change the bully. Depending on why the person chose to be a bully (see my long-ass scenario post above--which probably got rated down already), those reasons need to be presented to everyone involved: friends, family, teachers, etc. Said individuals need to take those reasons seriously and not:
A) devalue them
"When I was a kid, I had it worse than you, so you should be lucky!"
"Your sister and brother are in the same situation, and they don't do what you do!"

B) ignore them

C) enable them
"There you go, Billy! Here's another line of coke to calm you down!"

quote:
Its no wonder our young males are so confused and go so wrong these days. The effort to emasculate our children for perfectly natural and traditional behaviors that have been just fine for hundreds of years is doing NOTHING to benefit anyone.


Define "just fine"? Was racism "just fine" back then?

If "just fine" means "accepted by the general populous as standard" then you're right. However, that definition changes over centuries. If it didn't, then we'd all be eating all of our food with our hands instead of utensils or speaking in grunts and groans instead of one of the many languages that exist.

quote:
Now, thanks to thickheaded idealist like you, we're criminalizing children for no good reason. Congratulations!


The jury's still out on that one...

quote:
Again, your applying adult concepts to children. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I didn't dedicate a whole lot of time thinking about how to " intergrate and coexist with society for a happier and brighter future ". Again, are you even listening to yourself ?


It sounds like said thoughts sound ridiculous to you during your adult life as well. Behavior considered "normal" during childhood can often be considered pathological during adolescence and adulthood.

Also, people are different, even as children. They may have those ten personality types that may be considered disorders during adulthood, but they manifest in different ways. Kids may not be thinking about coexisting with society for a happy and bright future, but I don't think coexisting with friends so everyone in the group gets a piece of the pie of likable stuff would be too farfetched. Once children begin learning empathy (usually between 6-10 years of age), then their ideas might change.

quote:
In my opinion the bully is far more adjusted than you give him credit for. Respect is earned. Life is what you make it. Your success often means someone else must suffer. Thank GOD I was bullied as a child and learned how to overcome it, with the only thing in this world that institutes change, force. Or else I might have grown up like a sheltered pacifist like you looking for someone else ( school, parents, governement etc etc ) to solve all my problems.


Complex situations usually require complex actions. Black and white thinking like that's not going to solve anything for long.

In fact, since I've already spewed out enough psychological terms, I'll throw out another one: splitting. That's exactly what you're doing here. Typically people do this because they would rather not spend time dissecting the problem and would rather have simple presentation, explanation, and solution. In other words, they want the universe to be like their bedroom, living room, or any other small area in comparison because the unknown scares the living **** out of them.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Omega215D on 5/17/2008 10:14:33 PM , Rating: 4
Putting up with bullying in a school is not the answer. The bullies need to learn they cannot get away with it otherwise they make for bad people in the future.

I was placed into martial arts at a young age to learn discipline and self-defense last. In highschool I would usually just walk away from the bullies but one time a group of black and hispanic punks thought picking on a small asian guy was fun. I did what I was told to do which was walk away until one pushed me and grabbed my bag. Within a 10 minutes of fighting I broke all their arms but the school police arrested me. In order to not be expelled I was to stop taking lessons at my martial arts school. My parents agreed out of fear of lawsuits even though I pointed out it would be impossible for them to find out.

Turns out the parents of those punks state that they're good kids and that I must've provoked them to show off.

The legal system does need to take care of this since the education system is useless, especially in NYC.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Omega215D on 5/17/2008 10:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and I was forced to pay for their medical care despite the fact that I acted out of self-defense since my skull was weak from a car accident in the 4th grade.

I love America.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By xsilver on 5/18/2008 2:05:42 AM , Rating: 2
young grasshopper you are obviously not black belt as you showed no control. Laying out one guy is probably enough justification for self defence but laying out everybody with a broken arm just sounds vindictive.

I dont think there is the need to lay out more than one guy before everybody else just backs the hell off.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Ringold on 5/18/2008 2:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with xsilver. I'm not a black belt myself, but I had a good bud in high school who was, highly trained in several forms of martial arts. His restraint was amazing. At close range, he's far more lethal, I would say, than any handgun -- at least if he is aware he's in danger.

And yet, outside of sparing, despite taking a lot of crap in high school I only saw mere glimpses of what I'd seen him do elsewhere. It didn't take much to make people understand he could put them all in a world of pain, and once a demonstration was made, pride and the inherent human desire to avoid pain makes people back off. Playing around, I tried to attack him a few times in his back yard, and he was adept at putting me on my ass with no broken bones. He was a super nice guy.

Seduced by the Dark Side, this young padawan may have been!


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By xsilver on 5/18/2008 8:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
as an extension to that, people that demonstrate their martial arts skills too much are also in for a world of hurt.

6 vs 1 after school etc. with kids that are trying to prove a point is not going to end well. Hollywood endings dont really pan out in real life. A 10 year veteran can easily be taken out by 3-4 people with 1 year experience. Hollywood style is for each attacker to attack one at a time but 3 people going for a tackle is hard to defend besides to run!


By killerb255 on 5/18/2008 9:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
One would think that a 10-year veteran would be wise enough to know that they're not invincible and that they CAN be taken out when outnumbered by people that all have far less experience.

In those cases, they try to find alternatives, if any exist.


By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 12:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
I made it clear that I don't show off my skills for any reason. I was trapped so I did what I felt necessary. I also stated that I had a fractured skull from a car accident so I didn't feel like having the idiots rough housing me.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By phxfreddy on 5/18/2008 8:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
The guy did the right thing breaking their arms. We've been to tolerant to these types for far too long.....and it sure seems easy for you wussys to flap your gums about what he should have done. You were not there.


By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 12:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
I still feel bad for doing them harm but I can assure you I was proficient enough to do worse but once they were immobilized I felt the danger was gone, that was the point of breaking arms... it's not as bad as a broken leg.


By killerb255 on 5/18/2008 9:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of times, people that command that kind of power are often some of the nicest people.

They feel that they are in control of themselves and their environment. Therefore, the hurt, fear, and frustration that generates anger doesn't bother them that much. They don't need to bully because none of the bullying scenarios apply to them. They command respect, so they don't need to demand it. They don't have to become what they hate because their hatred is not all that strong.


By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I maintained the flight than fight attitude since I didn't want to hurt anyone. I guess I never made that clear.

THe point of breaking their bones is to aid in my escape so they will be hampered should they come after me.

I never carry weapons but the punks had their larger number so I felt threatened. In fact when they grabbed my bag after pushing me I felt cornered so there.

I avoid many fights as possible. There were times that I took the pushing and people holding me down for kicks so don't judge.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By killerb255 on 5/18/2008 9:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you were.

You were the martial artist. You didn't practice enough restraint. Therefore, you (theoretically) had the discipline to control the amount of harm you can inflict and chose not to exercise that control.


By Omega215D on 5/19/2008 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
Restraint in this case was just breaking their arms so they would be focused on their problems so that I can maintain personal safety except I was not allowed to walk away when the police came.

One of them was in my classes and kept acting out at the teacher but we all stayed silent so I know I never provoked any of this.


By rsmech on 5/17/2008 11:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
And now because of possible laws against bulling you would still be the guilty party but with a more severe punishment. These laws won't make teachers stop anything until something happens. The winner (the bully or the one defending themselves) will be punished. So how is a law good when the "innocent" party becomes subject to the penalties.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 11:35:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Within a 10 minutes of fighting I broke all their arms but the school police arrested me.

That is a pretty long fight for a group vs 1 battle. I do think the police were right for arresting you as you were the violent child.

I must point out, you did not mention if they had weapons or not, and if this happened on school property or some other location.

Based on what you posted I have to say you acted irrational by breaking all of their arms. As one of the earlier replies stated, after the first broken arm I would think that would have shown your power and the rest would have backed off. You might have been in the "Let me show these guys a lesson" mode. Since you made the statement
quote:
but one time a group of black and hispanic punks thought picking on a small asian guy was fun.

You must have some sort of stereotype in the back of your mind that provoked you to show them a lesson instead of making a rational decision. If they had been white or asian, how would have you reacted?

Anyways, goodjob defending yourself, that shows your parents money was not wasted on martial arts. I wonder how everything would have turned out if you had not taken the courses.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 11:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder how everything would have turned out if you had not taken the courses.


Sounds to me like he would of gotten beat half to death by a gang of minorities. If everything he said was true I think we can be certain that probable outcome would not have been good for him.

quote:
You must have some sort of stereotype in the back of your mind that provoked you to show them a lesson instead of making a rational decision.


Based on what your saying, the " rational " decision would have been to stand there and get beaten up. Or look like a moron and try to talk down 10 people like some kind of Fresh Prince after school special where that actually works.

Sure the kid got arrested, but somewhere is ten guys that remember the day they heard their own bones snap because they tried picking on the wrong guy. I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 3:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds to me like he would of gotten beat half to death by a gang of minorities.

Why do you have to throw the "minorities" in there? What difference is the race, whether it be blacks, whites, or asians, he was jumped by a group of people who were most likely males. Them being "minorities" means nothing, that word is foolish anyways.
quote:
the " rational " decision would have been to stand there and get beaten up. Or look like a moron and try to talk down 10 people

Simply put, he should have ran. If he really wanted to avoid conflict he would have did just that by running. And if he was still on a school campus he could have run to the police (since obviously there were some or else he wouldnt have been arrested).

Along with running, he should have filed a report. It must be all the people saying "I was bullied..." but I feel like I am the only person who was not bullied around. I tried to bully one kid around, same grade as me, and he filed a report with the cop and principle. They issued me a citation for threatening another student and if anything would have happened to that kid, they would expel me. That was my first encounter with running into a smart victim, after that I never bothered him again.

But of course it would be much different if he had not been on school property, but I don't know based on his post. And from his post, he "walked away" which does not seem rational if you have 10 guys trying to bully you; at least not in my experience. It seems as if he was ready to fight them, he just needed a proper excuse to "teach them a lesson" so he provoked them by turning his back, thus they pushed him...then he opened a can of whoop-ass.


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 4:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you have to throw the "minorities" in there? What difference is the race, whether it be blacks, whites, or asians, he was jumped by a group of people who were most likely males. Them being "minorities" means nothing, that word is foolish anyways.


I used a discriptive noun !! I'm so freaking sorry Captain Politically Correct !! Clearly I'm racist !

quote:
Simply put, he should have ran. If he really wanted to avoid conflict he would have did just that by running.


Now look who's talking !! So just because hes a small Asian kid he can outrun TEN other people trying to hurt him like a Jackie Chan movie !?? You disgust me !!!!

haha just kidding. But yeah, see how easy it is to play the race card ?

But seriously, you can't run from ten people. At least, not very far.

And why should he have to "avoid conflict" again ? If you avoid conflict as a child you will be avoiding conflict all your life. Translation : letting people walk all over you.


By killerb255 on 5/20/2008 12:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
Once again, Reclaimer77 comes out with black and white thinking and pretends that there are no options in between...


RE: My state just passed anti-bully legislation
By AlphaVirus on 5/20/2008 11:11:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I used a discriptive noun !! I'm so freaking sorry Captain Politically Correct !! Clearly I'm racist !

I can't wait for the day white people are the minorities, we will see how long it takes before it becomes a derogatory word. I really just don't like the term, it does not
quote:
So just because hes a small Asian kid he can outrun TEN other people trying to hurt him like a Jackie Chan movie !?? You disgust me !!!!

Lol WAAAAHHH! HIYUH! Judo CHOP!

quote:
But seriously, you can't run from ten people. At least, not very far.

You know, I don't even recall the OP claiming how many people it was in the group. It could have been 3 people, he simply said "a group of thugs".
quote:
And why should he have to "avoid conflict" again ? If you avoid conflict as a child you will be avoiding conflict all your life. Translation : letting people walk all over you.

You must pick and choose your battles. Him breaking several peoples arms is a little excessive, is he going to break everyones arms that piss him off? If so, I'd hate to see what he would do to a collections agent, those people know how to pester very well.


By AlphaVirus on 5/20/2008 11:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
I really just don't like the term, it does not portray a pretty picture when used. Mostly used as a prejeduce term to refer to both Black Americans and Mexicans when in the US Asians and Indians are the minorities. Although the term has been loosely used to discuss status instead of quantity, in which more Asians live a more wealthy life than Black Americans and Mexicans.

*I use the term Mexican instead of Hispanic because Hispanic is such a big umbrella.


By fic2 on 5/19/2008 5:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
What your parents should have done is get the police involved and file aggravated assault charges against the kids. There is no jury (or shouldn't be) that would think that one kid was picking on a gang of kids even if he did come out on top.

A friend of a friend had a similar, but adult, version of your story. Happened outside a bar in Boston - he was jumped by 3 guys that thought that he was hitting on one guys sister. The bar bouncer just stood there and said "Welcome to Boston". He ended up breaking one guys nose and another's collar bone. When the police showed up they charged the guys with aggravated assault and the bar got a big fine for not stopping it. Also, at the end the guys sister came out and said "not that guy".

I know a few guys that have several years of martail arts training - the nicest guys you could know until something like this happens. Also ends up being one of the problems - drunk idiots think that they can pick on them without consequences. This is generally true to a point. One of my friends said that his instructor has told them that if you are forced into a fight it shouldn't last more than 20 seconds and the opponent should not be able to walk away from it.


I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By dflynchimp on 5/17/2008 6:49:24 PM , Rating: 5
While on one hand I think the neighbor definitely deserved punishment for her juvenile and 100% un-adult like actions, I still think that we shouldn't fore go the fact that Megan's parents weren't exactly the supporting type. Her mom in particular has to be one of the worst examples of parental support ever.

This is not to mention the fact that the internet is a brutal place, and you gotta learn to cope with it, whether it is trolls and legit flames. I get down-modded for some stupid stuff I say, but that doesn't make me want to hang myself...It just makes me shout obscene things at my comp and fantasize about strangling Masher...




RE: I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By nomagic on 5/17/2008 7:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
That, my friend, is very true. The internet is a cruel place. However, whenever I get modded down, I would think it is for my own good. At least, it saves me from further embarrassing myself with my often very stupid comments...


RE: I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By wordsworm on 5/17/2008 8:44:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That, my friend, is very true. The internet is a cruel place. However, whenever I get modded down, I would think it is for my own good.


Well, if ever, by getting modded down, you find the inspiration to take your own life and write a note indicating the cruel rating systems of DT, I want you to know I have never personally rated you down. So, you don't have to extradite me.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/17/2008 8:58:58 PM , Rating: 5
<shamelessDTplug>Just comment in every article, that way nobody can accuse you of modding them down</shamelessDTplug>


By Jedi2155 on 5/17/2008 10:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just don't let the comment be a from mother Russia joke....


By chiadog on 5/18/2008 9:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
Is that an open invitation to spam the comments of all the articles? jk :D

On the topic of the thread... Intarweb. It's serious business :o If some thing upsetting, just go for a walk or something. Stuff happening on the net isn't really worth getting worked up over.


RE: I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By Ryanman on 5/17/2008 7:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
ah masher...
it seems you and I have a common enemy on the interwebz. let us combine our flaming powers and unite!


RE: I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By ebakke on 5/17/08, Rating: 0
By AlexWade on 5/17/2008 10:33:38 PM , Rating: 5
That is why they don't like him. MOD ME DOWN!


By xsilver on 5/18/2008 2:10:55 AM , Rating: 5
haha
FLAME
STATS
LINKS
CAPSLOCK
HEART

By your powers combined, I am CAPTAIN PLANET!
lol


By fake01 on 5/17/2008 7:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
I actually agree.

Sometimes its hard to believe people would actually go as far as "kill" themselves just because someone wrote them a hate letter. I mean its the internet, if you want it to stop you can block them from sending stuff to you can you not?

I do it all the time on various chat programs. if someone wants to "pretend" to be my friend than act like a d*ck than I just remove them from my list and block them from ever texting/chatting to me again.

I kinda feel sorry for this girl because I didn't exactly have to best life growing up so I had to learn to adapt and I'm still getting over problems I have but its all about self control which I suppose I'm lucky to have been taught that at a young age.


RE: I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By ZaethDekar on 5/17/2008 7:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the parents weren't very helpful.

I think this country needs to get parents to pay more attention to their kids. Part of the problem, I think, is that parents don't expect the child at all and are stuck with it so they just turn them twords the TV.

I know when I don't want to babysit my neices I will just turn a movie on, and that is why I have decided not to babysit them anymore. I am not a parent figure.


By onwisconsin on 5/17/2008 8:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed...parents need to take more responsibility in their actions, especially in situations like these


RE: I'm so conflicted I might just off myself...
By eomhS on 5/17/2008 11:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the lesson few people learn, and the point of "down-modding" people is constructive criticism. The ability to accept criticism is such a rare trait that it should be put on the endangered personality trait list.


By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 11:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
down-modding is not constructive criticism, its just saying "I dont agree with what you posted" whereas up-modding is saying "I do agree with what you posted". Usually on forums, constructive criticism comes from other users in the form of replies, debates, comments, etc.

Sometimes other users are out to harm other users personal beliefs and feelings, yet it should not make you kill yourself.

People should understand how to reroute that type of assault from interweb users. If you are on a messenger, put that person on a block list, in a chat put them on mute, heck even video games allow you to mute people you dont like. Social community sites, such as MySpace, does allow you to block certain content so if you feel like someone is trying to abuse your personal well-being then you should report and block or ignore.


By MeTaedet on 5/17/2008 11:35:09 PM , Rating: 3
I think this case demonstrates just how people view the justice system. Rather than being a means by which to get revenge, to make a person suffer the pain which he has used his "free will" (which doesn't exist; no one is responsible for their actions) to cause others, I see the justice system - and I believe it was originally envisioned as such - as a tool by which to improve conditions in society (i.e. increase the safety of the individual by fomenting change in the psyche of the prisoner, mollifying his nature so that he have no more will to cause harm, and by removing from society those who simply can't be made to change, who can't be taught to restrain themselves from doing others harm).

Did anyone read that story from a few week ago that treated of the release of a number of murderers on the grounds that "they were born that way and couldn't help it"? I found that to be absolutely disgusting and it perfectly illustrates just what I am talking about now. Thinking that these people murdered for an absence of the capacity to do otherwise, those passing judgment felt no desire to get revenge and thus let them go - that's how I see it. But, you see, these people still pose a threat to society and should be in prison for that reason. If one has grounds to believe that a mudslide is going to occur, then one does whatever possible to avert it, whether he considers the mudslide to have free will or not, the capacity to choose to do good or not. (It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it works well enough.)

(I wouldn't hesitate to release a murderer or any other offender, if I were certain that he would pose no threat. In practice, however, I would be very unlikely to possess such certainty and, thus, I wouldn't have much occasion to be let murderers go, but..)

In this case, I don't believe the woman should be sent to prison, because one can hardly expect that she has any intentions of engaging in such pernicious acts again. The past is past and there is little reason to cry over spilled milk or take revenge; it just doesn't do any good - except to make the mother of the defunct feel a good. And, more to the point, this girl was seriously disturbed emotionally; it was likely that she would have been set off by something or another eventually. We can't let our feelings of contempt for this childish pathetic woman get in the way of the proper carriage of justice.

p.s. As it is, the justice system is such a bloated wretched thing. Vast numbers of non-violent "offenders" - people who are by and large pose no threat to society whatsoever - are imprisoned because they wished nothing more than to feel good by ingesting substances, which our government, in its great wisdom, has decided we shouldn't be able to put into our bodies - meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies throw far less beneficial and far more harmful substances down our gullets. And, yet, murderers are being released... because they are deemed not to be able to control their actions... well duh! Of course they can't.

p.p.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_for_and_aga...


I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
On the one hand... Yes the idea that someone could be procecuted for violating the TOS of a website is frightening. Frankly these agreements for obvious reasons are not intended to be used as law and are not supposed to have this kind of weight. I do see the FBI case failing on these grounds, assuming these are the actual grounds for procecution.

On the other hand, this woman needs to be locked up for life. As far as I'm concerned what she did is tantamount to murder, second degree but murder none-the-less. I hope to eventually see some sort of successful procection of this woman, what she did was horrific. I'm sure the FBI has legal experts on this looking for all the best avenues for procecution so I guess this must be the best they can do... But I sincerly hope they can find something a little more solid.

At the very least I would like to see very sevear laws against this kind of behaviour passed nationally. People guilty of this kind of harrasment need to not beable to get off scott free just because there isn't an actual law against it yet.




RE: I feel conflicted...
By BadAcid on 5/19/2008 11:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
She didn't pull a trigger or put the girl in a noose and kick the stool. It's not murder. She didn't run the girl down with her truck on accident, it's not manslaughter. What should be thought here is, who was negligent? Who let their kids build strong relationships with a personality online, a.k.a. someone you can't reach directly if a problem arises? Who failed to monitor their child, on anti-depressant meds, during a time of extreme emotional distress? Who cried to the press to alleviate any guilt she was feeling?


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 11:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
No, but her actions did in fact directly lead her to put that noose around her neck. This woman was in fact also taking specific action to hurt this girl and esentually emotionally destroy her. Her lack of understanding of the possibile ramifications of emotionally destroying an indiviaul do not excuse her from the terrible consequences of her actions.

As far as I'm conserned this is very similar to someone being charged with manslaughter (or worse) for pulling a fire alram resulting in the trampling deaths of people in the building.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I'm conserned this is very similar to someone being charged with manslaughter (or worse) for pulling a fire alram resulting in the trampling deaths of people in the building.

Sounds similar to the stupidity that was I in grade school. I thought it would be fun to light a fire cracker (black cat) at school. Lit it and *BAM*, the entire hall filled with a loud crack then several screams.

I did it entirely on the basis of 'having fun' but little did I know someone was hit in the eye by a flying piece from the fire cracker.

I was brought into the police officers office and suspended. They were going to expel me and put me in jail for "having explosives in school". I completely do not understand why they did not, as things could have turned out much worse.

Nobody was injured, but the girls face was red from the impact. I never did anything so stupid afterwards.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 12:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, thank you so much for providing such a perfect real world example. In your case the consequences were thankfully so much less sevear in that case, and the punishment prevented you from repeating a mistake.

In this case I would love to see those woman procecuted to the fullest current extent of the law, and for laws to be amended so that in the future this loophole no longer exists. That way in the future the general public will know with out any question that this behaviour is infact criminal behaviour and that you will be prosecuted.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 12:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That way in the future the general public will know with out any question that this behaviour is infact criminal behaviour and that you will be prosecuted.


Yes lets ban being mean. Next, I would like to make public farting punishable by law because it offends me.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 12:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between kids being mean to kids and adults being mean to adults and adults pyschologically abusing and manipulating childern.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 2:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a difference between kids being mean to kids and adults being mean to adults and adults pyschologically abusing and manipulating childern.


In this case, no. You don't know if your talking to an adult or child on the Internet. Its a name on the screen or at best a picture which means nothing because you can use ANY picture you want.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry you're just going to have to get off this kick that the internet white washes everything.... If I set it up that I use the internet to remotely detinate a bomb and kill hundreds of people it's not "ok" because "I used the internet".


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 3:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry you're just going to have to get off this kick that the internet white washes everything.... If I set it up that I use the internet to remotely detinate a bomb and kill hundreds of people it's not "ok" because "I used the internet".


Uhhh nice try. Thats called MURDER.

Suicide is a personal choice. You will never convince me that you can force someone to commit suicide. And certainly not from being picked on in the Internet.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
So is this.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 3:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
There is no 100% way to stop adults from faking as kids, but I am sure there are certain steps that can be taken to help rid of it.

When I tried the MySpace scene, it restricted anyone over 18 from viewing people under 18's webpage. That stops your average user, but what about people who are strictly out to harm a child?

Well there really is no way for the websites admin to set that up. This would only loop back around to the childs parents. Perhaps have blocks and restrictions on the computer, use monitoring software or system tools to see what sites they have been using. It is not called "snooping" its called parenting.

My mother for example, knew she could not monitor all of her kids while they were on the computer, so she had the computer in the living (main) room. There was no way for you to visit any obscene websites or do anything private. And no matter what, it was easy for her to walk by and view the screen to see what we were on. Once again, this does not stop adult-child interaction online for a child but parents need to take little steps to avoid any conflicts.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly even under the best of cases this kind of thing is possible... In this particular case the childs mother directly monitored internet usage was was aware of this "boy" and was aware of the way in which this boy hurt her daughter. Per the original report after the last of the attacks the girl said she need to go to her room, 15 minutes later her parents called her down for dinner and she was dead.

In this case, when the parents found out that the attacks were actually orchastrated by a neighboring parent they very rightly so saught criminal charges, and I think it's tradgic that there is no good way to prosecute this particular case.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 3:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In this case, when the parents found out that the attacks were actually orchastrated by a neighboring parent they very rightly so saught criminal charges, and I think it's tradgic that there is no good way to prosecute this particular case.


I see. So it was okay that their daughter hung herself when they thought it was a real boy. But they drew the line at someone pretending to be one * gasp * on the Internet of all places.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By AlphaVirus on 5/20/2008 11:15:10 AM , Rating: 2
The lady should not be directly responsible for her death, but the "hoax" should play a part in indirect manslaughter of some sort. I am no legal expert but it would seem rightful to punish the lady because she had ill intentions against this child.

If this case was an adult vs adult, I would think different but it is adult vs child which carries a different set of rulings.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 12:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, but her actions did in fact directly lead her to put that noose around her neck. This woman was in fact also taking specific action to hurt this girl and esentually emotionally destroy her. Her lack of understanding of the possibile ramifications of emotionally destroying an indiviaul do not excuse her from the terrible consequences of her actions.


On the Internet we're all just names on a screen. Its all just text.

I told a guy who was exploiting in TF2 lastnight to " die in RL ". Does this mean I'm a criminal now ?

Get real, its the Internet. There are no " possible ramifications " for our actions. We're all just names on a screen, and 75% of our language is NON verbal cues like body language and eye contact/movement. You can't possibly suggest that those on the Internet have the power to " emotionally destroy " a rational person.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 12:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but just being on the internet doesn't make this legal. This is a crime and it should be treated as such. I'm glad the FBI is making an effort but I just wish they'd come up with a better basic premis for the prosecution.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 12:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry, but just being on the internet doesn't make this legal. This is a crime and it should be treated as such. I'm glad the FBI is making an effort but I just wish they'd come up with a better basic premis for the prosecution.


*punches Locutus*

Look I just commited a crime and assaulted you. Guess you better call the police.

Seriously, you know what, maybe this wasn't " legal ". Although that interpretation is certainly a stretch. But its just about time we collectively grew a pair as a society.

But then again, I'm wasting my breath. This is the same society that wins lawsuits for spilling hot coffee on their own lap and other such nonsense.

Suicide is illegal. But hey, since we can't put a dead person on trial, lets try to jail the person responsible. And if nobody is responsible, make someone.

Yeah I really like where that line of thinking takes us.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 12:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
So according to you psychological abuse doesn't exists? Get real buddy.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So according to you psychological abuse doesn't exists? Get real buddy.


I love how you remove all context of the argument and make it a simple variable.

I would wager that psychological abuse in the classic sense does NOT exist over the Internet. Yes, that I would say.

Your argument is analogous to those who say all guns should be banned because guns have killed. And your telling me to get real ?


RE: I feel conflicted...
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
The more you post the more clear it becomes you don't have any idea what actually happend and don't have any intention to find out. Your arguments are clearly being made out of ignorance of what happend, why don't you try researching this case and learning what actually happend. This case goes far beyond the norm, this is not simple school bullying.


RE: I feel conflicted...
By killerb255 on 5/20/2008 12:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The more you post the more clear it becomes you don't have any idea what actually happend and don't have any intention to find out.


This.

Again, it's that black and white thinking. I'm not sure if he honestly and truely can only think in black and white or if he's just debating just for the sake of debating...which can be extremely close to trolling depending on how it's done.

I know it's easier to think in black and white, but a simple explanation doesn't cut it. The only people that know exactly what went on are the parties involved in the incident. The rest is just speculation.

Did Megan Meier have a form of depression that influenced her to see the world in black and white? Maybe she had anxiety problems on top of it? After all, anxiety is crack cocaine to any opportunist. All of a sudden, she now feels that the "boy" that loved her now hates her, but instead of moving on with her life (which is an option if her anxiety and depression levels weren't pulling a Lone Starr from Spaceballs and strawberry-jamming her life radar), she takes the BLACK OR WHITE approach and ends her life (one extreme) rather than "living in eternal pain" (the other extreme).

Again, that's all speculation. We know less about the Drews and the Meiers than we know of the Osbornes, the Hogans, and whatnot--after all, a family from St. Charles County, MO is a lot less likely to have a reality show for us to (poorly) speculate from...


!$#!ing Sick
By BruceLeet on 5/18/2008 7:56:13 AM , Rating: 4
This mentally deranged woman went into this 13 year old girls life and posed a boy. Its safe to say she had 'romantic' conversations with her to get in this poor girls mind which eventually caused her to commit suicide, she is an online predator no matter how you look at it or what her reasons were, its sick, twisted and beyond pathetic. This middle-aged woman deserves full penalty, a young girl with a long life ahead of herself takes it because of this pompous slag. None of us know how the young girls life actually was but what kind of life did this woman live to do such a thing to a young girl?

Put her in a fucking male prison. I have no sympathy for this woman, she deserves the worst.




RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Hafgrim on 5/18/2008 2:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you the nearly 50 year old victimizer must have been mentally derange, or (I think) just plain evil... Im glad they are going to be prosecuting her for this.

The only reason you got down modded is DT automatically does that for the F words in posts. =P


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 11:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think she has been watching too much Lifetime, that station has such weird shows based on real events.

quote:
Its safe to say she had 'romantic' conversations with her to get in this poor girls mind which eventually caused her to commit suicide,

That is what I started to believe once I read the article, because most teenagers are vulnerable to relationship issues. The 13yr old probably put her entire heart into the hoax and when she found it to be too much to handle, she did not know how to handle it.

It is quite sad to hear this type of stuff happen, the victimizer should be heavily punished for pulling such dirty stunts.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 12:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 13yr old probably put her entire heart into the hoax and when she found it to be too much to handle, she did not know how to handle it.


Well she could of...

A. Get a life.
B. Turn off the computer ( refer to step A. )
C. Talk to parents
D. Lean on friends in tough times ( oops, that would mean you did step A )

Seriously we're not responsible for the actions of an emotionally reclusive teenage girl without a life.

My problem with you and others line of thinking about this is that you don't consider the action to be a crime UNTIL someone decided to kill themselves over it. THEN its a crime. Anyone else see something wrong with that ? How can we have laws if they are based on a whole range of unpredictable consequences from person to person ?

IF we start blaming other people when someone decides to kill themselves, then we're opening a Pandoras Box. Too much gray area and conjecture to be enforced in any type of fair trial.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 2:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I got bullied as a kid. Hell my parents even denied it was happening when I had rocks thrown at me.

Did I kill myself? No. I dealt with it. Hell at one time I grew so sick of a kid picking on me I stabbed him in the leg with a pencil. Did I get in trouble? No. Cause the kid knew he deserved it. Today I probably would get thrown in jail.

Life sucks. A kid being a bully should not be a crime.

Nor should this lady be put in jail because she made some girl feel bad. Is she maybe a bit twisted? Perhaps. Should she be put in jail for years(which will ruin her daughters life)? No. The girl likely would have killed herself eventually anyway if she was that depressed. It's like blaming violent video games on why kids shoot up their school.

If anyone is at fault for the girls death, its her own parents. Obviously they didn't pay enough attention to notice their daughter was depressed.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is a different situation... I was bullied as a kid my self and I'm still capable of seeing the major difference... When I was bullied it was by other childeren (i.e. people who were my peer's) who them selves didn't understand what they were doing...

In this case it was an ADULT who has a child of their own who manipulated this young girl in such a way to destroy her life. BIG HUGE HONKING DIFFERENCE!!!


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In this case it was an ADULT who has a child of their own who manipulated this young girl in such a way to destroy her life. BIG HUGE HONKING DIFFERENCE!!!


How do you know there would of been a difference ? We're talking about someone who TOOK HER OWN LIFE. Does this sound like somebody mentally stable to you ?

Over the Internet it does not matter what age you are and it has nothing to do with this argument.

The idea that you believe someone on the Internet can " manipulate you to destroy your life " is just absurd. I honestly hope you are not an adult. Show some awareness of personal responsibility please !


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're conviniently trying to ignore the fact that this girl was manipulated by this adult. For instance this adult used the fact that this girl was having weight problems to attack her with comments from "this boy" such as:

"you know what, I really can't see why you would think someone would like a fat ass like you"... Remember, we're talking about a woman in her 40's pretending to a be a boy that she purposfully developed an emotional connection with this girl, and is now posting stuff like this to face book.

This is wrong, in fact this is criminal.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 3:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're conviniently trying to ignore the fact that this girl was manipulated by this adult.


Over the internet. Legal.

quote:
"you know what, I really can't see why you would think someone would like a fat ass like you"...


Man thats not even that good. Killed herself over this middle school trolling material ?

quote:
This is wrong, in fact this is criminal.


No its not. And this woman will not see a single day in jail. The FBI cannon enforce a websites TOS like it broke some federal law. The TOS is a non binding civil contract. If you can't see this is one big fishing expedition to manufacture a way to prosecute this woman than your blind.

Again, I'm not defending WHAT she did. Your just being ignorant to the implications and the dangerous legal precident that this would set.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over the internet. Legal.


Tell that to internet casino operators, they apparently shared your opinion until one magical day they realized they couldn't step foot on US soil w/o being arrested.

quote:
Man thats not even that good. Killed herself over this middle school trolling material ?


An adult purposfully made sure this young lady developed a deep emotional bond with a fictional boy to find out if thsi girl was talking behind her daughters back. When she was done she decided with the greatest sense of malice in her heart to tear down this young lady, considering the emotional bond that was developed this was easy to do.

quote:
No its not. And this woman will not see a single day in jail. The FBI cannon enforce a websites TOS like it broke some federal law. The TOS is a non binding civil contract. If you can't see this is one big fishing expedition to manufacture a way to prosecute this woman than your blind.


I suppose someone needs to inform the federal government that they need to release spammers, internet casino operators that directly stole moeny from their unsuspecting customers and botnet operators from jail because "they did it over the internet, it's legal".


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 3:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suppose someone needs to inform the federal government that they need to release spammers, internet casino operators that directly stole moeny from their unsuspecting customers and botnet operators from jail because "they did it over the internet, it's legal".


Again, I never said everything done over the internet was fine. I said you can't force someone to kill themselves over the Internet. Stop wasting my time with your failed analogies and stupid examples.

quote:
An adult purposfully made sure this young lady developed a deep emotional bond with a fictional boy to find out if thsi girl was talking behind her daughters back. When she was done she decided with the greatest sense of malice in her heart to tear down this young lady, considering the emotional bond that was developed this was easy to do.


And you could do this to 100 or 1000 girls and have, probably, NONE of them hang themselves. Again I ask you, are you punishing the "crime" or just the result ? This kind of thing, believe it or not, happens every day on the Internet. But only now, because a girl hung herself, are you forming an opinion on it.

If you can't use common sense I'm done with you. If you don't realize the implication of why the FBI is going over the head of the state in this case, then I'm done.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
So by your position I take it you beleive that if I pull a fire alarm in a crowded theater and 5 people are trampled to death I should be immune from a man slaughter charge? If so then I hate to inform you that the law disagree's, you better beleive I'll be facing at least man slaughter... And in this case the person pulling the alarm can honestly claim they didn't know people were going to get hurt or want that to happen, they just thought it'd be a funny prank.

Guess what, whether or not someone thought it was just going to be harmless fun if deathes result from this then it become a crime, a very serious one in fact.

In this case the crime is worse, there's no defences of "it was all supposed to be harmless fun". There was malice and cruel intent, this woman wanted to hurt this girl. The fact that it resulted in a death, no matter what the cause should mean at least a man slaughter charge. Much like pulling the fire alarm, causing people to panic and trample others to death would in fact result in at least a man slaughter charge.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 4:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
Locutus, do me a favor, go kill yourself.

*crosses fingers*


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... Ok yeah thanks for confirming what I've been thinking this whole time.. You really are just as ass... Conversation done.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 4:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow... Ok yeah thanks for confirming what I've been thinking this whole time.. You really are just as ass... Conversation done.


Well I mean, I thought it would work. This is the Internet right ? Don't I have the power to make someone kill themselves ?

So do it. I command it.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By killerb255 on 5/20/2008 12:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're missing the point altogether.

Granted a person with a stable amount of self-esteem can simply tell someone that commands them to kill themselves where to go.

I'm not sure if this person

Sure, we can go around pulling an Apocalypse from X-Men and say that only the strong should survive and the weak should perish--but that's just one option, not the only option.

On the opposite extreme ('cause I know how you like to think in extremes), I don't think people should be punished for the mental instability of another person. After all, the only person you can control is yourself.

Now I'm going to go somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and say that people can influence others based on knowledge about other people. As I said before, fear is crack cocaine to an opportunist. Play on someone's fear, and they'll most likely do what you want them to do (not always, but most likely). If that person's coping skills are limited (like many people that think only in black and white), they're going to react in an extreme (and most likely illogical or ridiculous) way. However, if that person has many different ways to cope with different situations, then they'll probably not be influenced so easily.

Should Lori Drew be held accountable for indirectly manipulating Megan Meier based on her severe depression and anxiety painting a big-ass bullseye on her psyche? Or should Drew go off scott free because she is not responsible for anyone else's actions but her own?

...or...(going inside the spectrum again rather than hitting the black and white)...should she be held accountable for her actions based solely on the intent of harm?

Tough call.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By Reclaimer77 on 5/20/2008 3:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Good points. I agree with lots of them. But the thing is..

quote:
Granted a person with a stable amount of self-esteem can simply tell someone that commands them to kill themselves where to go.


To my knowledge based on the article and other sources, the women never EVER suggested the girl kill herself or made threats to her bodily person or suggested ANY type of harm what-so-ever. I think its important we remember that.

quote:
Should Lori Drew be held accountable for indirectly manipulating Megan Meier based on her severe depression and anxiety painting a big-ass bullseye on her psyche?


Did she know the girl was severely depressed ( how can a 13 yo be severely depressed anyway ? ) suffered anxiety or anything like that ? Thats what me and others are trying to stress. Lori Drew didn't have some kind of physic powers to find exploits in Megan's mental state.

quote:
should she be held accountable for her actions based solely on the intent of harm?


IF we stretch the word " harm " to mean the hurting of feelings then certainly you can see where that will take us. That is why I truley called this case a " Pandoras Box " because once you go down this road I'm not sure anyone is going to like where it takes us. If anything that causes " harm " is enforceable and punishable by law.. I mean.. come on folks.


RE: !$#!ing Sick
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 3:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77, I think you fail to realize that your option A is flawed. The 13yr old being on the computer chatting with a guy she liked was her "having a life". Just because she was not outside, drinking beer with other teens or watching the latest music video does not mean she was lifeless.

Option B would be fine if she did not think this boy was such a great friend. This is kind of what confuses me because I do not know everything the older lady conveyed to the child.

Option C is perfect but remember she was cought up in a boy-toy so she probably did not care about talking with anyone else. Also, what if her parents were too busy to talk?

Option D, this is my favorite option, friends are always there for you. But as you mentioned, you would have to leave the house and have an outsider (person who goes outside) lifestyle.

I do not wholly blame the older lady for the childs death because when people down talk me it does not make me want to commit suicide. However, you have to take into account the lady having malice behind her actions on a minor. That is why I prefer her to be punished. We all know an adult knows much more than a minor, and when an adult treats a minor incorrectly they should be punished.


While She Violated The TOS…
By rasmith260 on 5/17/2008 8:26:38 PM , Rating: 3
I doubt that any jury will convict her, I think the public embarrassment, loss of time from work (if she holds a job), not to mention the worry about a possible conviction and the expense of hiring her own attorneys will serve as punishment enough, and then there’s always the possibility of a civil suit for wrongful death. While I don’t normally agree with malicious prosecutions; I don’t think she should be able to just walk away from this as if she played no role.




RE: While She Violated The TOS…
By JustTom on 5/17/2008 9:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Never underestimate the power of a highly sympathic victim to sway a jury.


RE: While She Violated The TOS…
By mcmilljb on 5/17/2008 10:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of people willing to protect her in the court room to keep the courts from bending the law at will. TOS is a civil contract between parties, not a law. Those DoJ lawyers are going to have to do some serious bending even in California to get a conviction. If you even look at the statutes, they have to be willfully or recklessly causing harm. Did they conspire to cause harm? Nope. Did they willfully intend to harm the girl? Nope. Did they recklessly cause harm? Not really because even the other girl involved said they were just trying to get the girl to stop talking to the supposed guy. This case just doesn't pass the smell test. Plus I don't see the huge public outrage. Those Rutgers' women basketball players had more public outrage than this.

Is this a sad story? Yes, but we have to look at what really caused this girl's death. Depression(or something other mental health issue) killed her, not someone telling her she sucks at life. Everyday someone is told they suck at life, but they don't kill themselves. If they do, we don't go round up everyone who ever bullied or teased the person to put them in jail. What kids should learn is to talk to people they trust when they feel depressed or have hurt feelings. Communication is the key, and someone missed the signs something was wrong with the girl.


RE: While She Violated The TOS…
By MegaHustler on 5/18/2008 12:57:32 AM , Rating: 2
18 USC 1030, (a)(2)(C), states: "...intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication".

The question is, did defendant and co-conspirators access a computer without authorization or "exceed authorized access"? In my opinion they did, since they obtained the user account fraudulently, in violation of the TOS. Fraud usually nullifies the resultant gain - example: Fraudulently obtaining a drivers license does not in fact authorize you to drive a car. Similarly, a fraudulently obtained user account probably does not in fact authorize you to access a "protected computer".

Just for this, defendant faces a fine and/or up to one year in prison. The increase in punishment to five years, can be made when the crime was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortuous act. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tortuous act, and, as you correctly observe, doesn't need to be intentional - recklessness is sufficient.

Defendant apparently knew the victim, a 13-year old girl, was taking anti-depressant medication, and in my opinion, defendant recklessly ignored the risk of causing emotional distress.


RE: While She Violated The TOS…
By mcmilljb on 5/18/2008 6:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
I believe they can't use that one because fraud is covered in a different section. Read 18 USC 1030, (a)(4) "...knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" I believe that section covers fraud, and it has to be for something of value. Just my layman's opinion of course :)

Lets also look at previous "abuses" of myspace. I know people who have made myspace pages for pets. I also know people have let other people login to their accounts. Did those pets give them permission to create those accounts? I doubt it so it's "fraudulent." Lets say I let you login to my myspace account. Well you just "exceeded authorized access" because only I should have access to the system in the way my account is setup. Also don't forget people were accessing pictures they didn't have access to on Facebook. Are we going to lock those users up over that? No.

I'm not saying what she did is right or ok, and I think any one who reads my post agrees with that. Was it mean to pull her strings like that? Yes. Was it criminal? I just don't see it that way.


RE: While She Violated The TOS…
By tmouse on 5/19/2008 7:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm not sure myself but the section you mention may be in reference to the civil statute and not the criminal one. Laws often have both components. I also do not feel that violating a TOS should result in a criminal penalty by itself, However a severe civil penalty (to discourage other "adults" from doing careless, stupid things)?


By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 12:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets also look at previous "abuses" of myspace. I know people who have made myspace pages for pets. I also know people have let other people login to their accounts. Did those pets give them permission to create those accounts? I doubt it so it's "fraudulent."

Animals do not have the same rights and liberties as humans.
I do understand what you are trying to say though.


RE: While She Violated The TOS…
By Tuor on 5/17/2008 11:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you think that the facts should be stated and proven in court first, before stating what sort of punishment she should receive, if any?

I think we should all remember that most of what we're getting so far is hearsay, much of it coming from the girl's parents.


Responsibility
By goku on 5/19/2008 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 1
I think you people are much too emotional and illogical. You see the death of a little kid indirectly caused by an adult and now everybody wants the adult to do life in prison because this little girl was too fucking fragile to be conducting such "romantic relationships".

If someone has a mental illness, why is the burden of responsibility always on everybody else?

Person A calls Person B a douchebag
Person B starts to cry
Person A says go kill yourself, you're a detriment to society
Person B is now bawling, and then runs away.
Later that evening Person B kills themselves. Person A is now in jail because america has affinity with white, middle class women.

Doesn't anybody see how fucking stupid this is? Why have we allowed our society to become so protectionist? Why is it that everytime somebody dies, there always has to be a solution? People are getting up in arms about the most unimportant, isolated situations. This isn't an epidemic by any means yet everybody wants to throw the book at this woman and enact new laws to make a system more draconinan than it already is.

Do people not have the ability to simply accept the facts? That this girl was emotional unstable, that her parents weren't clued in and that mother trying to get information from said girl was simply a trigger in getting the girl to kill herself? Why place blame squarely on one person? Why just the parents or this mother? What is so difficult about accepting the fact that this kid made a decision to kill her self.

It's not like this woman chased this girl onto a ledge of a building with shotgun and started going after her, only to have the girl jump off the ledge. This girl wasn't even threatened in any shape or form. Are we seriously so stupid as to believe that minors are incapable of making any decisions of their own? That just the mere suggestion of something makes you liable for everything that could go wrong? If so, then what the hell is the point of punishing a child for misbehaving?

If this exact scenario happened between this older woman and a man in prison, nobody would give a shit. The only reason people care is because it's a young white girl from a middle class home who everybody thinks is "so sweet".

It just seems like people can't accept the fact that things don't always need to be changed just because an overly emotional issue comes up based upon atypical circumstances.
It is our society's reaction to every sensationalist report that comes on the news is the reason why everything has become so draconian and frustrating.

Just because somebody dies, it doesn't mean a law needs to be enacted or changed. Laws are to be enacted when it is actually necessary.

Has anybody forgotten how overly emotional people got over Lacie Peterson? That exact same scenario has happened dozens of times with minorities and nobody seems to give a shit.

Here is another scenario:
Two brothers are slapping each other in the face, they're not quite fighting but they're not exactly playing, the mother comes in and tells the two to "stop fighting", instead of not fighting, they take it as a suggestion to really start fighing by pulling punches and smashing each other's face against various objects. The boys are both hospitalized and the mom is put in jail. The media catches attention of this and everybody is up in arms.

"where were the parents" "why didn't they intervene" "what was she doing" "where was the father" "she should be put in prison for being so irresponsible!" "What was a lamp doing in the living room?" "Why did they have a glass table"

etc. etc.

So, don't you see how people are simply reacting to an event and instead of acting rationally, everybody wants to feel some sort of closure, by enacting all these draconian laws and restricting out liberties, only to have everybody ask themselves later "who in their right mind enacted all these inane rules anyways?".




RE: Responsibility
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 2:06:40 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree,

What's really going on here is that people full well understand the circomstances of what happened here and have correctly judged them to be a crime in this case. This isn't a case of peers having a disagreement, this is a case of an adult manipulating a child to gain information and when she got what she wanted she used these manipulations for the express purpose of destroying a young life.

It worked, she destroyed this girl and now there's no going back. Is it possible that you just don't understand what happend here and the implications?


RE: Responsibility
By goku on 5/19/2008 2:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
The woman told the girl she was "mean". She obviously wanted to break off the relationship, it doesn't matter how nice or cruel she was to this girl, there is nothing to indicate by the messages that this girl was going to kill herself. You, much like the sensationalized media are a perfect example of exaggerating the facts. This woman was "manipulating this girl", no she wasn't. She isn't some psychic, she isn't a relative, she doesn't even know this girl, so exactly why or how would she manipulate this girl in the first place?

It doesn't matter if this woman said "you're mean" or "go kill yourself you stupid whore" because the fact is, this girl is more than capable of making her own decisions judging by her actions such as conducting this online relationship which she really shouldn't have been doing so, ignoring her parent's advice, and killing herself.

Nobody had a gun to the girl's head nor did this woman have any distinct advantage in "manipulating" this girl over any other stranger. This is NOT a case of a priest telling a choir boy to kill himself because "god needs you up in heaven to fight hell with the GOLDEN PSP", or a teacher, administrator, a person of the law telling her to hang her self because if she doesn't, they will. Etc...


RE: Responsibility
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 2:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
An adult shouldn't be doing this period, regardless of whatever is going on this adult should never have tried to hurt this 13 year old child like this. It really speaks to the maturity of this woman, basically completely lacking.

Maybe this girl really hurt her daughter? Ok then, if you really feel the need to address it with this young lady why not discuss it with her parents? Discuss it with your child and explain that in life some people are just mean...

But I'm sorry... Create FB account, pose as boy, get girl to be emotionally attached to boy so she can "dig up the dirt" and then have "boy" turn on girl exploiting all the emotional chinks in her armor? I don't care whether or not she knew or had any indication that this girl would commit suicide, there's no excuse. Not ignorance, nothing no excuse. I know we want to beleive everything is grey in this day and age but it simply isn't so, there is such thing as black and white right or wrong. This was wrong, no matter how you slice it and this woman should be subject to whatever the full actual extent of the law is. if the current laws aren't sufficient then the laws should be altered to better cover this in the future.


RE: Responsibility
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 3:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Goku you just nailed it. No argument possible man.

The idea that people are fine with jailing and making illegal anything that offends them, isn't nice, or hurts someones feelings is just frightening !


RE: Responsibility
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 4:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
yes there is, he claimed no manipulation happend... This woman did not approch the young lady in person and say these things, she invented a fictional boy and purposfully ensured a deep emotional connection was developed with this girl prior to the attacks... Before the two of you spout off about "the sensationalist media" why don't you guys actually try finding out what happend, how this developed and all those other small little details.


RE: Responsibility
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 4:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This woman did not approch the young lady in person and say these things


I think that would of been called harassment and soliciting a minor, would it not ?

quote:
why don't you guys actually try finding out what happend, how this developed and all those other small little details.


So we can be like you : Emotionally attached to a dead girl and unable to look past our feelings and see the bigger picture. No thanks.


RE: Responsibility
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 4:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yeah, she did it on the internet so it's legal... now that I know commiting crime on the internet is legal I should hack a bank and x-fer some funds into my account. When the FBI show up I'll just say "whoa buddy, I did it on the internet... It's all usernames and text, it's legal".

Emotionally attached to a dead girl? No, but certainly appauled by a crime.


RE: Responsibility
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 4:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Again, thats already ILLEGAL idiot. Stop with your stupid examples.

Find me the law that states suicide by meaness is illegal or SHUT UP !


illegally accessed protected computers.
By 1prophet on 5/17/2008 9:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
This case can have severe ramifications on free speech and anonymity on the internet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24670474/

quote:

Legal experts warned Friday that such an interpretation could criminalize routine behavior on the Internet. After all, people regularly create accounts or post information under aliases for many legitimate reasons, including parody, spam avoidance and a desire to maintain their anonymity or privacy online or that of a child.

This new interpretation also gives a business contract the force of a law: Violations of a Web site's user agreement could now lead to criminal sanction, not just civil lawsuits or ejection from a site.

"I think the danger of applying a statute in this way is that it could have unintended consequences," said John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor who leads a MySpace-convened task force on Internet safety.

"An application of a general statute like this might result in chilling a great deal of online speech and other freedom."




RE: illegally accessed protected computers.
By Hafgrim on 5/18/2008 1:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
If such activities are done with the purpose of inflicting harassment and victimization of (especially) minors and injury or severe trauma results then that is a clear line that needs to be drawn in law. I agree with the suit. The person who did this was callus & heartless and deserves full prosecution. There is no link to free speech when talking to a child you must control yourself. End of discussion dont you think?


By tmouse on 5/19/2008 8:15:34 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is in this case you set a precedent allowing this type of prosecution for ANY TOS violations. THAT is FAR worse. I have no problems with laws that curb interactions between adults and children (within limits), but this has far more ramifications. With "laws" like the soon to be enacted copyright infringement laws and interpretations of existing statutes as in this case it will be VERY easy to throw just about anyone in jail.


By BadAcid on 5/19/2008 11:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
The precedent I fear most is the "Irresponsible mother cries to press to harness that infinite pool of sympathy for white teenage girls to scapegoat, harass, ruin, and prosecute."

Monitor what your kids are doing online, teenagers should not be socially dependent on the internet.


13yo state of mind and adult predators
By Funk Phenomena on 5/19/2008 1:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
This is the reason there are dudes doing hard time, because 13 year old girls don't have the same state of mind as 18 year olds. I can remember the emotional rollercoasters of that age and beyond... when seemingly insignificant things felt so overwhelmingly "end of world" important. And this isn't kids bullying kids, which is something we're more willing to accept as a way of life, even though it does suck. This is a grown adult manipulating the hell out of a kid... who kills herself as a result of the social stigma/torment. Man that's effed up. If nothing happens to Lori, at least the harassment laws were amended.




RE: 13yo state of mind and adult predators
By fic2 on 5/19/2008 5:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
This is what I wonder - the woman was an adult predator why are those laws not being used to prosecute her? Are the laws written so narrowly that it has to be a sexual predator? I would also argue that reckless endangerment would apply - knowing the girl and knowing her state of mind she should have been able to foresee the outcome.


RE: 13yo state of mind and adult predators
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2008 7:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
Preadator ? Going way too far. This was nothing more than an elegant practical joke gone wrong.

And please tell me how this women knew this kids " state of mind " ? Did she say she was going to kill herself ? Did she even leave a suicide note ?


By fic2 on 5/19/2008 7:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
This was neither elegant nor a practical joke.


Off topic
By snowbro on 5/17/2008 11:12:53 PM , Rating: 1
How come I can't ever rate anybody???




RE: Off topic
By mcmilljb on 5/17/2008 11:23:21 PM , Rating: 1
You haven't posted enough yet, or you have posted in the thread already.


RE: Off topic
By BruceLeet on 5/18/2008 7:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
If you want to rate someone DONT post in the article. I think thats how it works.


RE: Off topic
By TomCorelis on 5/18/2008 3:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
Correct.

Whoops, there goes my ability to rate people. :-)


Where were the Parents?
By rsmech on 5/17/2008 11:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
Any death, crime, injury, or suffering is a tragedy, but where is the parent? The ramifications of this case, my kids HAVING to wear helmets riding a bike, talk about giving pre-teen girls shots for STD's, law against bulling, all the lawsuits for accidents preventable by parents but blame passed to a manufacture of a product. I'm not saying there are no need for laws protecting children but should the parent be doing this before the gov't? Many of these new laws & lawsuits are because the parent failed to do their job. A new law doesn't create a better parent it just means you are less of one because you let the gov't do it. If you don't want to be a parent give your child to the gov't instead of giving everyones child to them bit by bit.




RE: Where were the Parents?
By FITCamaro on 5/19/2008 2:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Todays parents don't want to be parents. They want to do all the stuff they could do before they were parents and have someone else take care of it until something bad happens.


RE: Where were the Parents?
By Locutus465 on 5/19/2008 3:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
Typically I do in fact agree with this sentament, but in this case the child was attacked by an adult. Not only was this child attacked, but it was a very cold and very calculated attack the desired end result of which was to seriously emotionally damage this girl. A parent can only protect a child from the world so much, at the end of the day if an adult want's to attack a child like this with determination such as the case here there's only so much a parnet can reasnobly do to prevent it from happening.

Beleive it or not, in this case the parents actually WERE involved, they WERE montitoring their daughters internet usage by sitting with her while she face booked. They were aware their daughter has been hurt but in the space of 15 minutes the girl said she was going to her room, the parents decided to call her down for dinner only to find that she had commited suicide.


Wack Jobs are Wack Jobs from the Geto Go
By Nik00117 on 5/18/2008 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly, truly believe that must people that do things like murder, rape, or even killing themselves are typically wack jobs. Granted not all the time, I could think of several circumstances in which i'd kill myself, like if I was terminally ill with a very painful condition I would consider it. Killing someone, i'd do it in the defense of my loved ones.

However most people that do that I feel are prone to it to do it anyways. I honestly believe this girl was emotionally unstable to begin with. All she needed was a trigger, this action by the user on myspace was her trigger. I don't think she should be very seriously like ruin her life punished. Punished granted, but not ruin her life. She made a stupid mistake, but she didn't actually make this girl do what she did.




By mindless1 on 5/18/2008 3:11:16 PM , Rating: 3
It's not a question of being 100% guilty of causing the girl's mental state. Adolescence is a difficult time for many children and like someone at the edge of a cliff you could do one of three things.

1) Push them over the edge.

2) Pull them back from the edge.

3) Leave them alone.

Lori Drew pushed.
Any responsible parent would be pulling (their child).
What did everyone else do? Appparently a bit closer to leave her alone or push, since we now see the outcome.

How does someone end up a "wack job"? They aren't born with the desire to kill themself, it tends to come through circumstance or at least perceived circumstance. One person may not be 100% to blame and usually isn't for causing someone else to take their own life unless it was a direct 1:1 torturer victim situation where the victim felt helpless, and yet that is how many (teens) who committ suicide feel, helpless to change what is to them an unbearable situation.

Keep in mind that anyone can be trained to belive some odd things that contradict (an altruistically common to non-"wack jobs") reality if only it is impressed upon them enough. Lots of people believed the world was flat when we know that is not the case. This poor girl was convinced the world was better off without her during an age when her personal identity was forming around a need to belong.

No otherwise (physically) healthy teenager is prone to kill themselves without the influence of another pushing them, even if the pusher didn't intend the victim to kill themselves which it looks as though was actually Lori Drew's motivation, or at least being extremelly mean and ill spirited trying to destroy her self esteem. Either way to some extent we have to hold people accountable for the results of their actions, not only their intentions.


The harasser deserves no pity...
By Hafgrim on 5/18/2008 12:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
When a nearly 50 year old person harasses a known very young girl weather it be sexual or psychological bullying and then to even create fake accounts to stalk her further he/she deserves jail time. Especially if that person actually knows the person in real life which can make the terror inflicted on the victim that much more real and intense. I say THROW the book at that "person"!

She deserves no pity!
Haf




RE: The harasser deserves no pity...
By tmouse on 5/19/2008 8:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem is the contortions the federal prosecutors are willing to go through that make this a dangerous precedent. Has anyone never violated any term of a TOS? It’s very dangerous to give the government this big a stick. Sometimes people who should get some form of punishment get off because there are no specific laws to prohibit stupidity. Pass a more specific law but do not allow something as general as breaking a TOS function as a one size fits all EZ prosecution.


ARghhh!
By Etern205 on 5/17/2008 10:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
Another scum that needs to be thrown into a endless pit!
Now where is my shovel?!

Agree with some of you the internet is a cruel place much like in the real world. As for her parent it's tragic for what they have to go through, but this can be prevented if they would pay more attention to what their child is doing. Respecting your child's privacy is one thing, but safety is more important.

Safety concerns for a child overwrites their privacy and even though they might hate you at that moment. Once they realize what you have done, they will thank you.

You are their parents! Respect them , but also protect them!




Is this site still about Tech news?
By crazyblackman on 5/18/08, Rating: 0
By Enoch2001 on 5/18/2008 10:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is this site still about Tech news?


Of course it is. This article, although the focus is obviously on the unfortunate suicide of Megan Meier, clearly indicates an important factor in the Terms of Service of *ALL* websites depending on how this case goes (or doesn't go) to court.


Parenting
By heeros1 on 5/18/2008 4:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree that it seems like parents are less and less involved in the upbringing of their kids. But you can't really blame everything on the parents like some people seem to do. I consider myself fortunate to have grown up in a pretty good family.

We (me and my sister) were brought up pretty much the same. we were both lectured about not smoking, no drugs, no drinking, we had rules to follow. The difference between and my sister now is that she started smoking when she was 12(in Germany where there are vending machines at every corner for cigarettes), she started to drink a little later (with an alcohol poisoning sometimes around the age of 15), she stated smoking weed/hash when she switched schools in 5th/6th grade, she has also been very depressed and threatened with suicide in several occasions(she was on anti depressants for a while too). while I never smoked, never had drugs, and only drink occasionally.
She is finally starting to mellow out a little, and is currently in college with a 3.9x GPA.

in my opinion it's not only about parenting, the kids character plays a big roll.




Signs of the Times
By StinkyWhizzleTeeth on 5/19/2008 2:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
Amazing that a 49 year old could be so reckless. I feel sorry for her too. If she ever tries to come to grips with who she is, and what she has done then it will be very very painful for her. I'm not a big prayer person, but this is one person I'll make an exception for.

Did you know that there is a law in some state (I can't remember which) against putting a skunk in someone's desk? Apparently someone that happened once. There will be a law passed against this specific problem, and problem solved. It's the best system we can come up with. sigh




Poor Kid
By herrdoktor330 on 5/19/2008 7:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to say that I feel bad for the girl. "The Teen Years" are a very awkward time. While I'll concur that you have to have mental toughness to deal with the Internet and the real world, which she clearly didn't have. It's still a tragedy that she felt the world would be better off without her. I know I was fairly angsty when I was a child, so I guess I can relate to a certain degree. But I turned out OK and, while I'm not a superhero, I make some kind of positive contribution back to society.

Although the parents hold responsibility for not paying attention to their child, I wonder where her real friends were? Were they ALL people on myspace she had no personal connection with? I mean she had to have known SOMEONE who would have been able to help her feel this one through, or at least cope with the duping. It's a shame that she didn't utilize some of her other friends to help her get through this. I mean, in another 5 years she would be going to college, mixing it up with other people, and hopefully socializing like a normal young adult to put this whole thing behind her. It's kinda like what Matt Stone had to say about the Columbine kids in "Bowling for Columbine": If they only knew that high school wasn't the end of the world...

Anyway... I don't want to sound weird in saything any of this. I just hope that (if you believe in reincarnation) that the next life is better for her. Or if she's a "ghost in the machine" (if you've watched Serial Experiments: Lain), she'll be able to see a public that was genuinely saddened by her loss.

Rest in peace, kiddo.




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











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