She did it,

I'll admit not following closely but didn't some of the witnesses claim that she wasn't really the primary force behind this... that it was the younger kids' idea?

a 13 year old is dead.

I read a rumor that mom told the cops that the 13 year old tried to go to her with her problems and instead of helping, mom admonished her for using the internet when she had been told not to. Haven't double checked that, but it sounds exactly like the sort of "we're more upset about the fact that you exposed yourself to something complicated that upset you than we are about the fact that you are upset" crap that drives young people to, er, send a clear message about the significance of their emotions. If true, the ironic thing about this narrative is that mom STILL hasn't gotten the fucking picture, otherwise she wouldn't be in a court room. How much does the physical attractiveness of the parties effect the internet mob's opinion of who is at fault here? How much have the 4chan griefers influenced people just because they are bored?

I hope the judge sends her to prison.

Do you really think people should go to federal prison for violating fine print in a website TOS? Shall I make Vile the next test case?

Decius wrote:

She did it,

I'll admit not following closely but didn't some of the witnesses claim that she wasn't really the primary force behind this... that it was the younger kids' idea?

No.

a 13 year old is dead.

I read a rumor that mom told the cops that the 13 year old tried to go to her with her problems and instead of helping, mom admonished her for using the internet when she had been told not to. Haven't double checked that, but it sounds exactly like the sort of "we're more upset about the fact that you exposed yourself to something complicated that upset you than we are about the fact that you are upset" crap that drives young people to, er, send a clear message about the significance of their emotions. If true, the ironic thing about this narrative is that mom STILL hasn't gotten the fucking picture, otherwise she wouldn't be in a court room. How much does the physical attractiveness of the parties effect the internet mob's opinion of who is at fault here? How much have the 4chan griefers influenced people just because they are bored?

How many of them did so, knowing well their target, that their target was a minor, that their target was an unstable one? Your argument here is the same put forth by the parents of kids who kill themselves and try to blame Ozzy Osborne or Judas Priest. Should the mother have kept better track of what their kid was doing, sure. But this is not like those spurious cases. In this case, the perpetrator did so with full knowledge and malice aforethought. The fact that the local prosecutor didn't do anything was a failure. There are existing statutes that could have covered this, DA Banas simply doesn't have the mental acuity or flexibility to apply them, and when he comes up for re-election, I sincerely hope he joins the ranks of the unemployed.

I also agree though, mom doesn't understand what all happened, and to be honest, I don't think she ever will. This is the kind of thing that won't ever go away for her.

I hope the judge sends her to prison.

Do you really think people should go to federal prison for violating fine print in a website TOS? Shall I make Vile the next test case?

For a website TOS? No, but judges have it well within their purview to examine the circumstances and results when determining sentence. These circumstances and results fall into the same categories as DUI. Didn't mean for anything to happen, but it did, and that changes the ball game.

Should you make Vile the next test case? I think you'd have a problem with that as there have in the past been questions of enforcing that TOS, and to the best of my knowledge, the populace here is generally of age, and I have yet to hear of there being actual damages to anyone. Pissed off people sure, but damages need to be quantifiable, and I'm not sure how you get that here. You're welcome to try, but I don't think you'd find it worthwhile because unless you're able to find criminal charges that a DA is going to pick up the tab for, you're going civil, and that may hurt you more than him.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Decius wrote:
didn't some of the witnesses claim that she wasn't really the primary force behind this... that it was the younger kids' idea?

No.

Sure about that?

The young woman who typed the final, cruel message to 13-year-old Megan Meier the day she killed herself testified Thursday that it was she -- and not defendant Lori Drew -- who came up with the idea to create a fake MySpace account as a boy who first flirted and then turned on the troubled teen.

Grills was in the kitchen with Drew and Sarah, Lori Drew's then-13-year-old daughter, when she proposed creating a fake MySpace account to get information on Megan. Drew applauded the plan, and thought it was funny, but did not herself conceive it, Grills said.

Not her idea. She approved of it, was present, should have stopped it from happening, but she didn't do it. The kids did it.
Judge hasn't ruled on this yet, AFAIK:

The federal judge presiding over the Lori Drew trial on Monday put off deciding whether to throw out the case and acquit the defendant, as requested by a defense motion on Friday.

When the prosecution rested its case Friday at about 2:00 p.m., defense attorney H. Dean Steward moved for an immediate dismissal, based on testimony that proved Drew never saw MySpace's contract, and wasn't the one who set up the account and accepted the terms.

I hope the judge sends her to prison.

Do you really think people should go to federal prison for violating fine print in a website TOS? Shall I make Vile the next test case?

For a website TOS? No, but judges have it well within their purview to examine the circumstances and results when determining sentence.

The whole deal with this case is prison for violating a website TOS.

Damages need to be quantifiable,

No. They don't. Violate website TOS, go to jail. 1 year per incident. If you do it in furtherance of a tortuous act, its a felony and you could go to prison for a very long time.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The Los Angeles federal court jury rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

She did it, she knew she did it, knew what she was doing, and a 13 year old is dead. I hope the judge sends her to prison.

If you kill yourself because something on the internet bothered you, maybe you shouldn't have used the internet to begin with.

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The Los Angeles federal court jury rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

She did it, she knew she did it, knew what she was doing, and a 13 year old is dead. I hope the judge sends her to prison.

If you kill yourself because something on the internet bothered you, maybe you shouldn't have used the internet to begin with.

If you, an adult, deliberately screw with the head of a 12-13 year old neighbor, that you KNOW has psychological issues, and finish off the mindfuck telling them the world would be a better place without them, and they actually do something, you think you aren't responsible?

If you think that, you've forfeited any claim to being human.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The Los Angeles federal court jury rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

She did it, she knew she did it, knew what she was doing, and a 13 year old is dead. I hope the judge sends her to prison.

If you kill yourself because something on the internet bothered you, maybe you shouldn't have used the internet to begin with.

If you, an adult, deliberately screw with the head of a 12-13 year old neighbor, that you KNOW has psychological issues, and finish off the mindfuck telling them the world would be a better place without them, and they actually do something, you think you aren't responsible?

If you think that, you've forfeited any claim to being human.

If i was this kids parents, i'd feel pretty stupid for not monitoring their networking. If your kid has psychological issues like this its plain irresponsible.

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The Los Angeles federal court jury rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

She did it, she knew she did it, knew what she was doing, and a 13 year old is dead. I hope the judge sends her to prison.

If you kill yourself because something on the internet bothered you, maybe you shouldn't have used the internet to begin with.

If you, an adult, deliberately screw with the head of a 12-13 year old neighbor, that you KNOW has psychological issues, and finish off the mindfuck telling them the world would be a better place without them, and they actually do something, you think you aren't responsible?

If you think that, you've forfeited any claim to being human.

If i was this kids parents, i'd feel pretty stupid for not monitoring their networking. If your kid has psychological issues like this its plain irresponsible.

According to the reporting, they did. Based on experience as a parent, there will always be situations where you wish you had done more. Bottom line on this one, the neighbor did something no adult should even be considering. It's the kind of behavior you see on Animal Planet where bears try to kill other bears young.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The Los Angeles federal court jury rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

She did it, she knew she did it, knew what she was doing, and a 13 year old is dead. I hope the judge sends her to prison.

If you kill yourself because something on the internet bothered you, maybe you shouldn't have used the internet to begin with.

If you, an adult, deliberately screw with the head of a 12-13 year old neighbor, that you KNOW has psychological issues, and finish off the mindfuck telling them the world would be a better place without them, and they actually do something, you think you aren't responsible?

If you think that, you've forfeited any claim to being human.

If i was this kids parents, i'd feel pretty stupid for not monitoring their networking. If your kid has psychological issues like this its plain irresponsible.

According to the reporting, they did. Based on experience as a parent, there will always be situations where you wish you had done more. Bottom line on this one, the neighbor did something no adult should even be considering. It's the kind of behavior you see on Animal Planet where bears try to kill other bears young.

Apparently the parents didn't do enough. The internet is not a safe place for kids. The kid could have found hostility anywhere on the internet from known and unknown sources. THe problem is that she was mentally unbalanced and may have killed her self anyway. It was the kids fault, the parents and neighbors helped her in her task.

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Shannon wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The Los Angeles federal court jury rejected felony charges of accessing a computer without authorization to inflict emotional distress on young Megan Meier.

However, the jury found defendant Lori Drew guilty of three counts of the lesser offense of accessing a computer without authorization. Each count is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

She did it, she knew she did it, knew what she was doing, and a 13 year old is dead. I hope the judge sends her to prison.

If you kill yourself because something on the internet bothered you, maybe you shouldn't have used the internet to begin with.

If you, an adult, deliberately screw with the head of a 12-13 year old neighbor, that you KNOW has psychological issues, and finish off the mindfuck telling them the world would be a better place without them, and they actually do something, you think you aren't responsible?

If you think that, you've forfeited any claim to being human.

If i was this kids parents, i'd feel pretty stupid for not monitoring their networking. If your kid has psychological issues like this its plain irresponsible.

According to the reporting, they did. Based on experience as a parent, there will always be situations where you wish you had done more. Bottom line on this one, the neighbor did something no adult should even be considering. It's the kind of behavior you see on Animal Planet where bears try to kill other bears young.

Apparently the parents didn't do enough. The internet is not a safe place for kids. The kid could have found hostility anywhere on the internet from known and unknown sources. THe problem is that she was mentally unbalanced and may have killed her self anyway. It was the kids fault, the parents and neighbors helped her in her task.

The internet is not a safe place for kids? What a goddamn cop out. NOWHERE is safe for kids. Welcome to the social contract. We CAN'T watch our kids all the time, it's not possible, so we have expectations that other adults are not going to go out there and deliberately fuck with them, and if they do, that social contract says there are consequences. While it may not be safe, there is a requirement on us, as adults not to fuck with kids, and if we do, we get hit for it, and damn well should.

You want that responsibility abrogated because it happened on the internet? Your response is fundamentally wrong at every level. This person violated that contract, and did so in one of the most offensive ways possible. If anything, she's getting off light.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

The internet is not a safe place for kids? What a goddamn cop out. NOWHERE is safe for kids. Welcome to the social contract. We CAN'T watch our kids all the time, it's not possible, so we have expectations that other adults are not going to go out there and deliberately fuck with them, and if they do, that social contract says there are consequences. While it may not be safe, there is a requirement on us, as adults not to fuck with kids, and if we do, we get hit for it, and damn well should.

You want that responsibility abrogated because it happened on the internet? Your response is fundamentally wrong at every level. This person violated that contract, and did so in one of the most offensive ways possible. If anything, she's getting off light.

Traffic is safe if you look both ways, but if you're kid fell on the bad side of the evolutionary road and you let that kid play in the street, the problem is with the kid instead of the roads and drivers. If your kid is going to commit suicide because someone honked their horn and called them a dumb asshole, the fault is yours. If your child is raised with such a broken psychology that they kill themselves because of an internet troll, they are not mature enough to handle using myspace or even the internet in general.

There should be no legal requirement that people must not be verbally hostile to one another. Its not nice to harass those who claim to be young, but if the kids are networking on the same playing field, the social contract is invalid if the kid is not mature enough to comprehend a hostile world.