In the real world of which you're so enamored, there are civil laws and criminal laws. Each has different consequences. Breaking a contract with a company does not make you liable for criminal consequences. Breaking a criminal law -- the Sarbanes-Oxley act, for instance -- does.

A person has died. This doesn't mean you get to redefine the law. If you think that's how it works, you may be the one living in some virtual reality.

"If you created such a TOS agreement, then you might be able to sue, say, me." YES! That's the consequence of breaking a TOS -- a civil suit. A civil suit that does not end in jail time. EXACTLY! You understand.

So why should this woman face criminal consequences -- jail time, not a lawsuit -- for violating a TOS?

If you're saying she violated a criminal law, what is it? Breaking a TOS is not the criminal act. That's my point. What's yours?

I'm not saying prosecutors never stretch the law, or even that they shouldn't. I'm saying that in this case, the stretch is dangerous.

Yes, Count 1 is the conspiracy charge; if they can get her on that alone, fine.

It's the Count 2, 3, 4 that I'm criticizing. That's the TOS violation, and it's there I'm saying they're stretching the law by turning a civil violation into a criminal violation. Note your trespassing analogy doesn't fit that -- it's criminal.

"If MySpace is not allowed to dictate how their service is to be used, does this not open MySpace up as a possible defendant in a whole range of criminal acts? Why or why not? How does MySpace then defend itself against any claims of fraud that used their service? Is there a logical explanation why we have the right to use services in ways that the providors did not intend?"

MySpace is allowed to dictate how their services are used. Generally, indeed, that's what immunizes them to criminal prosecution. Under federal laws passed in the 1990s, if users use their services in ways that violate the law, internet companies are not liable if they move to stop it when notified.

But what are you saying this has to do with the case at hand? (Not trying to be difficult; I don't know what you mean exactly.)

Right, "unauthorized" by MySpace in the TOS. That is, what I've been saying all along: Anything you do on a Web site that isn't authorized by the Web site can become the criminal offense of computer fraud.

This is not a stretch because....? Your answer should be, "Because I think it's fine to turn civil contracts that you agree to by visiting a site into criminally enforceable rules." And if that's your answer -- which it must be -- then we simply have a disagreement about what "a stretch" means. Under your conception of how law ought to work, it's fine for private entities to make criminal law. Under mine, it's not.

"Plus, do you really think it's ok to intentionally and willfully violate a TOS?"

There's a difference between "not ok" and "you should be jailed for this." The appropriate punishment for violating a TOS is whatever the contract says -- in this case Drew's contract with MySpace. Violating a contract with a private entity did not used to mean being charged under federal criminal statutes.

"I no longer look at this as a prosecutor stretching the law due to a limited ability to use existing statutes. This is an existing law being used for one of the purposes for which it was intended."

You're essentially departing from the argument here by saying that what I'm saying is bad -- a TOS violation being turned into a criminal violation -- isn't happening. That's fine; note that your interpretation stands in stark contrast to that of legal experts who've looked at it -- see the Wired link in my piece -- but thanks for noting how you interpret this.

"This is not about a 'site'. It is not about violating a site's rules. It is about running a child down and into suicide."

Feel free to describe what you think this is about and what it's not about. It doesn't matter what you say, though -- what matters is the indictment. And the indictment charges her criminally for violating the site's rules. You saying otherwise doesn't change the facts.

"This is child abuse. There IS a law on the books against child abuse."

She hasn't been charged with breaking that law.

There's more than the EFF cited in the Wired story I linked to and asked you to read in my comment, MC.

Also, your guarantee that that a private company wants its TOS to be binding criminally sure provides some comfort. Yay! MySpace is OK with their TOS being turned into criminal law. Why does this mean we can rest easy?

Yes -- at least on several searches I tried.

I didn't say she expected they'd be posted online. I suggested, instead, that his taking plus posting the pictures would be closer to sexual exploitation than simply posting pictures that she took of herself, and gave him freely.

I don't see how this opinion is either classy or not. Maybe you can explain?

For forcing you to read. I know I hate it when people make me click on stuff I hate. Repeatedly. Apologies. If only there were more stuff on the Internet....

It's Davis. Idiotically, I erred. Corrected, noted at article end.

Are you saying I'm the big fat lumpy load, or are you talking to someone else? If it's me, I wonder why you think that.

Thanks for catching the typo; not sure why it should affect the my "credibility," though.

http://tinyurl.com/4a7l3n

vs.

http://tinyurl.com/3lzpzf

Are you saying it's "more affordable" than before? I'm saying it's not. How's that all wet? Unless you believe it's cheaper now?