Letters to the Editor
-
This case turns my stomach, but . . .
Why is pursuing a 'wrongful death' civil suit, an inadequate means of restitution in this case. A hefty finding for the plaintiff, would probably be just as punitive towards the defendant, and her continued appearance in the public eye would expose her to far more infamy and ridicule that she so richly deserves, than a prison serial number ever would.
My heart goes out to the victim, and her family.
-
Wrong
This is not a bad law. This woman used the internet and MySpace to conduct a harassment campaign of a child who died as a result. This was not someone just simply using the MySpace as it was intended but warping its use to carry out her sick campaign. Sorry but the law is behind on cyberstalking and this woman should be prosecuted as should anyone else who abuses these sites. This wasn't one wrong step or an accident but a series of steps designed to send a child over the edge.
-
I sense a leap...
Please... enlighten me.
We're all criminally acting to deliberately inflict emotional distress on our Internet neighbors?
Which act here are we defending, the act of signing up with a false identity or the act of signing up with a false identity to harass someone?
Let me be clear, I do not object to the use of false identities online, nor do I object to anonymity online. I strongly object to what end those conecepts were used, in this case.
Correct me if I am wrong (and please point how this interpretation is wrong) but aren't the courts using the location of the servers as the context for jurisdiction as a means for prosectuing the adult? I think the courts aren't necessarily making the case on the fact that the adult defrauded MySpace, so much as they are making the case the fraud was used in the conspiracy and comission of the "...tortious act, namely, intentional infliction of emotional distress,..." (Count 1).
So again... how does this prosecution make for a scary precedent? That we aren't allowed to inflict emotional distress anonymously? Oh heavens, I should buck-up and inflict it non-anonymously? Or maybe I need to not look inflict emotional distress online? I don't think we need to make laws against being rude and obnoxious online, but I wonder why people get so outraged, that when such conduct leads to unfortunate circumstances, that people expect that conduct to have no consequences?
Do people actually believe that if you act the way that this adult did that they should not be any consequences for that action? If we allow for harassment and verbal abuse cases in real life, why does the Internet provide immunity? (See, you can make leaps from the other side of the opinion as well!)
-
Fishing expedition
I don't think proscecutors can make these charges stick, and I think they may even know it. I was dismayed when I heard that Drew broke no law, but the more I thought about it, the more I wonder what kind of law we could really haul her in for breaking?
That said, I don't blame the prosecutors for charging her. Even if it doesn't stick, they've sent a message. Drew's behavior may not have been illegal, per se, but it is unacceptable. The indictment itself is a message that our society won't tolerate this kind of behavior, especially from adults.
-
@Agillious
You asked: "Which act here are we defending, the act of signing up with a false identity or the act of signing up with a false identity to harass someone?"
Neither. I'm defending the act of breaking the terms of service -- that's what she's charged with doing. That's the bad precedent: breaking the terms of service -- whatever the terms say -- makes you a criminal.
-
No threat from prosecution.
It certainly stretches credibility if the woman charged says she didn't create the account, but had access to it. So, is she implying that her daughter, a classmate of the girl who committed suicide, created the account? Not likely, since her daughter would have no motive, and apparently never had any sort of disagreement with the victim.
Without some convincing evidence to the contrary, it's safe to say at this point that indeed Lori Drew created the account for the sole purpose of inflicting emotional distress upon the victim, though the motive has yet to be discovered. She should be prosecuted and put in prison.
She clearly had malice when she created an account for this purpose, and as such needs to be held accountable for her actions. She's an adult and should have known better, but even if she didn't think her actions would result in the suicide of the victim, it doesn't excuse her actions. Prosecuting her is good law, and it will make others think more carefully before engaging in similar conduct in the future.
-
Farhad
So are you saying the proper charge is more akin to manslaughter or fraud? Or are you saying she shouldn't be prosecuted at all?
I find it hard to believe prosecutors cannot find anything else to charge her with. It is likely local prosecutors screwed up or were pressured to let it drop and the Feds stepped in because of other pressures. It is entirely possible the Feds have nothing else to charge her with, but the local laws should cover this.
It'd be nice if you could post links to some blogs, if you can find any, that suggest there are indeed things she can be prosecuted for.
-
Also
That's the bad precedent: breaking the terms of service -- whatever the terms say -- makes you a criminal.
So what should the consequences of breaking the terms of service be? Is there a lesser punishment here she should be subject to for this specific aspect of the crime?
-
@Lynx, consequences
Yes, it's a civil contract -- you sign a contract with MySpace, you violate it, you owe something (restitution, banned from MySpace, whatever the contract states) to MySpace. Breaking a contract with MySpace shouldn't land you in jail -- that would give overly-broad contracts extreme power. I could write a contract on Machinist that says that clicking on the site requires you to never say a mean word about me. (In fact, there are TOS that prevent you from using the service to disparage the company that provides it.) Violate that and you land in jail.