'My Space' hoax by scumbag family ends with suicide

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/12/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt

'My Space' hoax ends with suicide of Dardenne Prairie teen
By Steve Pokin
Monday, November 12, 2007 5:48 AM CST
His name was Josh Evans. He was 16 years old. And he was hot.
"Mom! Mom! Mom! Look at him!" Tina Meier recalls her daughter saying.
Josh had contacted Megan Meier through her MySpace page and wanted to be added as a friend.
Yes, he's cute, Tina Meier told her daughter. "Do you know who he is?"
"No, but look at him! He's hot! Please, please, can I add him?"
Mom said yes. And for six weeks Megan and Josh - under Tina's watchful eye - became acquainted in the virtual world of MySpace.
Josh said he was born in Florida and recently had moved to O'Fallon. He was homeschooled. He played the guitar and drums.
He was from a broken home: "when i was 7 my dad left me and my mom and my older brother and my newborn brother 3 boys god i know poor mom yeah she had such a hard time when we were younger finding work to pay for us after he loeft."
As for 13-year-old Megan, of Dardenne Prairie, this is how she expressed who she was:
M is for Modern
E is for Enthusiastic
G is for Goofy
A is for Alluring
N is for Neglected.
She loved swimming, boating, fishing, dogs, rap music and boys. But her life had not always been easy, her mother says.
She was heavy and for years had tried to lose weight. She had attention deficit disorder and battled depression. Back in third grade she had talked about suicide, Tina says, and ever since had seen a therapist.
But things were going exceptionally well. She had shed 20 pounds, getting down to 175. She was 5 foot 5½ inches tall.
She had just started eighth grade at a new school, Immaculate Conception, in Dardenne Prairie, where she was on the volleyball team. She had attended Fort Zumwalt public schools before that.
Amid all these positives, Tina says, her daughter decided to end a friendship with a girlfriend who lived down the street from them. The girls had spent much of seventh grade alternating between being friends and, the next day, not being friends, Tina says.
Part of the reason for Megan's rosy outlook was Josh, Tina says. After school, Megan would rush to the computer.
"Megan had a lifelong struggle with weight and self-esteem," Tina says. "And now she finally had a boy who she thought really thought she was pretty."
It did seem odd, Tina says, that Josh never asked for Megan's phone number. And when Megan asked for his, she says, Josh said he didn't have a cell and his mother did not yet have a landline.
And then on Sunday, Oct. 15, 2006, Megan received a puzzling and disturbing message from Josh. Tina recalls that it said: "I don't know if I want to be friends with you anymore because I've heard that you are not very nice to your friends."
Frantic, Megan shot back: "What are you talking about?"
SHADOWY CYBERSPACE
Tina Meier was wary of the cyber-world of MySpace and its 70 million users. People are not always who they say they are.
Tina knew firsthand. Megan and the girl down the block, the former friend, once had created a fake MySpace account, using the photo of a good-looking girl as a way to talk to boys online, Tina says. When Tina found out, she ended Megan's access.
MySpace has rules. A lot of them. There are nine pages of terms and conditions. The long list of prohibited content includes sexual material. And users must be at least 14.
"Are you joking?" Tina asks. "There are fifth-grade girls who have MySpace accounts."
As for sexual content, Tina says, most parents have no clue how much there is. And Megan wasn't 14 when she opened her account. To join, you are asked your age but there is no check. The accounts are free.
As Megan's 14th birthday approached, she pleaded for her mom to give her another chance on MySpace, and Tina relented.
She told Megan she would be all over this account, monitoring it. Megan didn't always make good choices because of her ADD, Tina says. And this time, Megan's page would be set to private and only Mom and Dad would have the password.
'GOD-AWFUL FEELING'
Monday, Oct. 16, 2006, was a rainy, bleak day. At school, Megan had handed out invitations to her upcoming birthday party and when she got home she asked her mother to log on to MySpace to see if Josh had responded.
Why did he suddenly think she was mean? Who had he been talking to?
Tina signed on. But she was in a hurry. She had to take her younger daughter, Allison, to the orthodontist.
Before Tina could get out the door it was clear Megan was upset. Josh still was sending troubling messages. And he apparently had shared some of Megan's messages with others.
Tina recalled telling Megan to sign off.
"I will Mom," Megan said. "Let me finish up."
Tina was pressed for time. She had to go. But once at the orthodontist's office she called Megan: Did you sign off?
"No, Mom. They are all being so mean to me."
"You are not listening to me, Megan! Sign off, now!"
Fifteen minutes later, Megan called her mother. By now Megan was in tears.
"They are posting bulletins about me." A bulletin is like a survey. "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat."
Megan was sobbing hysterically. Tina was furious that she had not signed off.
Once Tina returned home she rushed into the basement where the computer was. Tina was shocked at the vulgar language her daughter was firing back at people.
"I am so aggravated at you for doing this!" she told Megan.
Megan ran from the computer and left, but not without first telling Tina, "You're supposed to be my mom! You're supposed to be on my side!"
On the stairway leading to her second-story bedroom, Megan ran into her father, Ron.
"I grabbed her as she tried to go by," Ron says. "She told me that some kids were saying horrible stuff about her and she didn't understand why. I told her it's OK. I told her that they obviously don't know her. And that it would be fine."
Megan went to her room and Ron went downstairs to the kitchen, where he and Tina talked about what had happened, the MySpace account, and made dinner.
Twenty minutes later, Tina suddenly froze in mid-sentence.
"I had this God-awful feeling and I ran up into her room and she had hung herself in the closet."
Megan Taylor Meier died the next day, three weeks before her 14th birthday.
Later that day, Ron opened his daughter's MySpace account and viewed what he believes to be the final message Megan saw - one the FBI would be unable to retrieve from the hard drive.
It was from Josh and, according to Ron's best recollection, it said, "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you."
BEYOND GRIEF INTO FURY
Tina and Ron saw a grief counselor. Tina went to a couple of Parents After Loss of Suicide meetings, as well.
They tried to message Josh Evans, to let him know the deadly power of mean words. But his MySpace account had been deleted.
The day after Megan's death, they went down the street to comfort the family of the girl who had once been Megan's friend. They let the girl and her family know that although she and Megan had their ups and down, Megan valued her friendship.
They also attended the girl's birthday party, although Ron had to leave when it came time to sing "Happy Birthday." The Meiers went to the father's 50th birthday celebration. In addition, the Meiers stored a foosball table, a Christmas gift, for that family.
Six weeks after Megan died, on a Saturday morning, a neighbor down the street, a different neighbor, one they didn't know well, called and insisted that they meet that morning at a counselor's office in northern O'Fallon.
The woman would not provide details. Ron and Tina went. Their grief counselor was there. As well as a counselor from Fort Zumwalt West Middle School.
The neighbor from down the street, a single mom with a daughter the same age as Megan, informed the Meiers that Josh Evans never existed.
She told the Meiers that Josh Evans was created by adults, a family on their block. These adults, she told the Meiers, were the parents of Megan's former girlfriend, the one with whom she had a falling out. These were the people who'd asked the Meiers to store their foosball table.
The single mother, for this story, requested that her name not be used. She said her daughter, who had carpooled with the family that was involved in creating the phony MySpace account, had the password to the Josh Evans account and had sent one message - the one Megan received (and later retrieved off the hard drive) the night before she took her life.
"She had been encouraged to join in the joke," the single mother said.
The single mother said her daughter feels the guilt of not saying something sooner and for writing that message. Her daughter didn't speak out sooner because she'd known the other family for years and thought that what they were doing must be OK because, after all, they were trusted adults.
On the night the ambulance came for Megan, the single mother said, before it left the Meiers' house her daughter received a call. It was the woman behind the creation of the Josh Evans account. She had called to tell the girl that something had happened to Megan and advised the girl not to mention the MySpace account.
AX AND SLEDGEHAMMER
The Meiers went home and tore into the foosball table.
Tina used an ax and Ron a sledgehammer. They put the pieces in Ron's pickup and dumped them in their neighbor's driveway. Tina spray painted "Merry Christmas" on the box.
According to Tina, Megan had gone on vacations with this family. They knew how she struggled with depression, that she took medication.
"I know that they did not physically come up to our house and tie a belt around her neck," Tina says. "But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old - with or without mental problems - it is absolutely vile.
"She wanted to get Megan to feel like she was liked by a boy and let everyone know this was a false MySpace and have everyone laugh at her.
"I don't feel their intentions were for her to kill herself. But that's how it ended."
'GAINING MEGAN'S CONFIDENCE'
That same day, the family down the street tried to talk to the Meiers. Ron asked friends to convince them to leave before he physically harmed them.
In a letter dated Nov. 30, 2006, the family tells Ron and Tina, "We are sorry for the extreme pain you are going through and can only imagine how difficult it must be. We have every compassion for you and your family."
The Suburban Journals have decided not to name the family out of consideration for their teenage daughter.
The mother declined comment.
"I have been advised not to give out any information and I apologize for that," she says. "I would love to sit here and talk to you about it but I can't."
She was informed that without her direct comment the newspaper would rely heavily on the police report she filed with the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department regarding the destroyed foosball table.
"I will tell you that the police report is totally wrong," the mother said. "We have worked on getting that changed. I would just be very careful about what you write."
Lt. Craig McGuire, spokesman for the sheriff's department, said he is unaware of anyone contacting the department to alter the report.
"We stand behind the report as written," McGuire says. "There was no supplement to it. What is in the report is what we believe she told us."
The police report - without using the mother's name - states:
"(She) stated in the months leading up Meier's daughter's suicide, she instigated and monitored a 'my space' account which was created for the sole purpose of communicating with Meier's daughter.
"(She) said she, with the help of temporary employee named ------ constructed a profile of 'good looking' male on 'my space' in order to 'find out what Megan (Meier's daughter) was saying on-line' about her daughter. (She) explained the communication between the fake male profile and Megan was aimed at gaining Megan's confidence and finding out what Megan felt about her daughter and other people.
"(She) stated she, her daughter and (the temporary employee) all typed, read and monitored the communication between the fake male profile and Megan ..
"According to (her) 'somehow' other 'my space' users were able to access the fake male profile and Megan found out she had been duped. (She) stated she knew 'arguments' had broken out between Megan and others on 'my space.' (She) felt this incident contributed to Megan's suicide, but she did not feel 'as guilty' because at the funeral she found out 'Megan had tried to commit suicide before.'"
Tina says her daughter died thinking Josh was real and that she never before attempted suicide.
"She was the happiest she had ever been in her life," Ron says.
After years of wearing braces, Megan was scheduled to have them removed the day she died. And she was looking forward to her birthday party.
"She and her mom went shopping and bought a new dress," Ron says. "She wanted to make this grand entrance with me carrying her down the stairs. I never got to see her in that dress until the funeral."
NO CRIMINAL CHARGES
It does not appear that there will be criminal charges filed in connection with Megan's death.
"We did not have a charge to fit it," McGuire says. "I don't know that anybody can sit down and say, 'This is why this young girl took her life.'"
The Meiers say the matter also was investigated by the FBI, which analyzed the family computer and conducted interviews. Ron said a stumbling block is that the FBI was unable to retrieve the electronic messages from Megan's final day, including that final message that only Ron saw.
The Meiers do not plan to file a civil lawsuit. Here's what they want: They want the law changed, state or federal, so that what happened to Megan - at the hands of an adult - is a crime.
THE AFTERMATH IS PAIN
The Meiers are divorcing. Ron says Tina was as vigilant as a parent could be in monitoring Megan on MySpace. Yet she blames herself.
"I have this awful, horrible guilt and this I can never change," she said. "Ever."
Ron struggles daily with the loss of a daughter who, no matter how low she felt, tried to make others laugh and feel a little bit better.
He has difficulty maintaining focus and has kept his job as a tool and die maker through the grace and understanding of his employer, he says. His emotions remain jagged, on edge.
Christine Buckles lives in the same Waterford Crossing subdivision. In her view, everyone in the subdivision knows of Megan's death, but few know of the other family's involvement.
Tina says she and Ron have dissuaded angry friends and family members from vandalizing the other home for one, and only one, reason.
"The police will think we did it," Tina says.
Ron faces a misdemeanor charge of property damage. He is accused of driving his truck across the lawn of the family down the street, doing $1,000 in damage, in March. A security camera the neighbors installed on their home allegedly caught him.
It was Tina, a real estate agent, who helped the other family purchase their home on the same block 2½ years ago.
"I just wish they would go away, move," Ron says.
Vicki Dunn, Tina's aunt, last month placed signs in and near the neighborhood on the anniversary of Megan's death.
They read: "Justice for Megan Meier," "Call the St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney," and "MySpace Impersonator in Your Neighborhood."
On the window outside Megan's room is an ornamental angel that Ron turns on almost every night. Inside are pictures of boys, posters of Usher, Beyonce and on the dresser a tube of instant bronzer.
"She was all about getting a tan," Ron says.
He has placed the doors back on the closet. Megan had them off.
If only she had waited, talked to someone, or just made it to dinner, then through the evening, and then on to the beginning of a new day in what could have been a remarkable life.
If she had, he says, there is no doubt she would have chosen to live. Instead, there is so much pain.
"She never would have wanted to see her parents divorce," Ron says.
Ultimately, it was Megan's choice to do what she did, he says. "But it was like someone handed her a loaded gun."

What can you say?

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:22 (eighteen years ago)

This is possibly the most fucked up thing I've ever read

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:23 (eighteen years ago)

Dom totally OTM

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:25 (eighteen years ago)

:-(

can't the parents even be done for fraud?

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:32 (eighteen years ago)

christ....

― rizzx, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:34 (eighteen years ago)

"she did not feel 'as guilty' because at the funeral she found out 'Megan had tried to commit suicide before.'"

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:35 (eighteen years ago)

Dom OTM.

(There you go).

― Matt DC, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:37 (eighteen years ago)

That is incredibly fucked.

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:37 (eighteen years ago)

not to sound heartless but this shit happens with kids. i dont buy the moms story about her constant myspace vigilance for a minute.

― and what, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:41 (eighteen years ago)

Ethan's sadly right. :-(

― nathalie, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:42 (eighteen years ago)

Aye, true. Even so... for parents to do it. That's fucked.

― Scik Mouthy, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, bullying suicides are sadly common, but adults troll-harassing their daughter's ex to death?

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

i thought this would be about that daily mail columnist who hoaxed her son.

― Frogman Henry, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:46 (eighteen years ago)

: - O

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:49 (eighteen years ago)

delete myspace + rest of internet too

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 13:49 (eighteen years ago)

can't believe they sued for damage to the lawn

― braveclub, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:05 (eighteen years ago)

i wish criminal charges could be filed in this case because then at least police action would focus the responsibility on the actual culprits, rather than feed into a public sentiment of reactionary technophobia. there's human actors working here, and the internet doesn't come up with this shit on its own.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:08 (eighteen years ago)

I can't believe the family can't be charged with anything.

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:09 (eighteen years ago)

xxxxpost Delete myspace? Internet is not to blame; but people. Do you think that shit didn't happen before internet was here?

― nathalie, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:10 (eighteen years ago)

Guys it's a FIGURE OF SPEECH. Delete American small-town single-parent families.

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:14 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe Louis means delete the human race?

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:15 (eighteen years ago)

uh oh, i think this thread's about to lurch off topic in a messy fashion...

― stevie, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:15 (eighteen years ago)

Excellent work, Louis.

― That mong guy that's shit, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:16 (eighteen years ago)

maybe he means ctrl alt delete and go outside

the fact parents set this whole thing up is completely fucked

― rizzx, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:16 (eighteen years ago)

OTM re: single parents though, I hate those fuckers.

― That mong guy that's shit, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:16 (eighteen years ago)

Agent Jagger completes another mission

― Dom Passantino, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

a lazy memedrop is not a figure of speech, jagger. fuck yourself.

― elmo argonaut, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

i hope you're not a parent, using such language

― rizzx, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:20 (eighteen years ago)

Bulling is Rabbit

― Heave Ho, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:21 (eighteen years ago)

Lazy memedrop, eh? Maybe I was trying to convey my disgust for the situation in a manner the rest of ILX would recognise. Maybe I shudda just said "I am disgusted" and left it there. Tactical error acknowledged re: single parents, although I stress I don't have anything against them; I was making a crass rhetorical point. Ass = covered. Zing away.

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 14:21 (eighteen years ago)

that link is sick. People even bully dead kids now. wtf!

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 15:36 (eighteen years ago)

Only the dead have seen the end of zing culture

― That mong guy that's shit, Thursday, 15 November 2007 15:40 (eighteen years ago)

it's put Dardenne Prairie on the map

― DG, Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:00 (eighteen years ago)

LET YE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

Gear!'s new Craig's List experiment: men submitting haikus in hopes of random sex

― sanskrit, Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:11 (eighteen years ago)

¯\(°_o)/¯

― omar little, Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:14 (eighteen years ago)

living out near O'fallon is pretty bleak.

I am amazed they stopped at the foosball table.

"i dont buy the moms story about her constant myspace vigilance"

16 year old mysterious pretty boy is interested in your 13 year old overweight daughter, something ain't right.

― bnw, Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:15 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think this would make her the first parent to have unrealistic hopes for their children's popularity.

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

LET YE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

Now I feel bad about the fake emails I once sent to the creepy submissive guy who gave his email address to an erstwhile female Ilxor in an internet cafe :/

― Matt DC, Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:21 (eighteen years ago)

"i dont buy the moms story about her constant myspace vigilance"

A lot of parents have heard too many scare stories to allow kids unsupervised access to the internet though.

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:06 (eighteen years ago)

not much to say, this is fucked in the extreme.

true that this kind of behavior is pre-internet. a daughter of a family friend crossed the wrong girl at school; afterward they had their phone ringing once, intermittently, all night, for weeks.

― gff, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

unrelated

― s1ocki, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:11 (eighteen years ago)

um, by "this kind of behavior" i mean: parental involvement or at least approval of bullying. and more broadly: i feel pretty lucky that nothing like this ever happened to me. high school is fucking miserable.

― gff, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:16 (eighteen years ago)

this is gross

― gbx, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

i know someone who had a fake myspace created by some girls in her school (i think?) called "xxxxxx's aborted fetus" - the fake added all her friends and posted lots of pro-life uh, imagery and personal details about the this girl's abortion. i'm not sure if it was motivated by pro-life nutjobbery or just brutal teenage girl harassment, but luckily the target in this case was mature and able to handle it...it doesn't surprise me at all that someone would become suicidal over something like this.

― bell_labs, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

ugh. it sucks to be 14, for everyone.

― max, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:32 (eighteen years ago)

This kind of thing happened to me a couple times in middle school. I can only be glad that myspace didn't exist then?

― Melissa W, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:33 (eighteen years ago)

i mean, it sounds like the two parents didnt send any of the shitty messages--it was the other girl, with the single mom. and she's 14, and she didnt really have any clue what was going on, and she was trusting other parents. and for the rest of her life shes going to be in therapy dealing with what happened.

― max, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:33 (eighteen years ago)

I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that the parents were involved in this whole scheme.

― mike a, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:34 (eighteen years ago)

Single mom's daughter (allegedly) only sent one message (and not the final one) - the mother who set it up only claims that she didn't send any of the later messages, 'some other people' who remain nameless did.

Aside from the horrible main story here, what kind of parents get so involved in their kids' minor squabbles (as this started out) to set up a fake MySpace profiles and spy on people?

― milo z, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:36 (eighteen years ago)

i dont get the whole "employee" bit. she hired someone to help her harrass this kid?

― sunny successor, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:38 (eighteen years ago)

unfortunately none of it really surprises me because there are def lots of parents who like to live vicariously through their children's school social lives, even if that includes tacit approval of their bullying.

― omar little, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:39 (eighteen years ago)

Aside from the horrible main story here, what kind of parents get so involved in their kids' minor squabbles (as this started out) to set up a fake MySpace profiles and spy on people?

Scumbags

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:41 (eighteen years ago)

suing for damages to the lawn post-suicide is more scummy than the original deed.

― J0rdan S., Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

how are adults so fucking delusional sometimes?

― J0rdan S., Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:44 (eighteen years ago)

clearly they were educated at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1984/gallery/340/scumbag.jpg

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:46 (eighteen years ago)

suing for damages to the lawn post-suicide is more scummy than the original deed.

-- J0rdan S., Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:43 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

dude, seriously. yeah, wanton destruction of private property, but still. maybe just think to yourself "well....maybe we deserved that."

― gbx, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:46 (eighteen years ago)

"i dont buy the moms story about her constant myspace vigilance"

Please. On the levels of causation that's way tenuous compared to what the other Mom did. What a sick disgusting "prank". Even if criminal charges would be futile, I guarantee a civil suit could get a pound of flesh, not like that would bring the daughter back. I feel horrible reading stuff like that.

― Bill Magill, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:46 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think you can blame the mother for not monitoring her daughter's every action on MySpace. A lot of parents would find that difficult, even those without emotionally unstable kids. Hey, teenagers go behind their parents backs, it's what happens, especially when the opposite sex is involved.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

It's like I always say: Don't hate the obnoxious child. Hate the parents.

― mike a, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:00 (eighteen years ago)

I agree with whoever said destroy all humans

― El Tomboto, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

I think we can hate the obnoxious child a little bit, too.

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

This is possibly the most fucked up thing I've ever read

-- Dom Passantino, Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:23 PM

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:03 (eighteen years ago)

Bell's story just twisted the knife on the bad-enough one up top. I feel kinda bad for the other kid, too -- her parents might just continue to be psycho, but her life will ... umm, this will not be a pleasant thing to have in your childhood, or in your relationship with your parents, or really anything.

― nabisco, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:18 (eighteen years ago)

I didn't read to the end of this article because I was too sickened by it. I am still sickened by the situation, but now I'm also completely befuddled by this:

On the window outside Megan's room is an ornamental angel that Ron turns on almost every night. Inside are pictures of boys, posters of Usher, Beyonce and on the dresser a tube of instant bronzer.
"She was all about getting a tan," Ron says.

waht

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:22 (eighteen years ago)

this is a very strangely written story

― deej, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:23 (eighteen years ago)

"i dont buy the moms story about her constant myspace vigilance"

I think he was just commenting on the embellishment and not laying blame. Obviously it's the psycho parents, not the mom who didn't watch computer time closely enough.

― Will M., Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:24 (eighteen years ago)

this is a very strangely written story

-- deej, Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

deej it's a paper from O' Fallon, MO.

― J0rdan S., Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:25 (eighteen years ago)

The Suburban Journals have decided not to name the family out of consideration for their teenage daughter.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

having seen how young girls can go from BFFs to epic comic book-level nemeses, and the way parents and family members can totally takes sides and egg on those kinds of adolescent feuds, I have to admit this doesn't quite shock me as much as it probably should. and i half-expected this to be a revived thread from 2 years ago.

― Alex in Baltimore, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

the girl sounds like she had a little bit more going on than ADD and depression (not a justification, obviously).

― max, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:29 (eighteen years ago)

The mother of one of our female friends from freshman year high school decided that John and I were starting a Satanic suicide cult based off of reading John's poetry and called a meeting of the parents of all of our other mutual friends in order to warn them and organize a group shunning/character assassination. (IIRC, the local police got involved as well, mostly to apologize to John's family for bothering them because this woman apparently called them a lot about this type of thing with almost everyone she encountered.)

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

(obv there were no suicides because of this, so small potatoes in comparison)

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

so...you guys aren't satanists?

― omar little, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

crazy. how is your cult going, btw?

xpost :\

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

stuff like this honestly makes me feel way more scared shitless about the prospect of having children than, say, how fucked the environment will be by the time they're adults or whatever.

― Alex in Baltimore, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:35 (eighteen years ago)

ITR is killing YOUR kids

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

lol I was about to say SEE FOR YOURSELVES but Louis beat me to it.

(note to self: bump Louis up on the sacrifice list)

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Dalek_Exterminate_all_humans.ogg

― Heave Ho, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

dude can't you just punch me and call it a blood-sacrifice?

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:40 (eighteen years ago)

just punch me

-- Just got offed, Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:40 PM (56 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

― gff, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:41 (eighteen years ago)

dude can't you just punch me ~~and call it a blood-~~sac~~rifice~~?

-- Just got offed,

― omar little, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

*genuine lols*

― Just got offed, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

one can only hope that some of this Satanic poetry still exists, just waiting to be posted here

― milo z, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:52 (eighteen years ago)

Well maybe not HERE.

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 18:56 (eighteen years ago)

in...hell?

― gff, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

That's such a sad story.

― libcrypt, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:20 (eighteen years ago)

You're not kidding.

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:39 (eighteen years ago)

the way parents and family members can totally takes sides and egg on those kinds of adolescent feuds

wasn't there a case recently in the uk in which a girl got her mother and father involved in a feud with a former friend , which culminated in the father setting fire to the other girl's home (with her and her family inside)?

― lauren, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:39 (eighteen years ago)

that certainly trumps the texas cheerleader mom.

― chicago kevin, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

Not on this thread, I meant. (Or possibly anywhere, it all depends on whether John kept the poetry. Or whether he gave it to Sara, because if she has it it's definitely going up on ITR.)

― HI DERE, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

wasn't there a case recently in the uk in which a girl got her mother and father involved in a feud with a former friend , which culminated in the father setting fire to the other girl's home (with her and her family inside)?

Yeah. I think there's a thread on here about it.

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:42 (eighteen years ago)

this is horrifying stuff.

i hope people harass that dreadful woman for the rest of her life.

― J.D., Thursday, 15 November 2007 19:59 (eighteen years ago)

Then she will appear on a chat show claiming to be a victim.

― Herman G. Neuname, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:01 (eighteen years ago)

It always depresses me when I realize some adults are no more mature than kids.

― Tuomas, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

you can avoid this by not unrealizing it!

― wanko ergo sum, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

I had a myspace hate group created for me last summer

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

it was called Mod Requests

― Noodle Vague, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

hahaha

― roxymuzak, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:19 (eighteen years ago)

stuff like this honestly makes me feel . . . scared shitless about the prospect of having children

I have a six-year old daughter. I've seen others here mention they have kids.

I was stunned reading this article. I felt such immediate hatred for the adults who facilitated this poor girl's death by setting up that fake MySpace account. Words fail. Still: Damn them.

― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:21 (eighteen years ago)

ugh god fuck the world

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

Goren & Eames would figure out how to put that couple down the street away

― El Tomboto, Thursday, 15 November 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

Horatio Caine could dig up that last, damning Myspace message.

― milo z, Thursday, 15 November 2007 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

csi: miami had this awful kiss-off line a couple weeks back:

murderer: i won't tell you where the gold is because when i get out, it'll be waiting for me! lol!
horatio: the thing is, you won't be getting out.
murderer: (crestfallen look)

― omar little, Thursday, 15 November 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

: (

― M@tt He1ges0n, Thursday, 15 November 2007 22:16 (eighteen years ago)

you fucked that up, it goes:

murderer: i won't tell you where the gold is because when i get out, it'll be waiting for me! lol!
horatio: the thing is, you won't be getting out. (puts on sunglasses)
cue "Won't Get Fooled Again"

― sanskrit, Thursday, 15 November 2007 22:54 (eighteen years ago)

"She was all about getting a tan," Ron says.

wut

strangely written story for sure.

ugh god fuck the world

nah, just this country.

― rockapads, Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:21 (eighteen years ago)

i read this a few days ago and almost made this thread, but i didn't want to keep thinking about it. oh well. i agree with tombot.

― elan, Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:33 (eighteen years ago)

xpost ya.

i cannot imagine having the current internet when i was a teenager. i already had enough weird pervs IMing me on AOL when i was that age.

― the table is the table, Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:52 (eighteen years ago)

young teenager, i mean.

― the table is the table, Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:53 (eighteen years ago)

I used to use IRC a lot in my earlier 20s and at one point, this girl I did not know (had never met her but she was dating an ex of mine who I got on fine with) started an IRC group, called it "truthtime" and proceeded to invite everyone I knew even remotely on IRC to it to inform them all I was a lying, manipulative scumbag bitch. For no reason at all. I'd never said a word to her.

The fact this was someone in their 20s was more than a little distirbingly LOLworthy and wtf.

― Trayce, Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:57 (eighteen years ago)

And I can't spell disturbingly.

― Trayce, Thursday, 15 November 2007 23:58 (eighteen years ago)

Nowadays kids have to worry about bullying by internet and text alongside the traditional forms. Wouldn't be a kid now for anything.

― Herman G. Neuname, Friday, 16 November 2007 00:20 (eighteen years ago)

Aye it was bad enough when they just did it in person. God why are teenagers so foul?

― Trayce, Friday, 16 November 2007 00:22 (eighteen years ago)

It happens way before they become teenagers! Even in our day!

― Herman G. Neuname, Friday, 16 November 2007 00:25 (eighteen years ago)

Good point I was bullied in primary school too now I think about it. Not too badly though. There's a special evil that is the teenage girl, that cannot be outdone for sheer fucked up nasty.

― Trayce, Friday, 16 November 2007 00:32 (eighteen years ago)

blogger outs the anonymous parents

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 16 November 2007 05:08 (eighteen years ago)

I guess I don't blame them for not filing a civil suit: months or years of legal hassles and disrupted life would be hard enough to deal with even without having just lost a kid. I guess vigilante blogging will have to do.

― Jesse, Friday, 16 November 2007 06:00 (eighteen years ago)

I guess.

― Jesse, Friday, 16 November 2007 06:00 (eighteen years ago)

did someone post this?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/blog-readers-ou.html

― czn, Friday, 16 November 2007 09:11 (eighteen years ago)

God why are teenagers so foul?

Adult role models.

I've never seen a hideous adolescent deed that hasn't been outdone by someone much older. This story is gut-churning.

― Lostandfound, Friday, 16 November 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

I have no problem with the outing. If they aren't subject to criminal punishment, an old fashioned Scarlet Letter will do. Time for them to call a realtor.

― Bill Magill, Friday, 16 November 2007 14:59 (eighteen years ago)

What a depressing story, and what a bunch of stupid, horrible, hateful turds.

― Pashmina, Friday, 16 November 2007 15:06 (eighteen years ago)

This is the main reason my high-school age sibs don't use myspace. No kidding.

My youngest brother did start a video game/anarchist's cookbook msg board tho...not the kind of thing that would be an internet flamewar assassination (tho knowing their love of exploding stuff it might lead to them getting burnt, literally)

― Abbott, Friday, 16 November 2007 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

The parents of the girl who died are going to be on Anderson Cooper tonight, according to some promo CNN ran awhile back. Just FYI if anyone's interested.

― Clay, Friday, 16 November 2007 21:34 (eighteen years ago)

http://jezebel.com/gossip/drew-no-blood/are-the-parents-who-myspace+tormented-megan-meier-into-killing-herself-ready-to-atone-um-323254.php

― Herman G. Neuname, Friday, 16 November 2007 21:41 (eighteen years ago)

http://whois.sc/loridrew.com

Hurray for the internet

― Heave Ho, Friday, 16 November 2007 21:44 (eighteen years ago)

maybe 4chan will go after them?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Friday, 16 November 2007 22:01 (eighteen years ago)

This story is just vile.
Also, "Parents After Loss of Suicide" - is making my head hurt

― Not the real Village People, Friday, 16 November 2007 23:51 (eighteen years ago)

BY KGIBBS AT 11/15/07 01:54 PM
So sad.
But I do have one question. Has Lauren Conrad single handedly brought out the term "bad person" as being the new "cunt"?

― Alex in Baltimore, Saturday, 17 November 2007 00:34 (eighteen years ago)

I did lol at that.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 17 November 2007 00:39 (eighteen years ago)

Perpetrator being outed is NOT going to be good for her daughter in any way: I'm amazed people/commenters can't figure out why the original story didn't name and shame, with a minor involved.

― nabisco, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:01 (eighteen years ago)

I'm glad to see Nabisco's post. I'm VERY glad. He articulated something I had been feeling but had not been able to entirely put into words.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:02 (eighteen years ago)

agreed

― gbx, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:05 (eighteen years ago)

this part won't end well either, i'm guessing.

― omar little, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:11 (eighteen years ago)

How bad should we feel for the daughter if she was in on it?

― milo z, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:13 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, harassing the parents isn't going to do their daughter any favors.

― Oilyrags, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:14 (eighteen years ago)

from what i gathered the parents spearheaded it and they seemed to be the vindictive ones here. shit, at 13 who the hell really knows the consequences of their actions when it comes to social bullshit.

― omar little, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:17 (eighteen years ago)

Hey Oily on an unrelated matter I just sent you an email.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:20 (eighteen years ago)

xp that is

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:20 (eighteen years ago)

...and replied.

― Oilyrags, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:21 (eighteen years ago)

Perpetrator being outed is NOT going to be good for her daughter in any way: I'm amazed people/commenters can't figure out why the original story didn't name and shame, with a minor involved.

-- nabisco, Friday, November 16, 2007 7:01 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

in the article, the writer said "we decided to withold the name of the parents for the safety of the daughter". that said, i can't say that i'd be mad if people started vigorously harrasing these two people, esp with the amount of defiance they've showed (cf suing the freaking dead girls parents over their lawn).

― J0rdan S., Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:26 (eighteen years ago)

also i'd venture to say that the people who would be "harassing" this girl— mainly her peers— already knew, if not definitively than probably with a lot of certainty, that it was this girl's parents. i'm sure it wasn't a secret that her and the girl who committed suicide weren't friends anymore. i don't think she is going to be dealing with an onslaught of harassment, or much more than she probably has already.

― J0rdan S., Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:29 (eighteen years ago)

whoa, the death threats are trickling in:

http://gardnerlinn.com/flagpoleletter2.jpg

― sanskrit, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:33 (eighteen years ago)

Sanskrit, is that for real? If so, (a) where did it come from and (b) who is it defending: The adults behind the fake MySpace page?

Sorry if those are horribly dense questions. I'm taking the image and your comment at face value.

― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:43 (eighteen years ago)

It's a letter to Trife.

― milo z, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:45 (eighteen years ago)

totally inappropriate lols

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

Daniel, that letter is not Megan-Meir-related. It's a letter to an ILXor written by one of his crazy IRL stalkers.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:54 (eighteen years ago)

Scary.

― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, 17 November 2007 01:56 (eighteen years ago)

LOLOLOL

― sanskrit, Saturday, 17 November 2007 02:29 (eighteen years ago)

Nabisco & Nedders correct for real. It made total since that the victim's family didn't want anyone at all to vandalize of revenge the other family in case it got blamed on them. But it would. They'd have to live the life of the Count of Monte Cristo to get away with this shit.

I am certain if that happened to a child of mine, I would move as far away as I could.

― Abbott, Saturday, 17 November 2007 02:34 (eighteen years ago)

A general update on the legal front.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 November 2007 05:48 (eighteen years ago)

Five hundred to a thousand e-mails? If someone did that by phone, they'd at least be charged with harassment, right?

Also, why are some people amazed that Megan liked to tan? Lots of people do, and in this case it probably helped with her self-image problems.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Saturday, 17 November 2007 07:34 (eighteen years ago)

Who is?

― roxymuzak, Saturday, 17 November 2007 08:02 (eighteen years ago)

Amazed that her parents would commemorate it. Unless she really, really, REALLY liked to tan.

― nickn, Saturday, 17 November 2007 08:53 (eighteen years ago)

The story doesn't give the impression that her parents are commemorating it. The only change that's been made to the room, it seems, is that her father put the doors back on her closet. And Roxy, a couple comments above seem wondering at the tanning thing.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Saturday, 17 November 2007 09:23 (eighteen years ago)

Also, when someone dies, anything is likely to spark memories.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Saturday, 17 November 2007 09:25 (eighteen years ago)

unrelated but why is my dick tanner than the rest of me?

― chaki, Saturday, 17 November 2007 10:45 (eighteen years ago)

LOL i DID NOT WRITE THAT

― chaki, Saturday, 17 November 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

In that police report, the woman down the street told a sheriff's deputy she created the MySpace page to see what Megan was saying about her daughter. She also said the account was monitored by her, her daughter and an 18-year-old part-time employee.

was this so the fake teenage boy could seem more authentic?

― gr8080, Saturday, 17 November 2007 17:41 (eighteen years ago)

hi chaki

― Dick Tanner, Saturday, 17 November 2007 18:31 (eighteen years ago)

xpost to gr8, Yeah, I would bet he was the kid in the pictures.

― roxymuzak, Saturday, 17 November 2007 18:36 (eighteen years ago)

if he wuz in the pictures wouldnt he be recognized? its not a big town, after all.

― Dick Tanner, Saturday, 17 November 2007 18:42 (eighteen years ago)

Likely, if he was in the same town as them.

― roxymuzak, Saturday, 17 November 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

I'd say a civil suit would be worth trying, except that the email(s?) which allegedly sent Megan over the edge couldn't be retrieved from the hard drive (h'mmm...)Might be the major impediment to civil as well as criminal prosecution, although are there enough left to establish a pattern? And can origin of these emails be proved (even if sender can't be established, the person who set up account, involved others in plot, etc). But surely, if the mother filed a police report (*and* BTW spilled the beans, which indicates mixed emotions, shall we say) and pressed charges against Megan's father for damage to her lawn, she'd try to blame Megan's parents for any vigilante action---although she might have more of a case against the bloggers who outed her, and Wired for allowing posts with info, and maybe even ILX for links to same--?

― dow, Sunday, 18 November 2007 05:37 (eighteen years ago)

...although if she did sue every place that posted links, she'd have to sue the whole Internetz...

― dow, Sunday, 18 November 2007 05:42 (eighteen years ago)

I think that second sentence is bullshit. You learn what is right and wrong based on the consequences of your actions in addition to whatever values are instilled in you by your parents/community. Protecting the daughter because she didn't really have anything to do with it is one thing; protecting her because the poor thing was too young to realize what she was doing is just wrong, IMO.

Also, why are some people amazed that Megan liked to tan?

I was boggling at that is because of the way it's written; it sounds like there's a giant angel filled with boyband members and self-tanner that the parents are keeping around to remind themselves of their daughter. It's an issue of poor writing.

― HI DERE, Sunday, 18 November 2007 05:57 (eighteen years ago)

I'd say a civil suit would be worth trying. . .

I thought the victim's family -- to its credit -- didn't want to sue. If they did, I wonder if this is one of those very rare cases where one could prosecute a claim for "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress." Maybe Cutty (a fellow attorney) can comment on this.

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 18 November 2007 06:01 (eighteen years ago)

proving intent...? (Apparently claimed she wanted to find out what Magan thought of her daughter)

― dow, Sunday, 18 November 2007 06:03 (eighteen years ago)

If that was ever true, it changed when those adults (as the fake MySpace character) began belittling and bullying Megan.

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 18 November 2007 06:08 (eighteen years ago)

If an email trail can be discerned(what *was* the FBI able to retrieve? And who's got it? Who's seen it, for that matter?) I'm all for a suit, if they've got enough evidence.

― dow, Sunday, 18 November 2007 06:21 (eighteen years ago)

it's not bullshit, son!! sure, at 13 we all knew there are consequences to actions but i doubt a 13 yr old knows the consequences could be this severe. if the parents of the girl are this awful then the kid never really has had a chance to learn right from wrong properly, so i sorta feel sorry for her even though she's probably an evil demon seed even without their influence. unless of course this is all the parents' doing.

― omar little, Sunday, 18 November 2007 22:06 (eighteen years ago)

if the parents of the girl are this awful then the kid never really has had a chance to learn right from wrong properly

this is a good point

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 18 November 2007 22:32 (eighteen years ago)

Unless her parents have been home-schooling her keeping her away from society, she has met enough people by age 13 to form opinons on right and wrong that are independent of her parents'. Regardless, even if all she knows are her parents' values, lessons like these will show her precisely how fucked up they are.

― HI DERE, Sunday, 18 November 2007 22:42 (eighteen years ago)

all i mean is that this girl couldn't have possibly known what could have happened here, and the parents--based on what megan's parents have said--knew all too well based on their awareness of megan's problems (unless they're complete mental midgets which for all intents and purposes they probably are). for all we know this girl could have known what was up to a certain degree, but didn't know the content of the messages. either way it could have been just "fun" to her, a little typical schoolyard junior high crap-via-internet. kids do that all the time and sure they know it's mean and nasty, but they don't really think it through completely.

― omar little, Sunday, 18 November 2007 22:50 (eighteen years ago)

Pokin's new column.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 18 November 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/

― jaymc, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:00 (eighteen years ago)

that's just sick.

― elmo argonaut, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:23 (eighteen years ago)

Delete humanity. Please.

― JN$OT, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:25 (eighteen years ago)

"She was hot for this one boy in our math class and she was trying to be a flirt but she was being totally slutty at him until sara this other girl she talked to said she didn't think he was very hot and boom! suddenly megan wasn't intrested in him anymore and called him a loser in front of everyone."

someone diagram this sentence, please

― akm, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:31 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.bullycide.org/wholeshot.jpg

― sanskrit, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:32 (eighteen years ago)

Jesus fucking Christ, I just read that story and that blog and just threw up in my mouth a little. I fucking despise humanity right now.

Her poor parents.

― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:43 (eighteen years ago)

don't read the comments then

― Ste, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 14:58 (eighteen years ago)

More on the legal front -- as in, can any laws be passed that effectively addresses something like this?

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 16:09 (eighteen years ago)

I love people's solution on those comments. "Bullying is wrong! To teach Lor1 Drew a lesson, let's bully her in incredibly criminal ways!"

― Will M., Wednesday, 21 November 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

Things are about to get truly strange:

A federal grand jury in Los Angeles has begun issuing subpoenas in the case of a Missouri teenager who hanged herself after being rejected by the person she thought was a 16-year-old boy she met on MySpace, sources told The Times.
...
Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, however, are exploring the possibility of charging Drew with defrauding the MySpace social networking website by allegedly creating the false account, according to the sources, who insisted on anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the case.
The sources said prosecutors are looking at federal wire fraud and cyber fraud statutes as they consider the case. Prosecutors believe they have jurisdiction because MySpace is headquartered in Beverly Hills, the sources said.
It's still unclear who created the fictitious account. In a police report, Drew told authorities she, with the aid of a temporary employee, "instigated and monitored" a fake profile prior to Megan's suicide, "for the sole purpose of communicating" with the girl and to see what the girl was saying about Drew's daughter.
...
The news came as a shock to Tina and Ron Meier, Megan's parents. Both said they were unaware of the grand jury and had not been contacted by the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.
"If MySpace is considered the victim, fine. I don't care at this point," said Tina Meier, 37. "We've been begging for someone -- anyone -- to pick up this case. If the Drews can be charged -- and even get the chance to be convicted -- it would be a day I could be happy with."
...
Former federal prosecutor Brian C. Lysaght said such a prosecution would be "not as much of a reach as it might appear at first glance." In recent years, he said, Congress has passed a series of statutes that make criminal conduct involving the Internet federal offenses.
Still, it could be difficult to draw the line between constitutionally protected free speech and conduct that is illegal.
Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the idea of using a fraud charge to tackle the unusual case was "an interesting and novel approach."
"But I doubt it's really going to lead to the type of punishment people really want to see, which is this woman being held responsible for this girl's death," she said.
Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said that if the grand jury brings an indictment, it could raise 1st Amendment issues and questions about how to fairly enforce such a law on the Internet, where pseudo-identities are common.
"This may be a net that catches a lot of people," she said.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

Meantime, an overview story. I note without comment this near the end:

Today, the Drews' phones ring unanswered, and video cameras mounted on the roof of their white rambler pan the property for trespassers. Curtains remain drawn, and a weary-looking man who answers the door politely refuses to comment, saying only that "we need to tread very softly right now."
Neighbors say they often see strangers drive slowly past the Drews' house and hear shouts in the night: Murderer! Burn in hell, Lori!
The sheriff's department increased patrols in the neighborhood, and Drew went into hiding with her daughter. The Drews' advertising business was forced to close, and Curt Drew's affiliation with a local realty firm was severed. Their daughter, now 15, has been too shaken to return to school, and Ashley Grills is under psychiatric care after threatening to hurt herself, according to county prosecutor Jack Banas, who decried the "vigilante mentality."

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 January 2008 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

Moby Dick to thread. The LA Times piece was remarkable for the serious publication of the premise that someone could be prosecuted for putting up a deceitful or fraudulent webpage on MySpace. Haw. Dismantle Internet.

― Gorge, Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:43 (eighteen years ago)

That is a scary thought.

My attorney has advised me to notify you all "Thermo Thinwall" is not my actual name.
No misrepresentation here, move along.

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:57 (eighteen years ago)

The first thing MySpace needs to do with their millions is purge themselves of fake users. And delete friend whores.

― Wrinklepaws, Thursday, 10 January 2008 20:59 (eighteen years ago)

get burned there, wrink?

― gff, Thursday, 10 January 2008 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

http://korea.assembly.go.kr/abo/zin_read.jsp?cha=6&boarditemid=1000002573

america: slow

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 10 January 2008 21:02 (eighteen years ago)

The first thing MySpace needs to do with their millions is purge themselves of fake users. And delete friend whores.

-- Wrinklepaws

That would reduce my friend count to 0, Wrinklepaws.

― moley, Thursday, 10 January 2008 21:04 (eighteen years ago)

four months pass...

Whoah:

A federal grand jury in Los Angeles today indicted a woman of fraudulently using a MySpace.com account to "cyber-bully" a Missouri teenager who later hanged herself because she believed she was being rejected by a 16-year-old boy she met on the social networking website.
Lori Drew, 49, of O'Fallon, Mo., faces three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl and one count of conspiracy.
The case set off a national furor when it was revealed that 13-year-old Megan Meier was the victim of a hoax perpetrated by Drew, who was the mother of one of the girl's former friends.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 15 May 2008 19:50 (seventeen years ago)

Setting aside the thorny legal issues presented by this indictment, my heart breaks every time I read a quote from the victim's parents.

― Daniel, Esq., Thursday, 15 May 2008 19:56 (seventeen years ago)

20 years, good.

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:00 (seventeen years ago)

I'm all for this woman being punished, but not this way.

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:24 (seventeen years ago)

I'm all for this woman being punished, but not this way.

-- jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:24 (1 minute ago) Link

She should be punished on the internet?

― S-, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:26 (seventeen years ago)

you'd prefer public stoning?

― electricsound, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:26 (seventeen years ago)

xpost

― electricsound, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:26 (seventeen years ago)

public sonning.

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:31 (seventeen years ago)

yes that poor woman, she came clean, admitted what she did, apologized for her actions, obviously learned her lesson, realized the problem wasn't her actions but the scale of the victim's response.

oh wait, she didn't do any of that, instead she tried to get a teenager to cover up for her and not cooperate w/ an investigation.

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:37 (seventeen years ago)

ooops, should say "realized the problem was her own actions and not the scale of the victim's response"

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:38 (seventeen years ago)

I would like her to be prosecuted under a legal theory that will actually hold up over time.

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:45 (seventeen years ago)

i would like for her to go to jail for a long fucking time

― J0rdan S., Friday, 16 May 2008 06:48 (seventeen years ago)

vahid otfm

― J0rdan S., Friday, 16 May 2008 06:49 (seventeen years ago)

Bravo to the LA feds.

Drew is charged with one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information.

The theory is criminal conspiracy to commit wire fraud and harassment. Unauthorized access to a computer is an appropriate charge because it goes to the heart of what made the crime possible in the first place.

MySpace has rules. A lot of them. There are nine pages of terms and conditions. The long list of prohibited content includes sexual material. And users must be at least 14.

If the evidence exists, the prosecution will stir it up and pave the way to a civil case even if a conviction doesn't stick.

I'm all for this woman being punished, but not this way.

-- jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 06:24 (1 minute ago) Link

She should be punished on the internet?

-- S-, Thursday, May 15, 2008 11:26 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

A punishment fitting the crime would be to require all communications with the rest of society to be conducted solely through MySpace for the duration of a prison term. Luckily for the defendants, the Eighth Amendment prohibits it.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 07:16 (seventeen years ago)

I tell this story to a lot of people and some are so aghast they don't even believe me.

Fuck the wowd.

― Abbott, Friday, 16 May 2008 18:07 (seventeen years ago)

smacks a wee bit of opportunism on the part of the feds, maybe? but, yknow, so fkn what. go get em!

― gff, Friday, 16 May 2008 18:10 (seventeen years ago)

^^ people took this line on little rock too, i'm sure

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 18:46 (seventeen years ago)

I would like her to be prosecuted under a legal theory that will actually hold up over time.

-- jeff

well seeing as you've done such a good job of outlining the problems w/ the case ...

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 18:47 (seventeen years ago)

I'm not a lawyer but this seems to set a terrible precedent - creating a fake MySpace account is a federal crime that can get a 20 year sentence? A lot of people out there could be in a lot of trouble.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 18:51 (seventeen years ago)

Uh I think it's what she did with the fake MySpace account that is the crime here. I don't see much chance this is used to prosecute Joe Troll for posting on ILX under a bunch of pseudonyms.

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 18:59 (seventeen years ago)

RIP fake Friendster friends ;_;

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:00 (seventeen years ago)

Unfortunately, the way the law works is rather literalist - again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the specific statue being applied refers to the fact that she created the MySpace account with fradulent information - the statute says nothing about playing mind-games on an emotionally unstable adolescent.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:01 (seventeen years ago)

Mind you I'm NOT a lawyer, but nothing about "three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl and one count of conspiracy" indicates to me that we should expect Marcello to be prosecuted any time soon.

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:01 (seventeen years ago)

Sure this time it's Cruella Deville preying on a tragic innocent girl, but who knows how this precedent could be used in the future - perhaps for politically-opportune prosecutions or to go after other undesirables who haven't done anything strictly illegal.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:04 (seventeen years ago)

Again I think the issue here is less about providing the fraudulent info to MySpace, but more about what she did with the account. If you think this is going to result in a wave of fake MySpace account prosecutions well I can't dissuade you, but frankly I think y'all are being a bit Chicken Little-ish here.

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:07 (seventeen years ago)

Is the "to obtain information to inflict emotional distress on the girl" part of the statute she's being prosecuted against or an editorial insert on the part of the reporter/newspaper?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:07 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah without reading the indictment itself it's not entirely clear.

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:08 (seventeen years ago)

"The indictment alleges that she provided false information when she registered for the MySpace account and violated various aspects of the company's terms of service, including prohibitions on soliciting information from anyone under 18 and using information obtained from MySpace to "harass, abuse or harm" other people."

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:10 (seventeen years ago)

"The federal statute under which Drew is charged is more often used to prosecute defendants who have hacked into computers with the intent of causing damage or improperly accessed computers for financial gain, legal experts said."

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:10 (seventeen years ago)

Since when is violating MySpace terms of service a federal crime?

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:11 (seventeen years ago)

uh fraud is a federal crime, no?

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:11 (seventeen years ago)

i mean, wire fraud or whatever it is if you make fraud phone calls to someone in another state

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:12 (seventeen years ago)

Just guessing but one might think the MySpace regs reflect the law as it stands.

How would this be different from 'grooming' some underage girl - clearly illegal fraudulent online behaviour - in the eyes of the law?

― suzy, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:12 (seventeen years ago)

like basically if you're against this you're saying it's OK to write fake nigerian bank email scams or make crank calls ... sure, kids make crank calls, but kids also push shopping carts into busy intersections and throw rocks off of overpasses (i did, anyway). should it not be illegal to make crank calls?

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:13 (seventeen years ago)

Fraud can be a crime. It depends on the circumstances I think. This case doesn't seem to clearly fit the usual definition of fraud.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:16 (seventeen years ago)

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/myspace-indictm.html

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:16 (seventeen years ago)

FTR this guy agrees with o. nate:

The MySpace mom's prosecution threatens us all

The grisly facts of the case you already know: In 2006, according to law enforcement officials, Lori Drew, a 49-year-old mother in O'Fallon, Mo., created a fake MySpace account under the name Josh Evans, whom she cooked up as a 16-year-old boy new to town. Prosecutors say Drew used the phony profile to set up an online relationship with Megan Meier, a 13-year-old classmate of Drew's daughter. And then, to viciously dump Meier.

"The world would be a better place" without Meier, "Evans" told the girl one his last messages to her. It was a blow that drove Meier to suicide.

Drew's actions have been called "cyberbullying," "cyberbaiting," and other such techno-neologisms, an indication of their awful novelty. Prosecutors in her state have tried and failed to find any laws that she may have violated, another sign that we're wandering, here, into an unchartered social realm.

If Drew really did what officials say she did, it seems obvious she should be punished for it, somehow. (Drew has repeatedly denied that she created the account, but has acknowledged having access to it.)

It's this impulse that federal prosecutors in Southern California were acting upon when they charged Drew this week with various computer security crimes. The prosecutors are on the side of right -- unfortunately, in their zeal to punish Drew, they've stretched the law too far, and in the process, they've endangered us all.

There are no laws against cyberbullying, as Wired.com's excellent Kim Zetter explains. Drew's specific crime, according to prosecutors, stems from her alleged violation of MySpace's "terms of service" -- a lengthy legal document by which you implicitly agree to abide when you're using the site.

MySpace's contract sets down a big list of MySpace no-nos, among them:

impersonating or attempting to impersonate another Member, person or entity;

using any information obtained from the MySpace Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person or entity, or attempting to do the same;

Normally breaking these rules would result only in a breach of a civil contract with MySpace -- and, thus, no major punishment.

Here's where the law-stretching occurs: In breaking the contract with MySpace, prosecutors say Drew is criminally responsible. She can go to jail, in other words, for failing to heed the legal terms of a Web site she clicked on.

This is very bad law. Nearly every site on the planet includes a lengthy terms page, many of them with terribly vague, over-broad proscriptions of the sort lawyers are very fond.

If prosecutors were given wide freedoms to charge folks who violated such things, there wouldn't be enough jails on the planet to house us hoodlums.

MySpace's TOS, for instance, also prohibits posting material that "constitutes or promotes information that you know is false or misleading." How many gossipy teenagers would be hauled into the pokey on that count alone?

Or, this: MySpace says that "band, comedy, filmmaker and other profiles" can't post stuff that "uses sexually suggestive imagery or any other unfair, misleading or deceptive Content intended to draw traffic to the profile."

Posting sexually suggestive imagery on MySpace is a crime? Mariah Carey's lawyers should let her know!

"To say that you're violating a criminal law by registering to speak under a false name is highly problematic," Jennifer Grannick of the Electronic Frontier Foundation tells Wired. "It's probably an unconstitutional reading of the statute."

Boy, let's hope so. If these charges stand, the entire Web becomes a minefield. One wrong move, and zap, you're locked up.

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/05/16/myspace_mom/index.html

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:18 (seventeen years ago)

RIP flamewars ;_;

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:19 (seventeen years ago)

well, she'll probably appeal, right?

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:20 (seventeen years ago)

I am normally a fan of the EFF btw, so it is entirely possible that I am misreading the LA Times article and the Chicken Littles are right (again I am NOT a lawyer.)

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:21 (seventeen years ago)

She hasn't even been convicted yet!

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:21 (seventeen years ago)

this is as unfair as the assault weapons ban ;_;

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:22 (seventeen years ago)

what i mean is--her conviction isn't set in stone yet. the sky hasn't fallen---yet

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:22 (seventeen years ago)

The sky hasn't fallen at all. It's entirely possible that a judge will rule this is a misapplication of these statutes and the case will never come to trial.

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:23 (seventeen years ago)

http://volokh.com/posts/1210889188.shtml

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:24 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/15/there-ought-to-be-a-law-federal-criminal-power-and-the-missouri-myspace-suicide-case/

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:29 (seventeen years ago)

So far as I've seen (and sorry I haven't followed all links here) the statute criminalizes fraudulent access to computers resulting in XYZ, where XYZ include things like injury to a person, a threat to public health or safety, etc.

The thing that seems a bit of a stretch about it isn't that it'd criminalize creating a fake MySpace profile, it's that it's not entirely clear (to me, anyway), that any of those XYZ items actually encompass what she did. It's not particularly provable that she had the intent to create injury/death, and it's a fair argument that a reasonable person shouldn't necessarily have an expectation that those actions would lead to death/injury. (The problems with public health/safety lie mainly in the "public" part.) Perhaps the argument will be that she was aware enough of the kid's history of depression and mental-health issues that it's reasonable to think of her as acting to cause injury? I dunno.

Leaving this particular case aside, wouldn't we mostly agree that it'd be better for these sorts of things to be handled under local laws like those about harassment and abuse (i.e., dealing with the intent to torment another person, by whatever means) than by federal laws about fraud and hacking that were mostly written with other sorts of crimes in mind?

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:39 (seventeen years ago)

I think vahid is fine with this the way it is.

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:42 (seventeen years ago)

Mostly, but if there isn't an applicable local statute then I can see where a Federal prosecution might be necessary.

― Alex in SF, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:42 (seventeen years ago)

Actually, if you read the last of Gabbnebb's links above, you'll find that the "resulting in XYZ" doesn't make it a crime, it only comes in at the penalty stage, ie., to determine the sentencing guidelines - the crime is all in the "unauthorized access" part, which the feds are saying is fulfilled by the fact that Drew violated MySpace TOS.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:43 (seventeen years ago)

Agreeing that it would be better handled by a local law/statute doesn't automatically mean that you agree that it shouldn't be handled by a federal law/statute if no applicable local law/statute exists.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:44 (seventeen years ago)

I am a big fan of the Volokh Conspiracy.

Yes, I think he's right. Criminal indictments are strictly construed. The indictment may well be dismissed. They will have trouble showing a nexus between the conpiracy, the act, and the fraud.

Double Jeopardy will not prevent the government from attempting to charge again under a sounder theory.

However, you're fighting the facts.

I think the spirit of this exercise of prosecutorial discretion is commendable. The government is right to test the law and open a public debate of what I think is a horrific and cowardly application of new technology. Public opinion is an important check on the members of a society's duties to comport with social standards of decency.

At a minimum, the case illustrates the duty of a social networking business to maintain electronic evidence.

You have to ask whether the same intent accompanied an act through in-person means, as opposed to intangible means, whether it should be made criminal.

It has nothing really to do with violation of the TOS but more to do with what happens when a technology that is widely known to be a substantial element in the social lives of minors is put to malicious means.

If the same bullying happened in a professional workplace, the employment bar would be jumping all over the case with defamation and harassment claims with kaching levels of punitives.

xp HI DERE bang on the moolah

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:45 (seventeen years ago)

no, nabisco's right about what the statute says - which is separate from the NIED reference - but i'm not sure if the portion he's referring to is the portion being charged here, and if it is, there are probably serious causation questions.

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:50 (seventeen years ago)

(but I barely glanced at this stuff)

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:52 (seventeen years ago)

wouldn't we mostly agree that it'd be better for these sorts of things to be handled under local laws like those about harassment and abuse (i.e., dealing with the intent to torment another person, by whatever means) than by federal laws about fraud and hacking that were mostly written with other sorts of crimes in mind?

No, that's bullshit. If the locals are asleep at the wheel, the feds can step in and vice versa.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:53 (seventeen years ago)

er, IIED

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:54 (seventeen years ago)

But that's precisely why I said "leaving this case aside," Dan -- the questions wasn't about what happens when no applicable local/state statute exists, it's about whether we'd generally prefer that it did (which I suspect we mostly do). I'm basically working off of the question Felicity just asked:

You have to ask whether the same intent accompanied an act through in-person means, as opposed to intangible means, whether it should be made criminal.

Which is precisely why I'll feel much more comfortable if/when this spurs states and localities to tighten up their statutes so that this sort of thing is criminalized in the same way in-person acts of abuse and harassment are. (I'm assuming it will spur plenty of places to do that.)

I don't have that much of an issue with this one turning into a federal stretch, but I'm wary of it becoming any sort of ... I dunno, any sort of habit. I.e., any habit of charging people for online crimes not through the central substance of the crime, but through federal laws revolving around means of access and terms of use and such.

xpost - Felicity you also just truncated my "leaving this case aside" and answered a question I was not asking at all. The question was: wouldn't we all generally prefer that locals were at the wheel?

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:54 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, but often they're not. Hello Mississippi pre-1964.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:56 (seventeen years ago)

Oh geez I'm no legal historian but that comparison seems like a vast, vast, stretch.

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:57 (seventeen years ago)

My point exactly is that leaving this case aside is what the locals were doing.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:58 (seventeen years ago)

I think if it were possible to commit the act through in-person means (by dressing up as the guy?) it would necessarily involve more knowledge on the part of the actor

wouldn't we all generally prefer that locals were at the wheel?

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:59 (seventeen years ago)

Here's the relevant passage:

The charged section of the statute — 18 U.S.C. section 1030(a)(2)(c) — makes it illegal to “intentionally access a computer without authorization or exceed authorized access, and thereby obtain[] . . . information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication . . . .” Here the government’s theory is that Drew “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeded authorized access” when she entered false information about her identity in creating a MySpace profile in violation of MySpace’s terms of service, and that she “obtained information from a protected computer” in interstate communication because she used her resulting user-level MySpace access to gain information about Megan Meier — information available to any registered MySpace user.

The indictment also charges that she did these things in order to commit the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Megan Meier. But that isn’t an element of the crime. It’s a penalty provision, triggering the five-year maximum sentence under section 1030(c)(2)(B)(ii). If they didn’t make that penalty allegation, the penalty would have defaulted to the catch-all penalty provision of (c)(2)(A).

Let me run that past you again — she’s charged with federal crimes because she created a profile on a social networking site using a fake name, and then using the same access that anyone with a profile would have, accessed information about another user of the social network site. Everything else is just about the extent of the penalty.

Seems pretty clear to me. And the only reason they can use the statute at all is because of the "interstate" provision, which is triggered by the fact that Drew and her victim were in Missouri and MySpace's servers are in California.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 19:59 (seventeen years ago)

From gabbneb's last link:

I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with a scheme of federal law flexible enough to address any wrong we might want to punish.

Please someone explain this sentence to me so that it doesn't seem wholly retarded.

Oh geez I'm no legal historian but that comparison seems like a vast, vast, stretch.

That's not a stretch at all! There's a reason why "state's rights" is a code phrase for "legislated racism".

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:00 (seventeen years ago)

My point exactly is that leaving this case aside is what the locals were doing.

What evidence is there of this?

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:01 (seventeen years ago)

wouldn't we all generally prefer that locals were at the wheel?

yeah, definitely not. the feds have more muscle, right?

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:01 (seventeen years ago)

Clearly enough people were outraged that someone decided to do something. It is within the fair scope of the government to test the evidence and the law for a wrong that may well currently fall between the cracks of the penal codes currently on the books.

If people feel it is conduct that should be deterred or punished, Congress or a state legislature can criminalize it.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:03 (seventeen years ago)

I think the bottom line here people is that people do shitty stuff all the time that isn't strictly criminal, and probably, in the grand scheme of things, it's just as well that it isn't - because do we really want the legal system intervening in every little personal squabble and dispute? I think that the civil courts are probably the right place for the victim's family to seek some redress here, and if some gifted legislators out there want to take a crack at writing up a statute that would apply here, and without making it overly broad, then good luck to them.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:03 (seventeen years ago)

If I were the government I would charge under RICO.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:05 (seventeen years ago)

o. nate, nabisco: you should probably read the statute in question before continuing this argument, particularly (a)(5)(B):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:06 (seventeen years ago)

do we really want the legal system intervening in every little personal squabble and dispute?

Yes, that's our system. If the case is meritless a judge or jury will throw it out.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:07 (seventeen years ago)

IMHO this indictment is already a success.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

I think she is being charged under (a)(2)(C) not (a)(5)(B).

xposts

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:12 (seventeen years ago)

xpost - Dan, I've read it, and see below for why I think Mississippi is a terrible comparison.

I can't tell if my question's being misunderstood or if Felicity is just stressing a valid point that I'm not really arguing here.

So far as I understand this, the reason the state didn't prosecute wasn't that it was deliberately thwarting or ignoring federal desires (as in Mississippi pre-64) -- it was that state law didn't currently present a sound opportunity, or an adequate law to charge her under. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the state was not asserting a right here, the state was throwing its hands up and saying it just didn't have a hook to prosecute on. Is that incorrect? It's slightly different than having (e.g.) governors of neighboring states standing up and saying "MySpace harassment now, MySpace harassment tomorrow, MySpace harassment forever."

My question was mostly a rhetorical one, just to check if there was anyone who would say "no," and the question was basically: if we were sitting around legislating before this happened, wouldn't we all prefer that state law clearly and adequately criminalized this kind of behavior, in the same way it would be off-line? That question wasn't meant to lead to any kind of conclusion, like "therefore this prosecution is a bad one" -- it was just checking if everyone agreed that that would be ideal, or if anyone had any interesting reasons for disagreeing. So saying "but that's bullshit because things are not ideal" is ... not precisely what I was asking.

Going back to Mississippi: I do not worry about saying I'd prefer -- IN FUTURE, NOT THIS CASE -- for states/localities to adequately criminalize this stuff, because I don't know of any states hankering to protect online torment; I trust that most every location would see an interest in updating laws so they can prosecute acts like these without needing to punt to the feds.

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:15 (seventeen years ago)

I think you guys are assuming that question was a criticism of this prosecution, which is probably why Felicity deftly snipped out the part of my sentence that said "I am not talking about this instance"

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:17 (seventeen years ago)

Get used to it. I would buy all these prosecutors a beer.

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:20 (seventeen years ago)

She's being charged for three separate violations; are they all under the same paragraph? I could see (a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(A)(iii) and (a)(5)(B)(iii) all being in play.

xp: Nabisco, if the law on either the state or federal level does cover the infraction, I don't really have an issue with the case being prosecuted on either level. That's kind of why the laws are there in the first place, isn't it? It seems like a wholly specious line of reasoning; why, precisely, would it better if this was illegal on the state level if it can be demonstrably proven that it's illegal on the federal level? Why is that "better"?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:21 (seventeen years ago)

If the same bullying happened in a professional workplace, the employment bar would be jumping all over the case with defamation and harassment claims with kaching levels of punitives.

Yes, but lots of behavior is prohibited in the workplace that would not be elsewhere - for example, if I whistled at a coworker and complimented her on her fine figure every time she passed my desk, my employer would have to stop me or risk being sued. But if I stood on a street corner and did the same thing to women walking past, the most I could be charged with would be loitering. Is the Internet more like a workplace or a street corner?

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:22 (seventeen years ago)

How many contracts do you have to agree to in order to stand on a street corner?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:22 (seventeen years ago)

I don't see a website TOS as being equivalent to a binding legal contract, esp. considering that few people even bother to read them.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:24 (seventeen years ago)

but it IS binding in this case--it doesn't matter if you see it that way or not.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:25 (seventeen years ago)

But fortunately it does matter whether the Court of Appeals sees it that way, and I'm hoping they won't.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:26 (seventeen years ago)

Well, if they're not, then we can stop pretending they mean anything. If they are, time to start bothering to read them.

This is all the inevitable upshot of the John Gabriel Internet Dickwad Theorem. It has to happen.

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:26 (seventeen years ago)

Isn't the main reason for T&Cs for service users to indemnify the provider against civil action in just such a situation?

― suzy, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:27 (seventeen years ago)

If this gets tossed out and TOS contract become meaningless, I wonder if some companies will get out of the ISP business because they don't want to be held liable for the behavior of their users.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:29 (seventeen years ago)

The nature of the social web enables certain conduct that does not easily fall under the jurisdiction of the states.

Hence, wire fraud. This used to be by phone but it is the closest analog for WiFi fraud.

The common law and statutes cover many, many, things that are not explicitly written into the law.

nabisco, why exactly do you seem so opposed to the government's attempt to apply the laws as they (will always imperfectly) exist currently to this case? This is the case we have now. Defendants have many protections under the Constitution against ex post prosecutions. Do you feel society needs to spell out explicitly at a literal level in advance every single act that falls outside what a society will tolerate?

xp Click-through TOS have been held to be binding contracts for over a decade.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:29 (seventeen years ago)

she’s charged with federal crimes because she created a profile on a social networking site using a fake name, and then using the same access that anyone with a profile would have, accessed information about another user of the social network site, and a prosecutor exercised discretion to pursue the violation because a death resulted from her use of the information and there may not be a better law on which to charge.

― gabbneb, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:29 (seventeen years ago)

I'm kind of LOLling at people acting like this case will mean they're going to go to jail for five years because they registered five sockpuppets to vote in the dick size poll.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:31 (seventeen years ago)

(yes, that was unfair of me)

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:31 (seventeen years ago)

Reminder it's still only an indictment. Many less culpable ham sandwiches have been subjected to such criminal scrutiny.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:31 (seventeen years ago)

nabisco, why exactly do you seem so opposed to the government's attempt to apply the laws as they (will always imperfectly) exist currently to this case?

Felicity have you read any of the 8 million times I have JUST NOW said that I'm not opposed to that and not arguing that at all and I suspect you are deliberately misunderstanding me? Or are you teasing me here?

why, precisely, would it better if this was illegal on the state level if it can be demonstrably proven that it's illegal on the federal level? Why is that "better"?

(1) It would probably involve criminalizing a different thing -- the heart of the crime, the intent to torment, a form of harassment/abuse -- as opposed to charging people under a law that's slightly more about the means they employ to do those things

(2) The real meat and spirit of the crime is not really federal and is in fact down-the-street interpersonal torment -- it just so happens to have been accomplished by means that may violate a federal statute as well -- and I'd feel better about also having direct criminalization of the act itself, regardless of method

(3) It would be vastly simpler for states to be able to charge people, in much the same way they would for in-person acts of abuse/harassment

(4) It would actually create a broader net to have both the state opportunity to prosecute abuse/harassment AND the federal opportunity to prosecute criminal misuse of / access to computer systems

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:32 (seventeen years ago)

Anyway, the issue of whether the TOS is a binding legal contract isn't really the issue - the issue is that an overly broad legal statute (hastily written by technologically-illiterate Congresspeople) which hangs on the very ambiguous term "unauthorized access" - is being applied by some overzealous prosecutors to a website TOS, which was written by some corporate legal hacks for the sole purpose of covering MySpace's legal ass - thereby setting a precedent of giving every corporate legal hack who ever wrote boilerplate the ability to federally criminalize any conduct they see fit.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:34 (seventeen years ago)

fwiw i am absolutely fine with this prosecution and comparisons with little rock or mississippi are apt insofar as what the feds did there was a-ok too.

my comment on 'opportunism' meant that i'm sure there are hundreds of awful things that occur that local authorities can't or won't do anything about that COULD go up the ladder and don't because there's no media juice (or concomitant moral horror, if you want to not be a cynic). in other words, this is prosecution-worthy for the exact same reasons it's newsworthy

― gff, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:37 (seventeen years ago)

o. nate, are you fucking kidding?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:38 (seventeen years ago)

(a) Whoever—
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(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;
(5)
(A)
(i) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
(ii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or
(iii) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage; and
(B) by conduct described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A), caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)—
(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(iii) physical injury to any person;
(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security;
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—
(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [1]
(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

THIS CRIMINALIZES EVERYTHING!

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:40 (seventeen years ago)

Do I think that if the prosecutors win this case that tommorrow the sock-puppet perpetrators will be rounded up en masse? No. I'm just saying, let's not be too hasty to stretch the law to fit one uniquely terrible incident that falls through the cracks of our current legal system - because precedent has a funny way of coming back to haunt us.

And I'm not the only one saying that this interpretation basically criminalizes everyone who has ever used the internet, if applied literally. Some guy who writes articles for the NYU Law Review says the same thing.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:42 (seventeen years ago)

The heart of the case is the anonymity and the diffusion of accountability that social web enables, and what are the current legal devices that address it.

Nabisco I am not teasing or ignoring. However, when an argument borders on TLDR, it is usually a symptom of a weakness in the argument that it must be so strained. The law is not just for the elite. If an argument cannot be explained to a jury of regular citizens in plain language, it is probably not a great argument.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:43 (seventeen years ago)

Making mixtapes is, technically speaking, a criminal act as well. When was the last time you saw someone prosecuted for it?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:45 (seventeen years ago)

Some guy who writes articles for the NYU Law Review says the same thing.

"some guy." Great citation!

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:46 (seventeen years ago)

pffft NYU law is #5

― moonship journey to baja, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:46 (seventeen years ago)

Is it a federal crime to violate contractual limitations on use of a computer? The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1030, generally prohibits accessing a computer "without authorization" or "exceeding authorized access." But what makes an access "without authorization"? If the computer owner says that you can only access the computer if you are left-handed, or if you agree to be nice, are you committing a crime if you use the computer and are nasty or you are right-handed? If you violate the Terms of Service, are you committing a crime?

In my article, Cybercrime's Scope: Interpreting "Access" and "Authorization" in Computer Misuse Statutes, 78 NYU L. Rev. 1596 (2003), I argue that the answer should be "no." I won't recite the legal arguments here, as you can just read the article itself. (You can imagine the basic idea, though: Since everyone who uses computers violates dozens of different TOS every day, the theory would make everyone who uses computers a felon.) However, I will point out that the MySpace case is to my knowledge the very first federal indictment that has tried to claim that violations of Terms of Service for an Internet account amounts to a crime under Section 1030. In fact, I wrote my NYU article in part because I figured it was only a matter of time before a sympathetic case came along and some aggressive prosecutor would try the argument and see if it flew. It looks like this is the test case.

Gabbneb linked to this above:
http://volokh.com/posts/1210889188.shtml

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:49 (seventeen years ago)

Making mixtapes is, technically speaking, a criminal act as well. When was the last time you saw someone prosecuted for it?

Call me an idealist, but in that case, I'd rather that law wasn't on the books.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:50 (seventeen years ago)

- I don't know what TLDR is
- I feel like you ARE ignoring, because you STILL seem to think I'm arguing against this prosecution, so forget it
- I think it's perfectly possible to present to a jury of citizens in plain language a "heart of the matter" in a case like this, and it would involve laws saying things like ... well, I'm no legal expert or legislator, but criminalizing acts in any venue wherein a person deliberately and with intent to create extreme emotional distress defrauds, misrepresents him/herself to, threatens, harasses, verbally abuses, etc. a victim -- is that really more complicated to draw bright lines around than something like stalking? (And if the process of doing those things involves associated crimes of unlawful computer use, mail fraud, physical trespassing, or any other means-and-method thing, then hey, there's another aspect.)

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:50 (seventeen years ago)

"Too Long, Didn't Read"

― gff, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:51 (seventeen years ago)

The law evolved to address the changing modes of how people in a society interact with each other. We live in a more and more intellectualized, intangible world. Much commerce is conducted over the internet and most courts themselves require electronic filing of papers. The corollary duty is liability for the use of the password.

Of course, the legal system is not equipped to punish every social wrong. Prosecutors have discretion. Personally I feel that sockpuppet behavior is morally wrong when done maliciously but that does not make it the province of the law. Society has other means of punishing mere scoundrels.

xp I don't know what TLDR is Not to be too mean, but truth bomb. Yeah, I think your last paragraph is what decisional law attempts to do.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:53 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah well she didn't read the short version either, so

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:53 (seventeen years ago)

Forgive me but I fully admit to missing your point. What is it? State and federal prosecutions cannot overlap? We should abandon the notion of common law?

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:55 (seventeen years ago)

(xp) The point being that not all crimes are prosecuted. How many jaywalking tickets do you think get handed out a day in the city of Boston? Or, for that matter, tickets for running red lights?

IMO, if and when the federal government turns to prosecuting people who violates a TOC with no or little material harm to another entity, we will either be living in such a perfect utopia that no one will be violating anything in the first place or some completely thoroughly screwed as a society that people will be too busy defending their food stores from rampaging neighbor tribes to be online.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:56 (seventeen years ago)

The wonderful and awful thing about the virtual world is the electronic data trail it leaves.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:58 (seventeen years ago)

The government doesn't have to start prosecuting everyone who violates a TOS for there to be harm. It's enough that they use it in one or two cases where the court of public opinion has found someone guilty, but there isn't a good law to charge them with - do we want a court of public opinion or a court of law?

xpost

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 20:59 (seventeen years ago)

I think people underestimate the courts and the law. There are remedies for both civil and criminal overreaching. For example,

Tanya Andersen awarded http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1593907,834 in attorneys fees.

See also, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:01 (seventeen years ago)

(Also I kind of wanted to point out that being at NYU Law doesn't automatically mean that someone isn't a total crackpot. There are a bunch of total crackpots at elite law schools.)

xp: Laws are codified public opinion!

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:01 (seventeen years ago)

srsly you are on the fast-track-to-pro-militia train

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:02 (seventeen years ago)

Sorry.

Tanya Anderson awarded http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1593907,834 in attorneys fees.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:02 (seventeen years ago)

Fuck. She got a lot of money for fighting a harassing RIAA claim.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:02 (seventeen years ago)

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15939 for anyone who cares.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:03 (seventeen years ago)

LOL, NYU Law, AND elite (i.e. Top 4) law schools also.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:04 (seventeen years ago)

i agree with nabisco, as far as i can tell, that it's sad & maddening that nothing could be done at the local level (according to the investigating police Lt: "We did not have a charge to fit it"). the bad act here is "harassing a teenage girl by using a fake myspace account". if the first half of that summary is not prosecutable at a local level, it doesn't make prosecuting the second half at the federal level a bad thing. i'm not really worried about precedent.

if the wave of ambulance chasing opportunism leads state legislatures to mint up more explicit laws against online harassment, great.

― gff, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:06 (seventeen years ago)

Laws are codified public opinion!

Yes, but they've been codified for a reason. Otherwise, why not go back to the Roman coliseum days and have the crowd decide who gets fed to the lions and who goes free?

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:06 (seventeen years ago)

crackpots are everywhere--some of them even are on message boards.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:06 (seventeen years ago)

srsly you are on the fast-track-to-pro-militia train

I don't understand this.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:07 (seventeen years ago)

If what gff just said was the 'bisco's main point all along, then thanks for the summary, he is OTM and I was being dense.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:08 (seventeen years ago)

Ha, Felicity, you just acknowledged that you called my point "bullshit" without actually knowing what it was! Seriously, though, the original question (QUESTION!) was:

Leaving this particular case aside, wouldn't we mostly agree that it'd be better for these sorts of things to be handled under local laws like those about harassment and abuse (i.e., dealing with the intent to torment another person, by whatever means) than by federal laws about fraud and hacking that were mostly written with other sorts of crimes in mind?

You and Dan both leaped on this question in a way that actually leaves me still unsure what your answer to it is. Put simply: next time someone does something like this, do you think it would be ideal for the state to have laws specifically addressing this sort of behavior -- much like with stalking, harassment, etc. -- which that person could be charged under? Do you think it would be a good idea if states revisited their criminal codes to make this so? I do: I think that would be preferable.

(This question has nothing to do with whether, if states can't or don't prosecute, it's a good idea for feds to prosecute under different theories/statues. I am not arguing that.)

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:08 (seventeen years ago)

crackpots are everywhere--some of them even are on message boards.

mr. que typed that from his underground bunker while wearing a metal collander strapped to his head.

― chicago kevin, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:09 (seventeen years ago)

Oh geez xpost YES -- gff sees precisely what I mean

I didn't not think it was a big point but I think you guys thought I meant something else and then the argument carried itself along away from clarity

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:09 (seventeen years ago)

Anglo-U.S. law is a combination of codes and decisional law. Sometimes you need to bring a case to make the law.

Civil law is the system where all law is codified.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:11 (seventeen years ago)

o. nate this is an indictment by a federal grand jury--not a decision by a judge or a jury. it seems to me your beef here is with the grand jury--not with legislators or "corporate legal hacks" or whatever.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:12 (seventeen years ago)

Anglo-U.S. law is a combination of codes and decisional law

don't forget regulations!

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:12 (seventeen years ago)

mr. que typed that from his underground bunker while wearing a metal collander strapped to his head.

chicago kevin so so so OTM

― Mr. Que, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:13 (seventeen years ago)

I see it as six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I don't think the application of this statute in this case is a bad thing. If it leads to the application of that statute in bad ways in the future, public opinion will turn on it and other laws, either at the state or federal level, will be put into place to refine the application of said laws to the offenses we as a society want criminalized.

I'm not a lawyer but I work with a bunch of them.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:15 (seventeen years ago)

Put simply: next time someone does something like this, do you think it would be ideal for the state to have laws specifically addressing this sort of behavior -- much like with stalking, harassment, etc. -- which that person could be charged under? Do you think it would be a good idea if states revisited their criminal codes to make this so? I do: I think that would be preferable.

Well it depends on what "like this" means. If it means cyberabuse I don't think each state should have a different rule because the nature of the activity is cross-jurisdictional and Federal rules would trump it anyway.

xxp Mr. Que, I sure don't forget those lovely C.F.R.s and Administrative thingies. Treaties, too!

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:15 (seventeen years ago)

And o. nate, what I meant by the militia comment is that I find your line of argument unreasonable and paranoid.

If it means cyberabuse I don't think each state should have a different rule because the nature of the activity is cross-jurisdictional and Federal rules would trump it anyway.

I completely agree with this.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:17 (seventeen years ago)

I think my beef is mainly with the too-clever LA federal prosecutors who saw an opportunity to grab the limelight and jumped. That dig at "corporate legal hacks" was purely gratuitous, I admit.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:19 (seventeen years ago)

And o. nate, what I meant by the militia comment is that I find your line of argument unreasonable and paranoid

Maybe it is paranoid, I don't know. But there is a long history of vague federal statutes being used to prosecute people for basically politically-motivated reasons.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:22 (seventeen years ago)

I hope we've de-indexed all the meta threads

― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:22 (seventeen years ago)

Like most of you, I'd like to see the offender in this case punished, but it needs to be done under a harassment/stalking law. I'm not so much worried about the government as I am about corporations using any excuse to fuck you over, and getting a fresh legal precedent giving them new possibilities in that regard. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that prosecuting her for violating the Myspace TOS represents a subtle, but real, transfer of power from the user to the corporation. Frankly, I'd rather see this women go unpunished, and a new law drafted that's specific to this sort of thing.

Also, it's pretty naive to say that "if it leads to the application of that statute in bad ways in the future, public opinion will turn on it" -- yeah, that's always worked so well in the past...

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:22 (seventeen years ago)

womAn, that is

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:22 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, like the Civil Rights movement, Women's Sufferage, Gay Rights, etc etc etc.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:24 (seventeen years ago)

The bazillions of activist groups and special interests in this country aren't all fronts for corporate interests, dude.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:25 (seventeen years ago)

I think my beef is mainly with the too-clever LA federal prosecutors who saw an opportunity to grab the limelight and jumped.

yeah but so what? a unique new expression of evil intent is going to get punished one way or another!

mcnulty worked the 16 dead girls on the docks only to screw his superiors, but if he hadn't, no justice would have been done at all (if you want a biblical reference)

― gff, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:25 (seventeen years ago)

And personally, I'd rather this woman get prosecuted for driving a girl to suicide regardless of whether this means it's easier for a college student to get busted for downloading copyrighted materials illegally.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:27 (seventeen years ago)

If everything was passed through a hugely popular and profitable server network housed in the state of Missouri on a revolutionary social networking site exclusively sustained by revenues from Missouri advertisers and exclusively used by the citizens of Missouri, then I agree completely.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:27 (seventeen years ago)

yeah, that's always worked so well in the past...

Lay off Dan here, some of his best friends are lawyers...

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:27 (seventeen years ago)

Yay okay so question answered! Follow-up question: does it not bother you that this would mean the "abuse" part stays gray-area, and people would be prosecuted more for the "cyber" part -- the unlawful process stuff? I know it's kinda that way for things like wire/mail fraud, but I'm uncomfortable with the inability to peg the crime on the part people care about, which is the "abuse" component.

(Felicity, you seemed to imply above that you thought the anonymity of the cyber part was a key -- "The heart of the case is the anonymity and the diffusion of accountability that social web enables" -- but maybe also judged it by in-person standards: "You have to ask whether the same intent accompanied an act through in-person means, as opposed to intangible means, whether it should be made criminal.")

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:28 (seventeen years ago)

dear god how amazingly fucked up would MissouriSpace be

― gff, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:29 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, and the great thing about your analogy is that as soon as the law was used in an unjust way, everyone got together and set things aright in no time flat. It was remarkable, really.

xposts to Dan: What activist groups and special interests are arguing on behalf of interpreting this law to permit prosecuting this woman?

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:29 (seventeen years ago)

jeff: lols

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:29 (seventeen years ago)

Also, it's pretty naive to say that "if it leads to the application of that statute in bad ways in the future, public opinion will turn on it" -- yeah, that's always worked so well in the past...

Oh those naive Constitutional scribes. Taking things seriously. LOL FACED.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:29 (seventeen years ago)

Please post your better democratic, First Amendment infused, tripartite social system here ↓.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:31 (seventeen years ago)

Yay okay so question answered! Follow-up question: does it not bother you that this would mean the "abuse" part stays gray-area, and people would be prosecuted more for the "cyber" part -- the unlawful process stuff? I know it's kinda that way for things like wire/mail fraud, but I'm uncomfortable with the inability to peg the crime on the part people care about, which is the "abuse" component.

No, it doesn't bother me. Having said that, if a law were to be drafted that isolated out the "abuse" infraction here, I would support it.

I'm not responding to Charlie until he makes an argument worth addressing.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:31 (seventeen years ago)

I hear you can apply for Canadian citizenship on the internet.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:32 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, like the Civil Rights movement, Women's Sufferage, Gay Rights, etc etc etc

But these were mass injustices - and even they took a long time to undo. What will probably never be completely undone are the little, one-off injustices against individuals for petty reasons, or against the political pariahs of the moment. These are the ones that people don't always read about in the national news, or that don't excite a mass protest movement.

Maybe there are already enough vague federal statutes on the books that one more won't make any difference, and there may always be a politically motivated prosecutor who brings a scurrilous charge, so why not go after this woman anyway?

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:33 (seventeen years ago)

if a law were to be drafted that isolated out the "abuse" infraction here, I would support it.

Wait you mean a federal law, right? Because you just said you wouldn't prefer states to do that

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:34 (seventeen years ago)

O. Nate has it pretty much exactly. Comparing this to the Civil Rights movement is bonkers and pretty cynical, IMHO.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:35 (seventeen years ago)

Who's to say other lonely little girls and boys aren't being tormented by vicious adult sockpuppets on Myspace elsewhere?

The internet provides new, unprecedented access to the intimate emotions and psychologies of minors. They are the naive ones. Sometimes the law regulates by education.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:37 (seventeen years ago)

Or to put it differently, "public opinion" is a really terrible way of making and interpreting law: it's incredibly slow-moving and inefficient, and often takes positions that are both ethically and legally wrong.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:37 (seventeen years ago)

If the infraction falls under state jurisdiction, it should be handled by a state law. If it falls under federal jurisdiction, it should be handled by federal law. I don't have a law degree so I'm on tenuous ground arguing when the distinction between the two should be made but on a basic level I am much more in favor of federal law than state law as federal law is universal to all 50 states in the country.

What will probably never be completely undone are the little, one-off injustices against individuals for petty reasons, or against the political pariahs of the moment. These are the ones that people don't always read about in the national news, or that don't excite a mass protest movement.

I'm sorry, but aren't we reading about this in the news right now? Or did you word that poorly?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:37 (seventeen years ago)

What I'm saying is, if this case goes through, will we read about the next time this statute is applied like this? And the next time, and the next?

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:38 (seventeen years ago)

That's entirely dependant on the case, isn't it? Furthermore, aren't you making some gross assumptions about both the ways this statute will be applied and the penalties associated with it?

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:40 (seventeen years ago)

That's entirely dependant on the case, isn't it?

I think you're putting a bit too much faith in the omniscience of the journalistic profession and the attention-span of the national audience. The next case may be about something rather dry and technical, without the sex appeal of a teen suicide involved in it - then I would bet you won't read about it.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:42 (seventeen years ago)

...Was that supposed to undermine or counter my point? Because it doesn't.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:44 (seventeen years ago)

So either you're putting your faith in the journalistic profession to uncover any and all injustices and bring them to national attention, or you are putting your faith in prosecutors to only bring fair and deserved charges, despite a law that gives them very wide discretion.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:45 (seventeen years ago)

What I'm saying is, if this case goes through, will we read about the next time this statute is applied like this? And the next time, and the next?

-- o. nate, Friday, May 16, 2008 2:38 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

As long as headlines about "13 year old" and "suicide" are considered news, I suppose you might see coverage of that, yes.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:46 (seventeen years ago)

"like this"

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:46 (seventeen years ago)

See my response above. If and when the statute is again applied using this interpretation, the specifics of the case may not be as sensational.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:47 (seventeen years ago)

I am quite curious about the more noble roles that investigative journalists and public legal servants play in your more advanced cybersociety.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:49 (seventeen years ago)

I'm expecting that, if a large number of people get screwed over by this, they will (as Americans are wont to do) complain very loudly until someone pays attention to them, particularly if they are affluent white people. I am not particularly expecting this statute to be used as a reason to witch-hunt the population because I don't think federal prosecutors have enough time to spend on it.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:49 (seventeen years ago)

Seriously, o. nate, what more compelling news stories do you think should be reported on, and which more grevious social wrongs do you prefer grand juries spend their per diems authorizing prosecutors to investigate?

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:51 (seventeen years ago)

stuffwhitepeoplelike: bitching about being looked at by working-class prosecutors.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:52 (seventeen years ago)

It would be really, really cool if there were no more sensational cases like this one.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:53 (seventeen years ago)

I don't think you can entirely wave off O.Nate's concern; the interpretation would create leeway to charge people for doing things with computers that aren't well codified as criminal. That can become a problem if ever someone gets charged for something that's more arguable, and where "public opinion" forms an unreliable check -- e.g., imagine such a prosecution that seemed politically motivated. (It actually strikes me as the kind of interpretation a conservative justice department would use to harry pornographers.) I can understand disagreeing but not waving the concern off entirely.

xpost - Dan, something like "harrying pornographers" or suppressing unpopular borderline-dangerous speech is maybe a good example of something that could be popular and would still lead many of us to worry a bit about the implications, yes?

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:54 (seventeen years ago)

No, no, I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm just saying that establishing a very broad legal interpretation as precedent is dangerous, and we can't expect journalists, prosecutors, judges, etc. to always keep the danger under control. I prefer to have more specific laws. That's my point. Maybe it's true that the occasional legal stretch doesn't hurt the system very much, since people are still basically governed by common sense. I don't know. That's the question. I think reasonable people can disagree.

― o. nate, Friday, 16 May 2008 21:55 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, that's what cases are for. Societies don't usually legislate against things unless people are doing them.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:04 (seventeen years ago)

His argument is that the sensational case opens the door for the statute to be applied to non-sensational cases. My counterargument is that damages still have to be demonstrable in order for the non-sensational cases to go past the indictment phase and there's still a trial to contend with.

I can imagine a scenario where a successful prosecution in this case in conjunction with The Patriot Act could open up levels of abuse against Arabs and Muslims in this country; personally, I think the problem with The Patriot Act should be addressed before any problems caused by a successful interpretation of this statute. But, as I said before, I'm not a lawyer and may be talking out of my ass.

Dan, something like "harrying pornographers" or suppressing unpopular borderline-dangerous speech is maybe a good example of something that could be popular and would still lead many of us to worry a bit about the implications, yes?

The pornography issue is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography
I am assuming most pornographers are using ISPs that allow the transmission of pornography across their network already, which may be false. Furthermore, I don't know what the implications are for the consumers. I tend to think things default to the statutes listed in the wiki article and wouldn't be an issue unless someone claimed material damage against a pornography site; I tend to think that, given how the people who want pornography gone feel about it, if there was a TOS violation avenue that they could pursue to harrass the producers of it, they would already be using it.

As far as surpressing unpopular borderline-dangerous speech: what exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about hate speech? I would expect that people getting prosecuted by ISPs for that would challenge the constitutionality of the TOS that allowed for the prosecution.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:14 (seventeen years ago)

also lol felicity

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:15 (seventeen years ago)

establishing a very broad legal interpretation as precedent is dangerous

Ding ding ding.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine this interpretation of the law being used against, for instance, anonymous whistleblowers, or pornographers, or (perhaps most likely) people who fuck with $c!en+o1ogy.

Or someone anti-Bush posts something politically inflammatory and vaguely threatening on a website, and they're tracked down. They can't nail them for what they said because of First Amendment issues, but the FBI finds out that they put down a fake name when they registered, violating the TOS, so they get them on that instead.

I can't imagine the public caring much about any of those scenarios.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:17 (seventeen years ago)

Yes, that's what cases are for. Societies don't usually legislate against things unless people are doing them.

^^ I agree with that entirely. It's why (not to belabor the point) I prefer to see people legislate quickly against the "thing" specifically, and not rely too long on prosecuting aspects of the thing or leaving any overwhelming amount of discretion involved.

It's interesting to imagine how people might be talking if this case involved were less about such a clear and appalling shittiness and more about, say ... some form of hate speech that led to a suicide, or pro-anorexic speech that unlawfully accessed computers to create a danger to public health, or something like that. (I'm using those examples because it seems to be that you could argue they fall under the statute being used.)

Obviously I'm sympathetic to O.Nate's concern that people (a) be able to have a clear idea whether their actions are illegal or not, and (b) be safe from gray-area prosecutions that might be somewhat politically motivated, a fear that people like Meese and Ashcroft and Gonzalez make hard to just dismiss offhand! ("Public opinion" can suggest prosecutions we'd recoil from as much as ones we're likely to support.)

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:22 (seventeen years ago)

A statute enacted in a vacuum is far more susceptible to abusive, overbroad application than a precedent based on a discrete set of evidence in a single case.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:25 (seventeen years ago)

Ding ding ding.

I can't imagine the public caring much about any of those scenarios.

Generally speaking, a whistleblower is someone who is offering evidence of a corporate crime. Federal prosecution may come against them as a result of this but I find it unlikely.

I already addressed the pornographer issue upthread.

People who fuck with $cientology via hacking into their websites are already breaking this statute in a much more explicit manner than the woman in this current case so I don't see how this case could be a gateway into anything from that angle beyond reminding someone "oh yeah, this exists".

Threatening the President is already a federal offense; you don't need this statute to go after somebody for it.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:27 (seventeen years ago)

(As an aside, why is it that every argument about legislating the Internet turns into "BUT THINK OF THE PORNOGRAPHERS!"?)

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:29 (seventeen years ago)

whole lot of wanking goin on

― Jarlrmai, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:33 (seventeen years ago)

1. I don't see how that's a vacuum in the least

2. That statement doesn't differentiate between (a) a statute that's specifically about the problem one hopes to address and (b) a precedent concerning a mildly tangential issue that you happen to be able to prosecute about. Better to criminalize murder than to realize you can prosecute people for having blood on their hands, something that'll net you the murderers but might get you a few butchers in the bargain.

xpost - That's genuinely funny, Dan, but it's not a bad example, because there really IS a whole history of zealous administrations that go after pornography using any sidelong prosecutorial avenue available to them -- less because of the alleged crime and more because of who they're after

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:34 (seventeen years ago)

I just love the utter faith in our legislators to expeditiously craft statutory language that will clear up the confusion caused by the ambiguously written terms of service in the brain-drained private technology sector.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:37 (seventeen years ago)

(As an aside, why is it that every argument about legislating the Internet turns into "BUT THINK OF THE PORNOGRAPHERS!"?)

Um, because they're so often the test cases for a lot of civil liberties issues?

As for your counterexamples, relatively unambiguous examples = straw men. The whole point is that allowing broad interpretations of the law, generally speaking, invites abuse, because it gives prosecutors, corporations, et al. yet another way to go after people who've pissed them off, but didn't do anything strictly illegal.

xpost I just love the way that everyone on the wrong side of this argument keeps making worthless sarcastic comments that are a waste of my fucking time to read

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:39 (seventeen years ago)

Go post somewhere else about it then. Surely there must be some other people out on the internet who also have JDs and litigation experience who are also completely wrong and need your help.

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:41 (seventeen years ago)

Anyway guys the point is this woman should be allowed to get away with abusing technology because information wants to be free.

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:41 (seventeen years ago)

Not to be a dog on your cuff, but that statement dodges the issue again, Felicity -- the thing legislators might be concerned about is not the same thing terms of service are concerned about.

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:41 (seventeen years ago)

Yes nabisco, I know that pornographers get hassled and Nixon's boner to criminalize it. My point is that, given that, I would expect that said zealous administrations would already be using TOS infractions as an excuse to shut down pornographers if they could. I am making a big presumption here, obviously, but again if and when this comes up I fully expect it to run headlong into a constitutional challenge.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:42 (seventeen years ago)

No, she should be prosecuted under a law that's appropriate for the case, and if there isn't one, it should be written

But far be it from me to interfere with everyone's smug self-righteous self-congratulation, which definitely helps the dead girl, after all

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:43 (seventeen years ago)

Also to this: As for your counterexamples, relatively unambiguous examples = straw men.

wtf THESE WERE YOUR EXAMPLES

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:43 (seventeen years ago)

xpost to Tombot, who has a lot of fucking nerve telling me not to complain when talking about how stupid everyone else is = 90% of his schtick

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:43 (seventeen years ago)

People who fuck with $cientology != People who fuck with $cientology via hacking into their websites

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:45 (seventeen years ago)

Charlie, you can say what you like about me but I think it's an interesting and healthy debate that is well worth my time.

It is not easy to write laws, indictments or posts that everyone likes. But it's better than living in apathy and silence.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:46 (seventeen years ago)

Wait, Dan, could you clarify that? It sounds like you're saying you think it's okay to prosecute one person under this theory but unconstitutional to prosecute another.

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:47 (seventeen years ago)

Charlie, you can say what you like about me but I think it's an interesting and healthy debate that is well worth my time.

I agree, which is why I get pissed off at the cheap one-liners and sarcastic lolcomments.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:49 (seventeen years ago)

My point is that it is a gross oversimplification to presume that statutes are clear. I am sorry that your anger buttons were triggered by the various means I used to make that point.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:52 (seventeen years ago)

Also if either of you have time, just to understand your position better, I'm curious about two things:

1. Do you think the prosecution in this case is going to depend on the notion that she KNEW her actions were likely to create injury to another person, or just the "terms of service" fraud?

2. Do you think either of the following examples could, would, and should (answer all three!) be prosecuted under this interpretation:

- person misrepresents herself and violates Facebook terms of service to create small pro-anorexia group, thus potentially endangering public health

- teenager from pro-anorexia group dies, pointing loads of negative attention to this group and its founder/ringleader

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:53 (seventeen years ago)

Felicity, fine, but:

I can't make sense of this comment as anything but sarcasm, since this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with ambiguously written TOS, and everything to do with ambiguously/broadly interpreted law.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:56 (seventeen years ago)

I think, if you can justify the argument, you can prosecute anyone you want against any law or statute you want. There's a trade-off, though, of what things you can make effective arguments about and what you actually have time and make a priority to pursue. I don't think this particular statute would be successful against pornographers who understand the law.

Pornography has always gotten over on two things:

1) Constitutional grounds.
2) Most people don't want pornography to be illegal.

Between those two things, I believe you have a strong enough sentiment and potential legal counter-argument to keep this from being something that can be used against pornographers, particularly since the type of administration you are describing would already be using any existing TOS violations as an excuse to put pressure on the ISPs to shut down the pornographers' access to the Internet. Furthermore, the argument for harm in the case of your standard pornography is not going to pass the same set of criteria as this case, where someone died as a result of this woman's online actions.

For that manner, I don't think it's at all cut-and-dried that this woman will be found guilty of breaking these statutes; that doesn't mean I think it's wrong for the prosecution to try making this case. That's part of the point of going to trial, IMO.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 22:57 (seventeen years ago)

(Dan, if that's to me, I wasn't suggesting the pornographers are an exact target of this sort of thing in any way that's clear to me now, just that they're a general example of how vague/tangential theories of prosecution can be used to harry or beleaguer people for social or politicized reasons.)

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:02 (seventeen years ago)

this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with ambiguously written TOS, and everything to do with ambiguously/broadly interpreted law.

oh my fucking god

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:04 (seventeen years ago)

I don't know what to say to that but I'm going to try

the TOS defines what is authorized; the law defines that unauthorized usage is criminal - they are both completely intertwined here

― El Tomboto, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:05 (seventeen years ago)

Perhaps I was being a little oblique.

People upthread seemed to be confused about whether people who "agree" to TOS by clicking "I agree" were actually bound by them, which is an element of the government's theory.

The point seemed obvious to me, which just goes to show how off base I am about people's attitudes to the internet. I was wrong.

I just hate bullies and my anger buttons are pushed when people passionately defend the right to post statements like "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you."

xpost

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:05 (seventeen years ago)

I assume you notice that I wrote "this debate", and not "this case", yes?

I think the point that's being gotten at here is that "getting him/her on a technicality" tends to be indicative of bad law with the potential for abuse.

xpost

Tom, I'm pretty sure the law says that only specific types of unauthorized use with specific outcomes are criminal. I'll double-check, and if I'm wrong, I apologize -- though if that's the case, then the law is even more fucked-up than I realizd.

Felicity, I hate bullies too, and want to see this woman punished, but I remain convinced that it can be done without inadvertently creating precedents that can be misused.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:08 (seventeen years ago)

No, I did not notice that. I apologize for not devoting enough time to your post.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:10 (seventeen years ago)

I think the debaters decide what the debate is about. We are probably all interested in slightly different things. For me, I am interested in non-lawyer's attitudes towards the use of old laws to new social interactions. This kind of debate is happening all over the place.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:15 (seventeen years ago)

I need to go home, my external monitor just died ;_;.

1. Do you think the prosecution in this case is going to depend on the notion that she KNEW her actions were likely to create injury to another person, or just the "terms of service" fraud?

I am presuming it's going to depend on both.

2. Do you think either of the following examples could, would, and should (answer all three!) be prosecuted under this interpretation:

- person misrepresents herself and violates Facebook terms of service to create small pro-anorexia group, thus potentially endangering public health

- teenager from pro-anorexia group dies, pointing loads of negative attention to this group and its founder/ringleader

Could: yes
Would: maybe
Should: undecided

The problem here is that anorexia is a mental disorder and I don't know how that would factor into sentencing if this scenario were to happen. It would rather blatantly break the statute as written, though.

My point is that doomsday hypotheticals are a good thought exercise in that they can lead to the drafting of more sensible laws and statutes but that they should not preclude the exercising of existing laws and statutes. Furthermore, I would argue that if you disagree with the way a particular law or statute is being exercised, you have avenues through which you can lobby your disagreement, namely your Congressmen; after all, that's why they're there. If they aren't doing what you want them to do, vote them out.

Despite the rhetoric around "law should not be driven by common opinion", the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of it IS driven by common opinion and always has been. Unless we have a coup and lose the ability to vote for our political leaders, it always will be. The application of this statute to this case is a manifestation of this which is an incontrovertable fact of this country's way of life. Everyone has different levels of what they can live with and what they can't; I can live with the federal government attempting to prosecute this woman using this statute. Will I be able to live with the attendant fallout? Right now, I think so. Maybe I'm wrong; if I am, I'll be the first to say, "Oh, I was wrong about that, this was a terrible idea." Right now, I don't think there's any evidence in either direction.

Yay, my monitor's back! I still need to go home, though.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:19 (seventeen years ago)

No, I did not notice that. I apologize for not devoting enough time to your post.

Felicity, the comment in question was directed to Tombot, actually.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:22 (seventeen years ago)

I'm pretty sure the law says that only specific types of unauthorized use with specific outcomes are criminal.

I keep asking this, but I'm not good at edging into this conversation: my skimming the statue gave me the impression that it applies to misuse of a computer system resulting in specific things, yes. One of them is "injury to a person," others are harm to public health and safety; most are about monetary fraud. Hence my asking questions about whether this prosecution must claim she should have EXPECTED to cause injury, or whether pro-ana websites fall under the "public health" part, etc.

My point is that doomsday hypotheticals are a good thought exercise in that they can lead to the drafting of more sensible laws and statutes but that they should not preclude the exercising of existing laws and statutes.

Haha my problem with this is that for most of the afternoon NO ONE has said they should preclude exercising the statutes, and yet you and Felicity have at times argued with us as if we are. O.Nate and I have mostly wrung our hands and said this is the sort of strong medicine to be wary and careful with, and I've been surprised that just having concerns about it has been dismissed so readily. Concerns are good! (And they're not "doomsday" ones we're talking about here!)

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:27 (seventeen years ago)

Well I guess I did not see what plausibly sound legal alternatives were being proposed. I do not know that a Missouri state stalking stautute is going to give a state court judge the power to order the turnover of data housed in a storage device that is located out of state. Because the case right now is about the evidence.

I think it comes down to internet life=IRL: Classic or dud? Which I agree is very subjective to some people.

Personally, I would rather the government spend its time and money prosecuting this one scumbag under an imperfect theory than sitting around debating which hypothetical other crimes to prevent by writing a statute about it. But that does assume people are more deterred by cases in the news than by reading statutes.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:32 (seventeen years ago)

Haha my problem with this is that for most of the afternoon NO ONE has said they should preclude exercising the statutes, and yet you and Felicity have at times argued with us as if we are.

I'm all for this woman being punished, but not this way.

-- jeff, Friday, May 16, 2008 2:24 AM (Friday, May 16, 2008 2:24 AM) Bookmark Link

===================

-- o. nate, Friday, May 16, 2008 4:22 PM (Friday, May 16, 2008 4:22 PM) Bookmark Link

===================

Also, it's pretty naive to say that "if it leads to the application of that statute in bad ways in the future, public opinion will turn on it" -- yeah, that's always worked so well in the past...

-- Charlie Rose Nylund, Friday, May 16, 2008 5:22 PM (Friday, May 16, 2008 5:22 PM) Bookmark Link

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:37 (seventeen years ago)

I fully admit the o. nate post is more implication than anything else.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:38 (seventeen years ago)

O.nate doesn't even imply, he asks a question -- like I said, he and I have mostly been hand-wringing and thinking through drawbacks. I have been ignoring Charlie.

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:40 (seventeen years ago)

There's context behind that post, obviously; you don't hand-wring about something if you aren't entertaining the notion that it's a bad idea! Or, if you do, you're operating at about 500 Costanzas on the neurotic scale.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:44 (seventeen years ago)

charlie is completely OTM and so is the salon commentary posted upthread.

it's amazing to me how cavalier some ppl are about this. setting dangerous legal precedents isn't like burning toast.

― J.D., Friday, 16 May 2008 23:46 (seventeen years ago)

Everyone does raise valid concerns.

There is a lot of mystification about the law and the internet. Private conduct has been leading the edge in making cyberlaw for some time.

For example, we have been in a "shoot first" wild phase in cyberlaw with respect to copyright. I think it's good for the government to provide a counterbalance by being creative in the area of public protection of minors.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:46 (seventeen years ago)

To be clear, I was saying that I think this legal theory has flaws and is not likely to hold up. I also am not sure that what occurred is criminal conduct. I think a civil suit may be the appropriate punishment.

Also, I posted that comment this morning, not this afternoon. Thank you.

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:47 (seventeen years ago)

Honestly, I don't know if this is a good idea or not. I do think it's an interesting idea and I want to see how it plays out.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:47 (seventeen years ago)

I don't know that it's cavalier so much as conviction that this is a case worth pursuing and that the system can distinguish it from cases that are not.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:48 (seventeen years ago)

xpost -
That's just not true, Dan -- it's a "strong medicine" concern. I don't mean to speak for O.Nate, but I think both of us having been saying something like "I'm generally okay with it IN THIS CASE, but I am skeptical and have concerns about it being misapplied in future." Surely there is nothing neurotic or hypocritical about that.

A lot of responses to those concerns have been "yeah but what else are you going to do in THIS CASE," which ... I was getting frustrated upthread by continually saying "I'm not talking about this case, I'm talking about ideal ways to handle such things in the future so you don't have to keep taking the strong-medicine solution." I think that's been made clear by now, though.

― nabisco, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:51 (seventeen years ago)

I could use another 200 words on it.

― jeff, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:52 (seventeen years ago)

nabisco, I think you've been saying that but I don't believe o. nate's been saying that. If he has, you're right in that we've spent most of the day arguing past each other.

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:54 (seventeen years ago)

What I probably like most about the case right not is that it uses the litigation privilege to name and shame the scumbags.

― felicity, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:57 (seventeen years ago)

(Also I don't believe I ever invoked or implied hypocrisy anywhere...?)

― HI DERE, Friday, 16 May 2008 23:58 (seventeen years ago)

I have no problem with the outing. If they aren't subject to criminal punishment, an old fashioned Scarlet Letter will do. Time for them to call a realtor.

-- Bill Magill, Friday, November 16, 2007 6:59 AM (6 months ago) Bookmark Link

― felicity, Saturday, 17 May 2008 00:00 (seventeen years ago)

I'm not sure I'm super-comfortable with that in theory.

In practice, I'm all "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" though. Life is hard. ;_;

― HI DERE, Saturday, 17 May 2008 00:02 (seventeen years ago)

Furthermore, I would argue that if you disagree with the way a particular law or statute is being exercised, you have avenues through which you can lobby your disagreement, namely your Congressmen; after all, that's why they're there.

There's a little bit of conflation here between making law and interpreting existing law; ultimately, the public doesn't really have a direct say in a lot of that process -- we aren't specialists, we can't get rid of judges on the Supreme Court, etc. I do agree that voting is the answer in principle, though in reality I think that, far more than we realize, we depend largely on the integrity of judges and attorneys to maintain our civil liberties and such.

I have been ignoring Charlie.

Gee, thanks, Nabisco. I'm vaguely curious as to what I did to merit that, considering that I (almost) completely agree with you.

And again, for the record, I'm in favor of making this woman's life miserable; I just don't think this is the right law to do it with. Totally agree that civil court is the place for it, especially if there really is no law under which criminal charges can otherwise be brought.

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Saturday, 17 May 2008 00:10 (seventeen years ago)

This might or might not have been linked on here yet -- busy thread, but Steve Pokin, whose initial story on all this brought it to light, has this new piece up:

Banas, the St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney, said that in his review of the case he relied on the initial investigation done by the FBI here in the St. Louis area.
Banas considered existing state laws regarding stalking, endangerment and harassment and concluded that they did not fit the circumstances of Drew’s involvement in the MySpace hoax that led to 13-year-old Megan Meier committing suicide.
"The state laws didn’t fit, and I still say that’s the problem," Banas said. "In light of that I think our Legislature has stepped up and amended some of those statutes."
A new cyberspace harassment bill this morning passed in the Missouri House and is expected to pass in the Senate, provided the bill makes it to the Senate floor for a vote. The legislative session ends at 6 p.m. today.
U.S. Attorney Hanaway, who heads the office for the Eastern District of Missouri, was asked why federal law provided an opportunity for charges in Los Angeles and not here in Missouri, where events occurred.
In a brief, prepared statement, Hanaway said:
"This office reviewed the Drew case for cyber threats, and found that none were made. Because the MySpace servers are in the State of California, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District has jurisdiction in this case. We have worked closely with the U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California and fully support their prosecution."
...
Drew and her husband Curt were contacted at home for comment late Thursday afternoon.
"Not right now," Curt Drew said.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 17 May 2008 00:17 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah see that's the difference between this and Mississippi '64, you know? Obviously I'm glad to hear they're amending existing laws to try and catch this. Hopefully in a way that's, you know, precise but flexible.

Sorry, Charlie, I wasn't trying to be mean with the "ignoring" thing -- I don't think you were being terrible wrong, it just seemed like your arguments were tacking off in a direction that didn't seem helpful, and leading Dan/Felicity away from clarifying the stuff I wanted to know. Not your problem.

― nabisco, Saturday, 17 May 2008 01:21 (seventeen years ago)

can't the parents even be done for fraud?

-- CharlieNo4, Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:32 AM (Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:32 AM) Bookmark Link

^^^ the FBI reads ILE

― HI DERE, Saturday, 17 May 2008 02:04 (seventeen years ago)

Great thread.

― felicity, Saturday, 17 May 2008 02:14 (seventeen years ago)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1137/841452186_9546bbadf1.jpg

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Saturday, 17 May 2008 17:26 (seventeen years ago)

nabisco, I think you've been saying that but I don't believe o. nate's been saying that. If he has, you're right in that we've spent most of the day arguing past each other.

I'm kind of undecided on the application of these specific statutes in this specific case. Do I think it would be a good thing to have some sort of precedent that would dissuade cyber-bullying? Yes. Do I think these statutes are the right ones to use? No.

I'm not sure which consideration should outweigh the other here. Nothing is going to bring that girl back to life. The parents can seek remuneration in civil court. The woman has already been punished pretty severely by becoming the national poster child for obsessively cruel online behavior to minors. This case is already leading to more specific legislation being drafted which will more directly apply to cyber-bullying and without causing a dangerous precedent. So do I think we really need to have a criminal case against this particular woman, even if leads to a very broad interpretation of a bad law becoming precedent? Still undecided.

― o. nate, Monday, 19 May 2008 16:34 (seventeen years ago)

I'm pleased something is being done about this . I still feel the same revulsion as I did six months ago when I started this thread.

― Herman G. Neuname, Monday, 19 May 2008 16:59 (seventeen years ago)

interesting comparison:

http://www.startribune.com/local/19351084.html

Court: Man can be charged with identity theft in suicide
By RYAN J. FOLEY , Associated Press

Last update: May 29, 2008 - 12:53 PM

MADISON, Wis. - A Wisconsin man accused of driving his boss to suicide can be charged with identity theft for sending e-mails under his name, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

Christopher Baron has admitted hacking into the work e-mail of Mark Fisher, who was director of Jefferson's Emergency Medical Service program.

Baron, an emergency medical technician, forwarded to 10 people e-mails from Fisher's account suggesting the boss was having an affair with a female employee. Fisher, who was married, committed suicide the next day.

Baron, 32, was charged with six criminal counts, including identity theft, obstructing an officer and computer crimes. Prosecutors filed and then dropped a criminal defamation charge.

The only issue in Thursday's ruling by the District 4 Court of Appeals was whether Baron could be charged with identity theft.

Baron argued he had a right under the First Amendment to defame a public official with true information. He told investigators he wanted people to know about Fisher's affair and that his boss was not a "golden boy."

The e-mails, forwarded to local EMS workers and Fisher's wife, showed Fisher was trading sexual innuendoes with the female employee and using an apartment owned by the department to carry on the affair.

A Jefferson County judge ruled last year the identity theft law was unconstitutional as applied to Baron's case because he stole the identity of a public official. Prosecutors appealed.

The District 4 Court of Appeals reversed the decision and reinstated the charge. The law does not violate Baron's free speech rights, Judge Burnie Bridge wrote for a three-judge panel.

"In sum, the identity theft statute neither prohibited Baron from disseminating information about Fisher nor prevented the public from receiving that information," she wrote. "Instead, the statute prohibited Baron from purporting to be Fisher when he sent the e-mails."

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office represented prosecutors in the appeal, said the ruling was right in recognizing Wisconsin's identity theft laws limit conduct, not speech.

"Citizens have a fundamental constitutional right to criticize public officials, so long as they do not disseminate information they know to be false or act with reckless disregard to the truth," Van Hollen said. "There is no constitutional right, however, to damage someone's reputation by assuming that person's identity without their consent."

Baron's attorney, Daniel P. Dunn, did not immediately return a voice message.

― gff, Thursday, 29 May 2008 19:04 (seventeen years ago)

> A Wisconsin man accused of driving his boss to suicide

Livin' the American dream!

― Oilyrags, Thursday, 29 May 2008 19:12 (seventeen years ago)

http://z.about.com/d/crime/1/0/N/S/austin_s.jpg

― jeff, Thursday, 29 May 2008 19:26 (seventeen years ago)

i go to a drive-in theatre in jefferson.

― amateurist, Thursday, 29 May 2008 19:45 (seventeen years ago)

It's an interesting comparison because it seems to be another case where the statute that's being applied was not designed with this type of case in mind. What that Wisconsin guy did who forwarded the emails wasn't really identity theft. It didn't really matter whether it appeared that the person who forwarded the incriminating emails was the boss or someone else - the important thing was that the incriminating emails were made public. If the guy could have easily forwarded them anonymously some other way, he probably would have done so.

― o. nate, Thursday, 29 May 2008 19:48 (seventeen years ago)

but then he might be violating the TOS of hotmail or gmail

― jeff, Thursday, 29 May 2008 19:55 (seventeen years ago)

one month passes...

Lori Drew Moves to Dismiss Indictment

The argument that the actions were not "intentional" or "unauthorized" because they can't prove that the defendant read the terms of service is pretty weak.

They may have a point on the vagueness grounds generally in that the overall purpose of the statute seems to be directed at economic fraud and criminal statues must be construed strictly.

However, the unique facts of this case arguably do fall under the literal wording of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The defendants said they created the account to "obtain information" - purportedly what the victim was saying about the other girl. Then it turned into something really malicious. It's beyond cyberbullying, I think, because the defendants hid behind a false identity.

The difference between overlapping criminal and civil offenses is generally on the level of intent and burden of proof. I'd be inclined towards a more transparent approach and let it go to a jury.

― felicity, Thursday, 24 July 2008 17:36 (seventeen years ago)

three months pass...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7736078.stm

Initial jury selection has begun in the trial of a Missouri woman alleged to have used a fake MySpace profile to bully a girl who later killed herself.

― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 18 November 2008 21:31 (seventeen years ago)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_re_us/internet_suicide

Misdemeanor convictions, mistrial on the main conspiracy charge.

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 20:09 (seventeen years ago)

blame the victim ftw

― mayor jingleberries, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 21:52 (seventeen years ago)

Will there be a retrial?

― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Wednesday, 26 November 2008 23:09 (seventeen years ago)

Probably not, but a year and a $100,000 is better than the nothing which seemed to be happening before the Feds got involved.

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 23:14 (seventeen years ago)

Potential year and $100,000 that is, but I have a feeling that she won't get a light sentence.

― Alex in SF, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 23:16 (seventeen years ago)

seven months pass...

Not surprising:

A federal judge tentatively decided today to dismiss the case against a Missouri woman who had been convicted of computer fraud stemming from an Internet hoax that prompted a teenage girl to commit suicide.
Lori Drew of Darden Prairie, Mo., was convicted in November of three misdemeanor counts of illegally accessing a protected computer.
The decision by U.S. District Judge George H. Wu will not become final until his written ruling is filed, probably next week. Wu said he was concerned that if Drew was found guilty of violating the terms of service in using MySpace, anyone who violated the terms could be convicted of a crime.
Drew 50, was to be sentenced in May but Wu had delayed the sentencing until today, saying he wanted to consider the defense motion to dismiss the entire case.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 2 July 2009 19:40 (sixteen years ago)

a few people upthread might be surprised

― josh fenderman (jeff), Thursday, 2 July 2009 19:54 (sixteen years ago)

she's probably paid enough of a price at this point tbh

― spiritual giant Cubby Culbertson (omar little), Thursday, 2 July 2009 19:59 (sixteen years ago)

probably not tbh

― the sideburns are album-specific (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:02 (sixteen years ago)

She still needs to get run over by an ice cream truck imo.

― Detroit Metal City (Nicole), Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:10 (sixteen years ago)

anything less than a good 8 year stretch in some minimum security prison is too little.

― ian, Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:32 (sixteen years ago)

really don't think she could ever pay enough of a price

― rembrandt what (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:33 (sixteen years ago)

what's your take on waterboarding

― ian, Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:51 (sixteen years ago)

He thinks it would be too good for her.

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:54 (sixteen years ago)

there are a few things that i wouldn't wish on this woman, waterboarding is one of them

― rembrandt what (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:57 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.bondageblog.com/bondage-pictures/john-willie-girls-in-stocks.jpg

― ian, Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:58 (sixteen years ago)

bondage-pictures

― rembrandt what (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:01 (sixteen years ago)

Wu said he was concerned that if Drew was found guilty of violating the terms of service in using MySpace, anyone who violated the terms could be convicted of a crime.

this is stupid.

― mizzell, Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:02 (sixteen years ago)

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of smart legal minds (see EFF post from way above) seemed concerned about the implication of the precedent.

― Alex in SF, Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:16 (sixteen years ago)

yeah i agree - this would've opened the door for ppl with fake 50 cent myspaces and shit

― rembrandt what (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

to be prosecuted

― rembrandt what (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:21 (sixteen years ago)

seems to me like the woman clearly did something really horrible but there was no law she specifically violated to do so, or the evidence on hand was not enough to go for something more intuitive or morally obvious like "harassment", so they used something technical. that's kind of the nature of legal work (we have a shitload of lawyers on this board so i shd keep my mouth shut, but eh) you make the argument you have at hand.

― goole, Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:24 (sixteen years ago)

or anyone who just didn't want to use their actual full identity
xpost

― The Cursed Return of the Dastardly Thermo Thinwall, Thursday, 2 July 2009 21:24 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.