NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/woman-indicted-in-myspace-suicide-case/20080515152309990001?icid=100214839x1202336530x1200088009

LOS ANGELES (May 16) - A Missouri woman was indicted Thursday for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.

Lori Drew, 49, of suburban St. Louis, who allegedly helped create a MySpace account in the name of someone who didn't exist to convince Megan Meier she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans, was charged with conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else's computer.

Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006, allegedly after receiving a dozen or more cruel messages, including one stating the world would be better off without her.

Salvador Hernandez, assistant agent in charge of the Los Angeles FBI office, called the case heart-rending.

"The Internet is a world unto itself. People must know how far they can go before they must stop. They exploited a young girl's weaknesses," Hernandez said. "Whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible for her actions."

Drew was indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress on the girl.

Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Megan.

What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?
No
What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?
Yes, at least in part.

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?
It sounds like the statute they are going to use to prosecute this woman does not clearly apply. So it will be an interesting court battle.

Yet, I believe this woman deserves some kind of punishment. I would simply advocate shunning, like I did in the epilepsy site attack case.

This is a tough one and probably requires a lawyer's opinion.

Disregarding that, I think that maliciously targeting someone, and if I remember this case correctly then that's what happened, is something deserving of punishment.

One has to disregard individual sensitivities, and to some extent the accused is not guilty of driving someone to suicide, but they are guilty of being malicious and cruel regardless of whether the victim is strong enough to take it and ignore or whether they're driven to tragic consequences.

Personally I found this troubling, that someone was so oblivious to how a person might feel, where they had a child themselves, I just found it troubling.

She was convicted on computer related charges, but sometimes the law is what it is and you charge according to what you can convict on rather than the nature of the crime itself.

no i dont think she is responsible. i dont think she had reason to know that a childish internet prank would cause this girl to kill herself.

Last month, an employee of Drew, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good Morning America" she created the false MySpace profile but Drew wrote some of the messages to Megan.

Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.

Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.

"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.

haha, this case aint going nowhere

and the other crime she's charged with is nonsensical. she flat out didn't fraudulently gain access to someone else's computer.

What seems clear is that this woman acted out of malicious intent. But is she guilty of the girl's suicide, I don't know enough to offer an opinion. Did she personally knopw this girl, did she know the girl was emotionally unstable, enough to end her own life? Did the woman have an end result of the girl committing suicide?

My gut feeling is the woman is twisted, nasty and vindictive. She pretended to be this boy "Josh", who "befriended" then spurned the girl, perhaps to teach her a lesson (on behalf of her daughter)?

If this woman has any sort of conscience, this terrible outcome will be with her for the rest of her lilfe, hopefully, this is punishment enough.

As an aside, this is yet another example of how dangerous it can be for minors to have unrestricted access to the internet. Vulnerable and naive minors tend to magnify things out of all proportion and can be ripe for bullying and harrassment from their peers and others.

no i dont think she is responsible. i dont think she had reason to know that a childish internet prank would cause this girl to kill herself.

Except for one detail: If I remember the case correctly -- and just from what I learned in the media back when it happened -- the woman knew the girl.

The girl had a social connection to the woman's daughter, and the two families lived on the same street, within sight of each other's houses. The woman had ample opportunity to learn, by observation and by comments from her daughter and other people, that this girl had emotional problems. This was not some random internet bully just shooting off their mouth without thinking about whether anyone might be listening. This was a knowing and deliberate targeting of a specific individual by a person who was in a position to observe the effect they were having on their victim over time. The maliciousness required to do that is something I find seriously disturbing. Factor in that this was an adult knowingly doing this to a child, and it gets even scarier. Hell, the vicious bitch even attended the dead girl's funeral and then made sarcastic remarks about her suicide to her parents. *head explode*

As I recall, at the time it happened and the perpetrator was identified, the DA said there was nothing they could do because the law did not address this kind of action. But apparently, they are like me in that they just could not let this slide. I don't know if they will be able to make their case as they've attempted to construct it, but I sure as hell hope they succeed.

EDIT:
What seems clear is that this woman acted out of malicious intent. But is she guilty of the girl's suicide, I don't know enough to offer an opinion. Did she personally knopw this girl, did she know the girl was emotionally unstable, enough to end her own life? Did the woman have an end result of the girl committing suicide?

<snip>
Apparently, she did know the girl.

Perhaps she did not know the extent of the girls emotional/psychological problems, but the fact that this was a personal verbal attack, rather than a random one, clearly makes it deliberate harrassment.

Also, considering the woman's behavior after the fact (again, according to media reports), I seriously doubt the woman has much of a conscience to be bothered by.

the woman was flat out wrong in what she did. its creepy to be that involved in your daughter's life that you would participate in cyberstalking one of her real life "enemies"

but to suggest that having a pretend internet boyfriend break up with someone and saying mean things about her online is the same as trying to drive her to suicide is supposing a depth of knowledge of the girl that i dont think she had.

This is too big a leap to make. The woman's prank can't be deemed to be the cause of the child's suicide. The child killed herself, nobody else.

If the woman loses this case, it opens a huge can of worms. There seems to be enough reasons to goto court as it is. A 30 Year Old will sue her high school bully for loss of earnings because she got lower test scores than she should have, and thus didn't go to uni, etc.

the woman was flat out wrong in what she did. its creepy to be that involved in your daughter's life that you would participate in cyberstalking one of her real life "enemies"

but to suggest that having a pretend internet boyfriend break up with someone and saying mean things about her online is the same as trying to drive her to suicide is supposing a depth of knowledge of the girl that i dont think she had.

Yeah I agree, but manslaughter charges seem like a good idea.

the woman was flat out wrong in what she did. its creepy to be that involved in your daughter's life that you would participate in cyberstalking one of her real life "enemies"

but to suggest that having a pretend internet boyfriend break up with someone and saying mean things about her online is the same as trying to drive her to suicide is supposing a depth of knowledge of the girl that i dont think she had.
She doesn't have to have been trying for that specific result. There is such a thing as homicide or manslaughter by "depraved indifference" to the effect of one's actions. If a person can reasonably be expected to know that a bad result could come of their actions, and they choose to do it anyway voluntarily, then they can be held legally responsible for any outcome, whether they had planned it or not.

My argument would be that an adult and a parent can be reasonably expected to know that harrassing and verbally abusing a child for an extended period of time is likely to yield a bad result for the child.

That is just my view of the morals/ethics of the situation. Clearly, the law in that state is not written in such a way to allow the prosecutors to make specifically that case, but I think it may be the reason they are trying to make any case against her at all. At the very least, if they can get a conviction against her -- even though the punishment will likely be grossly inadequate -- it will open the way for the girl's parents to bring a wrongful death suit against the woman, and thus increase the punishment for her actions.

If the woman loses this case, it opens a huge can of worms. There seems to be enough reasons to goto court as it is. A 30 Year Old will sue her high school bully for loss of earnings because she got lower test scores than she should have, and thus didn't go to uni, etc.

Other than a statute of limitations problem...why not? If she can make the case, what's wrong with that?

This is too big a leap to make. The woman's prank can't be deemed to be the cause of the child's suicide. The child killed herself, nobody else.

If the woman loses this case, it opens a huge can of worms. There seems to be enough reasons to goto court as it is. A 30 Year Old will sue her high school bully for loss of earnings because she got lower test scores than she should have, and thus didn't go to uni, etc.
Well, there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. Just ask all the victims of pedophile priest abuse who couldn't get charges brought because they came forward too late.

But yeah, it would be just horrible if bullies could suffer consequences for being shits to people. Horrible for the bullies.

How ludicrous. Charges of manslaughter?!

Though I fully agree that woman definitely crossed a threshold, and I agree that some kind of punishment should be in order (at best, disorderly conduct), she ultimately did not tie the rope... That was the 13-year-old's choice.

Maybe the guilt alone will be sufficient punishment for this woman.

No, this girl already had a ton of problems if she's committing suicide over nasty messages on the internet.

It's the Internet, for christ's sake, we're talking about the place that brought you Something Awful and 4Chan. If you can't handle even mild messages, you shouldn't be on the internet to begin with.

The woman who did that is clearly cruel and vindictive... Treating a young girl like her puppet for amusement.

Yes.

Now hear me out.

I had read the original story when it first came out; when it was filled with all the dirty details. From what I remember, Lori Drew as a neighbour, and her daughter was friends with the victim in question. Now then, as the two girls were friend, I'm sure that the victim would have spent time over with her friend at her friend's house, and hence would have been around Drew.

The victim's mother and the victim's friend's mother knew each other, so it makes sense that Drew would have known of the victim's unstable mental condition. Even if she didn't directly force the girl to take her own life, she did indirectly act as a proxy in aiding the suicide process by removing one more nail from the shoddy infrastructure that already threatened to collapse even under the slightest force.

Also, as she is an adult and a mother, she should have had the moral fibre to say to herself, "hey, this is wrong". She should have the ethical will to realise she was plain wrong in how she pursued this. If she had approached the victim's mother earlier and explain what the problem is, there would be no need for this discussion.

Granted, she didn't force the victim to kill hang herself, but she did aggravate the situation with her words and actions.

No, this girl already had a ton of problems if she's committing suicide over nasty messages on the internet.

It's the Internet, for christ's sake, we're talking about the place that brought you Something Awful and 4Chan. If you can't handle even mild messages, you shouldn't be on the internet to begin with.

I really don't disagree with what you're saying - caveat emptor is not the right phrase I suppose but at some point a crime is a crime - it's for the law to decide where those boundaries are.

This might be an irrelevant comparison but does walking through a known dangerous estate absolve a criminal from causing you harm in that estate?

At some point, harm is harm despite the location. Just because people tend to speak their mind more openly on the Internet due to a certain distance, doesn't mean there's no malicious harm.

I feel, and this is only my opinion, that this person crossed the line in terms of maliciously causing harm. I can understand if this opinion is deemed incorrect but, if one strips away individual circumstances, malicious actions intended to cause misery occurred.

I really don't disagree with what you're saying - caveat emptor is not the right phrase I suppose but at some point a crime is a crime - it's for the law to decide where those boundaries are.

This might be an irrelevant comparison but does walking through a known dangerous estate absolve a criminal from causing you harm in that estate?

At some point, harm is harm despite the location. Just because people tend to speak their mind more openly on the Internet due to a certain distance, doesn't mean there's no malicious harm.

I feel, and this is only my opinion, that this person crossed the line in terms of maliciously causing harm. I can understand if this opinion is deemed incorrect but, if one strips away individual circumstances, malicious actions intended to cause misery occurred.
I agree with your points, but in this one particular instance, I think the individual circumstances define the case. The fact that the victim was known to the perpetrator and was targeted specifically and deliberately makes the case fundamentally different from typical "internet bully" matters. Because of the targeting of a specific person, this case is removed from any consideration of the dangers of an open public space, in my opinion. There was nothing "open" or "public" about this situation. It was one person deliberately going after another person.

Lori Drew is a twisted person. Getting involved in pety teenaged fights is something the parents should always avoid.

As for manslaughter charges... I don't think it proceeds. As someone else posted, publicly shunning the Drew family is the best course of action.

This brings to mind a larger question...why is suicide, or driving someone to suicide, necessarily bad?

I understand that in this particular case, it was a minor who committed suicide, who may not have been fully capable of making that decision for herself, but in the general case...presumably adults are capable of setting their own priorities and deciding for themselves how best to fulfill them, or what is and is not worth the effort, right?

I agree with your points, but in this one particular instance, I think the individual circumstances define the case. The fact that the victim was known to the perpetrator and was targeted specifically and deliberately makes the case fundamentally different from typical "internet bully" matters. Because of the targeting of a specific person, this case is removed from any consideration of the dangers of an open public space, in my opinion. There was nothing "open" or "public" about this situation. It was one person deliberately going after another person.

Yeah, I don't fully understand myself in feeling that this is a truly tragic case. As much as I feel people should be exposed to something that is simply a fact of life - people can be nasty and we shouldn't be so sensitive - there's just something very mean about this particular case.

I can understand someone becoming so involved in personal feelings that they don't fully recognise the implications of what they do, they are driven down into a tunnel of personal justification.

I just don't think it should be encouraged and, more, it should be actively discouraged. If some people have to suffer for that, so be it.

Lori Drew is a twisted person. Getting involved in pety teenaged fights is something the parents should always avoid.

As for manslaughter charges... I don't think it proceeds. As someone else posted, publicly shunning the Drew family is the best course of action.

Actually I can see how involuntary manslaughter could apply...



Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness

Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.

This brings to mind a larger question...why is suicide, or driving someone to suicide, necessarily bad?

I understand that in this particular case, it was a minor who committed suicide, who may not have been fully capable of making that decision for herself, but in the general case...presumably adults are capable of setting their own priorities and deciding for themselves how best to fulfill them, or what is and is not worth the effort, right?
I do not believe that suicide is necessarily a bad thing.

However, driving a person to do something is generally bad. If someone wants to do something and chooses to do it freely, then you don't have to drive them to do it. The "driving them to it" part suggests that they would not have willinging made such a choice if you had not pressured them into it, thus undermining their own free volition.

Also, your suggestion that adults can be presumed to be able to make proper decisions for themselves is simplistic and ignores the reality of mental illness or extreme emotional distress, both of which conditions can render an adult person incapable of making rational decisions. For example, in my opinion, committing suicide because you are already dying of an incurable, painful and otherwise unpleasant disease would be an entirely rational decision, and such a death would be a good choice. On the other hand, committing suicide because of an extreme mood swing due to treatable psychosis or temporary hormonal imbalance is not, in my opinion, a rational decision, and such a death would be a tragedy. Each case must be judged independently, and we cannot assume that just because suicide may be a legitimate choice, that makes every suicide completely voluntary.

How ludicrous. Charges of manslaughter?!

Though I fully agree that woman definitely crossed a threshold, and I agree that some kind of punishment should be in order (at best, disorderly conduct), she ultimately did not tie the rope... That was the 13-year-old's choice.

Maybe the guilt alone will be sufficient punishment for this woman.



No I think not, if by your actions somebody dies, then that is manslaughter, and this woman should thus be charged.

But yeah, it would be just horrible if bullies could suffer consequences for being shits to people. Horrible for the bullies.

I think you missed the point here. it was just a cheesy example. Here's a few more for you. US troops who commit suicide. Should there families charge the military recruiters with manslaughter, as they should have known sending this person to a war zone would make them suicidal? Any president who has sent troops to anything that didn't involve defending American soil?

Owners of gun shops. They know that their weapons only purpose is to kill. Thus they know that sooner or later someone will be killed by their guns?.

Just for the record. I think the prank is reprehensible. The thing is, she did not kill the girl, and it is unreasonable to charge her with any crimes such as manslaughter. If there are certain statutes that cover harmful practical jokes, go for it.

I think you missed the point here. it was just a cheesy example. Here's a few more for you. US troops who commit suicide. Should there families charge the military recruiters with manslaughter, as they should have known sending this person to a war zone would make them suicidal? Any president who has sent troops to anything that didn't involve defending American soil?

Owners of gun shops. They know that their weapons only purpose is to kill. Thus they know that sooner or later someone will be killed by their guns?.

Just for the record. I think the prank is reprehensible. The thing is, she did not kill the girl, and it is unreasonable to charge her with any crimes such as manslaughter. If there are certain statutes that cover harmful practical jokes, go for it.

You are aware of the fact that she knew the girl, yes?
Her daughter and the girl were friends (at one point), and this "joke" was done to get even with the girl on behalf of her daughter.

I think you missed the point here. it was just a cheesy example. Here's a few more for you. US troops who commit suicide. Should there families charge the military recruiters with manslaughter, as they should have known sending this person to a war zone would make them suicidal? Any president who has sent troops to anything that didn't involve defending American soil?

Why not? Honestly, I think if a military recruiter lied, downplayed the risks, didn't allow the soldier to give full and informed consent, and the recruiter knew, or should have known, the consequences, damned right he should get charged.

That's what manslaughter is, a depraved indifference to human life.

No I think not, if by your actions somebody dies, then that is manslaughter, and this woman should thus be charged.

well yes and no. If someone dies by your actions it's homicide. Whether or not it's manslaughter depends on the how and why of it.

I find it much too difficult to consider to what extent this can be called manslaughter, especially since suicide is always a personal choice and the woman wasn't actually there tying the knot. So I'm not going to consider that aspect.

The trouble for a lot of people seem to be the fact that all this abuse took place on the net, as if that somehow absolves the woman. But imagine if you heard of a grown woman on your street sending cruel letters to a known 13 year old, calling her up regularly and telling her she's worthless and yelling names after her on the street. It's pretty much the same, and I know I would be wishing for a pretty damn harsh verdict.

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/woman-indicted-in-myspace-suicide-case/20080515152309990001?icid=100214839x1202336530x1200088009



What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?

1. I don't think that, for most people, this would be enough to provoke suicide. But you must remember that teenagers are inherently physiologically/psychologically unstable and we don't know everything about this girl's background.

2. Lori Drew would not have been indicted if there had not been enough evidence of some sort of wrongdoing to bring her to trial. Please remember an indictment is not a conviction. Whether she is actually guilty of something remains to be seen.

I find it much too difficult to consider to what extent this can be called manslaughter, especially since suicide is always a personal choice and the woman wasn't actually there tying the knot. So I'm not going to consider that aspect.

The trouble for a lot of people seem to be the fact that all this abuse took place on the net, as if that somehow absolves the woman. But imagine if you heard of a grown woman on your street sending cruel letters to a known 13 year old, calling her up regularly and telling her she's worthless and yelling names after her on the street. It's pretty much the same, and I know I would be wishing for a pretty damn harsh verdict.

To the people arguing this, you should take the time to find out what manslaughter is first...

If the woman had been there tying the knot, then it would not be a case of a suicide and manslaughter charges, it would be a homicide and murder charges.

Except for one detail: If I remember the case correctly -- and just from what I learned in the media back when it happened -- the woman knew the girl.

The girl had a social connection to the woman's daughter, and the two families lived on the same street, within sight of each other's houses. The woman had ample opportunity to learn, by observation and by comments from her daughter and other people, that this girl had emotional problems. This was not some random internet bully just shooting off their mouth without thinking about whether anyone might be listening. This was a knowing and deliberate targeting of a specific individual by a person who was in a position to observe the effect they were having on their victim over time. The maliciousness required to do that is something I find seriously disturbing. Factor in that this was an adult knowingly doing this to a child, and it gets even scarier. Hell, the vicious bitch even attended the dead girl's funeral and then made sarcastic remarks about her suicide to her parents. *head explode*

As I recall, at the time it happened and the perpetrator was identified, the DA said there was nothing they could do because the law did not address this kind of action. But apparently, they are like me in that they just could not let this slide. I don't know if they will be able to make their case as they've attempted to construct it, but I sure as hell hope they succeed.

EDIT:

Apparently, she did know the girl.

Perhaps she did not know the extent of the girls emotional/psychological problems, but the fact that this was a personal verbal attack, rather than a random one, clearly makes it deliberate harrassment.

Also, considering the woman's behavior after the fact (again, according to media reports), I seriously doubt the woman has much of a conscience to be bothered by.

I totally agree. This (grown) woman took advantage of a child's weaknesses, knowing that it was wrong. Knowing that it was harassment. Knowing that she was destroying an impressionable child's life. Living so closely to the family, having such an agenda, knowing that the girl had issues...

I don't believe that lady feels remorse at all for what she did, she might feel remorse for being caught. But, nothing more. By showing up at the funeral and showing no compassion whatsoever through her actions, it's apparent that she has no conscience.

Personally, I think she should be removed from society and thrown in prison, at least with manslaughter charges. She was a determining factor in that girl's decision to end her life.

Internet bullying has grown rampant, and I think this lady should be made an example out of. It's a good thing that I'm not in charge of that legal situation.

1. I don't think that, for most people, this would be enough to provoke suicide. But you must remember that teenagers are inherently physiologically/psychologically unstable and we don't know everything about this girl's background.

2. Lori Drew would not have been indicted if there had not been enough evidence of some sort of wrongdoing to bring her to trial. Please remember an indictment is not a conviction. Whether she is actually guilty of something remains to be seen.

Then we should wait until the final decison with this case is taken.

I think you missed the point here. it was just a cheesy example. Here's a few more for you. US troops who commit suicide. Should there families charge the military recruiters with manslaughter, as they should have known sending this person to a war zone would make them suicidal? Any president who has sent troops to anything that didn't involve defending American soil?

Owners of gun shops. They know that their weapons only purpose is to kill. Thus they know that sooner or later someone will be killed by their guns?.
You're attempting to change the subject. You're also making an invalid comparison.

You talked about bullies. I addressed bullies -- not cases of liability attached to people conducting normal business. The thread is about a case of bullying, not about bad results coming from normal business conduct.

A soldier who is sent to war can expect to undergo horrible experiences. Are you suggesting that a person chatting on the internet should expect the same horrors as a soldier going to war? When a president deploys troops, the troops know that the president is sending them to face those horrors, potentially. Are you suggesting that a person chatting with someone on the internet should also somehow know that this person is setting them up for abuse and harrassment? If so, then what the hell are we all doing here?

Also, there is nothing personal in the examples you list. The president sending troops to a war is not trying to harm one particular soldier. The gunshop owner selling guns is not trying to kill a particular person. The woman in this case was most certainly attempting to harm that one girl, and no one else.

Your slippery slope argument just does not apply because there is no chain of events to connect gunshop owners to this woman.

Just for the record. I think the prank is reprehensible. The thing is, she did not kill the girl, and it is unreasonable to charge her with any crimes such as manslaughter. If there are certain statutes that cover harmful practical jokes, go for it.
You call this a joke? A prank? This was no joke. This was the deliberate targeting of an individual. If the woman had not known that the person her "Josh" character was talking to was this girl who lived down the street, you might have an argument. But according to the reports when the events occurred, she actually did know who she was talking to in real life.

If I came to your house and burned a cross on your lawn and painted threats on your front door, would you call it a prank for which no one could be held responsible? If I yelled verbal abuse at you every time I saw you on the street, would you dismiss that as a random joke? If I involved myself personally in your life under false pretenses and harrassed and tormented you repeatedly over time, would you just shrug that off as something that just happens for which no one can be held to account? Because that is what this woman did to this girl.

well yes and no. If someone dies by your actions it's homicide. Whether or not it's manslaughter depends on the how and why of it.

Yeah okay, perhaps I should have added a little on the intent of your actions, but you know what I mean.

Then we should wait until the final decison with this case is taken.

Exactly. One of the basic premises of the American judicial system is the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is disregarded completely in the media where people are tried and convicted daily before they are even indicted.

I believe that what this woman did was reprehensible, childish, cruel, ignorant, stupid and unworthy of anyone claiming to be human. If I knew her, I would shun her. Whether it was actually a felony is still up in the air.

I find it much too difficult to consider to what extent this can be called manslaughter, especially since suicide is always a personal choice and the woman wasn't actually there tying the knot. So I'm not going to consider that aspect.

The trouble for a lot of people seem to be the fact that all this abuse took place on the net, as if that somehow absolves the woman. But imagine if you heard of a grown woman on your street sending cruel letters to a known 13 year old, calling her up regularly and telling her she's worthless and yelling names after her on the street. It's pretty much the same, and I know I would be wishing for a pretty damn harsh verdict.


Yes sucide is a personal choice, but if by being bullied you become so depressed that the taking of your own life seems a good get out, then the bully does shoulder some responisblity for your death, yes?

Depends on whether or not this so-called "bullying" involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Depends on whether or not this so-called "bullying" involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Why?

Depends on whether or not this so-called "bullying" involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

So called bullying? No matter what you think of any charges she may or may not be legible to face, she did enagae in bullying. What would you call it?

Is physical violence or tthreats of physical violence the only form of bullying?

Interesting.

So called bullying? No matter what you think of any charges she may or may not be legible to face, she did enagae in bullying. What would you call it?

Is physical violence or tthreats of physical violence the only form of bullying?

Emotional abuse is a form of bullying - and this was a case of a purported adult emotionally abusing an already vulnerable child.

Why?

Because that's the only case in which another's rights have been violated, meaning that's the only situation in which the target can reasonably have been said to be forced into the situation.

If it's just verbal/emotional, well, you have a choice as to how you respond. You're free to ignore it, after all.

Because that's the only case in which another's rights have been violated, meaning that's the only situation in which the target can reasonably have been said to be forced into the situation.

If it's just verbal/emotional, well, you have a choice as to how you respond. You're free to ignore it, after all.

This works if you're an adult. Have you ever known a teenager who was able to ignore emotional abuse? For that matter, are you really able to ignore it yourself? You only pretend to ignore it. It still eats away inside. Teenagers and children are particularly susceptible to this because they haven't built up defenses over the years.

I am in favor of the indictment. The facts of the case will, of course, be presented at trial, but it sounds like there is reason to believe that a malicious series of acts led to this girl's death.

Whether or not such an emotionally unstable girl should have been using the Internet is a relevant point in discussions on preventing such tragedies, but certainly does not absolve whoever committed the harassment of responsibility.

I also do not believe that we can rely upon the weight of conscience to serve as sufficient punishment. A trial to consider guilt or innocence, with the possibility of a resulting prison sentence, is appropriate here.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

One part of this is tripping me up. People are saying that the woman knew the girl and therefore would have known about her emotionally fragile state. Was this girl having emotional problems already that were exacerbated by the prank? Is that why the woman should have known? And if the emotional problems were solely the result of the prank (well, the combination of the prank and being a 13-year-old girl), is it possible that the woman had no other contact with the girl during that time and didn't know how the prank was affecting her? Does any of this matter?

These are details I don't have but would be interested in hearing if anyone else has them.

Rather interesting. I wouldn't mind being a fly in that courtroom's wall.

While I'm not remotely versed in the legal aspects of this case, I do feel that society certainly does not benefit from the presence of a 49 year old woman who likes to spend her time tormenting 13 year olds, and thus I certainly wouldn't object if the 49 year old in question were to be sent to prison.

I do feel that society certainly does not benefit

That is not a valid or legitimate criterion for sending an individual to prison.

Try again.

That is not a valid or legitimate criterion for sending an individual to prison.
1) Sure it is, just not a sufficient one (in my opinion).
2) I never claimed it was. All I said was that I wouldn't mind if this particular loser spent some time behind bars. That's my personal opinion, not a legal judgment.


Try again.
Erm, why?

I simply pointed out that I personally wouldn't mind if this woman went to jail. I specifically stated that I know buggerall about the legal aspect (i.e. whether or not she legally can be sent to jail).

How about YOU try again, this time reading more carefully and leaving your incorrect assumptions out of my way?

These are details I don't have but would be interested in hearing if anyone else has them.

Click here for those details (http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt)

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/woman-indicted-in-myspace-suicide-case/20080515152309990001?icid=100214839x1202336530x1200088009



What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?

No, it is not a reason to commit suicide by any means. I do think, however, that the adult in this situation is responsible (in part) for the action. Without the embarrassment that was caused this young girl may be alive today. This lady deserves to have her ass kicked over and over.

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

No.

What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew?

I'm glad they found something to get her on.

Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?

Partially, yes. And she was an adult who knew about the girl's emotional problems. I have no sympathy whatsoever for her. I hope she goes to jail for a very long time.

One part of this is tripping me up. People are saying that the woman knew the girl and therefore would have known about her emotionally fragile state. Was this girl having emotional problems already that were exacerbated by the prank? Is that why the woman should have known?

From what I've read, the two young girls were close friends at one point. The parents had also spent time together and had spoken on this matter. So this woman was aware that the girl had emotional problems long before the prank occurred.

One part of this is tripping me up. People are saying that the woman knew the girl and therefore would have known about her emotionally fragile state. Was this girl having emotional problems already that were exacerbated by the prank? Is that why the woman should have known? And if the emotional problems were solely the result of the prank (well, the combination of the prank and being a 13-year-old girl), is it possible that the woman had no other contact with the girl during that time and didn't know how the prank was affecting her? Does any of this matter?

These are details I don't have but would be interested in hearing if anyone else has them.
Apparently -- and once again, I am only going by older media reports -- it was known that the girl had had problems before this incident occurred. Obviously it was not widely publicized, but the girl's schoolmates, including the daughter of the woman who harrassed her, knew that she had suffered several episodes of serious emotional disturbance in the past. According to her parents, she had suffered eating disorders and clinical depression in prior years and she had such severe social anxiety and shyness that her parents actually encouraged her to use the internet as a means of practicing social skills at a distance, as it were, hoping it would help build her confidence with other people.

Obviously, that didn't work out, and by adding a very bitter kind of irony to the story, it makes the woman's cruelty seem that much worse.

EDIT: And I do wish people would stop calling this a "prank." The manipulation and torment of this girl went on for weeks, if not months. That's not a "prank" in my book.

EDIT: And I do wish people would stop calling this a "prank." The manipulation and torment of this girl went on for weeks, if not months. That's not a "prank" in my book.

I agree with you.

I also have to wonder if the people who think Lori Drew shouldn't be held accountable know what it's like to be bullied. I'm inclined to believe they've never been bullied.

The punishment for this crime should be....

Shutting down Myspace forever. Mwahahah!

No, it is not a reason to commit suicide by any means. I do think, however, that the adult in this situation is responsible (in part) for the action. Without the embarrassment that was caused this young girl may be alive today. This lady deserves to have her ass kicked over and over.

I'm curious to know, because I've been hearing a lot about Megan, the 13 year old, having emotional problems and Lori Drew knew about it. Was Megan, in fact, presenting emotional problems that were aggravated by Drew's bullying?

Another thing I don't get (because I know I would never do such a thing) is what the f*ck was going on inside Lori Drew's mind to stoop to the mental level of a teenager and bully her? She is an adult, for Chrissakes.

The punishment for this crime should be....

Shutting down Myspace forever. Mwahahah!

Testify, brother!!

I'm going to try to create an analogy here.

If the woman had physically assaulted the girl, and the girl had subsequently died of internal bleeding because the stitches from her recent surgery broke, what would the punishment be? Probably negligent homicide. I think that fits.

I agree with you.

I also have to wonder if the people who think Lori Drew shouldn't be held accountable know what it's like to be bullied. I'm inclined to believe they've never been bullied.
I've known several bullies, only one of which was as dangerously vicious as this woman seems to have been. That one was the only one who ever had a personal impact on me, and it was not as severe as the impact she had on some others, but she took me on quite a ride, let me tell you. And we were both very young children at the time. I learned in later years that she had herself likely been abused within her own family. I knew one other childhood bully -- a boy who liked to beat up smaller kids, but he was nothing compared to her, and he grew out of it in just a couple of years.

Bullying on the order of what this woman did to this girl is abuse, plain and simple, and it is part of cycle in people's lives, both the bullies' and their victims'. There is nothing prankish, or innocent, or casual about it.

I'm curious to know, because I've been hearing a lot about Megan, the 13 year old, having emotional problems and Lori Drew knew about it. Was Megan, in fact, presenting emotional problems that were aggravated by Drew's bullying?

That is what the earlier reports said.

Another thing I don't get (because I know I would never do such a thing) is what the f*ck was going on inside Lori Drew's mind to stoop to the mental level of a teenager and bully her? She is an adult, for Chrissakes.

Exactly. Does it make anyone else wonder if she is competent to parent her own child?

Exactly. Does it make anyone else wonder if she is competent to parent her own child?

Agreed. She definitely is not fit to parent her own child.

That is what the earlier reports said.



Exactly. Does it make anyone else wonder if she is competent to parent her own child?

That was maybe the second question that came to my mind when the story broke (third if you count the initial "what the fuck?!").

I've known several bullies, only one of which was as dangerously vicious as this woman seems to have been. That one was the only one who ever had a personal impact on me, and it was not as severe as the impact she had on some others, but she took me on quite a ride, let me tell you. And we were both very young children at the time. I learned in later years that she had herself likely been abused within her own family. I knew one other childhood bully -- a boy who liked to beat up smaller kids, but he was nothing compared to her, and he grew out of it in just a couple of years.

Bullying on the order of what this woman did to this girl is abuse, plain and simple, and it is part of cycle in people's lives, both the bullies' and their victims'. There is nothing prankish, or innocent, or casual about it.

That's why I would be happy to see someone like this reap what they sow. They made their bed now they sleep in it. I knew bullies, but as the victim. I only remember seeing someone bullied when I was younger. Once. All the rest is personal experience, so I will admit to being biased and bitter on this topic. People who willingly seek to hurt others should be punished. They should be forced to endure what they put their victim through.

Often the bully is not someone who is misunderstood or suffering at home. These people just thrive off the power and adrenaline rush they get from abusing others; those who are different and helpless; weak.

In the end, I wound up being extremely nasty one of the girls who bullied me because I realised I was bigger and I could do it. Revenge. She was basically at my mercy because in one year I was taller and stronger than her and I never forgave her despite 5 years of pleas throughout high school. Yes, she tried to apologise but I never forgave her.

Bullying is not a nice thing. I know I was damn wrong. That's why I'd expect an adult to know better.

Huh. Natural Selection. The kind of person who kills themselves over Myspace is gone, and the kind of person who makes people kill themselves is gone. It's a win-win.

Apparently -- and once again, I am only going by older media reports -- it was known that the girl had had problems before this incident occurred. Obviously it was not widely publicized, but the girl's schoolmates, including the daughter of the woman who harrassed her, knew that she had suffered several episodes of serious emotional disturbance in the past. According to her parents, she had suffered eating disorders and clinical depression in prior years and she had such severe social anxiety and shyness that her parents actually encouraged her to use the internet as a means of practicing social skills at a distance, as it were, hoping it would help build her confidence with other people.

Obviously, that didn't work out, and by adding a very bitter kind of irony to the story, it makes the woman's cruelty seem that much worse.

Thanks, and thanks to Dempublicents and Kryozerkia as well for helping fill in the blanks. It's still hard for me to get a "depraved indifference to human life" out of this, but it seems fairly obvious that she's guilty of something. At the same time, the charges they've indicted her on are just complete non-starters. I don't know.

EDIT: And I do wish people would stop calling this a "prank." The manipulation and torment of this girl went on for weeks, if not months. That's not a "prank" in my book.

Now that I know more, I'd have to agree. I was using the word "prank" mostly because I couldn't think of a better way of describing the incident concisely, not to indicate any lightheartedness or to detract from the seriousness of what happened. Mea culpa.

You just don't do that kind of thing to people who have depression or other emotional difficulties. It's like if someone had AIDS, would you deliberately infect them with the flu? If someone was a hemophiliac, would you deliberately stab their arm? When you see a man standing on the top of a building, about to jump, you just don't flipping tell them they'd be better off dead.
If it was the daughter that did the bullying, I could understand not bringing charges, because 13-year-olds are kind of stupid (no offense), and don't know the consequences of their actions, hence they're not allowed to drive or buy alcohol. But an adult? That's just sick. She must be a pathetic woman to feel the need to drive another person to death. There's no way a grown woman should be able to get away with luring a child to suicide.

When you see a man standing on the top of a building, about to jump, you just don't flipping tell them they'd be better off dead.

No, you tell them that jumping is going to actually accomplish anything because they can fly...

Huh. Natural Selection. The kind of person who kills themselves over Myspace is gone, and the kind of person who makes people kill themselves is gone. It's a win-win.

People with mood disorders don't deserve to die.

I remember this case. Lori Drew builds Megan Meirs up and knocks her down, all because Megan didn't want to be friends with her daughter any more. What a bitch.

People with mood disorders don't deserve to die.

According to natural selection, they do. The strongest survive. I was being slightly sarcastic/joking. But kinda not really. I think what the woman did is messed up, and if she broke any laws should go to jail. If the jury finds her innocent, fine. But its still messed up even if its not illegal.
On a side note, I remember reading that the last letter (where they told her to kill herself) magically vanished and the FBI couldn't find it on the hard drive, but all the news stations were reporting it as fact from the dad's testimony. Does anyone know if they ever found that?

According to natural selection, they do. The strongest survive. I was being slightly sarcastic/joking. But kinda not really.

Er, no. Natural selection does not suggest that "the strongest survive," but rather that the best-adapted to their environment and their particular niche survive. Unless you can demonstrate that there is NO situation in which a mood disorder can be anything but disadvantageous for survival and reproduction, that silly social-Darwinist nonsense simply isn't valid.

(And, by the way, the fact that the prevalence of mood disorders, which are significantly genetically derived, seems, if anything, to have increased in recent years would be pretty strong evidence that mood disorders don't prevent survival and reproduction, thus entirely negating your point.)

According to natural selection, they do. The strongest survive.

You clearly have a flawed understanding of natural selection. It has nothing to do with who does or does not deserve to die.

Er, no. Natural selection does not suggest that "the strongest survive," but rather that the best-adapted to their environment and their particular niche survive. Unless you can demonstrate that there is NO situation in which a mood disorder can be anything but disadvantageous for survival and reproduction, that silly social-Darwinist nonsense simply isn't valid.
........I was kinda kidding. Guess people didn't get that. Ive seen a lot of people that have no sympathy for her because she killed herself over myspace, and was mocking them. I guess thats not clear. You can't put emotions into typing.
And the phrase "the strongest survive", while not exactly correct, is in common usage because it is easier to say than "the best-adapted to their environment and their particular niche survive". Thats kinda a mouthful.


Link (http://www.mydeathspace.com/article/2007/11/15/Megan_Meier_(13)_hung_herself_in_her_closet_after_becoming_the_victim_of_cyber_bullying)
Here is the story that sates the FBI couldn't get the message off the hard drive. If they found it, it would help the prosecution a lot, or at least I imagine it would. Does anyone know if they did?

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."

........I was kinda kidding. Guess people didn't get that. Ive seen a lot of people that have no sympathy for her because she killed herself over myspace, and was mocking them. I guess thats not clear. You can't put emotions into typing.
And the phrase "the strongest survive", while not exactly correct, is in common usage because it is easier to say than "the best-adapted to their environment and their particular niche survive". Thats kinda a mouthful.


Indeed, it's hard to communicate emotions over the internet. I think perhaps you might find it wise, though, to try to avoid saying things sarcastically that rather a lot of people have said in earnest if you don't want to risk being lumped in with them. As someone with a mood disorder myself, I've quite seriously been told that I don't deserve to live on more than one occasion, so I tend to point out the flaws in that argument whenever I hear it. I'm glad to hear that you don't subscribe to that particular ridiculous belief, though. :)

You can be held responsible for any actions you take ( jokes , pranks or harrasment ) which leads to the death of another person.
Ignorance is NOT an excuse in a court of law...
The " I didn't know she'd kill her self " isn't a legal plea.

Because that's the only case in which another's rights have been violated, meaning that's the only situation in which the target can reasonably have been said to be forced into the situation.

If it's just verbal/emotional, well, you have a choice as to how you respond. You're free to ignore it, after all.
What ASD said...
This works if you're an adult. Have you ever known a teenager who was able to ignore emotional abuse? For that matter, are you really able to ignore it yourself? You only pretend to ignore it. It still eats away inside. Teenagers and children are particularly susceptible to this because they haven't built up defenses over the years.

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/woman-indicted-in-myspace-suicide-case/20080515152309990001?icid=100214839x1202336530x1200088009



What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?

But for a supposed adult, who knew of the girl's being treated for depression and ADD, fraudulently claiming to be a young man interested in said suicide victim and goading, hounding and humiliating her, that girl would still be alive. Yes, she's responsible in part.

and the other crime she's charged with is nonsensical. she flat out didn't fraudulently gain access to someone else's computer.

Perhaps they mean that by creating a fradulent persona and accessing MySpace's servers with it.... that might be considered fraudulently gaining access to their servers.

If this was Japan, the bitch would have probably been found weeks or even days later hanging herself with her eyes clawed out no doubt.

Lori Drew is a twisted person. Getting involved in pety teenaged fights is something the parents should always avoid.

As for manslaughter charges... I don't think it proceeds. As someone else posted, publicly shunning the Drew family is the best course of action.

Or actively harassing them via e-mail, telephone, driving by and shouting at the house, dumping garbage on the lawn and letters ---

Oh wait, I forgot... that's a crime, isn't it?

Perhaps they mean that by creating a fradulent persona and accessing MySpace's servers with it.... that might be considered fraudulently gaining access to their servers.

That seems to be pretty much it. She broke the terms of service of the MySpace service - which she had to agree to in order to create the account. As such, she had no permission to access and use their servers.

A soldier who is sent to war can expect to undergo horrible experiences. Are you suggesting that a person chatting on the internet should expect the same horrors as a soldier going to war? And you said I was making invalid comparisons? Someone going on the internet should know that the person at the other end is not necessarily who they say they are.

The woman in this case was most certainly attempting to harm that one girl, and no one else.
Granted, she was trying to cause emotional harm. The slippery slope argument is well in force here though. This case is obviously more prevalent due to the suicide, but I can tell you there are a lot worse cases of emotional harm happening every day. I'm sure 10% of the workforce could sue their boos for emotional harm.

If I came to your house and burned a cross on your lawn and painted threats on your front door, would you call it a prank for which no one could be held responsible? If I yelled verbal abuse at you every time I saw you on the street, would you dismiss that as a random joke? If I involved myself personally in your life under false pretenses and harrassed and tormented you repeatedly over time, would you just shrug that off as something that just happens for which no one can be held to account? Because that is what this woman did to this girl.
Good try, but no. I can't turn off my front lawn. I cant walk around with ear muffs on all day to block out your voice. The girl chose to talk to Josh on the internet when she had a very easy means not to.

I'll re-iterate that I think the adult has done a horrible thing, and it is more horrible because an adult, and not a juvenile did it, but it is not manslaughter in my opinion.

Or actively harassing them via e-mail, telephone, driving by and shouting at the house, dumping garbage on the lawn and letters ---

Oh wait, I forgot... that's a crime, isn't it?

Those are indeed crimes. When I referred to publicly shunning them, I meant completely ignoring that the family lives in the same neighborhood. Or something the like...

Those are indeed crimes. When I referred to publicly shunning them, I meant completely ignoring that the family lives in the same neighborhood. Or something the like...

I wish my neighbors would shun me... They won't leave me alone.

Perhaps they mean that by creating a fradulent persona and accessing MySpace's servers with it.... that might be considered fraudulently gaining access to their servers.

yeah, but the argument they are making means that more or less any time someone somewhere violates the terms of service on some website, they are committing a federal felony. that is silly and dangerous. and, of course, all that was done with the account was very personalized trolling - are we seriously talking about fucking locking up internet trolls in federal pen now? i mean, shit, it wasn't even stalking or bullying. that's why the state didn't press any charges originally.

combine all that with the fact that lori drew didn't actually send the few 'mean' messages at all - they were apparently sent by ashley grills (who has received immunity for her testimony) as a way to break off the fake friendship - and i seriously see no real case here. this is just a mob demanding blood and some apparently bored and creative federal prosecutors pandering to them.

I wish my neighbors would shun me... They won't leave me alone.

For that, maybe, you need to show them your monster side. That could get you what you want.;)

For that, maybe, you need to show them your monster side. That could get you what you want.;)

Should I harass a little neighbor girl on the internet until she commits suicide? Do you think that would work?

Should I harass a little neighbor girl on the internet until she commits suicide? Do you think that would work?

:eek:
That could work too.
:p

And you said I was making invalid comparisons? Someone going on the internet should know that the person at the other end is not necessarily who they say they are.
So are you arguing that, if a person gets misled, the person who misled them should not be answerable for the misleading?

Granted, she was trying to cause emotional harm. The slippery slope argument is well in force here though. This case is obviously more prevalent due to the suicide, but I can tell you there are a lot worse cases of emotional harm happening every day. I'm sure 10% of the workforce could sue their boos for emotional harm.
10% of the work for do not commit suicide because of psychological distress brought about by emotional abuse directed at them personally by their bosses. If they did, then there actually would be a lot more cases like this one. Your slippery slope is still slicked with bullshit because you are attempting to make this one case of a person doing a deliberate bad act apply to cases of people not doing deliberate bad acts.

Good try, but no. I can't turn off my front lawn. I cant walk around with ear muffs on all day to block out your voice. The girl chose to talk to Josh on the internet when she had a very easy means not to.
What about the third option -- the one about a person involving themselves in your life on a personal level and on false pretenses and using that involvement to harm you? THAT is what that woman did. Yes, it could have been easy to turn "Josh" off, but that would have required the girl not to be taken in by "his" lies in the first place. Obviously, you've never been lied to -- or have you? If it was a good liar, how would you know? And if you were in a psychologically fragile state, how strong do you think your skeptic's resistance would be to a good liar, who knew your problems and was intent on manipulating them?

And let's say such a liar did get into your life. Whether or not you fell into their trap, would you say they did not deserve to be held to account for what they did or tried to do to you?

I'll re-iterate that I think the adult has done a horrible thing, and it is more horrible because an adult, and not a juvenile did it, but it is not manslaughter in my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion. But in my opinion, your argument about the relative culpability of the girl and the woman is just wrong, on practical terms.

EDIT: And as a legal matter, IF the woman's actions can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been the cause or proximate cause of the girl's death, then yes, it is manslaughter, by the definition of the term "manslaughter."

yeah, but the argument they are making means that more or less any time someone somewhere violates the terms of service on some website, they are committing a federal felony. that is silly and dangerous. and, of course, all that was done with the account was very personalized trolling - are we seriously talking about fucking locking up internet trolls in federal pen now? i mean, shit, it wasn't even stalking or bullying. that's why the state didn't press any charges originally.

combine all that with the fact that lori drew didn't actually send the few 'mean' messages at all - they were apparently sent by ashley grills (who has received immunity for her testimony) as a way to break off the fake friendship - and i seriously see no real case here. this is just a mob demanding blood and some apparently bored and creative federal prosecutors pandering to them.

Right, because if you harass someone via telephone, it's ok.
And if you send them nasty letters, it's ok.
And if you follow them down the street shouting names, it's ok.
And if you take out a full page ad in the local papers saying they're a pedophile, it's ok.

Seriously, what is difficult to understand here? In the commission of a crime (harassment), the defendant, Lori Drew, allegedly committed acts of fraud and violated the TOS of MySpace. That resulted in the death of another human being (manslaughter), and she has been indicted for it. For violating the terms of service, MySpace has decided to cooperate with federal investigators in providing information on whose computer the fradulent account was used from. Whether she will be found guilty of the charges is another story entirely.

If you don't want to indicted for fraudulently using an internet service's server to harass someone.... don't use an internet service's servers to harass someone. Seems simple, doesn't it? If you don't want to be indicted for drunk driving, don't get behind the wheel drunk. If you don't want to get indicted for carjacking, don't go Grand Theft Auto on someone....

Right, because if you harass someone via telephone, it's ok.
And if you send them nasty letters, it's ok.
And if you follow them down the street shouting names, it's ok.
And if you take out a full page ad in the local papers saying they're a pedophile, it's ok.

Seriously, what is difficult to understand here? In the commission of a crime (harassment), the defendant, Lori Drew, allegedly committed acts of fraud and violated the TOS of MySpace. That resulted in the death of another human being (manslaughter), and she has been indicted for it.

she is pointedly not charged with either harassment or manslaughter, mainly because there is no evidence that such occurred, at least within the law as written at the time. which is why the state decided against pressing any charges originally, and the feds had to get creative.

If you don't want to indicted for fraudulently using an internet service's server to harass someone.... don't use an internet service's servers to harass someone. Seems simple, doesn't it? If you don't want to be indicted for drunk driving, don't get behind the wheel drunk. If you don't want to get indicted for carjacking, don't go Grand Theft Auto on someone....

lori drew does not appear to have harassed anyone. even if the mean messages counted as harassment (which they shouldn't), it was ashley grills who sent those.

is it cool to setup fake accounts to spy on the neighbor kids? of course not.
having made such an account, is it necessary to act flirty with the neighbor kid? nope.
do you have to be mean to break things off with an internet acquaintance? no, that was really uncool of ashley grills actually. merely deleting the account would have sufficed.

but there is no crime here, nor should there be.

also, it should be noted, this idea that violating terms of service = fraudulently accessing a computer means that the girl that killed herself was also engaged in a federal crime. myspace clearly limits registration to people 14 years of age or older.

also, it should be noted, this idea that violating terms of service = fraudulently accessing a computer means that the girl that killed herself was also engaged in a federal crime. myspace clearly limits registration to people 14 years of age or older.

I think Myspace should revise it´s guidelines for having an account on the site and make 16 years of age the limit registration after this incident. But once again, Lori Drew and her daughter are 2 stupid broads for doing what they did.

slori drew does not appear to have harassed anyone.

No, the words you're looking for are "lori drew CLAIMS to have not harassed anyone".

Just as the federal court CLAIMS there is enough evidence to take her to trial.

No, the words you're looking for are "lori drew CLAIMS to have not harassed anyone".

Just as the federal court CLAIMS there is enough evidence to take her to trial.

but not on charges of harassment.

ashley grills wrote the mean messages - at the very least the last one that has gotten all the press. this is the accepted evidence, and she has been granted immunity for her testimony.

I just have to ask why she did it... for shits and giggles?

I just have to ask why she did it... for shits and giggles?

Because the girl who ended up committing suicide decided not to be friends with her daughter anymore.

Because the girl who ended up committing suicide decided not to be friends with her daughter anymore.

Wow, a bit of an overreaction there. A pretty elaborate one, too.

Wow, a bit of an overreaction there. A pretty elaborate one, too.

Indeed

Well, the way I look at it is, if youre a 49 year old women pretending to be a 16 year old guy and sending bitchy messeges to a 13 year old girl, there is something wrong with you anyway...

a 49 year old women...sending bitchy messeges to a 13 year old girl

she didn't.

seriously, everybody stop and read through the thing again. ashley grills (age 18 at the time), who had actually created the damn profile, wrote the mean messages because she felt things had gone too far and wanted to break off the imaginary friendship.

Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.

"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.

she didn't.

seriously, everybody stop and read through the thing again. ashley grills (age 18 at the time), who had actually created the damn profile, wrote the mean messages because she felt things had gone too far and wanted to break off the imaginary friendship.

Odd, I don't remember that when this whole thing first came to light.

Teenagers and children are particularly susceptible to this because they haven't built up defenses over the years.

Incidentally, at what age are our hormones supposed to stop flipping out? I know they burst during the teenage years and then settle, that would probably have a strong connection to teenage emotional instability.


Obviously, that didn't work out, and by adding a very bitter kind of irony to the story, it makes the woman's cruelty seem that much worse.

I was actually on the fence. She's a terrible person, but something about this whole thing didn't seem to mesh well. From that perspective, I now believe that she deserves everything she's about to get.

I learned in later years that she had herself likely been abused within her own family.

Which brings up an interesting question. Did the suspect in this case have a history of having been the victim of abuse as a child? This would not excuse her actions by any means, but would she be deserving of pity in such an instance?

Which brings up an interesting question. Did the suspect in this case have a history of having been the victim of abuse as a child? This would not excuse her actions by any means, but would she be deserving of pity in such an instance?

Hm... she might´ve been the victim of a bully while growing up...

Odd, I don't remember that when this whole thing first came to light.

at a guess, she was keeping her head down and staying quiet but then the feds got involved, figured out she was somehow associated with the 'conspiracy', threatened her with a million years, and offered her immunity for her testimony against the easily demonizable lady.

she didn't.

seriously, everybody stop and read through the thing again. ashley grills (age 18 at the time), who had actually created the damn profile, wrote the mean messages because she felt things had gone too far and wanted to break off the imaginary friendship.

Gotta admit tho. there are much better ways to break it off. including a "sorry but I found someone else"
or just plain shutting down the site.

and if this is the same case from the one a while back?

wasn't it more than a 'the world would be better without you' but was actually senting hateful mail about megan to her friends or was that nother case?

Gotta admit tho. there are much better ways to break it off. including a "sorry but I found someone else"
or just plain shutting down the site.

indeed. its almost like a really confused attempt to let her down easy or something.

After reading this case, do you, NSG, truly think recieving "cruel" messages from someone is basis enough to commit suicide?

What do you think about the indictement of Lori Drew? Do you think she's really to blame for the 13-year-old's suicide?

I think it all depends on the person. She may have been very affected by what was said. Perhaps she also had a pre-existing mental condition.

I think it's fucked up and someone deserves to be punished.

I think it all depends on the person. She may have been very affected by what was said. Perhaps she also had a pre-existing mental condition.

I think Lori Drew did something fucked up and she deserves to be punished.

I´m beginning to think that´s the case. Megan suffered from bullying, and by an adult, and now she´s no longer with us. Lori Drew deserves to be punished for what she did, knowingly. We´ll have to wait and see what happens with this case, and what will the prosecution do.