NationStates Jolt Archive

Verdict in MySpace Suicide Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/us/27myspace.html)
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
LOS ANGELES — A federal jury here issued what legal experts said was the country’s first cyberbullying verdict Wednesday, convicting a Missouri woman of three misdemeanor charges of computer fraud for her involvement in creating a phony account on MySpace to trick a teenager, who later committed suicide.

The jury deadlocked on a fourth count of conspiracy against the woman, Lori Drew, 49, and the judge, George H. Wu of Federal District Court, declared a mistrial on that charge.

Although it was unclear how severely Ms. Drew would be punished — the jury reduced the charges to misdemeanors from felonies, and no sentencing date was set — the conviction was highly significant, computer fraud experts said, because it was the first time that a federal statute designed to combat computer crimes was used to prosecute what were essentially abuses of a user agreement on a social networking site.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Ms. Drew could face up to three years in prison and $300,000 in fines, though she has no previous criminal record. Her lawyer has asked for a new trial.

In a highly unusual move, Thomas P. O’Brien, the United States attorney in Los Angeles, prosecuted the case himself with two subordinates after law enforcement officials in Missouri determined Ms. Drew had broken no local laws.

Mr. O’Brien, who asserted jurisdiction on the ground that MySpace is based in Los Angeles, where its servers are housed, said the verdict sent an “overwhelming message” to users of the Internet.

“If you are going to attempt to annoy or go after a little girl and you’re going to use the Internet to do so,” he said, “this office and others across the country will hold you responsible.”

During the five-day trial, prosecutors portrayed Ms. Drew as working in concert with her daughter, Sarah, who was then 13, and Ashley Grills, a family friend and employee of Ms. Drew’s magazine coupon business in Dardenne Prairie, Mo.

Testimony showed that they created a teenage boy, “Josh Evans,” as an identity on MySpace to communicate with Sarah’s nemesis, Megan Meier, who was 13 and had a history of depression and suicidal impulses.

After weeks of online courtship with “Josh,” Megan was distressed one afternoon in October 2006, according to testimony at the trial, when she received an e-mail message from him that said, “The world would be a better place without you.”

Ms. Grills, who is now 20, testified under an immunity agreement that shortly after that message was sent, Megan wrote back, “You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.” Megan hanged herself that same afternoon in her bedroom.

Although the jury appeared to reject the government’s contention that Ms. Drew had intended to harm Megan — a notion underlying the felony charges — the convictions signaled the 12 members’ belief that she had nonetheless violated federal laws that prohibit gaining access to a computer without authorization.

Specifically, the jury found Ms. Drew guilty of accessing a computer without authorization on three occasions, a reference to the fraudulent postings on MySpace in the name of Josh Evans.

Legal and computer fraud experts said the application of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, passed in 1986 and amended several times, appeared to be expanding with technology and the growth of social networking on the Internet. More typically, prosecutions under the act have involved people who hack into computer systems.

“Keep in mind that social networking sites like MySpace did not exist until recently,” said Nick Akerman, a New York lawyer who has written and lectured extensively on the act. “This case will be simply another important step in the expanded use of this statute to protect the public from computer crime.”

Other computer fraud experts said they found the verdict chilling.

“As a result of the prosecutor’s highly aggressive, if not unlawful, legal theory,” said Matthew L. Levine, a former federal prosecutor who is a defense lawyer in New York, “it is now a crime to ‘obtain information’ from a Web site in violation of its terms of service. This cannot be what Congress meant when it enacted the law, but now you have it.”

Ms. Drew, who showed little emotion during the trial, sat stone-faced as the clerk read the jury’s verdict and left the courtroom quickly, her face red and twisted with rage.

Her lawyer, H. Dean Steward, said outside the courthouse that he believed the trial was grandstanding by Mr. O’Brien in an effort to keep his job, with the coming change in the White House.

“I don’t have any satisfaction at all,” Mr. Steward said of the verdict.

Judge Wu scheduled a hearing on the request for a new trial for late December.

Since the story surrounding the suicide became public last year, Mr. O’Brien has discussed with his staff how his feelings as a parent motivated him to bring the charges against Ms. Drew. He alluded to those feelings on Wednesday at a news conference.

“This was obviously a case that means a lot to me,” he said.

The case has been a collection of anomalies. Judge Wu appeared ambivalent regarding some key issues at the trial, like whether any testimony about Megan’s suicide would be allowed (he did allow it) and how to rule on a defense motion to throw out the charges (he had not ruled as of Wednesday).

Judge Wu was appointed to the federal bench less than two years ago, and it is difficult to establish his sentencing record. But Mr. Akerman, the computer fraud expert, said jail time was common even for first-time offenders in computer fraud cases.

“If I were her,” he said of Ms. Drew, “I would not be celebrating over the Thanksgiving weekend.”

Tina Meier, Megan’s mother, said in a news conference after the verdict that she hoped Ms. Drew would serve jail time, and that she felt satisfied.

“This day is not any harder than the day when I found Megan,” Ms. Meier said. “This has never been about vengeance. This is about justice. For me it’s absolutely worth it every single day sitting in that court hoping there was justice.”

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the felony charges were a bit of a reach, but I do feel the woman should be punished.

Isn't having to use Myspace punishment enough?

[I have mixed feelings about this. I think the felony charges were a bit of a reach, but I do feel the woman should be punished.Yes, she should be punished by LG. He alone can set things right through his god-like powers of insanity.

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the felony charges were a bit of a reach, but I do feel the woman should be punished.Rightly so. If people in their 40s manage to get teenagers to kill themselves, then they must have done something punishable.

That girl was stupid, and I don't think Drew should be punished at all.

Isn't having to use Myspace punishment enough?

Sigged.

Fraud, hadn't considered that. But I guess that's why I'm they spammer and they're the....law....talking guys.


>.>
<.<

Poetic justice would be someone driving her to suicide.

I support punishing this woman, but I'm with the people who argue that the legal basis for doing so is shaky.

Hmm...she used a male alter-ego to drive the woman to suicide.

Could we squeeze in pedophilia into this somehow? A 40 year old woman, having romantic talks with a 13 year old girl....

I think being labeled a **** for the rest of her life would be enough but if the courts can manage to bring her against some laws then why not

Could we squeeze in pedophilia into this somehow? A 40 year old woman, having romantic talks with a 13 year old girl....

no because thats hawt...er I mean its not a crime! wow it just got awful warm in here >.>

That girl was stupid, and I don't think Drew should be punished at all.

EXACTLY! Why the hell do people have to be punished for stupid peoples actions. She didn't help the other person commit suicide. Assisted suicide occurres when a person - typically someone suffering from an incurable illness or chronic intense pain - intentionally kills himself with the help of another individual. The lady being chrged didn`t help. Therefoe, not her fault

Pfft, dorky ass Myspace.




Facebook is much better.

Hmm...she used a male alter-ego to drive the woman to suicide.

Could we squeeze in pedophilia into this somehow? A 40 year old woman, having romantic talks with a 13 year old girl....

:rolleyes: We could probably SAW involved somehow too. D'you wanna give that a shot?

That girl was stupid, and I don't think Drew should be punished at all.

Chatting on myspace should be no ground for jail time. I don't care what identity Drew use or what she actually said. Keep the big bothers out of the god damn internet.

:rolleyes: We could probably SAW involved somehow too. D'you wanna give that a shot?

Hehe, "Hello Lori, I want to play a game, hangman." :D

Chatting on myspace should be no ground for jail time. I don't care what identity Drew use or what she actually said. Keep the big bothers out of the god damn internet.

It was a bit more than chatting on myspace, this woman through malicious actions caused the death of a little girl...

T'wasn't that little a girl.

T'wasn't that little a girl.

13 is a little as far as I'm concerned...

You're probably just old. This ain't exactly stealing candy from a baby, is'all.

T'wasn't that little a girl.

It is compared to a 40 year old bitch who probably does deserve to be in a Jigsaw game.

It is compared to a 40 year old bitch who probably does deserve to be in a Jigsaw game.

*shrug* Say 'little girl' and people see a blonde six-year-old in a pink dress.

Could we squeeze in pedophilia into this somehow?

You should really stop using that word incorrectly. "pedophelia" is the desire, and is not a crime. "statutory rape" or "attempted statutory rape" is the crime.

A 40 year old woman, having romantic talks with a 13 year old girl....

No, probably not. She didn't actually engage in sexual acts, so it's not statutory rape, and any crime of "attempt" requires specific intent to perform the crime. While she may have engaged in those kind of talks, there's no evidence that she intended to go through with them, ergo there was no specific intent to perform the crime of statutory rape, so an attempt charge is probably out of the picture.

That girl was stupid, and I don't think Drew should be punished at all.

QFT

She fails, because you shouldn't try to make meaningful relationships via the internet. Just look at what happens to people who use eHarmony.

You're probably just old. This ain't exactly stealing candy from a baby, is'all.

Well, my youngest son is older than 13, so depending upon your viewpoint you could say I'm old.

It was a bit more than chatting on myspace, this woman through malicious actions caused the death of a little girl...

Yes. Because this woman went over to her house and strangled her to death. These charges are full of crap. It's the girl's fault for trying to get involved with a boy via the internet.

Yes. Because this woman went over to her house and strangled her to death. These charges are full of crap. It's the girl's fault for trying to get involved with a boy via the internet.

This is pretty much on the same line of the same 40 year old bitch beating up the 13 year old girl. It wasn't a fair fight and Lori knew that this girl had emotional problems, and did it anyways.

The further that this gets, the more the government will interfere with the internet and people using it.

Government + Internet = Bad

I think that the girl is stupid and the mother needs not be punished. Unless she physically harmed her, I don't think she should be reprimanded at all. The only case where I the mother deserving punishment is if she actually went over to the girl's house and helped her make a noose and whatnot.

This is pretty much on the same line of the same 40 year old bitch beating up the 13 year old girl. It wasn't a fair fight and Lori knew that this girl had emotional problems, and did it anyways.

We've all got emotional problems, now-a-days.

The further that this gets, the more the government will interfere with the internet and people using it.

Government + Internet = Bad

I think that the girl is stupid and the mother needs not be punished. Unless she physically harmed her, I don't think she should be reprimanded at all. The only case where I the mother deserving punishment is if she actually went over to the girl's house and helped her make a noose and whatnot.

So you need no problem with the fact that the 40 year old woman did this to a 13 year old with emotional problems? A 40 year old woman who was fully aware of how emotional unstable she was, and decided to pull this stunt anyways?

This is pretty much on the same line of the same 40 year old bitch beating up the 13 year old girl. It wasn't a fair fight and Lori knew that this girl had emotional problems, and did it anyways.

Okay, then the mother should be fined or slapped on the wrist. It's evolution. The weaker users on the Internet are conquered by the stronger users.

I think people are assigning the status of having "emotional problems" to a greater number of people in the past. There are people at my school with emotional problems and they can take a verbal beating.

Okay, then the mother should be fined or slapped on the wrist. It's evolution. The weaker users on the Internet are conquered by the stronger users.

Yea, there are tons of 13 year olds who are stronger than 40 year olds... :rolleyes:

Failboat.

Yea, there are tons of 13 year olds who are stronger than 40 year olds... :rolleyes:

Failboat.

The 13s do have a superiority of numbers...

why don't people read the article and comment on what ACTUALLY happened? She was not, repeat was not convicted of causing any harm to that girl. It didn't happen. Charged, yes, but not convicted. The jury did not believe that she specifically intended to cause this harm.

What was she charged with? Well, read what was said. Myspace has a user license agreement, which says, specifically, that you may only authorize Myspace servers if you follow the user agreement, which specifically states that you may not pose as another person.

Myspace specifically states that any violation of their user violation means that the person violating does not have permission to use Myspace servers.

She violated the terms of service, but accessed Myspace servers. Guess what, that means? It means she accessed a computer system without permission.

And that's a crime.

Yea, there are tons of 13 year olds who are stronger than 40 year olds... :rolleyes:

Failboat.

Ya. I could curse out a 40 year old when I was 10.

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the felony charges were a bit of a reach, but I do feel the woman should be punished.

I argee that the charges are a bit shaky, but what I wanted to ask is whether people have been held resposible for someone killing themself due to bullying before? It doesn't make a difference whether it was over the internet or in 'real life'.

That girl was stupid, and I don't think Drew should be punished at all.

Even though this 13-year-old may not have been the brightest crayola in the box, she still believed this was a very real person saying real things to her. Obviously in a chat room, for example, if someone is being an asshole to you, you just click the little 'X' and get out of there. MySpace is a little different. She probably used the website regularly to chat to her 'real life' friends, and as a 13-year-old she probably wouldn't have got that "creepy net weirdo" vibe from "boy". Even though I think someone has to be pretty stupid to "date" over the internet, let alone kill yourself over a person from the internet, she still deserves justice.

It was a bit more than chatting on myspace, this woman through malicious actions caused the death of a little girl...

Exactly.
And she has to be somewhat responsible.

13 is a little as far as I'm concerned...

I agree. I'm 19 and I think that 13 is little. Even though 13 year olds are probably experimenting and everything, in this context, it's not wrong to call her a "little girl".

Yes. Because this woman went over to her house and strangled her to death. These charges are full of crap. It's the girl's fault for trying to get involved with a boy via the internet.

Do we still live in an age where people stick their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la" to anyone who comes up with anything that doesn't seem as simple as it appears? She didn't physically go over to her house and strangle her to death, but she assisted. Her words and her behaviour lead to this death. She didn't murder her directly, but she is still partially responsible.

why don't people read the article and comment on what ACTUALLY happened? She was not, repeat was not convicted of causing any harm to that girl. It didn't happen. Charged, yes, but not convicted. The jury did not believe that she specifically intended to cause this harm.

What was she charged with? Well, read what was said. Myspace has a user license agreement, which says, specifically, that you may only authorize Myspace servers if you follow the user agreement, which specifically states that you may not pose as another person.

Myspace specifically states that any violation of their user violation means that the person violating does not have permission to use Myspace servers.

She violated the terms of service, but accessed Myspace servers. Guess what, that means? It means she accessed a computer system without permission.

And that's a crime.

Who knew those things were useful, eh? Please don't answer that all lawyer-like.

why don't people read the article and comment on what ACTUALLY happened? She was not, repeat was not convicted of causing any harm to that girl.

I need clarification on that though. Let's say I hate someone (yea that's a stretch, right?) who has a history of being suicidal. Then I go on MySpace, posing at someone who was interested in this person, and then I do a 180 and start calling her names, etc. Now I may have not caused her harm, but if she commits suicide as a result of my actions towards her, wouldn't that count for something?

Ya. I could curse out a 40 year old when I was 10.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1212/1272549006_294f713d3c.jpg

She didn't murder her directly, but she is still partially responsible.

Ooh, we get to talk about parts now, do we? I blame Tom, he's the one that released this blight on us anyways.

I need clarification on that though. Let's say I hate someone (yea that's a stretch, right?) who has a history of being suicidal. Then I go on MySpace, posing at someone who was interested in this person, and then I do a 180 and start calling her names, etc. Now I may have not caused her harm, but if she commits suicide as a result of my actions towards her, wouldn't that count for something?

In court? no, not according to precedent
[/Law&OrderLawSchool]

Im not really sure how this should go. On the one hand, the woman did not physically harm the girl. It is debatable as to whether or not the woman tried to get the girl to commit suicide. My guess is yes she would have seen that as a desireable out come. To all you who say she should not be punished for killing someone, I agree with you.

But you have to realize that this woman deliberately tried to "hurt" a little girl over the internet. Maybe the intention wasn't to kill, but she wanted the girl to feel pain. THis woman should not be part of society.

If she goes down for fraud, and gets put away for a few years, I think that would be fair.

But you have to realize that this woman deliberately tried to "hurt" a little girl over the internet. Maybe the intention wasn't to kill, but she wanted the girl to feel pain. THis woman should not be part of society.

Technically, she shouldn't be part of society with this girl in it....Oh, wait...:$

Technically, she shouldn't be part of society with this girl in it....Oh, wait...:$

Go to your room....

why don't people read the article and comment on what ACTUALLY happened? She was not, repeat was not convicted of causing any harm to that girl. It didn't happen. Charged, yes, but not convicted. The jury did not believe that she specifically intended to cause this harm.

What was she charged with? Well, read what was said. Myspace has a user license agreement, which says, specifically, that you may only authorize Myspace servers if you follow the user agreement, which specifically states that you may not pose as another person.

Myspace specifically states that any violation of their user violation means that the person violating does not have permission to use Myspace servers.

She violated the terms of service, but accessed Myspace servers. Guess what, that means? It means she accessed a computer system without permission.

And that's a crime.

My bad... I agree that she should be punished for violating terms of agreement, but not for harming the girl.

Go to your room....

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just trying to turn this thread into some kind of farce because of my general distaste for the issue and the tone of the thread. :fluffle:

My bad... I agree that she should be punished for violating terms of agreement, but not for harming the girl.

Her actions, regardless of her intent did cause harm to the girl.

The further that this gets, the more the government will interfere with the internet and people using it.

Government + Internet = Bad

Meh. The internet is NOT the "wild west" without applicable laws, nor should it be. Unacceptable and harmful conduct does not become acceptable or harmless merely because it involves the internet and the social contract applies to internet usage.

Im not really sure how this should go. On the one hand, the woman did not physically harm the girl. It is debatable as to whether or not the woman tried to get the girl to commit suicide. My guess is yes she would have seen that as a desireable out come. To all you who say she should not be punished for killing someone, I agree with you.

But you have to realize that this woman deliberately tried to "hurt" a little girl over the internet. Maybe the intention wasn't to kill, but she wanted the girl to feel pain. THis woman should not be part of society.

If she goes down for fraud, and gets put away for a few years, I think that would be fair.But then you can say the same thing about all bullys, right?

Other things:
13 is not little I was done puberty at 14

If creating a false myspace means you have to go to court then that sounds like a terrible waste of court time. Imagine all the people who make fake myspaces to impersonate celebrities, or people who report their age as 100 years old.

Okay, then the mother should be fined or slapped on the wrist. It's evolution. The weaker users on the Internet are conquered by the stronger users.
Psychological might makes right? Oh dear, we'll have to start making all kinds of fraud legal now. After all, if I can convince you I'm trustworthy then disappear to Venezuela with your life savings, then it's your own fault for being too weak to see through my deception.

I think people are assigning the status of having "emotional problems" to a greater number of people in the past. There are people at my school with emotional problems and they can take a verbal beating.

Emotional problems is a very broad term, which is why it can apply to a lot of people. The people at your school may not have the same problems as Megan, nor even as each other. That they can take a verbal beating, as you say, is no indication of whether she should be able to or not.
Other things:
13 is not little I was done puberty at 14
I find this unlikely. Doesn't puberty generally end in one's early 20s or so?

If creating a false myspace means you have to go to court then that sounds like a terrible waste of court time. Imagine all the people who make fake myspaces to impersonate celebrities, or people who report their age as 100 years old.
That many people are committing fraud doesn't mean it isn't fraud. Besides, how many of those instances have involved someone dying?

But then you can say the same thing about all bullys, right?

Other things:
13 is not little I was done puberty at 14

If creating a false myspace means you have to go to court then that sounds like a terrible waste of court time. Imagine all the people who make fake myspaces to impersonate celebrities, or people who report their age as 100 years old.

Two separate sets of fact combine here: used MySpace illegally + contributed to the death of an unstable teen = worthy of prosecution.

Two separate sets of fact combine here: used MySpace illegally + contributed to the death of an unstable teen = worthy of prosecution.

Then how come Lori was only successfully prosecuted with violating the ToS, but not contributing to the death of the girl?

Then how come Lori was only successfully prosecuted with violating the ToS, but not contributing to the death of the girl?

Note that I said "worthy of prosecution" because of those facts, not "guilty of X or Y."

Not every misuse of MySpace is going to be prosecuted by a federal prosecutor. This case was because of the surrounding circumstances. Apparently, there was a lack of evidence to support more serious convictions, however.

Then how come Lori was only successfully prosecuted with violating the ToS, but not contributing to the death of the girl?

Because contrary to what Yoda would tell us, trying to prosecute someone isn't just a matter of doing it. There's the defence, and the jury, and that judgey guy in silly robes.

Do you believe that the prosecution was motivated because of the outcome of the cyberbullying? In other words, do you foresee a lot of this type of prosecution in the future?

Yes. No.

Yes. Because this woman went over to her house and strangled her to death. These charges are full of crap. It's the girl's fault for trying to get involved with a boy via the internet.

Did I say "killed her"? No I didn't. I said "caused her death". Whether the girl should have been trying to meet boys on the internet is not really what matters here. The issue is that a 40 year old woman decided it was a good idea to play mind games with a little kid who she knew to be emotionally unstable, the result of which was the girl killed herself.