Posted on 07/02/2009 12:41:54 PM PDT by freespirited
A Los Angeles federal judge has tentatively thrown out the convictions of a Missouri mother for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor girl who ended up committing suicide.
In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Wu has acquitted Lori Drew of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. Wu says his ruling will become final when he issues it in writing.
Drew was convicted in a trial, but the judge says that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Prosecutors had sought the maximum three-year prison sentence and a $300,000 fine.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Ouch!
It sounds like the proscutor chose the wrong charge, or there needs to be a new law passed.
When did Missouri become a part of the Ninth Circuit? Something is wrong with this story.
Dunno. Is MySpace in Kaleefornya?
I’m pretty sure they sued in CA because that’s where MySpace is HQ’d.
She was posing as a minor to chat with a child. The judge is apparently okay with that and throwing the case out.
I’m not entirely surprised, but this still stinks.
That is disgusting! That bitch should be doing hard time for child abuse!
The woman is a slimeball, but what she did wasn’t a crime. The US Attorney had to create something from a statute that really didn’t apply.
Judge made the correct decision in this case.
Did anyone make the kid read her messages?
Kids don’t belong on the internet, period.
I agree.
One that makes it illegal for minors to access the web would be a good start.
“...or there needs to be a new law passed.”
Yeah. Just what we need.
Sure. you make perfect sense!
The blood is not on her hands. I know you think the woman’s criticism MADE the teen commit suicide. But that can’t be known.
“She was posing as a minor to chat with a child. The judge is apparently okay with that...”
No evidence that this is true at all.
I am surprised. I’m used to emotionalism trumping logic.
“The woman is a slimeball, but what she did wasn’t a crime.”
But I thought if she was a slimeball, then anything she does that I don’t like is a crime.
What was the age of the “boy” the deceased was speaking with?
No evidence that the woman actually used the account?
No evidence that the judge was okay with what she did.
How does anyone “incite” a riot then?
Someone told a 13 year old “the world would be better off without you!” and then one hour later she’s dead by suicide.
There had been a betrayal of trust (trust placed in a false identity of a “boy” who had shown her online affections and then suddenly turned vicious against her heart and head.
Online child predator laws have no fangs then. There is little difference between the actions. Both imperil a child. Both often use falsified ages to secure trust.
I’m glad this was overturned. It would have set a very bad precedent for the internet age. This was justice by lynch mob mentality on display here. If all it took to “push” her over the edge into suicide was a few posting on MySpace, then this delicate flower wasn’t long for this world to begin with. She would have never survived high school or college or the workplace. Sounds cruel and harsh but so be it. Sounds like what she needed wasn’t a friend on MySpace but actual parents in the home who talked to her and tried to find out what was going on in her life.
It was a BS charge that would set bad precedent if it sticks.
Some people just do bad things that aren’t illegal at the time.
I’m not sure what your argument is.
“How does anyone “incite” a riot then?”
I don’t know. I have never incited a riot. The woman wasn’t charged with that either.
“Someone told a 13 year old “the world would be better off without you!” and then one hour later she’s dead by suicide.”
That seems a fair synopsis. But the woman wasn’t charged with anything to do with the suicide. She was not charged with ‘inciting’ a suicide. Nor did she urge the youngster to kill herself. Nor did she provide the means or opportunity or conspire with her to do it.
“There had been a betrayal of trust (trust placed in a false identity of a “boy” who had shown her online affections and then suddenly turned vicious against her heart and head.”
Betrayals of trust happen all the time. They are not crimes, and people don’t ususally kill themselves over them.
No evidence that the judge was okay with what she did.
Shoulda hung the beotch.
However it's disturbing to see that so many posters on this "conservative" site have no clue about the meaning of "the rule of law"... The prosecutors tried to criminalize a violation of a web site's terms and conditions. They could not find a violation of an actual law that they could charge her with, so instead they invented one. If that doesn't frighten you, you aren't paying sufficient attention...
Lori Drew f-ked with a young girl online who she knew was suicidal and of course had mental problems. They should have hung her ass. If it was your daughter who committed suicide (taking for granted that someone would breed with you) Im sure you would be screaming loudest and longest for her head. But of course you think different...yes?
Those of us who have been victimized by prosecutor's making up laws that don't exist understand this too well.
Actually it was an out of control federal prosecutor who brought dubious multiple felony "hacking" and misdemeanor "unauthorized access" charges, which should have been never brought, and when brought, thrown out before trial. This case was the latest example of the trend where if a federal prosecutor wants to get someone, there is a federal law with a wide enough net with which he can get them.
If this conviction stood, a case could be made against almost any person who is active on the Internet, who will likely have violated some website's TOS, and the judge correctly noted: "if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Wired has a better story, and Drew does not "the blood of a 13yr old on her hands."
Of course I think differently, and so should you - if prosecutors are allowed to get away with inventing laws out of thin air, whether it is because they want to advance their careers, or they feel compelled to "do something" because the public is clamoring for action, or for any other reason, then the whole of Western Civilization is doomed.
If Lori Drew violated an actual law, then the prosecutors should have charged her with violating that law, and her trial should have been devoted to proving or disproving the alleged violation of that law. Absent that, we have something that is little different from the Spanish Inquisition or Communist-style kangaroo courts. If you reject the concept of a justice system that is constrained by the law, then "justice" becomes nothing more than a farce, subject to the whim of "the authorities". You seem to want an Alice-In-Wonderland style of justice, where the sentence comes first, and the trial comes later.
Why are you allowing your passion for vengeance to trump the goal of justice under law?
Oh, and BTW, nice ad-hominem attack.
You get ten points for that one...
/s
Oh bite me. Now run to the mods. You can get me banned with very little effort.
Do you want to be banned. It sure looks like it.
And why should the issue be limited to social networking sites. Lots of sites have TOS. You add up everyone who has violated the TOS of a website and you probably have 20% of the online population.
IOW, if it’s a crime to violate the TOS, we dont have nearly enough jail cells.
On FR's front page is text that amounts to "terms of service," which include:
...remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
Your posts on this thread violate this request. If Judge Wu had not ruled the way he did, banning would be the least of your potential problems. If for some reason a federal prosecutor wanted to get you, you too could be charged with the same crime that Drew was convicted of, and could spend years in federal prison and have many thousands of dollars in fines imposed.
You, and everybody else who uses the Internet, should send Judge Wu a thank-you letter.
Oh please....give me a fricken break.
If defending an asswipe like Lori Drew pass for conservatism here you don’t need to ban me, Ill gladly leave. Please delete my account at your leisure.
I don’t see anyone defending her, but fortunately, I see a lot of posters defending the rule of law.
This site may be a little too intellectual for you.
You’re right, I am the mental equivalent of banana slug, I stand in awe. Thank you for your “black hole” wisdom where nothing stupid could dare escape, you are god like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.