US mom pleads not guilty in MySpace suicide case

Yahoo News ^ | June 16, 2008

[khnyny]

A 49-year-old woman pleaded not guilty to charges arising from her role in a MySpace hoax that ended with a 13-year-old girl committing suicide after being spurned by a fictitious boy. Lori Drew, 49, of Missouri, denied charges of conspiracy to inflict emotional distress and accessing MySpace computers without authorization. She will fact trial on July 29.

Prosecutors say Drew set up a fake account on the social networking site and posed, with others, as a 16-year-old boy "Josh Evans" to target a classmate of her teenage daughter, Megan Meier.

Meier hanged herself in October 2006, shortly after receiving a message from "Josh" saying amongst other things that he had no interest in a romantic relationship with her and would be better off without her.

[modest proposal]

I don’t think it was the lying so much as how the lies were used. It was also the fact it was an adult preying on a kid. Perhaps there are some existing laws that could be used to prosecute.

Like someone mentioned earlier, the internet is a new frontier. Before the internet became popular it would have been almost impossible for people to behave disgracefully like this woman did (without being legally penalized for harassment of some sort).

I am a proponent of keeping the internet free and for parents restricting access to it. However, there are some things which just should not fly even in cyberspace.

I am sure that if it was your child who had been preyed upon things might seem different.

[DBrow]

Yes I do! The end of Web anonymity, for one thing, followed closely by Hate Speech laws.

It’s no accident theat Myspace (Murdoch and Fox) is almost always the focus of social site news, while social sites run by Google or whoever owns Livejournal now never seem to get mentioned.

[an amused spectator]

I don’t think it was the lying so much as how the lies were used.

Ah, so you DON'T understand how the legal system and the government works. We were all very sure on Free Republic in the early days that posting entire articles was "free speech" and "fair use". Well, it was - so the legal eagles and Clintonite thug-guv types just changed the reason they were coming after us.

If they get this, then many of the people on the Internet are committing felonies - for example, by creating a phony Hotmail account.

I am sure that if it was your child who had been preyed upon things might seem different.

That's how thug-guv works - it finds ONE example that'll tear at your heart-strings, then sends in an armored division to exploit the hole made by the tiny little exception they plucked your heart-strings with.

"Whoopsee! I guess you fell for the ol' "fuzzy kittens" and "cutre, big-eyed puppies" routine again! Our bad!" - Thug-Guv Inc.

[an amused spectator]

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/686259/The_Girl_Who_Will_Change_The_Internet.html

A bit hyper-ventilating, but much food for thought. I'm sure you remember how they rolled over Free Republic back during the impeachment wars. :-)

[rrrod]

How about they hang the woman, the editor and the reporter?

[DBrow]

“However, there are some things which just should not fly even in cyberspace.”

If you had to certify your identity in order to legally access the Web or email or any other service, it would change things considerably.

It may “save even one child's life”, but if you could be prosecuted for logging on to Free Republic with a screen name, would you feel happy?

Many people (not me of course) maintain a throwaway hotmail account to give out to merchants who would fill the “main” account with junk. Should that be illegal?

It drives some of our leaders that we can have this conversation, and they don't know who we are.

Since the Web can create a permanent public record of citizen's communications, unlike speech or phone calls, anonymity is a good thing.

I posted above about CBS’s actions during the Dan Rather fiasco. Lots of research to FIND BUCKHEAD rather than to try to see who provided the fraudulent letter that a TV host used to try to influence a presidential election. Gee, what would they have done if they could have found Buckhead right away?

Or if the DNC could find the artist who did the “crying baby” logo.

[DBrow]

Yes, I remember the impeachment wars.

I'll say it again in a different way, it bugs the powerful people that before their words have quite finished there are a thousand people using search engines to check facts.

NPR had a group of six “uncommitted voters” in, I think, the 2004 elections. As soon as their names were broadcast, a dozen people used opensecrets.org to learn that the six were all Kerry supporters who had maxed their contributions, and this news hit “the blogosphere” they like to talk about. Embarrassing.

And how often does the “average Islamic man on the street” interview happen to be with the local director of a CAIR chapter? This gets online too.

Ending Web anonymity would allow those seeking more power to pressure the posters causing the most trouble (posting from work? Illegal email account?) until there were much fewer troublemakers, and many more “activists” spreading “truth”.

[mkjessup]

These are federal felony charges for 'lying to the MySpace computer servers'. Do you understand? And do you understand what this could mean?

Yeah, it means everybody moves over to Facebook.

[mkjessup]

When CBS had their Rather problems, they assigned a team of researchers, not to find out where the fake documents came from, but to find out who Buckhead and TankerKC were.
So aside from the fact that this story has a dead white girl in it, there are elements of it that could influence us here on FR.
You are not committing fraud by signing on with your screen name, as long as you don't commit a crime while doing so. A few court cases like this one, though, and it may become a crime to represent yourself online by any name but your own.

Bravo DBrow, THIS is the bottom line that everyone is missing in their rush to hang somebody for what is admittedly, a tragic event.

Notable also, is the refusal of the authorities in the jurisdiction where the alleged crime occurred, to bring any charges against the mother. The response from the Feds? Drag her ass to LA and file the charges there. Doesn't that set off alarm bells with the 'autonomy of the states' crowd?

Guess not.

The end game which has nothing to do with the suicide of a teenage girl, is to create sufficient outrage and momentum among the public to demand "accountability" for anything and everything that anybody posts online, for any statement made, for any politically incorrect sentiment re-defined as a 'hate crime', and once positively identified, off the miscreants go to a government-approved re-education center, or perhaps a minimum security prison facility, whatever is deemed 'appropriate' for the 'crime' of speaking one's mind and telling the truth, the results be damned.

We're closer to that than anyone dares think, as I see it.

[modest proposal]

Oh I agree the web should remain anonymous. I also agree its good we can be anonymous on FR. Honestly, there are islamic extremists who have threatened murder over less than we sometimes say in this forum:P So, yes, I see where you are coming from.

I really think the government should keep their mitts off the net. They do not deserve to regulate it heavily. I don’t think they even deserve to tax net business.

It is just a shame some people actively abuse the internet to prey on kids etc. I would never let my kids on myspace until they were old enough to be wise to the world.

I guess its like the right to bear arms. Have to put up with a few wackos to ensure the rest of the sane people have freedom.

[modest proposal]

Hmm I just thought I would add I was arguing from the belief that I think child predators like this particular woman can be stopped without making it mandatory to certify one’s identity on the net.

Obviously the net isn’t totally anonymous because her actions were traced to her in the end.

I think there is a line between free speech and harassment of a particular individual/preying on minors.

True, the government could go overboard with cases like this as an excuse to crack down on freedom. However, I think incidents like this can be punished without ruining the whole internet.

Just my opinion anyway.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes, I understand exactly what that means. Not sure everybody has caught on yet.

[netmilsmom]

I agree.

[Gay State Conservative]

...conspiracy to inflict emotional distress...

What the heck is that??? Is this a law in all states? If that's the case I'm gonna be bringing legal actions against a couple of my former girlfriends.What a silly law!

[an amused spectator]

Yeah, it means everybody moves over to Facebook.

LOL! There's one in every crowd...

You know, come to think of it - on Free Republic, it's the whole crowd that's a bunch of wiseacres. :-)

[southern rock]

you can't possibly imagine what a vicious thing this woman did to the girl who killed herself. Getting involved in jr. high antics shows a level of immaturity that is staggering considering that this Drew woman is a wife and mother. The people in that town should have tarred and feathered this vile excuse for a human being. She should spend the rest of her life shunned by all decent people.

OK Its just not a crime.

[southern rock]

You appear to repeatedly miss the fact that electronic stalking and harassment are violations of FEDERAL LAW.

Pretty soon everything is going to be a violation of Federal Law. Doesn't make it right.

[ottbmare]

Pretty soon everything is going to be a violation of Federal Law. Doesn't make it right.

So your view is that electronic stalking and harassment are okay and shouldn't be against the law?

The laws did not come into being because some legislators had too much time on their hands. They were instituted because e-stalking and harassment have been so extraordinarily damaging to the lives of innocent citizens. It is no different than passing laws against burglary or physical stalking.

[jabchae]

It is no different than passing laws against burglary or physical stalking.

It's quite different. By definition, I can't get away from a stalker. This girl was not stalked. If she didn't like what was going on in the recreational virtual world, the plug could be pulled.

I've been called ridiculous names on this forum. It was annoying, maybe harassing, but didn't in any way impact my safety or my freedom to carry on my business.

I think public shunning is the appropriate response to this woman's behavior, and will probably last much longer than any time she might serve.

[an amused spectator]

The laws did not come into being because some legislators had too much time on their hands.

My, you're quite the innocent, aren't you?

Yeah, our legislators were busy taking care of the oil drilling problem, and the Alternative Minimum Tax problem.

Oh, and the really important thing - whether or not Roger Clemens used steroids.

The laws are in place to squash free men and women. Why do you think the government spent $40 million plus proving that Clinton committed perjury, obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses, and not a damn thing happened to him? Hmmmmmmmmm?

The Big Book of Laws is racing to catch up with the Big Book of the Tax Code, which is unintelligible even to those "enforcing" it.

You have to understand that these government prosecutors have blank checkbooks and a bottomless pit of OUR money to enforce these ever-proliferating laws. Be very afraid.