Reply
Thu 15 May, 2008 05:34 pm
By LINDA DEUTSCH
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES ?- A federal grand jury today indicted a Missouri woman 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 of suburban St. Louis allegedly helped create a false-identity MySpace account to contact Megan Meier, who thought she was chatting with a 16-year-old boy named Josh Evans. Josh didn't exist.
Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006 after receiving 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 charged with 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.
U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said this was the first time the federal statute on accessing protected computers has been used in a social-networking case. It has been used in the past to address hacking.
"This was a tragedy that did not have to happen," O'Brien said.
Both the girl and MySpace are named as victims in the case, he said.
MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc., which is owned by News Corp. The indictment noted that MySpace computer servers are located in Los Angeles County.
Due to juvenile privacy rules, the U.S. attorney's office said, the indictment refers to the girl as M.T.M.
FBI agents in St. Louis and Los Angeles investigated the case, Hernandez said.
Each of the four counts carries a maximum possible penalty of five years in prison.
Drew will be arraigned in St. Louis and then moved to Los Angeles for trial.
The indictment says MySpace members agree to abide by terms of service that include, among other things, not promoting information they know to be false or misleading; soliciting personal information from anyone under age 18 and not using information gathered from the Web site to "harass, abuse or harm other people."
Drew and others who were not named conspired to violate the service terms from about September 2006 to mid-October that year, according to the indictment. It alleges they registered as a MySpace member under a phony name and used the account to obtain information on the girl.
Drew and her coconspirators "used the information obtained over the MySpace computer system to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass the juvenile MySpace member," the indictment charged.
After the girl killed herself, Drew and the others deleted the information for the account, the indictment said.
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.
Megan's death was investigated by Missouri authorities, but no state charges were filed because no laws appeared to apply to the case.
?-?-?-
I hope that bitches life is destroyed.
The scariest part about it (to me) is that this woman had a child herself...a daughter, in fact, of around the same age apparently.
Beyond just human being to human being (in terms of gauging how to treat another person and how your treatment of that person might be received) she should have known (because she had a living, breathing one in her own house with her) how this might affect a young teenaged girl.
Even if nothing like the girl's suicide had resulted - it's also scary to me to think that there are people like this who are parents at all. These are the kind of people providing an example and role model for our children (and those kids do affect all of us who have to spend time with them every day ).
And we wonder where children 'LEARN' cruelty.
How sad - my heart goes out to this family. Is there really any way for them to prove she did this? (I'm not computer savvy enough to know).
edgarblythe wrote:LOS ANGELES ?- A federal grand jury today indicted a Missouri woman for her alleged role in perpetrating a hoax on the online social network MySpace against a 13-year-old neighbor who committed suicide.
Yes!
I remember this case, I read up about it I was so shocked... how sick can you get. Despicable. Truly beyond words.
aidan wrote:The scariest part about it (to me) is that this woman had a child herself...a daughter, in fact, of around the same age apparently.
Yeah, and when the whole case broke that daughter then started her own blog -- not to apologise, but to complain how her family was treated unfairly and how Megan, the girl who'd hanged herself, hadnt been the angel people made her out to be anyway, how annoying she had been etc.
I saw the case on the news. Apparently the authorities do have the computer/s? involved and can prove what words were exchanged. At the time I saw the story they hadn't closed the case nor pressed charges. To me that meant the authorities were looking for a law to be able to press charges against the ones involved and hold them accountable. I think the blame is 50/50. That is just my opinion. Another have to wait and see how it turns out case.
TTH- Blame for what is 50/50?
Nihm- I was talking about this with my students. And though they stated their belief that the girl who killed herself may have been annoying - she may even have been a bully herself, but for the adult woman to involve herself and start playing the same game that these kids play is pretty sad.... They said, 'She must not have much of a life if she has time to do stuff like this.'
But I find it scary- in that these are the people (parents) who are supposed to teach their kids how to act. And they don't seem to have much more sense than the children.'
I also find it really sad that the young people I talked to about it were not surprised, they were not appalled- in fact they were telling ME - that's just the way the world is Miss. And then they said, 'It will never change.'
I felt so sad to hear them say that. I still believe we can change the world for the better...but I think that's because I came up in a different time when I saw good changes happening, and there was less hatred so blatantly evident- and many fewer avenues through which it could be expressed - either openly or secretly and insidiously.
aidan wrote:Nihm- I was talking about this with my students. And though they stated their belief that the girl who killed herself may have been annoying - she may even have been a bully herself, but for the adult woman to involve herself and start playing the same game that these kids play is pretty sad.... They said, 'She must not have much of a life if she has time to do stuff like this.'
Oh yeah, no sure.. I didnt mean at all as extenuating. The whole thing disgusted me. The mother of course is the most heinous. For an adult to do that. To deliberately and over such a long time play a cruel game with a psychologically disturbed teenage girl.. the mind boggles.
Every class has an 'ugly duckling' or two who are targeted for mocking and bullying by their classmates; parents and teachers should protect them. This parent on the other hand upped the ante and set up this cruel hoax that ended up driving the bullied girl over the edge and suiciding. What kind of person does that?
But the fact that all this girl, her daughter, who had played her role, took from the whole thing was that the girl who committed suicide was really just herself to blame anyhow and now
they were being unfairly portrayed, whine... not a hint of any kind of sense of responsibility or guilt, just entitlement and self-pity and - yeah, no wonder with such a mother but the whole family obviously just... yeah, no words, really. Just unbelievable.
aidan wrote:TTH- Blame for what is 50/50?
I see the whole situation as partly the bullies fault and partly the girl's fault who hanged herself.
"U.S. Attorney Thomas P. O'Brien said this was the first time the federal statute on accessing protected computers has been used in a social-networking case. It has been used in the past to address hacking." This to me is of great importance because it is a first which can affect other cases if they arise.
I am more curious to see if there is going to be a civil lawsuit and if so, will mysp... (the site I don't like) is going to be dragged into it.
Well yeah - any person who commits suicide is responsible for their own death by definition.
I don't think blame is the right word for how one should think of her responsibility in this situation though.
None of us know what else was going on in her life. But one thing is for sure - this specific adult didn't treat her with the caring and compassion that any child deserves from every mature and thinking adult in their world.
Not that that's a big surprise - in fact- as my students told me - they don't find this sort of behavior to be the exception from adults - they find it to be the rule.
Kids have so little faith in adults these days...no wonder some of them can't face the world. Look at what they're given to look forward to.
Okay aidan, I agree that "blame" might not have been the right word for me to use. Then change it to responsibility. I think the adult is 50% responsible and the girl who killed herself is 50% responsible.
btw why should only children be treated with caring and compassion. What about adults treating other adults with caring and compassion.
Yes, certainly.
But I think it's especially important that it be directed toward children who are somewhat defenseless and powerless and at the mercy of the adults around them. Because not only do they not have the mechanism of escape that some or most adults do (if a situation is abusive- adults have at least the option of leaving), but also because this is what enables them to learn caring and compassion so that they'll practice it toward other adults and children when they're older. It's a big cycle.
It's a big stretch to try and use the federal statute on accessing protected computers, for a social-networking case.
I very much doubt it will stand up to scrutiny, the spirit of the law is aimed at hacking, that's an entirely different thing.
Not only that, but free speech arguments have merit in this case, as does the fact that there is no proof of intent.
To the point, if such a case were to actually be made and won it, would potentially set a legal precedent by which one could claim damages for causing so-called "harm" via the simple free-speech action of Internet-generated text.
It's also rubbish to claim "whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible for her actions" as that absurd generalization would set a precedent by which an unexpected / unplanned negative outcome from Internet related text on a personal not professional nor business forum, could hold one liable.
Further, the claim of "conspiracy to violate the service terms" is irrelevant to the main underlying consideration at hand, as is the claim that the so-called "information for the account" was deleted.
Chumly wrote:To the point, if such as case were to actually be made and won it, would potentially set a legal precedent by which one could claim damages for causing so-called "harm" via the simple free-speech action of Internet-generated text.
That is exactly why this case will be important. Juries are well known to come up with verdicts based on emotion, especially in the death of a child. I for one say it is time to hold individuals accountable for what they write on the internet. I hope the ones involved get convicted.
Nope, the jury will not be allowed to make the final judgment here if they vote in favor of indictment. It would then be overturned upon appeal or ruled against by the presiding judge due to the arguments I have made above.
You are wrong in assuming the jury always has the final say.
It's clear the prosecutors are trying to make a socio/political statement here and are not trying to make new law. I would expect the best they could hope for would be to settle, with no or minimal jail time.
It's utter rubbish for you to claim "it is time to hold individuals accountable for what they write on the internet" unless you believe in doing so for all modes of human communications and thus countering many of the hard won rights and freedoms.
Chumly
I didn't say or assume what you said. But, if that is what you think I said so be it.
Your lack of understanding is not my problem nor my responsibility, to wit:
Chumly wrote:It's a big stretch to try and use the federal statute on accessing protected computers, for a social-networking case.
I very much doubt it will stand up to scrutiny, the spirit of the law is aimed at hacking, that's an entirely different thing.
Not only that, but free speech arguments have merit in this case, as does the fact that there is no proof of intent.
To the point, if such a case were to actually be made and won it, would potentially set a legal precedent by which one could claim damages for causing so-called "harm" via the simple free-speech action of Internet-generated text.
It's also rubbish to claim "whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible for her actions" as that absurd generalization would set a precedent by which an unexpected / unplanned negative outcome from Internet related text on a personal not professional nor business forum, could hold one liable.
Further, the claim of "conspiracy to violate the service terms" is irrelevant to the main underlying consideration at hand, as is the claim that the so-called "information for the account" was deleted.
Chumly wrote:Nope, the jury will not be allowed to make the final judgment here if they vote in favor of indictment.
Chumly you certainly have the right to state what you believe. I don't want to argue about this case. In what I quoted from you, did you mean to say indictment? The indictment has already happened and the charges have already been made.
I just feel, like you stated, this is a very important case since it could potentially set precedent.
It's not a question of belief.
We'll see whether the indictment stands, but it was the wrong word as per the jury; you are correct.
Okay, thanks now I understand what you meant because the indictment can be dismissed as far as I know. Interesting case though.
I would argue that history indicates freedom of exchange of information is a safer bet than censorship, expect in special cases of immediate, obvious, clear and present danger, and then only for short time periods.
I would argue that Internet chat is not a special case of immediate, obvious, clear and present danger.
Thus I would argue that Internet chat should not be subject to censorship.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace