MO - Megan Meier, 13, Mentally Abused, Commits Suicide

[Paladin]

Glad this disgusting pig got charged.

 

[Wudge]

Paladin, what took place was horrific, and various actions were certainly despicable. However, I truly doubt these charges hold up. If they did, this case would criminalize contract law on the internet.

Please understand the government claims that by not complying with MySpace's TOS (Terms Of Service), Lori criminally trespassed onto MySpace's computer. Were the government to prevail at trial, then not adhering to most any website's TOS would be a Federal crime -- as long as the website's server and a person's computer resided in different states.

Though I'm not a member, just on MySpace alone, I suspect hundreds of thousands of members have submitted false information.

 

[shadowraiths]

Paladin, what took place was horrific, and various actions were certainly despicable. However, I truly doubt these charges hold up. If they did, this case would criminalize contract law on the internet.

Please understand the government claims that by not complying with MySpace's TOS (Terms Of Service), Lori criminally trespassed onto MySpace's computer. Were the government to prevail at trial, then not adhering to most any website's TOS would be a Federal crime -- as long as the website's server and a person's computer resided in different states.

Though I'm not a member, just on MySpace alone, I suspect hundreds of thousands of members have submitted false information.

Rather than setting up a straw man and arguing that, how about reading the indicment and arguing the facts therein? I'm just sayin...

 

[shadowraiths]

Come on. I KNOW you're not new here!!!

LOL. I just couldn't resist. I'll be good. :angel:

 

[reb]

Am I the only one in the universe who finds Megan's parents irresponsible for letting their kid get so involved in 'myspace' that it basically took over her life, causing her to end her life?? Something is very, very wrong in this whole case. Yes the fact is, Lori Drew is an idiot. But parents KNOW that myspace is evil.... IT'S NO SECRET. So why were they letting her get so caught up in it (and at such a young, vulnerable age!), that what took place in cyberspace was more important that real-life events?? WHY did they not tell her to TURN OFF THE COMPUTER and ignore this so-called 'josh' guy, who SHE HAD NEVER MET?? (Sorry,, but chatting with someone online is not "meeting" them.) Did they not tell her that not everything is what it seems in life,, and you can't trust what you read on the computer?? Or were they too busy with their own lives?? And whatever happened to 'sticks and stones'.....???

I'm sorry but many, many people- of ALL ages- since the dawn of time have been told MUCH worse things that 'the world would be better off without you'.. and survived. If we sued everyone who said a mean thing to us, the world would be chaos (oh wait.. it IS turning into chaos.......)

Just to make myself clear-- yes bullying is a problem and always has been (since the dawn of time)... and in the old days, it was 'the strongest survive'. Nowadays, we are such a litigious society we want to sue all the bullies. I don't think I agree with always blaming others for our actions. If someone said something mean to Megan Meier (or whoever) and she went to school and shot a bunch of people-- is it the fault of the person who said the mean thing? I would say NO. Now if she was physically harassed and tormented by a gang of people every day for a long time, and no one helped her,, then yes maybe they bear some of the blame.
But ultimately, in this case,, Megan (and her parents-- who did not tell her her to turn off the freaking computer and quit talking to strangers).. who are responsible for her actions. IMO. Her PARENTS should have been keeping an eye on her, watching what she was doing on the net, and monitoring her behavior; taught her that people will not always be nice, and how to deal with it. They should have taught her how to protect herself.

If she was fragile enough to kill herself over something like this, then it's likely she may have done it over something else, in the future.
(...not that I don't feel bad for her parents.. of course I do!)

 

[Nikki 01]

But ultimately, in this case,, Megan (and her parents-- who did not tell her her to turn off the freaking computer and quit talking to strangers).. who are responsible for her actions. IMO. Her PARENTS should have been keeping an eye on her, watching what she was doing on the net, and monitoring her behavior; taught her that people will not always be nice, and how to deal with it. They should have taught her how to protect herself.

They were monitoring her interactions on the net. Megan could not even access her myspace account on her own because only the parents had the password to it. Her mom also did tell her to log off that fateful day, but the mom had a doctor's appointment and I guess she didn't have time to make sure she did.

 

[Wudge]

Rather than setting up a straw man and arguing that, how about reading the indicment and arguing the facts therein? I'm just sayin...

I read the indictment yesterday. My post is correct; i.e., the government's case is based on criminalizing a contractual violation of MySpace's Terms Of Service.

I could've argued against the government's theory in many ways, but I chose not to earlier. I just wanted to give a heads-up.

If I had wanted to argue, (amongst many possible arguments) I think it's safe to say that the majority of internet users do not read the various Terms of Service contracts that they encounter and agree to once they click through. So a lack of intent could easily be argued. On the other side of that argument, prosecutors would surely claim that willful blindness to the terms of a contract is not an excuse.

Originally, the statutes that the charges in this case are based on covered unauthorized access to computers by approaching the matter via property law, and they were written with hackers, spies, etc. in mind. The government now hopes to impose the unauthorized access penalties of the original statute by claiming a contractual violation. That's scary, to me to least. Hence my heads-up.

As regards this case, a key fact is that given State law, prosecutors lacked the ability to charge Lori with a crime. So Federal prosecutors hope to now do so by criminalizing online contracts. I would rather see this matter addressed in civil litigation, because I think the downstream fallout from the law of intended consequences will be huge if the Federal government prevails in its quest.

 

[shadowraiths]

If I had wanted to argue, (amongst many possible arguments) I think it's safe to say that the majority of internet users do not read the various Terms of Service contracts that they encounter and agree to once they click through. So a lack of intent could easily be argued. On the other side of that argument, prosecutors would surely claim that willful blindness to the terms of a contract is not an excuse.

Except that, you appear to be focusing upon an average joe signing up under a pseudonym to anonymously use a service for benign purposes as opposed to an adult signing up to purposefully stalk & harass a minor. As far as winning the case goes? I highly doubt the government will win the case, including but not limited to, the following reasons.

• Megan was in violation of the myspace TOS age constraints.
  
  
• The parents allowed their daughter to continue corresponding with the fake "Josh" even after he sent the message that "invited M.T.M. to touch the "snake" of "Josh Evans."'

Imho, item one, in and of itself, could be enough to get the case thrown out on its ear. Item two involves the issue of parental responsibility (or lack thereof). And, to me, is the most disturbing of all. Simply bc I admittedly wonder what kind of parents would allow their 12-year-old daughter to continue corresponding with someone after receiving a message like that? And secondly, what kind of woman (Drew) would pose as a preying paedophile in the first place?

As for the law of unintended consequences? I personally think it's about time we (as in the universal we) address the very real issue of cyber harassment/stalking and the emotional and physical devastation it causes in the lives of victims. Whether or not this particular case will help us to move towards that end? Who really knows?

 

[reb]

harassment is when someone is following you, threatening you, pushing you or having unwanted physical contact with you, invading your space, driving by your house repeatedly with the intent of watching you or making you afraid,, ganging up on you with others.... etc. (and then there's sexual harassment, which falls under 'unwanted physical contact'.. and bothering or threatening someone in a sexual way.)

how is someone saying something 'mean' over the internet, considered harassment.....??

just turn the dang thing off, and don't talk to them anymore!!!

maybe lori d. was too old to be doing what she was doing.. but megan was also too young to be doing what she was dong and it seems her parents are at least partly at fault for failing to protect her.

 

[shadowraiths]

harassment is when someone is following you, threatening you, pushing you or having unwanted physical contact with you, invading your space, driving by your house repeatedly with the intent of watching you or making you afraid,, ganging up on you with others.... etc. (and then there's sexual harassment, which falls under 'unwanted physical contact'.. and bothering or threatening someone in a sexual way.)

I imagine cyber harassment/stalking victims would disagree with this assessment. However, here is a reasonable paper addressing the issue. (click here) I also urge you to check out the case of Duwayne Comfort who was the first individual prosecuted for cyber stalking/harassment under California penal code 646.9.

 

[shadowraiths]

Simply bc I admittedly wonder what kind of parents would allow their 12-year-old daughter to continue corresponding with someone after receiving a message like that? And secondly, what kind of woman (Drew) would pose as a preying paedophile in the first place?

ETA ~ I misstated the age. Iirc, Megan was 13 years old, not 12 years old.

 

[reb]

I still just don't get it. unless someone has hacked into your computer to the point where you can't use it anymore and they are watching everything you are doing,, or something like that... or saying 'I know where you live and I'm going to come kill you' ... how is saying 'mean' things online 'harassment'? Again, a 13-yr old girl has NO business being on myspace anyway... and her mother should have known that. But the mother didn't want to intervene, and say NO-- because we are in the age of permissive parenting,, and 'everybody does it' mentality.
Also-- she did not 'meet' a boy online. Cyberchatting is not 'meeting'. In the old days, when you spoke with someone over the phone, did you say 'I met someone over the phone'? NO. You would say you met them when you saw them face to face.
Besides... was the mother not alarmed that she might be chatting with a 50-year old pedophile....??? And did she not teach her daughter about these dangers?

Also.. no one has brought up the fact that- it is widely understood- although I'm not sure there is absolute proof?)- she was on antidepressants which ironically list 'suicidal tendencies' as a side effect. Why is everyone blaming the woman, and no one is blaming the drugs......??? It's common knowledge that countless young people who are on these drugs, who already have issues to begin with.. often snap and go on shooting sprees, commit suicide, etc. It just takes one little trigger, that might otherwise be insignificant.

 

[mysteriew]

I still just don't get it. unless someone has hacked into your computer to the point where you can't use it anymore and they are watching everything you are doing,, or something like that... or saying 'I know where you live and I'm going to come kill you' ... how is saying 'mean' things online 'harassment'? Again, a 13-yr old girl has NO business being on myspace anyway... and her mother should have known that. But the mother didn't want to intervene, and say NO-- because we are in the age of permissive parenting,, and 'everybody does it' mentality.
Also-- she did not 'meet' a boy online. Cyberchatting is not 'meeting'. In the old days, when you spoke with someone over the phone, did you say 'I met someone over the phone'? NO. You would say you met them when you saw them face to face.
Besides... was the mother not alarmed that she might be chatting with a 50-year old pedophile....??? And did she not teach her daughter about these dangers?

Also.. no one has brought up the fact that- it is widely understood- although I'm not sure there is absolute proof?)- she was on antidepressants which ironically list 'suicidal tendencies' as a side effect. Why is everyone blaming the woman, and no one is blaming the drugs......??? It's common knowledge that countless young people who are on these drugs, who already have issues to begin with.. often snap and go on shooting sprees, commit suicide, etc. It just takes one little trigger, that might otherwise be insignificant.

Because when you have a young child who is emotionally fragile and depressed, you look for ways to keep them interested, busy and involved in life. If you have a child who is shy, you look for ways to help them get comfortable with people and try to keep them involved in things that other kids of their age are doing. The internet may not have been the best thing, but how many parents really know that? We know it because we read about it so much. But the average parent doesn't. And they did take precautions, in monitoring when she was online. But when "Josh" said that to her, how do we know if the parents ever saw it? Or did she hide it or delete it- but LE brought it up during the investigation? Kids know what their parents would have a fit about, and often know how to hide it.

I think of this case like I do the one a few years ago. The suicide chatroom case. Where several were in a chatroom and encouraging each other to commit suicide. Some weren't even suicidal, they just wanted to see the others commit suicide. One or two did commit suicide. It was taking advantage of another's state of mind during a crisis point in their life. Except she wasn't at the crisis point, they drove her to the crisis point.

 

[pixies]

All this drama on this thread!! Yikes!

I am just gonna be judgemental and say I think the crazy mother "Drew" deserves to spend a very very long time in jail because she is all sorts of crazy and did push this obviously mentally unstable girl to her death...

As for Megans parents? Sure, they sucked as parents for allowing the whole myspace/computer craze take over their kid but sadly being a sucky parent does not make you a criminal...look all over websleuths and you will see that.

 

[MeoW333]

Thank God charges are being pressed against that woman! She intentionally was out to cause at the least emotional harm to Megan (a child with depression). She was a mother herself, who obviously couldn't act like a proper one; teach her own daughter things like that. Hopefully the charges stick and she does some kind of time or something. It's important to use her as an example, otherwise others will think they can get away with it as well.

 

[Wudge]

Except that, you appear to be focusing upon an average joe signing up under a pseudonym to anonymously use a service for benign purposes as opposed to an adult signing up to purposefully stalk & harass a minor. As far as winning the case goes? I highly doubt the government will win the case, including but not limited to, the following reasons.

• Megan was in violation of the myspace TOS age constraints.
  
  
• The parents allowed their daughter to continue corresponding with the fake "Josh" even after he sent the message that "invited M.T.M. to touch the "snake" of "Josh Evans."'

Imho, item one, in and of itself, could be enough to get the case thrown out on its ear. Item two involves the issue of parental responsibility (or lack thereof). And, to me, is the most disturbing of all. Simply bc I admittedly wonder what kind of parents would allow their 12-year-old daughter to continue corresponding with someone after receiving a message like that? And secondly, what kind of woman (Drew) would pose as a preying paedophile in the first place?

As for the law of unintended consequences? I personally think it's about time we (as in the universal we) address the very real issue of cyber harassment/stalking and the emotional and physical devastation it causes in the lives of victims. Whether or not this particular case will help us to move towards that end? Who really knows?

If this case goes to trial, I don't see either of those two possible defense arguments precluding a jury finding that Lori violated MySpace's TOS and, thus, unlawfully accessed My Space's computers. That's the centerpiece of the Federal indictment, and though I hope the government does not prevail, it is not at all clear to me that Federal prosecutors would not.

As for my head's up, please recognize that if the government prevails, this case would set a precedent (case law). A precedent that could, and almost certainly would, be called upon in future Federal cases wherein it was proven that a website's TOS was violated (in any manner). Hence, in any future Federal cases, a finding that a computer was unlawfully accessed would attach through case law provided that a TOS violation was proven and the member's computer and the website's computer resided in different states. Please recognize too that depending on the actual terms, the TOS of various websites can be violated in many ways beyond members not giving their real name or address or sex or date of birth, etc., etc.

Given its broad aspect (TOS violations) and precedent setting ability in internet law, this case bears watching beyond just to see if it satisfies the public's outrage as regards Lori Drew's conduct.

 

[Paladin]

Personally, I don't care what happens to Lori Drew. Yes, I did say I'm glad the disgusting pig got charged.

At least make her worry and sweat for a long while until the legal proceedings occur. Make her spend alot of money on a lawyer she probably doesn't need.

Even if she goes scott free she'll have suffered plenty for my tastes, and definitely not enough for Megan's parents and some WS'ers here.

We all know how it goes.

 

[Paladin]

Sorry for the necro-bump, but...

A rallying cry against cyberbullying

Lawmakers and Internet executives are perking up to the growing problem of kid bully fights on the Web.

Legislators are newly arming themselves with laws that will protect kids from being repeatedly harassed via the Internet, text messages, or other electronic devices. In recent weeks, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) and Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) proposed a federal law that would criminalize acts of so-called cyberbullying (PDF). And Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt was scheduled Friday to sign into state law a similar measure, but the event was postponed because of inclement weather in St. Louis.

Both state and federal laws were prompted by the suicide of Missouri 13-year-old Megan Meier, who was the victim of repeated harassment on MySpace.com. An adult neighbor was indicted in the case last month by a grand jury in Los Angeles not on charges of cyberbullying, but on charges of unauthorized access of a computer system with intent to harm another person. (Missouri litigators said they didn't have a law to prosecute the case at the time.)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9962375-7.html?tag=nefd.riv

I'm glad to see that Megan's death might change or save some lives down the road.

 

[legallee]

I think Lori Drew should get alot more than what she's getting but at least she's been charged with something. She WAS the adult! She WAS the sick one who was "getting off" on causing another child pain. Rather it be mentally or physically, she committed ABUSE that ultimately led to this lil girls life.

 

[Chloe']

I certainly hope it sticks. I know of a child who experienced much the same thing, only without the adult. The toll on the child still goes on.