YES! an indictment in the MySpace suicide case

ketchup

I think they took it off because there were at least 5,000 comments.

Putting up the blog & letting people read her "argument" Lori Drew is what we can call a total b*tch, her way of thinking is like a '13' year old. It's like 'she pushed me so I need to push her harder' logic. My, this woman has big issues.

Does anyone know what degree Megan's deppression was?

That blog was a scam. Someone took advantage of people's naivete on the internet to troll in a big way. Not a good thing to do, but oh so ironic.

Lori Barnes was not responsible for that blog! Clickie the linkie to the encyclopedia dramatica entry. 

ETA - here, I'll make it simple: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Megan_Had_It_Coming

That link is on the blog.  

Oh, Okay I didnt know the blog was a scam cause I didnt see the link all I saw were the zip files but thanks for correcting me I appreciate it.(btw i didnt know about the whole LULZ & rickroll thing now I know they got me hehe..)

But I think Lori still has BIG ISSUES.

Anyway what's done is done & all we can really do is fight for justice.

I wonder why nobody thought to have someone else just go ask Megan what she thought of Lori's daughter - maybe pump her for a little gossipy info.  Might have been a lot easier all around and saved a whole lot of trouble.

Joyce

You May Already be a Criminal

But, beyond the heartbreak and emotion of the moment, there is a dangerous scenario developing in the margin of this tragic story, and anyone who uses the Internet should be extremely wary.

The Justice Department has blundered terribly in this case. By reaching for the same statute used to prosecute computer hackers, this indictment has turned the law into a blunt legal instrument that turns every violation of a site's terms of service into a federal crime.
[...]
This indictment should make all Internet users wary of signing up for any online service without reading each and every "term of service" -- because if you violate any term, you are committing a federal crime.

It is safe to say that many active Internet users have also committed the exact "crime" charged in this case. Anyone who has registered for a Web site without providing fully accurate information (because, say, they do not want to receive junk e-mail from the site, or because they want to engage in speech on sensitive subjects), could face federal charges.

Similarly, since most residential broadband services prohibit any "business use" of the service, anyone who has checked their office e-mail from home has violated terms of service and, thus, crossed the criminal line drawn by the Justice Department.

So we all had better be 100% honest here or we're committing a federal crime.  

Check this out. What Lori Drew is being charged with in connection with MySpace is basically lying on the Internet. So...

Any time you tell a fib to MySpace -- any time a little white lie appears on your profile concerning your age or weight -- you are violating your TOS agreement (see indictment paragraph 12(d)). If you then use that account to send a harassing message to someone, you've committed a federal crime ... at least in the view of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.

And not just to MySpace. If, for example, someone made an account here and told ANY kind of fib, they've committed a federal crime! Amazing, huh?

Just FYI...  

Yep, and anyone who has forwarded e-mail outside of their company's intranet or forwarded e-mail without the sender's permission is also breaking laws.  Anyone who has hot linked pictures....etc, etc.

Yes... I'm afraid in the eagerness to "make this woman pay" they have set a precedent that will have resounding negative impact for many people. And let's face it. Neither Megan nor her family are listed as victims here. MySpace is the victim of this "crime" and I don't think that's what any of us here wants.

The truth is that there wasn't a law against what this woman did in the state in which she did it. Cyber Bullying wasn't against the law in Missouri. 

“It’s a dangerous theory because terms of service are violated so often, and that means there’s a choice courts must face: maybe any violation of any terms of service is a federal crime; maybe no violations are a crime; or maybe some violations are a crime. If a court allows it, then it means that if the government is looking for a criminal charge against someone, they just need to show someone violated a term of service."

I don't like this at all... I'm finding that the more I read about this case, the less I agree that indicting Lori Drew was the right thing to do. If there wasn't a law against what she did, I don't think she should have been charged.

That doesn't mean I think what she did was right or OK or anything like that. It was morally wrong. Just to be clear. 

I can see your point. There is nothing particularly illegal about the statement, "the world would be better off without Megan." It is an opinion, no matter the intent of the statement. And it may or may not have been a deciding factor in her apparent suicide. So, true, you can't trace an exact causal link between a and b. And freedom of speech is something to keep as long as we can. But there are places you cannot exercise free speech, for the safety of the public, although it's not seen as an abuse of free speech but is creating a public disturbance, etc.

Justice is not just blind, sometimes justice is not there at all. Essentially, this grown woman can do what she did, which by most people's logical thinking, may have had something to do with the suicide, or, at least, points to severe mental problems just as dire as the young lady, and get away with it. Granted, the young lady did not have to react that way.

So, true, perhaps criminal charges won't solve the problem but will civil charges do better? Normally, they are for a cash amount but I don't think that's what the family wants. They want justice and there are ways to get justice, too, but those lead to other problems.

It seems there is no way out of this Gordian Knot.

ron2

It seems there is no way out of this Gordian Knot.

I think we can start by not attempting to legislate morality. And we can follow that by giving careful consideration to the laws we make.

Justice is a fancy word for vengeance, which is an emotional desire based on anger. I don't believe in laws based on the idea of "making someone pay." There may not be any current laws that address what Lori Barnes did. I can live with that, and I'd rather live with that than make lying on the internet a federal crime.

Dog_ma

I think we can start by not attempting to legislate morality

I agree.

Dog_ma

Justice is a fancy word for vengeance, which is an emotional desire based on anger

Vengeance is punishment meted out to the party that caused injury to the victim. Also known as retribution. But true, people often feel vengeful feelings in association with their emotions, primarily anger. In some ways, vengeance or justice is perhaps already happening, if the public opinion against this mother is to be considered some payback, karma, whatever. True vengeance would be if her daughter suffered a similar fate in the face of all this public acrimony. Hey, it's only words, right? We don't have to do anything about those words. Which is probably what she should have been teaching her daughter, rather than running a circus of gossipers trying to out-do one another. How many kids and her against one 13 year old girl with a sensitive and fragile nature?

And I agree and appreciate that all they did was lie and write things and the young girl took it hard and made her own decision based on her feelings about what was written. And we can't worry about how someone is going to take everything we read and make some rash decision based upon that. I understand that, too. But I also see an interesting dichotomy. We have absolutely no problem with the govt. going after people on the internet who victimize children in other ways. Some may even applaud those efforts. But going after this mom is wrong? Maybe so. And justice may decide that she is criminally not liable. But, when you play around with the law, sometimes it whips around and bites you right in the butt.

At least I'm hopin'.

I remember being a pudgy teenager and not part of the "in" crowd.  Not an easy time.

Everything this woman did ws morally repugnet and in some manner she should be made to pay for her cruelty.  She KNEW that the child had some major issues, she played on those things and the child couldn't deal.

ADD children are far more sensitive than "normal" kids, and they are often the butte of very cruel treatment from their peers.  Add in this girls depression and this was a disaster waiting to happen.  And that gal knew just the right buttons to push.

From my understanding, SOME SSRI's and the newer meds that are SSRI's PLUS, and I may be wrong but I think that the plus is dopamine, do  contain cautions and many are not approved for children under eighteen because they can increase thoughts of suicide.  I don't know about actual incidence of suicide, but at the very least, thoughts.