The MySpace Suicide Indictment

[Ghazni]

FOXNews.com - Mom 'Thrilled' Over MySpace Indictment as Neighbor Prepares to Surrender - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

The mother of a teen who hanged herself after being spurned by a fake boy on MySpace is "thrilled" that a federal grand jury indicted her neighbor for her role in the creation of the profile.


I'm sure lots of you have heard about this before. The very short story is: a mother/daughter used a fake profile on MySpace to make a 13 year-old girl feel so awful that she committed suicide. Most of us can agree that the girl and her mother who commited this act are dispicable; however, do you think she should be punished legally?

I don't, and I'm appalled that she may serve up to 20 years.

If I were her lawyer, here's what I would say:
Poking fun at an individual is not a crime. Lying to a 13-yearold about your identity is not a crime. So what was the crime? There is no known evidence that the mother/daughter team faked the profile in order to make the girl commit suicide. There is also nothing that shows obvious suicidal tendencies in the girl that would show homicidal neglect/manipulation on the part of the mother/daughter team.

The fact that the girl commited suicide is indeed unfortunate, but there was certainly no force and no conspiracy. She chose to take her own life.

I don't know the specifics of what happened, but I would have to figure that many people have taken much harsher criticisms of themselves at even younger ages. Should we make all criticisms a crime? How are the perpetrators of these harsh criticisms any different than those of innumerable amount of people who say horrible things to others every day? The fact that a suicide resulted is irrelevant. It could not have been predicted.

I realize this may be asking a bit too much, but in a completely objective world, the mother of the daughter would say to these people "You are worthless and immature human beings and I may never talk to you for the rest of my life, but I realize my child has to take at least some responsibility for her own actions."

[Gods_Mercenary]

Tough call, but I'd like to throw the mother especially into a river.

[Jack]

According to the original article the charges are based on the following:

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 co-conspirators "used the information obtained over the MySpace computer system to torment, harass, humiliate and embarrass the juvenile MySpace member," the indictment charged. The indictment contends they committed or aided in a dozen "overt acts" that were illegal, including using a photograph of a boy that was posted without his knowledge or permission.

So what they intend to do is turn the Terms of Service into actionable criminal statutes. A follow up article mentions the danger of doing this:

Think twice before you sign up for an online service using a fake name or e-mail address. You could be committing a federal crime. Federal prosecutors turned to a novel interpretation of computer hacking law to indict a Missouri mother on charges connected to the suicide of a 13-year-old MySpace user. Prosecutors alleged that by helping create a MySpace account in the name of someone who didn't exist, Lori Drew, 49, violated the News Corp.-owned site's terms of service and thus illegally accessed protected computers. Legal experts warned Friday that such an interpretation could criminalize routine behavior on the Internet. After all, people regularly create accounts or post information under aliases for many legitimate reasons, including parody, spam avoidance and a desire to maintain their anonymity or privacy online or that of a child. This new interpretation also gives a business contract the force of a law: Violations of a Web site's user agreement could now lead to criminal sanction, not just civil lawsuits or ejection from a site. "I think the danger of applying a statute in this way is that it could have unintended consequences," said John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor who leads a MySpace-convened task force on Internet safety. "An application of a general statute like this might result in chilling a great deal of online speech and other freedom."

FOXNews.com - MySpace Suicide Case Could Make Us All Criminals - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

I'd say a civil suit would be in order, much like the one brought against OJ, but a criminal case isn't appropriate for violating the terms of a business contract.

[Lullaby Chainer]

On my myspace, my first name is No and my last name is Thanks.

Arrest me.

[Maryjane]

The drama unfolds...

DBKP - Worldwide Leader in Weird: Myspace Suicide, Lori Drew, Megan Meier: 'Megan Had It Coming' Blog Being Investigated By Local Authorities



I'd have to agree with Jack.

[Barnicals]

It all depends on weather or not it was done intentionally to provoke her into suicide... Surely a grown woman would understand the depth and potential of an attack, and should be given trial on count of... provocation to suicide? Or murder.
The 13 year old girl probably doesn't fully understand the seriousness of the crime, and should be given the full sentance that a child can be given.

[tinybear]

I think the law is an ass if using a pseudonym on the internet amounts to unlawful access of a computer. C'mon, this is cyberspace. Everybody should know it's a virtual world and nothing is for real. Put it this way: if you don't know, you don't belong here.

[Chaossaber314]

I'm with Jack.

A civil suit is DEFINITELY in order.

[Thanatos]

Question for people who know their law: if this woman had physically dressed up as a young man and broke the heart of a teenage girl who then committed suicide, what would have happened?

I have to agree that treating the ToS of every website as law is a bad precedent. They can throw you out of the mall for any reason, but I do not believe you can get into legal trouble unless you also break U.S. law. This will make virtual spaces into private nations.

If I was just a wee bit more bored and a whole lot richer I'd make a website where the ToS clearly outlaws clicking on a certain button, and then try to sue everybody who clicks it :) This is ludicrous and will be overturned fast.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Thanatos Question for people who know their law: if this woman had physically dressed up as a young man and broke the heart of a teenage girl who then committed suicide, what would have happened? I have to agree that treating the ToS of every website as law is a bad precedent. They can throw you out of the mall for any reason, but I do not believe you can get into legal trouble unless you also break U.S. law. This will make virtual spaces into private nations. If I was just a wee bit more bored and a whole lot richer I'd make a website where the ToS clearly outlaws clicking on a certain button, and then try to sue everybody who clicks it :) This is ludicrous and will be overturned fast.

In the same way you can't be charged for posting porn on photobucket (just a site rule). But you can be charged for posting child pornography on photobucket (state (fed?) rule).

[Ghazni]

What she did wasn't against any laws, nor should it have been. There was no "conspiracy" and I don't know what "unauthorized use of computers is". The only unauthorized use is disobeying the MySpace UA, and that's not a federal crime. Any decent lawyer should win the case.

[Jack]

California, New York and a few other states have laws against "unauthorized use of a computer".

342.1. [1] Every one who, fraudulently and without colour of right, [a] obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service, [b] by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system, or [c] uses or causes to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit an offence under paragraph [a] or [b] or an offence under section 430 in relation to data or a computer system is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. [2] In this section, "computer program" means data representing instructions or statements that, when executed in a computer system, causes the computer system to perform a function; "computer service" includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of data; "computer system" means a device that, or a group of interconnected or related devices one or more of which, [a] contains computer programs or other data, and [b] pursuant to computer programs, [i] performs logic and control, and [ii] may perform any other function; "data" means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in a computer system; "electro-magnetic, acoustic, or other device" means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept any function of a computer system, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing; "function" includes logic, control, arithmetic, deletion, storage and retrieval and communications or telecommunications to, from or within a computer system; "intercept" includes listen to or record a function of a computer system, or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof. [R.S.C. 1985, C.27 [1st Supp.], s.45.] This section makes it a hybrid offence for a person fraudulently or without colour of right to obtain, directly or indirectly, any computer service, or to intercept or cause to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer service by means of any device. It further states that it is an offence to use or cause to be used, directly or indirectly, a computer system with intent to commit either of the offences described above or an offence under s.430. Subsection [2] contains an extensive set of definitions of terms relevant to this offence. The maximum term of imprisonment upon conviction for the indictable offence described in this section is ten years.

342.1 UNAUTHORIZED USE OF COMPUTER

[Ghazni]

Could that be any more vague? I don't understand a word of it. Is it saying that you can't intercept people's communicaitons?

[Jack]

Basically. You cannot enter a network or gain access to another's computer without their permission. If you don't have a username and password, you are not allowed on a network or computer. Gaining access through packet capture or social engineering is illegal.

I don't see how this applies in this case.

[Sorreltail]

That is an awful thing to do but your right , it's not a crime.

[another day]

What a pathetic person that mother is. The behaviour of a child.

As for laws, she obviously broke none.

[derekd234]

Quote by: Ghazni ...do you think she should be punished legally? I don't, and I'm appalled that she may serve up to 20 years. If I were her lawyer, here's what I would say: Poking fun at an individual is not a crime. Lying to a 13-yearold about your identity is not a crime. So what was the crime? There is no known evidence that the mother/daughter team faked the profile in order to make the girl commit suicide. There is also nothing that shows obvious suicidal tendencies in the girl that would show homicidal neglect/manipulation on the part of the mother/daughter team.

So making someone commit suicide isn't assistance in suicide? The same happened close to my city. A doctor said he would give someone a lethal shot (needle) so they could die in peace. He would only do it if, say, for example, you had case five cancer and you had just 2 months to live. He'd allow you to make an appointment, create a legal notice, and 'kill' them in peace instead of them suffering.

One man killed his daughter because she was born mangled. All her tendens, muscles, and bones were twisted. Everyday she lived in agony. He finally had enough. He took her to the garage while she was sleeping, turned on the car, closed the windows, and the doors. She died peacfully.

He was charged 20 years... I think.

Stopping someone from suicide = super reward

Assisting in suicide = 20 to life.

Life = priceless.

Just think: God had a plan for her. He technically had a route 'made' for her. every so often, he creates a fork in the road, and the person must choose what to do. The mother/daughter combo basically ended it short. It should be considered murder, but it's assited suicide.

Let's put it this way:

If someone asked you to shove them off of a 20 storie building, would you do it?

If you knew someone was depressed and looked like they want to kill themselves, would you tell them, "Do it."?

the mom/daughter combo deserves MORE time in jail than that. I bet either guilt is now eating them alive, or they're thinking "That was fun." My bet's on the guilt.

If this happens again, though, I would become so enraged, I'd find them on facebook or whatever and trash talk THEM. They deserve it.

[Captain Cardio]

Is there a formal legal term for intentional emotional abuse?

My interpretation of this one is that its like punching somebody hard, and in a freak occurence, they die from it.

This myspace deception that was meant to hurt the girl's feelings, was like an emotional punch. It was meant to hurt her, but it had the unlikely and unintended (but perhaps not regretted) occurence of causing what we might call 'emotional death' - suicide.

The situation gets a bit more complicated though, as it was an adult that perpetrated this 'emotional assault'.

Also it seems the girl was a bit emotionally unstable, if the perpetrator knew this, I suppose you could compare this emotional assault with punching somebody you know isn't in great health. Maybe the equivalent of a heart condition.

This could have been a crime like an adult punching a 13 year old girl who had a heart condition.

The reason we can imply there was some muscle or force behind this punch, is that an adult would have more life experience, and would have a much more sophisticated way of charming a young girl into the rouse of a sincere online relationship. The adult would also know a much more effective way of timing and wording an insult in an effort to hurt the girl.

Now admittedly I've reached pretty far with this comparison, but I think there is still some merit to it.

Another factor, is the belief of the perpetrator, that there would be no accountability or punishment for this deliberate intent to hurt someone.

I think that the terms of service argument is kind of unrelated to the issue. It seems the ToS is being used through legal channels, as a way of justifying the punishment, that people intuitively feel the defendant deserves. But really, nobody thinks somebody should be punished 20 years for violating terms of service. People feel the perpetrator should be punished for their deliberate emotional assault on somebody young and vulnerable.

An important note, is to not dismiss emotional assault as being less substantive than physical assault. Just because the pain or damage disappears into the recesses of an individual's mind, does not mean that harm, in a real sense, was not inflicted.

[Ghazni]

Quote by: derekd234 So making someone commit suicide isn't assistance in suicide?

No one made her commit suicide.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Ghazni No one made her commit suicide.

You know, nobody ever commits assault. If I punch someone and they get hurt its their fault for being too squishy and insufficiently shatter-resistant.

I just can't come up with a general definition of murder that doesn't also make this murder. This mom set out to cause someone harm and the victim died as a result. The girl did not even have a preexisting mental illness! Come on, this is silly.