Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Tentatively Dismisses Case Against Lori Drew

timothy posted about 5 years ago | from the gotta-state-a-proper-claim dept.

The Courts 420

An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired, 'A federal judge on Thursday overturned guilty verdicts against Lori Drew, and issued a directed acquittal on the three misdemeanor charges.'" A similar story in the L.A. Times notes that "The decision by US District Judge George H. Wu will not become final until his written ruling is filed, probably next week." Update: 07/02 21:15 GMT by T : For those not following, Lori Drew's three convictions sprang from charges of online harassment of Megan Meier, a Missouri teenager whose suicide was linked to Drew's actions.

cancel ×

420 comments

first post (-1, Offtopic)

readin (838620) | about 5 years ago | (#28563739)

first post

Re:first post (-1, Offtopic)

readin (838620) | about 5 years ago | (#28563795)

Wow! My first ever first post! It's wonderful!!

Re:first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563883)

Enjoy your glory, you shallow cunt. Your life probably peaked right there.

Re:first post (-1, Troll)

religious freak (1005821) | about 5 years ago | (#28564089)

Did the world suddenly turn to brighter colors? Are you now able to think faster, have better sex and talk to the animals? Because that's what happened when I got my first first post.

Re:first post (-1, Offtopic)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | about 5 years ago | (#28564199)

So.. first post trolls .. have feelings?? Oh man.. so much I didn't know. Maybe they're human after all?

Re:first post (0, Offtopic)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | about 5 years ago | (#28564443)

Don't be daft, they're just punks...

Ah, yes. (0)

castorvx (1424163) | about 5 years ago | (#28563767)

Lori, we go way back.

Re:Ah, yes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563975)

She is the only /b/ camwhore to have caused an an hero. Better off killing others, or we would have killed her with fire.

In b4 harpoons.

They should have found a more appropriate charge (5, Insightful)

DinDaddy (1168147) | about 5 years ago | (#28563771)

It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this.

It's the correct decision, but the emotional "she must pay" reactions are going to be pervasive.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563943)

Why do we allow welfare recipients to have luxury items like cellphones and cable TV? Most of them got so poor in the first place because they couldn't handle money and bought luxury shit that they couldn't afford. The rest of them got so poor because getting an education and bettering yourself is "acting white" and a good way to be hated by your peers.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 years ago | (#28563965)

I'm pleasantly surprised. I was fully expecting this to fall into the "hard cases make really awful law" pile.

HMMM? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564017)

"God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet."

'Nuff said.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (1, Interesting)

JordanL (886154) | about 5 years ago | (#28564091)

That's because a similar situation without a computer would have been manslaughter. (Homicide without intent.)

The addition of a computer should not fuzzy this.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (2, Insightful)

Antidamage (1506489) | about 5 years ago | (#28564095)

She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself. The bitch needs to face the consequences.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (4, Insightful)

whiledo (1515553) | about 5 years ago | (#28564169)

If we decide she can be imprisoned based simply on her speech, it's is not just her but we who will face the consequences.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (5, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 5 years ago | (#28564233)

If we decide she can be imprisoned based simply on her speech, it's is not just her but we who will face the consequences.

That's already been decided. To take the classic example, if you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are responsible for the consequences.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564271)

Antidamage: She had a calculated plan to drive a child to kill herself. The bitch needs to face the consequences.

I agree. She needs to face consequences.

whiledo: If we decide she can be imprisoned based simply on her speech, it's is not just her but we who will face the consequences.

I agree with this too. She doesn't need to be imprisoned. That's far too good for her and also sets a dangerous precedent.

A far better consequence would be if the cunt is hounded and harassed until she takes her own life to make it stop.

can you shout fire in a crowded theatre? (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 5 years ago | (#28564363)

no. but that's "simply speech"

well, actually, no, there is no such thing as "simply speech." there are plenty of things that you can write on the internet or issue from your mouth that should rightfully result in you being imprisoned

such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre

such as an adult
1. purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)
2. a child she knows to have psychologically problems
3. over an extended period of time
4. directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child

that's not "simply speech". not REMOTELY "simply speech"

this is nothing like me calling gw bush a douchebag or advocating for greater acceptance of necrophilia or defending westboro baptist church or anything else that someone might object to but is obviously free speech. there are lots of free speech that are odious but not criminal

your opinion is invalid because its too broad, and does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world

no, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say

Re:can you shout fire in a crowded theatre? (1)

onecheapgeek (964280) | about 5 years ago | (#28564527)

It is not alleged that she ever entered a single message on myspace, it was her employee (who incidentally was not charged). Your analogy should read, "Like telling someone else to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre," in order to be correct.

Re:can you shout fire in a crowded theatre? (3, Insightful)

computational super (740265) | about 5 years ago | (#28564559)

that should rightfully result in you being imprisoned such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre

Is that really the only thing you anti-free-speech people can come up with? I mean, really... if I wanted to cause chaos and yelled "fire" in a crowded theater - assuming that people really did trample each other and get hurt, rather than just filing out in an orderly fashion or looking around, saying, "I don't see a fire. Where? What fire?" and then going back to their movie - I could always claim that I saw a fire, sorry about all that, don't know what happened to the fire...

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (5, Informative)

Repossessed (1117929) | about 5 years ago | (#28564201)

Um, no she didn't, there was never *any* intent to drive Meagan to suicide.

Beyond that, Lori Drew wasn't even the one who wrote the messages that set Meagan off. Another teenager testified at Lori Drew's trial that she (the other teenager) had also had access to the account and had written the final messages.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (2, Informative)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 5 years ago | (#28564545)

Not all crimes require intent. "I intended to go through that intersection at a high rate of speed, officer, but I did not *intend* to kill the pedestrian." == "vehicular manslaughter". This case seems like a prime candidate for "criminal negligence causing death". The defendant, from what I've heard, did wilfully cause distress to a child whose depressive condition was known to her (seriously? a 13-year-old girl who is NOT emotionally volatile is the exception, not the rule!) that the defendant should have known faced a reasonable likelihood (which is not the same as "better than 50-50 odds") of causing the death of said child. That's pretty much criminal negligence right there.

The only thing that shoots a hole in this theory, as far as I'm aware, is the presumption that the prosecution lawyers probably know the law better than I do, especially as I'm not a lawyer, and would have gone for the easy conviction over the hard (novel) one if it really as straight forward as this.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (1)

Wowlapalooza (1339989) | about 5 years ago | (#28564247)

Actually, I don't think anyone proved that she specifically intended Megan to kill herself. She intended severe emotional pain, and may have known of Megan's diagnosed depression, but it may have been difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she combined those things and formed a plan in her mind with Megan's suicide as the goal.

She's already been socially stigmatized, as she should be. All that remains is to remove her worldly possessions through a Wrongful Death suit. Unfortunately, if she's acquitted of all criminal charges against her, that may (IANAL btw) become marginally more difficult to pull off. I'd imagine the Wrongful Death case would need to be established from start to finish, without the benefit of a criminal conviction to lay the groundwork.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (5, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 5 years ago | (#28564265)

Unfortunately, she needed to be charged with the right crimes. The Prosecutor thought he'd be cute by charging her with a bunch of computer crimes instead of going for boring old crimes like "harassment" or "criminal negligence causing death" or something like that. So she'll get to walk, in all likelihood.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (3, Informative)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 years ago | (#28564303)

FTA, somebody else: signed up on myspace, created the profile, AND sent the last message to the teen. The person that actually PERFORMED the actions copped a deal for ZERO punishment.

And what she was charged with, because they couldn't charge her for anything directly related to the teen's suicide, so they charge that violating a site's TOS as a criminal offense? That's ridiculous.

Is she a bad person? Yes. But there wasn't any enacted law she broke, so there is no punishment the public can enforce, other than public scorn, which she has, and continue to, get lots of.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564191)

I'm not sure it's even emotional. Suicide is illegal. Murder is illegal. Manslaughter is illegal. Assisting someone in committing suicide is illegal.

So just because we don't have a specific "bullying someone into committing suicide is illegal" law, this fucking whore gets off?

I hope Lori Drew and her daughter succumb to a violent torch-wielding mob. This way we remove her fucking stupid whore genes from the pool, and set precedence for any other stupid whores that want to act like "Queen Bitch" to the point of directly causing a human death.

I actually hope white people riot like the niggers did after Rodney King.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564319)

I love it when the tards on Slashdot advocate mob rule with their indignant and emotionally base desires for revenge. Ironic when your insistence that emotions aren't involved devolves into something that is emotionally base.

Mobs are not virtuous. The individual members of mobs tend to be pathetic cowards who would otherwise not act out on their own as individuals.

We used to deal with your kind by the swords of noblemen.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | about 5 years ago | (#28564547)

While she's undoubtedly not very intelligent, there's no evidence to suggest she's particularly promiscuous. Please edit and re-submit your rant accordingly.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 5 years ago | (#28564239)

The pay part is better dealt with in civil court. She's an asshole who deserves to be severely punished, but she did not violate the law she was accused of and it would have set a horrible precedent. She should have been found not guilty to begin with. Now in a civil case I could see handing down a guilty verdict for harassment or wrongful death, and likely a crippling financial penalty with it.

Re:The charges were all bogus (5, Insightful)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about 5 years ago | (#28564371)

Seriously, the charges she was convicted of were an EXTREMELY BAD precedent to set. Under that same precedent, I could put up a website, where-in, I could specify in the terms and conditions of the agreement "that everyone or everything (bots included), upon accessing the website agree to pay me $20, and must opt out of such payment by clicking on the "do not agree" button on the page within 30 days of accessing the site." And for everyone who does not pay me $20, I can have prosecuted under the same statue used in this case for "hacking" computer systems, because they have access them without my consent and against the terms and conditions of use.

Re:They should have found a more appropriate charg (2, Interesting)

yamfry (1533879) | about 5 years ago | (#28564507)

I agree. I personally feel that she is a complete dirtbag and a horrible parent, but the prosecution was way out of line in using such a ridiculous law to prosecute. Unfortunately, she'll be seen as "innocent" now. Really they should have prosecuted her with regular ol' harassment or whatever laws don't use the words "cyber" or "e-" or "tubes" in them and pushed for that maximum sentence.

Summary is lacking. (1, Redundant)

karnal (22275) | about 5 years ago | (#28563799)

As mentioned in the tags, this is a horrible summary. I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with. Is it piracy? Is it shoplifting? Speeding? Drug charges?

Who knows? Not me.

Re:Summary is lacking. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about 5 years ago | (#28563901)

From the article:

Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide. The case against Drew hinged on the governmentâ(TM)s novel argument that violating MySpaceâ(TM)s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking.

Re:Summary is lacking. (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 5 years ago | (#28563969)

From the article:

Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide. The case against Drew hinged on the governmentâ(TM)s novel argument that violating MySpaceâ(TM)s terms of service for the purpose of harming another was the legal equivalent of computer hacking.

Sounds like they were trying to create the online equivalent of "disorderly conduct." That is, "we don't have any other crime to charge you with but we really, really don't like you, so have this generic charge instead."

Re:Summary is lacking. (3, Insightful)

Roane (1075393) | about 5 years ago | (#28564305)

Sounds like they were trying to create the online equivalent of "disorderly conduct." That is, "we don't have any other crime to charge you with but we really, really don't like you, so have this generic charge instead."

It's scarier than that; they were claiming that a TOS violation was enough to charge you under CFAA (unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access). If that were true, being rude on a message board (that banned such behavior in its TOS) would be a criminal offense. It would be possible to charge almost any person with a crime for "hacking".

Re:Summary is lacking. (1)

causality (777677) | about 5 years ago | (#28564449)

Sounds like they were trying to create the online equivalent of "disorderly conduct." That is, "we don't have any other crime to charge you with but we really, really don't like you, so have this generic charge instead."

It's scarier than that; they were claiming that a TOS violation was enough to charge you under CFAA (unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access). If that were true, being rude on a message board (that banned such behavior in its TOS) would be a criminal offense. It would be possible to charge almost any person with a crime for "hacking".

If government exploited a tragedy in order to create a law or set a precedent that expands its powers, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

They're vultures, only they're worse than vultures because an animal cannot help but be what it is. Those of you who welcome increasing centalization and increasing state control might be well-meaning but you have no clue concerning what kind of people are bringing it to you.

Re:Summary is lacking. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563925)

She trolled someone to death.

Re:Summary is lacking. (4, Informative)

oahazmatt (868057) | about 5 years ago | (#28563999)

She trolled someone to death.

Allegedly. Prior to the original verdict, even the girl's mother confirmed the she and her daughter had argued when her daughter tried to speak to her about the supposed boy who broke her heart. It was not directly after she received the message "the world would be better off without you" when the girl hung herself, but after an argument with her mother and her mother left for work.

I have no doubt that Lori Drew's actions were a contributor to the girl's behavior, but I don't believe it was the only catalyst.

Re:Summary is lacking. (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 5 years ago | (#28564357)

She trolled someone to death.

Allegedly. Prior to the original verdict, even the girl's mother confirmed the she and her daughter had argued when her daughter tried to speak to her about the supposed boy who broke her heart. It was not directly after she received the message "the world would be better off without you" when the girl hung herself, but after an argument with her mother and her mother left for work. I have no doubt that Lori Drew's actions were a contributor to the girl's behavior, but I don't believe it was the only catalyst.

What disturbs me significantly more is that a child can have such deep and painful psychological problems without a parent, or a teacher, or a neighbor, or a peer, noticing this and doing something about it.

It's sort of like the Columbine massacre. Those boys obtained guns and ammunition and assembled homemade bombs in their bedrooms without the parents even noticing that something wasn't right about them. If they did notice, they didn't step up to the plate and act like parents.

Do some parents really believe that they can be so uninvolved in the lives of minor children who really need their loving guidance without something bad happening? Does some disaster or massacre really have to take place before people decide that this is a really bad idea? I bet one person who really gives a shit can accomplish what hundreds of metal detectors could never do. Usually the subject is computer security when I say things like "we as a culture do not believe in prevention, in being proactive, or in exercising foresight" but things like this are sad reminders of just how deeply ingrained this character flaw really is.

Re:Summary is lacking. (5, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about 5 years ago | (#28563991)

I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with.

She killed Michael Jackson.

Re:Summary is lacking. (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 5 years ago | (#28564177)

She's quite a Smooth Criminal then to be charged with this and be able to Beat It.

Re:Summary is lacking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564487)

Lori Drew is not guil-ty. She's just a girl who told a kid to kick off, but the kid went and killed herself.

Re:Summary is lacking. (1)

lazyforker (957705) | about 5 years ago | (#28564489)

She's bad.

Re:Summary is lacking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564593)

Don't forget that the trial will be a real Thriller.

Re:Summary is lacking. (0, Redundant)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about 5 years ago | (#28564179)

I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with.

She killed Michael Jackson.

I get the feeling moderators don't read articles either.

Just for some clarity she was accused of cyber-bullying that lead to a 13 year old girl to commit suicide.

Re:Summary is lacking. (1)

ari_j (90255) | about 5 years ago | (#28564415)

I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with.

She killed Michael Jackson.

I get the feeling moderators don't read articles either.

Just for some clarity she was accused of cyber-bullying that lead to a 13 year old girl to commit suicide.

A 13-year-old girl named Michael Jackson.

Re:Summary is lacking. (2, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | about 5 years ago | (#28564517)

A 13-year-old girl named Michael Jackson.

Since when was Michael Jackson an FBI agent?

Re:Summary is lacking. (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 5 years ago | (#28564041)

As mentioned in the tags, this is a horrible summary. I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with. Is it piracy? Is it shoplifting? Speeding? Drug charges?

She was charged with not RTFA, which is now a felony. Somebody get a rope!

Re:Summary is lacking. (2, Informative)

Wowlapalooza (1339989) | about 5 years ago | (#28564093)

("Not I" you mean...)

There has been so much Slashdot coverage of the Lori Drew/Megan Meier so-called "cyberbullying" case over the past several months, I suppose the summary writer simply assumed that these people were "well-known figures" on this site, albeit perhaps slightly less so than Gates/Ballmer/McBride/Obama/Stevens/Thompson/Lessig/Doctorow/Stallman/Torvalds et al....

Re:Summary is lacking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564379)

I am the submitter of this story. Yes, it is pretty threadbare. I wanted to be first with a breaking story, and in my haste I sent it out unedited. Thanks to Timothy for fixing it up to what you see! Thanks to Wowlapalooza for the generous supposition. In that, you are correct.

By explanation (not justification), I've been clobbered by punk moderators lately and this was one way to get some karma back (story submission). My bad.

Re:Summary is lacking. (1)

julesh (229690) | about 5 years ago | (#28564495)

As mentioned in the tags, this is a horrible summary. I don't get the feeling I know what Lori was charged with. Is it piracy? Is it shoplifting? Speeding? Drug charges?

Who knows? Not me.

The story includes links to all three of the previous slashdot articles that discussed her case, in the "related stories" section. Isn't this enough?

Well (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563801)

Now she can buy the family an ipod

As much as I would like to see her in jail... (3, Insightful)

RockClimbingFool (692426) | about 5 years ago | (#28563815)

...she was convicted of the wrong charges.

She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something. Not for violating a website's terms of service.

That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (5, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 5 years ago | (#28563845)

Exactly. The incompetent prosecuter screwed this one up big time, and ultimately did everyone a disservice by not knowing the law.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (5, Insightful)

Spazmania (174582) | about 5 years ago | (#28564283)

The incompetent prosecuter screwed this one up big time

The "incompetent prosecutor" was limited by his jurisdiction. The crime, if there was one, happened in Missouri where the prosecutors declined to bring a case. The only way the LA prosecutor could get involved was if he forwarded a theory that the crime was against MySpace.

So, the LA prosecutor wasn't incompetent. Wrongheaded to try to bring the case at all, but not incompetent.

As for the Missouri prosecutor... Well, you know what they say: Missouri loves company.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about 5 years ago | (#28563905)

Why can't he charge her now that his first choice of offenses failed? She was not acquitted of any kind of civil rights violations, so double jeopardy shouldn't apply.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (3, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 5 years ago | (#28564013)

Double-jeopardy protection would apply. The whole point of double-jeopardy is to prevent exactly that: a prosecutor simply repeatedly trying charges until they find one that'll stick. I heartily approve of that idea. Yes, it means people walk away when the prosecutor screws up. The problem there isn't that the people walked away, it's that the prosecutor couldn't or wouldn't take the time to sort through the case and figure out what charges really did apply before going ahead with it.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564121)

My understanding of double jeopardy is that both the crime and the facts presented for conviction have to be the same. I imagine the facts involved with violating the terms of service of a website are not the same as the facts involved with harassment.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (1)

Minion of Eris (1574569) | about 5 years ago | (#28564221)

Double-Jeopardy prevents you from being charged with the same crime twice. What was being suggested is that she should now be indicted with the correct charge. It the DA indicts you for extortion after finding your murder victim, and the case is tossed, you can still be charged for murder.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (0)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 5 years ago | (#28563933)

That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.

God forbid the family would take any responsibility for ignoring their own daughter to the point where she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564005)

/this

Seriously. Anonymous assholes are all over the internet. I'm sure this is far from the first death caused by them.

Idiots.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 years ago | (#28564087)

It would be political suicide to accuse the parents of a teenager that got killed. Else we wouldn't have the computer-games-cause-school-shootings discussions.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 5 years ago | (#28564197)

Sad world we live in when common sense is political suicide.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (1)

introspekt.i (1233118) | about 5 years ago | (#28564133)

...she was forced to seek validation from anonymous strangers on the internet.

Obviously you've never been a 13 year old girl.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | about 5 years ago | (#28563989)

...she was convicted of the wrong charges.

She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something. Not for violating a website's terms of service.

Harassment would probably be appropriate.

That being said, this is one of those cases where I hope the family of the victim sues her for everything she has.

Despite the outcome, what she did really wasn't that horrible.

The fact of the matter is that this girl committed suicide because a boy that she liked (who was actually not real, but she never knew that) told her that the world would be better off without her.

Yes, it's strange for a grown woman to make a MySpace (or was it FaceBook?) account just to harass a kid... But let's be realistic here - all she did is call that girl names. That kind of stuff happens on a daily basis, all over the United States. I don't see how anyone would make it through school without at least one person telling them that they should just drop dead.

So this Lori person made a fake account and said hurtful things... Would it somehow have been better if it was a real boy who was saying the hurtful things? Would it have been less fatal if it had happened in real life, instead of on-line?

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564131)

If the boy were real, it would probably not be acceptable to kick his ass for his comments. It is completely acceptable, as far as I'm concerned, to beat the everloving tar out of the hag for forming a little conspiracy to behave like a teenage shithead when she sure as hell should know better.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (1)

CWRUisTakingMyMoney (939585) | about 5 years ago | (#28564043)

If they're so inclined (i.e. if the public reaction is great enough), couldn't they re-try on more appropriate charges?

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (2, Informative)

introspekt.i (1233118) | about 5 years ago | (#28564119)

I agree with you. Why she wasn't charged with harassment (though I'm not quite sure what Missouri's interpretation is and if it would apply here) or some weird exploitation of a minor or something else like that is amazing. Why they decided to charge her with "computer hacking" is just another example of how our legal elites of today are completely out of touch with modern day 1990's technology. As much as I'd like to see her put away for awhile, this could set a really bad legal precedent if the judge were to give it a green light.

Re:As much as I would like to see her in jail... (2, Insightful)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | about 5 years ago | (#28564153)

No, she shouldn't be charged with anything. Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes. We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.

The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road. I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was. Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.

She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.

The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed. This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it. If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger. In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.

This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!" mindset, except it's more subtle. Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too... The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.

Well that's great and all (0)

DustyShadow (691635) | about 5 years ago | (#28563873)

but who the fuck is Lori Drew?

Re:Well that's great and all (2, Informative)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | about 5 years ago | (#28563899)

A simple glance at TFA would have told you that:

Drew was accused of participating in a cyberbullying scheme against a 13-year-old girl who later committed suicide.

Re:Well that's great and all (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | about 5 years ago | (#28564057)

you must be new here

Whatever you do, don't (2, Insightful)

pnuema (523776) | about 5 years ago | (#28563893)

go to the St. Louis Post Dispatch website and read the comments. Whenever I begin to have faith in humanity, I go there and am reminded that I am surrounded by idiot racist filth.

But I love St. Louis. Really.

Re:Whatever you do, don't (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 5 years ago | (#28563917)

I can take it. I've read some youtube comments and lost all faith in humanity already.

Re:Whatever you do, don't (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#28563939)

Well, I'm with most of the commenters. She is fat and ugly and I think she deserves some cyber-bullying.

I'm not sure what race has do with this story.

Re:Whatever you do, don't (1)

pnuema (523776) | about 5 years ago | (#28564031)

Pick a crime story where the offenders are not explicitly white. Man, it gets ugly quick.

Re:Whatever you do, don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564231)

Crime statistics are racist too.

http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html [colorofcrime.com]

Re:Whatever you do, don't (2, Insightful)

pnuema (523776) | about 5 years ago | (#28564137)

Whoever modded this flamebait obviously doesn't live in St. Louis.

who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563897)

who is lori drew and why should I care?

Rule of Law (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 5 years ago | (#28563909)

It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.

That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.

Re:Rule of Law (2, Insightful)

gilesjuk (604902) | about 5 years ago | (#28564007)

You do have to ask yourself why a 50 year old woman is creating fake myspace accounts and luring underage girls into discussing things. If it was a man doing this it would be called grooming.

Re:Rule of Law (1)

whiledo (1515553) | about 5 years ago | (#28564299)

"Discussing things"? You're going to have to try a little harder than that.

If a man did the exact same things, the same laws would apply. I'm not saying they couldn't incorrectly apply a law that doesn't apply, much like they did in Lori Drew's case. But as far as I know, there's nothing in the record of cybersex, nude photo exchanges, etc.

What she did may not be illegal- (2, Insightful)

Clixx (1590223) | about 5 years ago | (#28564027)

But she's still a horrible parent and a horrible person, and even though I stopped believing in Karma as a universal cosmic force years ago, I hope she gets what she deserves for her part in abusing that poor 13 year old girl.

Re:Rule of Law (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 5 years ago | (#28564063)

It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.

That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.

Instead of wallowing in how evil such people are (and I do not doubt that), why don't we instead teach young people that this is why you cannot base your life's meaning and your self-esteem on the writings of pseudononymous trolls? And then, instead of merely paying lip service to the concept, give them good examples of what it means to find those things from within by both celebrating and striving to be those strong individuals who understand this?

That would accomplish so much more than another two minutes hate.

Re:Rule of Law (4, Insightful)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 5 years ago | (#28564407)

...why don't we instead teach young people that this is why you cannot base your life's meaning and your self-esteem on the writings of pseudononymous trolls?

Most of us do. As parents, we also teach them to be careful about what they post. However, young people are... well, young. And inexperienced. And not completely rational. Which is why we occasionally need to deal with older people, like Lori Drew, who should have known better.

Either way, what's done is done. As far as I'm concerned, Lori Drew was and still is a child abuser. She knew what she was doing and intentionally went out of her way to inflict suffering on a child.

Re:Rule of Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564111)

It's a raw that Lori Drew won't be held responsible for her actions, but I prefer not stretching and bending the law to meet an emotional need. New situations arise, people suffer, but hopefully some level headed evolution of the law can deal better with similar occurrences in the future.

That said, Lori Drew is an evil cunt.

she should have a strong case against her though in civil court for at least negligence and perhaps wrongful death

Re:Rule of Law (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | about 5 years ago | (#28564453)

It is amazing how quickly people forget what middle school and high school were like.

Real boys tell crap like that to girls all the time and they don't hang themselves. The only person at fault here is the 13 year old who hung herself and the parents of the 13 year old who didn't teach their daughter to be confident in herself.

The group of people who made the fake boy up are ass holes, but no more than any of the people I went to school with. It was mean, but being mean doesn't make it a crime.

I think that I say for the whole slashdot troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28563993)

community, that this is a great day for gay niggers everywhere on this and other planets.

This kind of happiness can only be found be inserting a greased up yoda doll into your oven
and owning a hot, burning pink Apple iPhone.

PS: And don't forget your 599 $ SCO license fee !

So... (-1, Redundant)

Swampash (1131503) | about 5 years ago | (#28564035)

...who the hell is Lori Drew?

Will she pay? (3, Informative)

lazlow (94602) | about 5 years ago | (#28564049)

I think a Wrongful Death suit is appropriate.

Dear Tim, and All The Other /. Editors (1, Redundant)

coaxial (28297) | about 5 years ago | (#28564059)

You can't just have a one line write up. Who the hell is Lori Drew? Is it really that hard to ad the line: "Lori Drew is the woman who was convicted of using MySpace to tease a 13 year old girl until the girl committed suicide."

Apparently it is.

Re:Dear Tim, and All The Other /. Editors (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | about 5 years ago | (#28564173)

Thanks.

Re:Dear Tim, and All The Other /. Editors (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 5 years ago | (#28564331)

LOL "editors".

"tentatively"? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564075)

He dismissed it. They don't write the rulings in the courtroom so it has to be on paper before any new motions can be based on the dismissal, but he dismissed it. That's all 'will not become final' means. It's not an exploratory step.

Freedom of speech means (2, Insightful)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | about 5 years ago | (#28564269)

the freedom to say mean things, as well as good things. Lori Drew is an asshole, but last time I checked, being an asshole was not illegal. What she did was harassment, not murder.

wrong charges and wrong person (0)

MoFoQ (584566) | about 5 years ago | (#28564281)

dunno...according to the article, it was that girl who testified under immunity that it was her idea and that she sent the message to the victim that the world would be better without her (the victim).
so in essence, the prosecution done f*cked up and went after the wrong one.
Also according to the article, Grills, the girl who got immunity was 18, an adult and capable of standing the charges if they were ever brought to her.

Lori Drew should have been charged with accessory and the Grills been the center of this.

sad day for the victim's family nonetheless; the killer got immunity and Lori Drew got double jeopardy (and no...no Alex Trebek involved)

It all worked out out in the end (3, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 years ago | (#28564315)

It all worked out out in the end. Ms. Drew is freed from the predations of an overzealous prosecutor while she has to live with her reputation tarnished. For the rest of her life people will be able to read about the terrible thing she did to that poor girl and shun her for it.

fagoRz (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28564381)

Are havi8ng trouble

Thank Goodness (4, Interesting)

anom (809433) | about 5 years ago | (#28564473)

Thank goodness that judges have the ability to overrule the jury (only in the favor of the defendant) when there is a serious miscarriage of justice being performed...

Haven't had much occasion to do it recently, but chalk up a win for the American justice system.

Of course I don't like her, but someone should never be found guilty of completely BS charges, even if they're guilty of something else.

Cyber-bullying isn't even a real word (4, Insightful)

JobyOne (1578377) | about 5 years ago | (#28564477)

Lori Drew is terrible, I think we all agree on that. I'd like to take issue with the word "cyber-bullying."

What she did could be called harassment, stalking, maybe even grounds for a wrongful death suit. Had she done this by phone, or snail mail, or paper airplane she probably would have wound up under one of those anvils. Instead, just because her evil-doing happened to be done through a computer the media feels the need to refer to it by a stupid made-up word, and the prosecutor feels the need to dig into some wacky interpretation of computer hacking law.

What's the result? This poor judge is forced to make a ruling that will make a lot of people angry, probably to the detriment of his own career, and let an evil woman go free. Guess what, he had to do this because of the shenanigans of the media and prosecution, fortunately he has the foresight to avoid setting a terrible precedent that violating ToS is "hacking."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...