Lori Drew Not Guilty Of Felonies, But Guilty Of Misdemeanors

from the twisty-laws dept

In the landmark cyberbullying case, Lori Drew was found not guilty of three felonies, but guilty of three misdemeanors. The jury is deadlocked on the fourth count of felony conspiracy. The three counts of "accessing a computer without authorization" relate to the creation of a fictitious account on MySpace that was used to engage in an online relationship with Megan Meier. This verdict is not surprising considering the emotionally charged nature of this case. Prosecutors were desperate to convict Lori Drew of something, despite the fact that she may not have technically done anything illegal. If what Lori Drew did was truly criminal, then laws need to be passed to make it that way. To twist around computer fraud laws to simply get a conviction not only sets a dangerous precedent, but it is not the appropriate way to serve justice.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 2:57pm

    Ok, My confusion is how would this be any different then sending a threating letter via snail mail.

    My understanding of the case is the Lori conspired with her dau and third person to make up a fictious profile on My Space with the sole purpose of harassing Megan Meier.

    Now, whether Lori Drew can be help responsible for Megan's actions, I understand is a problem spot.

    But Lori's actions via the computer should still be considered harrasment. The same as if she said them in person or in a letter.

    And since she did this with her dau and a thrid person that makes it consipracy.

    Doesn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    abba12, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 3:00pm

    I've said it before, give her frickin manslaughter, she mightn't have meant it but the suicide was a direct result of her actions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    hyphen, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 3:09pm

    Re:

    Wrong... This young lady's death is horrible, but she also had every opportunity to ignore the messages that she received on myspace. No one forced her to read the messages. She had other deeper issues that were plaguing her, and it's unfortunate her parents didn't catch on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 3:18pm

    Re: Re:

    not saying Drew is resposible nor am i saying she isnt.

    but your example: "but she also had every opportunity to ignore the messages that she received on myspace."

    is like saying spamming is ok ppl who receive spam don't have to read them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Nov 26th, 2008 @ 4:24pm

    Re:

    My understanding of the case is the Lori conspired with her dau and third person to make up a fictious profile on My Space with the sole purpose of harassing Megan Meier.

    From what I've read, that is incorrect. She (actually, her daughter and an employee, not Lori) set up a profile for the reason of learning what Megan was saying about Lori's daughter. It wasn't intended to harass. And, even if it was, prosecutors looked and realized that there's nothing illegal about being a jerk.

    But Lori's actions via the computer should still be considered harrasment. The same as if she said them in person or in a letter.

    At the time it happened, there was no harassment law that covered those actions. A law has since been passed, but you can't be tried for a law that passed after the event happened.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Peter, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 4:47pm

    "but she also had every opportunity to ignore the messages that she received on myspace."

    That's like saying it is ok for internet pedophiles to troll for kids to have sex with because they have every opportunity to ignore the messages.

    Middle aged adults shouldn't be trying to screw over 13 year old girls figuratively or literally.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    ehrichweiss, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 6:44pm

    you simply cannot..

    You simply cannot link "sets a dangerous precedent" by linking back to your own blog where you are talking about **this same case**. That's like defining a word with the same word. Maybe next time try linking to something where you actually show where another case set a dangerous precedent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    ehrichweiss, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 6:45pm

    Re:

    BINGO!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Nov 26th, 2008 @ 6:54pm

    Re: you simply cannot..

    You simply cannot link "sets a dangerous precedent" by linking back to your own blog where you are talking about **this same case**

    That link talked about why this sets a dangerous precedent. I see no problem with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 7:13pm

    Re:

    This 13 year old girl has parents - parents who saw nothing wrong with this "screw over" prior to their kid killing herself. Nothing wrong... or at least not enough wrong for them to get involved.

    If you have a kid and you don't take any part in the kid's life, situations like this have the possibility to present themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 26th, 2008 @ 7:56pm

    Analogy Police Alert

    Peter spewed:

    That's like saying it is ok for internet pedophiles to troll for kids to have sex with...

    That's like saying that all I have to do is draw an analogy between what you're doing and terrorist acts, to be able to accuse you of being a terrorist and have you sent to Guantanamo bay, no questions asked.

    So how does it feel to be Osama Bin Laden, creep?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Tamara, Nov 27th, 2008 @ 1:21am

    Re: Analogy Police Alert

    His example was perfect. She was an adult trying to be the boyfriend of a 13-year old girl. If Lori Drew was male, she'd be labeled a child-sex predator.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Mike, Nov 27th, 2008 @ 9:41am

    Bad parenting

    Its the parents of the girl you should be outraged with, how did they not know what was going on? I know its hard to imagine having to monitor your children on the internet, but that YOUR job when you have children. We monitored our daughter the entire time she lived under our roof, and continue to monitor the two that live here now. One is 15 and really doesn't like it, but thats our job as parents. When he decided to try to get around the monitoring software, he lost his internet connection, and soon learned its our rules, or you get nothing at all. If they maybe paid attention to what was going on this might not have happened. That said, you do realize the nasty comments that are supposed to have put this girl over the edge did not come from Lori Drew OR her daughter, but another teen girl, and if you believe people should be convicted of making fake profiles how many of you are guilty?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 27th, 2008 @ 3:00pm

    Re: Re: Analogy Police Alert

    Tamara said, "She was an adult trying to be the boyfriend of a 13-year old girl. If Lori Drew was male, she'd be labeled a child-sex predator."

    I highly doubt that Lori Drew's intent was to have sex with Megan Meier.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Ching Chong, Nov 27th, 2008 @ 9:24pm

    Whore

    Lori Drew is a fat pig that will choke on her own feces. Come on people! WTF, this woman is a porker and you know that she is miserable with her pathetic life!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Tamara, Nov 27th, 2008 @ 10:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Analogy Police Alert

    Doesn't matter what her intent is. Men use the "Oh I wasn't planning on having sex with her." defense all the time. Lori preteneded to be a 16-year old boy and wanted to be a BOYFRIEND, not just a friend, but BOYFRIEND of a 13-year old. There's no debate at all. What would you think of a 40-something man who tells you that he pretends to be a 16-year old so he can get into sexual discussions with 13-year old girls?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Tonal Crow, Nov 28th, 2008 @ 1:35pm

    A big threat to Liberty

    While what Ms. Drew did was sickening, and probably a tort (intentional infliction of emotional distress), the U.S. Attorney did his best to make it a federal crime. He prosecuted her (a resident of Missouri) in Los Angeles, for violating a statute originally intended to penalize computer hacking. As extended by his argument, this statute also criminalizes a user's violation of a website's terms-of-service. You read that right: it criminalizes a user's violation of a website's TOS.

    This in a outrageous violation of Liberty. We elect legislatures to make laws. We do not elect MySpace, AOL, or (shudder!) Redstate.com to do so. Yet MySpace's TOS is exactly the "law" that the U.S. Attorney charged Ms. Drew with violating, and that a jury convicted her for violating. Under this decision, it's perfectly OK for a legislature to delegate to a private entity its authority to make criminal law, and for it to do so implicitly, or even unintentionally (the statute doesn't explicitly support this interpretation).

    Please pass the handcuffs; I'm feeling too free.

    This case also violates the 1st Amendment, since website TOSes restrict all kinds of speech that courts previously have determined to be protected.

    Finally, this case violates due process by virtually eliminating the requirement of fair notice, and by requiring a person to defend herself far from the place where she committed the charged act.

    Ending creeping criminalization is high on the list of changes America needs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    saberman, Nov 28th, 2008 @ 5:46pm

    Distortion of the Law

    I tend to agree with Tonal Crow (comment 17). Or, as quoted elsewhere on the internet and in newspapers "This was a very aggressive, if not misguided, theory," said Matt Levine, a New York-based defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "Unfortunately, there's not a law that covers every bad thing in the world. It's a bad idea to use laws that have very different purpose." The prosecutors really had to twist the law a lot in order to apply it here. I hope the verdict is overturned on appeal.
    That's not to say that Lori Drew is not morally guilty of doing something very bad. But not every bad thing has to be covered by the law. But I like to look at questions like this by thinking of some examples of cases that are similar in some ways.

    What if my son asks some woman for a date and after she turns him down in an insulting manner he goes off and kills himself? That would be horrible and the woman should be ashamed of herself for being so cruel. But unless my son had some mental instability that she knew about and she was deliberately using that to kill him, it certainly isn't murder. One could try to consider that manslaughter, but usually a connection like that is considered too much of a stretch. If you kill accidently in the commission of another crime the death is often separately punishable. But the other crime generally has to be a serious felony, not something like violating the fine print on the rules for signing up for an internet account. Suppose I were to sneak into the circus without a ticket by slipping underneath the tent and my action inadvertently frightened an elderly man who then died of a heart attack. Would that be manslaughter or second degree murder? I suppose the case could be made but it would be a real stretch. But no more of a stretch than this case.

    Here is another example. I sign onto an internet dating site with a retouched picture of myself. I also add a few Harvard degrees and triple my salary. I get a date with a hot young executive who realizes she has been duped and is really angry at me for deceiving her. She can sue me for the money she spent getting ready for the date. She can even try to sue me for the value of her time. But should she be able to put me in jail just for violating the terms of the dating site agreement? That would be ridiculous. But it is no more ridiculous than what they are doing to Lori Drew. Now, suppose the woman was so angry at me for deceiving her that she got into her car and drove off in a blind rage and got herself killed in an auto accident. Before she died she called up her sister and told her what had happened and gave her enough information to identify me. Am I guilty of manslaughter? In a sense, maybe. I guess one could say that my actions killed her. I behaved horribly, dishonestly, perhaps criminally. And it caused some unstable young brilliant beautiful executive to die. But, frankly, I do not think that such a thing should be prosecuted.

    Perhaps we need to change the law. The law should state a narrow and strictly delimited set of conditions that would apply to egregious deception on the internet but which clearly would not apply to more trivial cases. Otherwise, many people are going to be at the mercy of over zealous prosecutors. efinitely need not fear prosecution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Tonal Crow, Nov 28th, 2008 @ 6:51pm

    Re. Saberman: The act in your circus hypothetical isn't even a tort, let alone a (common-law) crime, since there's no element of intent or even reasonable foreseeability. The act was wrongful as to the circus, and was also possibly a criminal theft of services, but the death was a completely unforeseeable consequence. The act in your dating hypothetical is not unlike alienation of affection, a cause of action that I believe every state has abolished. That the hypothetical date managed to kill herself over it was completely unintended (and thus not a common-law crime), and not reasonably foreseeable and involved intervening voluntary acts (and thus not a common-law tort).

    Law is a very powerful thing, and is easily (and commonly) abused. When we hear something ugly, and automatically respond, "There ought'a be a law!", we should take a deep breath, step back, and think deeply about unintended consequences. And we should remember that our worst personal enemies could well become prosecutors. Finally, we might also consider why common law distinguishes between torts and crimes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    J, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 2:43am

    Re: Re: Re:

    No it is different. Megan added "Josh" as a friend. I agree with hyphen, `Megan has much deeper issues that plague her.` Her parents supposingly monitor her online activities quite closely, but obviously not close enough. Drew should not have been charged.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Tamara, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 5:57am

    Re: Distortion of the Law

    saberman your analogy is flawed on 2 points. Firstly Lori Drew knew of Megans mental instability. Secondly, if your son was 13 and turned down by a 40-ish year old man pretending to be a 16-year old girl in a cruel way then you have a comparison.

    The whole point of the case was that we have a middle-age women pretending to be a teenager pretending to want to get with a 13-year old. Someone that she knew had psychiatric problems.

    And your example of a dating site - there have been many criminal cases before for lying on profiles. Just last week in Australia a 30-year woman was convicted of fraud for telling a man on a dating site that she had cancer and needed $18,000 for treatment. He gave her the money and she used it for plastic surgery. There have been many more criminal cases where someone tells the other party they are 16(when they're 40+) and are attempting to get with 13-year olds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Tamara, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 6:10am

    Important Point

    For all of those people defending Lori Drew and trying to claim that she didn't do anything wrong, why is it that when she saw the ambulance outside the house she immediately deleted the profile of Josh and told the other 2 people involved to stay quiet and not say a word?

    Doesn't that tell you that Lori by trying to hide what she did from everyone was desperately hoping no one else found out because she knew she was responsible for the death.

    You don't have to intend to kill someone to be charged for someones death. If you're in charge of machinery and don't follow the correct safety procedures and someone gets killed you get charged with manslaughter. If you drink drive and kill someone you get charged with murder generally but at the very least manslaughter. If you throw bricks off a bridge at passing cars you get charged with at the very least manslaughter. None of those (except maybe the last one) would any of them been attempting to hurt(physically or emotionally) anyone. But there actions caused deaths, so should be punished.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 9:39am

    Re: Important Point

    Tamara, you are an idiot!*

    *please do not kill yourself

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    saberman, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 11:49am

    Tonal Crow's and Tamara's comments

    Again, I agree with Tonal Crow. My "hypotheticals" were offered as extreme cases that I did not believe should be prosecuted. I am not an attorney so I didn't have the best way of expressing why it seemed that they should not be. It sounds as if Tonal Crow is an attorney (or otherwise knows a lot about the law) and I agree with his reasoning.

    On the idea of passing a new law, I also agree but with the exception that this very case may create a precedent that needs to be addressed by a law protecting us from prosecution for signing on with inaccurate information. If such a law were to have a chance of passage it probably would have to be coupled with some kind of prohibition of lies that were thought to be very pernicious. I would hope that someone could craft a law in such a limited manner.

    On Tamara's comment, if a 40 year old woman led my 13 year old son to believe that she was a 16 year old who was romantically interested in him I think one would have to consider the overall situation. If she was really intending to incite a sexual relationship, then this would probably fall under the separate category of an adult soliciting sex with a minor. Likewise, lying on the site to extort money would fall in a separate category. But if she were doing it because she wanted to teach my son a lesson for dumping her child as a friend, I do not think it should be considered illegal. That's not to say I would consider her actions to be good. But I would hate to live in a world in which everything that goes badly is considered a criminal offense. An important part of our freedom is the right to be an obnoxious, offensive jerk some of the time. And in rare cases an obnxious offensive jerk-like action can cause great harm. But so can a good action. I could tell a depressed person "You are really talented. You can be very successful in your life" and he can think "Look at that. He thinks I'm talented and yet I accomplish nothing. I've wasted my talent" and then he can go off and shoot himself. You can't legislate against every bad outcome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Tamara, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 9:38pm

    Anonymous Coward Post #23 - Well tell me why I'm an idiot. You totally ignored the question. If Lori Drew didn't do anything wrong, then why when she saw the ambulance outside the house, immediately delete the profile, contact the others involved telling them to remain quiet, mourned with Megan's family, not saying a word. If it wasn't for one of Sarah's 13-year old friends that was in on the scheme breaking down and telling Megan's family, no one would have known what Lori did. Lori did everything possible to make sure that her actions were covered up. People who do that do them for a reason. Lori knew she did something wrong, even though she refuses to admit so publicly. But all of you Lori fans are a disgrace. According you she didn't do anything wrong at all.

    If when she saw the ambulance, Lori went to Megans house, made a full account for everything she did and apologise she wouldn't be widely despised. That would tell the world it was an accident and she deeply regrets it. Covering it up makes her look so bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 29th, 2008 @ 10:12pm

    What Lori Drew did was wrong. Most people agree with that. I agree that she should be punished for it. But this is not the way. The precedent that this case could have set would be a dire threat to our liberties. Laws should not be twisted in such a manner as this. Drew's actions were wrong, but the manipulation of the law in this case was also wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 30th, 2008 @ 2:12am

    Re: Analogy Police Alert

    Tamara wrote:

    His example was perfect.

    By the same token, so was mine. QED.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Barrenwaste, Nov 30th, 2008 @ 1:35pm

    Let's think a moment.

    First, anybody who is so emotionally unstable that insults can tip them over into suicide should not be allowed any unsupervised socialising. In this regard, couldn't the girl's parents be charged with a felony? I've seen lesser crimes be pursued as neglect.

    Second, if this were to be tried as a sexual offense then there would have to be sexual references on the part of the Adult. As far as I have seen, this isn't the case. It may have been a dirty trick, but it wasn't a sexual crime.

    Third, suicide is the crime and responsibility of the person who commits the act. No matter the provocation, the choice is on the person who is comitting suicide. They decide to go through with it or not, no one decides for them. Therefore, fault of the action lies with them. If someone sells me a gallon of gas it isn't thier fault if I use it to burn down a building. If someone insults me, it isn't provocation for me to beat them. If those are true, how can Lori Drew be held responsible?

    What Lori Drew allowed to happen was a bit of a dirty trick. That said, the child did deserve to be taught a lesson by our sociatal mores. Laws rule out physical violence, and it's quite apparent the childs parents didn't care, so what avenues were left? The child didn't do anything illegal, just mean. Still, it was unacceptable behavior and deserved to be shown as such. Thier method of doing so wasn't even that dirty, not when looked at from a step back. Our culture is rife with instances on this sort of thing, minus the suicide, and in most cases the people who observe it just nod thier heads and say the person deserved what they got.

    The only reasons I can find that this is being blown up so large is because the child left a note claiming the incident as the reason for her suicide and the fact that Lori Drew, an adult, knew about it and actively involved herself in her childs activities online. And why not? There was no physical harm intended, quite the opposite. There were no sexual crimes intended, or perpetrated. Being involved as she was she could monitor her own childs behavior and see that the one that hurt her child learned a valuable lesson about how you do and do not treat people. All perfectly acceptable, if the child hadn't committed suicide. So the main point is the girl killing herself.

    Well, no matter what was said, morally and legally, she shouldn't be held accountable for the suicide. So far they have had to twist the laws to find her guilty of anything. Now think on this. The crimes of a minor can be charged to the primary care givers. Suicide is a crime. Neglect is a crime. Libel and Slander are crimes. All more morally decrepit than insulting the neihbors kid. Hmm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Gordon Simms, Nov 30th, 2008 @ 9:13pm

    "...but it is not the appropriate way to serve justice."

    Why, because YOU say so? Fuck you dumbass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2008 @ 10:49pm

    Re:

    "Why, because YOU say so?"

    It is so, because certain laws came in to affect to abolish Witch-Hunts/Witch-Trials in the late 1700s.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Tamara, Nov 30th, 2008 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Let's think a moment.

    Barrenwaste - Lori admits that the conversation turned sexual at times. And why did Megan deserve to be taught a lesson? You're only taking Lori and her daughters word that Megan was saying mean things about her daughter. And what are you talking about? Megan didn't leave a note, so why would you think she left a note saying this was the reason?

    And the most important point - Lori tried to cover it up and hide what she did. It's no different to a speeding motorist hitting a pedestrian and driving off and telling all witnesses to shut up. If he stops, admits what he did and shows remorse then it's not as bad. But if you try to hide your actions that makes you complete scum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2008 @ 3:53am

    That's like saying that all I have to do is draw an analogy between what you're doing and terrorist acts, to be able to accuse you of being a terrorist and have you sent to Guantanamo bay, no questions asked.



    What's really sad is that this is exactly the way things are now going.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Duodave, Dec 1st, 2008 @ 8:22am

    How can this affect...

    Mike, I'm curious now. How far reaching could this be? If I use a screen name on a site, or post on Techdirt as "anonymous coward" could that be considered obscuring my identity, which apparently is now illegal?

    What about the parody of Steve Jobs on Twitter (or was that Blogger?)? Everyone knows it's not really Steve Jobs - but doesn't parody protect anonymity?

    This case is fraught with problems. Personally I see one of two things happening - either there will be no further pursuit against anonymity on sites, or the whole thing will go to a higher court and the charges will be thrown out. In fact, unless Drew really maintains her innocence, I bet the scentence will be very light and the prosecution sweeps the scentence under the rug in exchange for her not appealing.

    But I'm not entirely sure because if I recall correctly, Drew doesn't have to be the person who appeals - the EFF, for example, could appeal the ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Tonal Crow, Dec 1st, 2008 @ 1:27pm

    Un-appealing rules

    This case is fraught with problems. Personally I see one of two things happening - either there will be no further pursuit against anonymity on sites, or the whole thing will go to a higher court and the charges will be thrown out.
    I fear that the case will become a precedent for further misuse of criminal law to reach pretty much any conduct the prosecutor dislikes. I hope that Drew will appeal, and that the court of appeals soundly will slap down the prosecutor's theory. There is some hope for that, since the relevant appeals court is the 9th Circuit. Of course, the prosecutor could then appeal to the Supreme Court....
    In fact, unless Drew really maintains her innocence, I bet the scentence will be very light and the prosecution sweeps the scentence under the rug in exchange for her not appealing.
    The last phrase is most likely. The prosecutor very much wants to preserve and extend his unconstitutional power via this precedent, so I expect him to propose some such deal.
    But I'm not entirely sure because if I recall correctly, Drew doesn't have to be the person who appeals - the EFF, for example, could appeal the ruling.
    Only a defendant can appeal her criminal conviction. Another group could, however, sue for a declaratory judgement that the statute, as interpreted by this prosecutor, is unconstitutional. That's a more difficult row to hoe, however, than a direct appeal, in part because the challenge is more abstract.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Tonal Crow, Dec 1st, 2008 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Un-appealing rules

    Oh yes...this is a blog post, not legal advice. Please consult your favorite lawyer for legal advice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    bill, Dec 4th, 2008 @ 6:57am

    WOW!

    An overwhelming indictment of the lack of parental actions on behalf of at least Tina Meier. So many blogs run 10-1 and higher against Drew. Finally some common sense topping emotions. Folks, listen, Megan's death was tragic to be sure. But a parent whose actions and inactions provided the opportunity for her daughter to encounter the phantom "Josh" must accept the burden in this case. She allowed Megan to join a site above her actual age and certainly well beyond her mental stability level and then encouraged her daughter to continue this cyber relationship. Depressed and on medication and she does this? I question if Tina was simply looking for someone or something to ease her burden of dealing with Megan's problems. Yes/No to should Drew have been involved at all is a different avenue. But this DA in LA went the wrong way, conviction never stands appeal, that was the fraud here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    ike, Dec 11th, 2008 @ 10:45pm

    If Lori Drew didn't do anything wrong, then why when she saw the ambulance outside the house, immediately delete the profile, [...]

    The Original Post is about whether Lori did something *legally* wrong. I can think of a number of reasons for which Lori would do those acts that don't indicate she's legally wrong.

    - She could have thought she did something legally wrong.
    - She could have thought she did something morally wrong.
    - She could have thought others would think she did something legally wrong.
    - She could have thought others would think she did something morally wrong.
    - etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Joey, Dec 16th, 2008 @ 5:30am

    Re: Re:

    No, you're wrong and ignorant. This was an ADULT committing these hateful and destructive actions. A GIRL IS DEAD BECAUSE OF LORI DREW. DON'T YOU GET IT?
    Maybe you're one of those self-righteous buttwipes who wouldn't hold anyone responsible. Why don't you trade places with Lori The Witch Drew? Put up or shut up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Nate, May 10th, 2009 @ 3:50am

    Many of You

    There are many of you here that think Lori Drew is guilty. In that reasoning then Miller and Budweiser would be responsible for any deaths by DUI or Smith and Wesson for the bullets they produce. The end result is that a girl is dead, but it is not because of a fake myspace profile, she had other issues that her parents didn't see for whatever reason. Her parents should take some responsibility for their daugthers death. What this all comes down to is who is reponsible for the girls death (NEWSFLASH THE GIRL), nobody else. Lori Drew didn't shoot or hang the girl, the young girl did it herself. if you are going to prosecute anyone for this prosecute the parents. Too look at this another way, all people that commit suicide are not responsible for their own death, someone else is like family and friends. When people in the United States start taking responsiblity for their own actions this will be a much better country to live in again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    John, Jan 13th, 2012 @ 9:30am

    Lori Drew - Computer Law

    Since when is breaking into a home and committing an act of violence against someone using an electronic device isn't a crime simply because it hasn't been done before.

    When your files in your filing cabinet are disturbed and taken by an intruder that is considered stealing. What's so different with computers that the law officials feel they have to bring up special laws to prosecute for this type of violation???!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This