<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;sentencing&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:58:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge's Random, Unrelated Rant Against Facebook Leads To Child Porn Sentence Being Overturned</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I recognize that there are some people out there who really just don't like social networking or Twitter or Facebook, but I'm often amazed at how this sometimes leads people to blame other societal woes on those kinds of things.  That apparently happened with a judge in a child porn case.  The actual case itself sounds somewhat horrifying.  A 56-year old woman, Laura Culver, was sentenced to 8 years in prison for collaborating with another person, Edgardo Sensi, to <a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/Press2012/20120130.html" target="_blank">film an 8-year-old girl</a> engaging in sexually explicit content.  As I said: horrifying.  Assuming all that is true, I'm happy to see them get locked up for a long, long time (in fact, 8 years seems too short).
<br /><br />
However, that sentencing has now been sent back to the lower court, because the judge who issued the sentence apparently spent a significant amount of time at the sentencing <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/04/does_facebook_l.htm" target="_blank">blaming Facebook for child pornography</a> and attacking Mark Zuckerberg.  While the full transcript is sealed (due to the fact that the case involves a minor), the ruling to redo the sentencing includes some details:
<blockquote><i>
In justifying its decision to impose a sentence of eight years instead of six, the district court referenced &#8220;Facebook, and things like it, and society has changed.&#8221; ... The court speculated that the proliferation of Facebook would facilitate an increase in child pornography cases. The court said it hoped Mark Zuckerberg (who founded Facebook) was &#8220;enjoying all his money because . . . he&#8217;s going to hurt a lot of people . . . .&#8221; 
</i></blockquote>
Just one problem: the case had <i>nothing</i> to do with Facebook.  In fact, it had nothing to do with the internet.  And yet the judge claimed that he upped her sentence <i>because of Facebook</i>:
<blockquote><i>
Culver is correct that the court&#8217;s lengthy discussion of Facebook had no clear connection to the facts of her case. It is plain error for a district court to rely upon its own unsupported theory of deterrence at sentencing, especially where, as here, that theory has little
application to the actual facts of the case itself.... This error undoubtedly affected Culver&#8217;s substantial rights; the court stated that it would have granted a sentence of six years if not for its concerns about Facebook and general deterrence. See Sentencing Hr&#8217;g Tr. at 42 (&#8220;[W]hat we&#8217;re looking at is general deterrence, and the general deterrence is very important, and frankly, that&#8217;s why I went to eight [years] instead of six.&#8221;).
</i></blockquote>
While the government defended the judge's rant, the appeals court points out that given the lack of any connection to the internet at all in this case, it clearly didn't make any sense:
<blockquote><i>
The government argues that the district court was merely concerned about the extent to which various new technologies may facilitate child pornography, rather than Facebook specifically. In that sense, Facebook was a
reference to the internet, using synecdoche. But the government does not explain (because it cannot) the role of new technology in this case. Culver did not use the internet to commit her crime, and it should not have played a predominant role in her sentencing.
</i></blockquote>
The court further notes that a sentence of 8 years may be entirely appropriate.  In fact, it points out that this is below the minimum sentencing guidelines, though it sounds like the court gave Culver a "lower" sentence for cooperating against Sensi, but still notes that the "particularly abhorrent" nature of her crime may still mean that the eventual sentence (or even more) is appropriate, but "that discretion should be exercised without the influence of procedural error."
<br /><br />
Indeed.  Oh, and in case you're wondering, the judge in question, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_William_Eginton" target="_blank">Warren Eginton</a>, appears to be nearing 90 years old, which may explains some of his misplaced hatred for things like Facebook.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130406/00170522610/judges-random-unrelated-rant-against-facebook-leads-to-child-porn-sentence-being-overturned.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wtf?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130406/00170522610</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:22:44 PST</pubDate>
<title>Aaron Swartz Could Have Killed Someone, Robbed A Bank &#038; Sold Child Porn &#038; Faced Less Time In Prison</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19393821674/aaron-swartz-could-have-killed-someone-robbed-bank-sold-child-porn-faced-less-time-prison.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19393821674/aaron-swartz-could-have-killed-someone-robbed-bank-sold-child-porn-faced-less-time-prison.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Among the many <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/23000321653/case-against-aaron-swartz-was-complete-garbage.shtml">injustices</a> in the Justice Department's pursuit of Aaron Swartz was the disproportionate punishment he was facing.  Remember that he used an <i>open</i> network connection at MIT, which explicitly allowed free guest access, to download academic research papers that were <i>available for free</i> for any user on that particular network.  And yet, due to the US Attorney's Office led by Carmen Ortiz and Steve Heymann <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-government-ups-felony-count-jstoraaron-swartz-case-four-to-thirteen.shtml">piling on</a> additional charges, Swartz was potentially facing 50 years in prison.
<br /><br />
Yes, reports claimed that Heymann offered to plea bargain things down to a mere 7 years in prison, but that's still an insane length, and by rejecting such a plea offer, Swartz guaranteed that Heymann was likely to throw the book at him and seek the maximum.  That's how they work.
<br /><br />
Over at ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser, looks at the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/14/1441211/killers-slavers-and-bank-robbers-all-face-less-severe-prison-terms-than-aaron-swartz-did/" target="_blank">maximum jail terms for other crimes</a>, and wonders how it's possible that Swartz had the potential to spend even more years in jail.  It's quite a list, and you should go check out the full thing, but here are a few of the more interesting ones:
<ul><i>
<li><strong>Manslaughter</strong>: Federal law provides that someone who kills another human being &#8220;[u]pon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion&#8221; <a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/51/1112">faces a maximum of 10 years in prison</a> if subject to federal jurisdiction. The lesser crime of involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of only six years.</li>
<li><strong>Bank Robbery</strong>: A person who &#8220;by force and violence, or by intimidation&#8221; robs a bank faces a <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2113">maximum prison sentence of 20 years</a>. If the criminal &#8220;assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device,&#8221; this sentence is upped to a maximum of 25 years.</li>
<li><strong>Selling Child Pornography</strong>: The maximum prison sentence for a first-time offender who &#8220;knowingly sells or possesses with intent to sell&#8221; child pornography in interstate commerce is <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252">20 years</a>. Significantly, the only way to produce child porn is to sexually molest a child, which means that such a criminal is literally profiting off of child rape or sexual abuse.</li>
<li><strong>Knowingly Spreading AIDS</strong>: A person who &#8220;after testing positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and receiving actual notice of that fact, knowingly donates or sells, or knowingly attempts to donate or sell, blood, semen, tissues, organs, or other bodily fluids for use by another, except as determined necessary for medical research or testing&#8221; faces a <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1122">maximum of 10 years in prison</a>.</li>
<li><strong>Selling Slaves</strong>: Under federal law, a person who willfully sells another person &#8220;into any condition of involuntary servitude&#8221; <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1584">faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years</a>, although the penalty can be much higher if the slaver&#8217;s actions involve kidnapping, sexual abuse or an attempt to kill.</li>
<li><strong>Helping al-Qaeda Develop A Nuclear Weapon</strong>: A person who &#8220;willfully participates in or knowingly provides material support or resources . . . to a nuclear weapons program or other weapons of mass destruction program of a foreign terrorist power, or attempts or conspires to do so, <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832">shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years</a>.&#8221;</li>
<li><strong>Violence At International Airports</strong>: Someone who uses a weapon to &#8220;perform[] an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation that causes or is likely to cause serious bodily injury&#8221; faces a <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/37">maximum prison sentence of 20 years</a> if their actions do not result in a death.</li>
</i></ul>
And Aaron faced more than any of those for accessing freely available knowledge.  Something seems very, very, very wrong about that.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19393821674/aaron-swartz-could-have-killed-someone-robbed-bank-sold-child-porn-faced-less-time-prison.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19393821674/aaron-swartz-could-have-killed-someone-robbed-bank-sold-child-porn-faced-less-time-prison.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/19393821674/aaron-swartz-could-have-killed-someone-robbed-bank-sold-child-porn-faced-less-time-prison.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-system,-she-is-broken</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130114/19393821674</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Jan 2013 06:31:08 PST</pubDate>
<title>Camming Group Leader Sentenced To 5 Years; Barred From Owning 'Any Device' That Can Infringe Copyrights After Release</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/17345921575/camming-group-leader-sentenced-to-5-years-barred-owning-any-device-that-can-infringe-copyrights-after-release.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/17345921575/camming-group-leader-sentenced-to-5-years-barred-owning-any-device-that-can-infringe-copyrights-after-release.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The DOJ triumphantly <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/January/13-crm-010.html" target="_blank">announced the five year sentence</a> handed down to Jeremiah Perkins, who was named as the "leader" of IMAGiNE, a group that coordinated the recording of movies in theaters for upload to the internet.  The DOJ and ICE arrested many of those involved in the group last year, and was able to convince them to do plea deals over "conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement."  It's a bit of a stretch to claim their actions met the requirements of "criminal" copyright infringement, but they did get some money for their actions, and that tripped the wire.  I don't have an issue with them getting in trouble for their actions, which were pretty blatant infringement, though I'll say that the punishment of five years in jail seems ridiculously excessive when this one group's actual impact on movie piracy was non-notable.  So many leaks are internal leaks, rather than cams -- and even if they take down this one group, it's not like it stopped any movies from showing up online quickly.  And, of course, none of this does anything to make people buy.  So I fail to see the value in spending taxpayer money going after these people, and then paying for their prison sentence at a time when our prisons are overcrowded.
<br /><br />
But the issue that gets me about this is this bit, <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/imagine-bittorrent-group-leader-sentenced-to-five-years-in-prison-130103/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">highlighted by TorrentFreak</a>:
<blockquote><i>
After his imprisonment ends Perkins will be subjected to a further three years of supervised release and will be banned from possessing &#8220;any electronic device with the capability or reproducing and distributing copies of copyrighted materials.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
That's basically pretty much <i>any</i> electronic device these days.  Computer, phone, camera, tablet.  Anything that can record audio or video or take a picture has that capability.  Five years from now, it's likely to include many more commonly used devices as well.  That seems <i>ridiculously</i> excessive.  Especially given that devices that can infringe on copyrights also do a <i>ton</i> of legitimate and important things, to say that he can't possess any such device seems ridiculously limiting.  The MPAA, who pushed this prosecution (which, again, was led by Neil MacBride -- the former industry anti-piracy enforcer -- who now does the same job for the government and rarely misses an opportunity to support his former colleagues), don't see any problem with completely taking away all devices that can infringe on copyright from someone, but that's because they still don't realize how central to culture and society such devices have become these days.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/17345921575/camming-group-leader-sentenced-to-5-years-barred-owning-any-device-that-can-infringe-copyrights-after-release.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/17345921575/camming-group-leader-sentenced-to-5-years-barred-owning-any-device-that-can-infringe-copyrights-after-release.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130103/17345921575/camming-group-leader-sentenced-to-5-years-barred-owning-any-device-that-can-infringe-copyrights-after-release.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how's-that-going-to-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130103/17345921575</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:17:35 PST</pubDate>
<title>NinjaVideo Admin Phara Gets 22 Months In Jail, 500  Hours Of Community Service &amp; Has To Pay MPAA $210k</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120106/11034317305/ninjavideo-admin-phara-gets-22-months-jail-500-hours-community-service-has-to-pay-mpaa-210k.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120106/11034317305/ninjavideo-admin-phara-gets-22-months-jail-500-hours-community-service-has-to-pay-mpaa-210k.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Today was the sentencing for Hana "Phara" Beshara, the admin for NinjaVideo who has received plenty of attention in the last few months.  Just a few hours ago, she was sentenced to 22 months in prison, another two years probation after that, 500 hours of community service and she has to pay back the $209,896.95 that she supposedly made from NinjaVideo to the MPAA.  I'm sure they'll be passing that along to moviemakers, right?  Either way, what's telling here is that the judge appears to have given Beshara significantly less than what the government asked for.
<br /><br />
  After receiving what appears to be some pretty bad legal advice, Beshara <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/00101415896/us-govt-continues-indicting-people-file-sharing-5-indicted-ninjavideo.shtml">was indicted</a>, and quickly realized that she was left with little choice but to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110929/21453616141/another-ninjavideo-admin-pleads-guilty-expect-rest-to-do-so-too.shtml">plead guilty</a> in the case.  Just a few weeks ago, we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/16201117146/ice-admits-that-it-just-wants-to-put-people-jail-with-operation-our-sites.shtml">wrote about</a> the fantastic and detailed <i>American Prospect</i> article by Rob Fischer, which <a href="http://prospect.org/article/ninja-our-sites" target="_blank">detailed Beshara's story</a> in a way where she certainly made it clear that she didn't agree with the reasonableness of the charges against her.  Once again, it seems as if Beshara has been on the receiving end of bad legal advice (talking to the press post-guilty plea, but pre-sentencing... not so smart).
<br /><br />
The US Attorney, Neil MacBride (who, it's important to note, spent years as the Business Software Alliance's "anti-piracy" boss), asked the judge to throw the book at her, using Fischer's article to repeatedly claim that Beshara's "substantial ego" and "inflated sense of self-importance" justified sending a strong message with the sentencing.  Who knew that having a big ego was illegal?  MacBride -- as he <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080514/1350531114.shtml">used to do with the BSA</a> -- totally overplayed the claims of "losses" to the entertainment industry -- insisting that, every week, the MPAA alone was harmed to the tune of $1.5 million, "resulting in a staggering sum if the figure is extrapolated" to cover the 120 weeks that the site was in existence.  Here's a tip, Neil, if extrapolating leads you to "a staggering sum," perhaps it's because your assumptions are wrong.
<br /><br />
Either way, the judge appears to have decided not to completely buy into these claims of harm.  While the government "agreed to limit the loss" to just $1 million, even though "the harm was certainly far more than $1 million," the judge seems to have capped the financial restitution to just her salary from NinjaVideo.  The judge appears to have chosen <i>not</i> to also include a fine (which sentencing guidelines would allow between $10,000 and $100,000).  On top of that, the judge gave Beshara less time in jail then either what Beshara claimed she expected (3 years) or what the sentencing guidelines and MacBride suggested (46 to 57 months).  It seems that the judge didn't buy into all of MacBride's assertions.
<br /><br />
Either way, expect the government to play this up as some huge victory against the scourge of online infringement and use it to justify continued censorship of websites.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120106/11034317305/ninjavideo-admin-phara-gets-22-months-jail-500-hours-community-service-has-to-pay-mpaa-210k.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120106/11034317305/ninjavideo-admin-phara-gets-22-months-jail-500-hours-community-service-has-to-pay-mpaa-210k.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120106/11034317305/ninjavideo-admin-phara-gets-22-months-jail-500-hours-community-service-has-to-pay-mpaa-210k.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-well...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120106/11034317305</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:42:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110221/03432813187/should-everyone-who-uses-phone-computer-as-part-crime-get-longer-sentence.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110221/03432813187/should-everyone-who-uses-phone-computer-as-part-crime-get-longer-sentence.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted just how far the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0404088432.shtml">stretched</a> lately.  The law -- which is supposed to be used against those involved in malicious hacking -- actually breaking into computer systems and such -- keeps being used in ways totally different than intended, such as claiming that just visiting a website you weren't supposed to can now be deemed as "hacking."   <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/InternetLaw/statuses/39050666978574336" target="_blank">Michael Scott</a> alerts us to another unintended consequence of the broad interpretation of the CFAA, involving a <a href="http://computerfraud.us/articles/sex-crimes-cell-phones-and-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act" target="_blank">sex offender who got an extra 28 months on his prison sentence because he used a phone</a>.
<br /><br />
Now, as the article notes, if there's anyone out there who deserves a longer prison sentence, it's a sex offender who victimizes minors.  But that doesn't mean we should condone stretching a computer hacking law in a ridiculous manner.  In this case, because the CFAA allows increased sentencing for someone who used a computer in the commission of the crime, the judge decided that a rather standard mobile phone counts as a "computer" under the law.  Even though it was a standard mobile phone, and not a smartphone or feature phone, the judge quoted Steve Wozniak in pointing out that "Everything has a computer in it nowadays."
<br /><br />
Of course, that should be a reason why we should worry about this kind of sentencing.  The idea that anyone deserves more time in prison <i>solely</i> because they used a mobile phone doesn't make much sense.  It continues to make a mockery of the law.  If the guy deserves to be in prison longer for the actual despicable crime he committed, then the law should allow such longer sentences.  But the courts shouldn't twist the CFAA to accomplish that goal.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110221/03432813187/should-everyone-who-uses-phone-computer-as-part-crime-get-longer-sentence.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110221/03432813187/should-everyone-who-uses-phone-computer-as-part-crime-get-longer-sentence.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110221/03432813187/should-everyone-who-uses-phone-computer-as-part-crime-get-longer-sentence.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-says-the-8th-circuit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110221/03432813187</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:41:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Tosses Out Lori Drew Ruling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/1232585439.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/1232585439.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The Lori Drew <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081126/1223412965.shtml">verdict</a> finding her guilty of computer hacking because she may have broken MySpace's terms of service (without even having read them) was a classic example of prosecutors trying to stretch the law to punish someone who did something they didn't like, but which wasn't against the law.  The implications of the ruling were quite troubling, in that they could turn almost anyone into a criminal if prosecutors wanted to charge them as such.  For months, though, the judge in the case has been weighing whether or not to overturn the ruling.  It's not clear <i>why</i> it took so long, but <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/drew_court/" target="_new">the judge has in fact acquitted Drew</a> on the three charges she was found guilty of by the jury.  This is good news all around.  No matter what you think of Drew and what she did, prosecutors twisted the law in a way that would have set an amazingly dangerous precedent.  It will be interesting to see if there's an appeal, but for now, this is undeniably good news.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/1232585439.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/1232585439.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/1232585439.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090702/1232585439</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 06:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Prosecutors Still Want To Pretend Lori Drew Was Convicted Of Harming Megan Meier</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/1907084853.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/1907084853.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The prosecutors in the Lori Drew trial continue to make a mockery of the law.  After pushing to give Drew the maximum <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/0402344779.shtml">three years in jail</a> not because of what she was convicted for, but because she "has become the public face of cyberbullying," prosecutors are now demanding that <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/prosecution-parents-should-be-allowed-to-speak-at-cyberbullying-hearing/" target="_new">Megan Meier's parents speak at the sentencing hearing</a>, claiming they are Drew's victims.  Except... that's simply not true.  Drew was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081126/1223412965.shtml">convicted</a> merely of having "hacked" into MySpace's computers, because she broke their terms of service by not using her real name (even though she didn't even sign up for the account).  The fact that Megan Meier later committed suicide has nothing to do with what Lori Drew was actually convicted of doing.  The <i>only</i> reason to allow them to speak at the sentencing is to push for an emotional reason for the sentencing rather than a legal one.  The whole thing is a rather disgusting display of a prosecutor abusing the law to punish someone who he believes did wrong, but who did not actually break the law.  Whether you believe what Drew did was horrific or not, there's simply no excuse for abusing the law in this manner.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/1907084853.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/1907084853.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090512/1907084853.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-sickening</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090512/1907084853</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 7 May 2009 14:19:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Prosecutors Want To Give Lori Drew 3 Years In Jail For Symbolic Reasons</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/0402344779.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/0402344779.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As the sentencing phase of the Lori Drew trial moves forward, prosecutors are <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/prosecutors-seek-three-years-in-prison-for-lori-drew/" target="_new">asking for three years in jail</a>, well beyond what she should get based on normal sentencing guidelines.  So, why?  It's not because of anything she actually did, but because of what she <i>represents</i>:
<blockquote><i>
"Defendant has become the public face of cyberbullying. A probationary sentence might embolden others to use the Internet to torment and exploit children."
</i></blockquote>
It's hard to have any more direct proof that this case has never been about what Lori Drew actually did and whether it was a crime, but about some grandstanding prosecutors looking to create a PR campaign.  Even worse, the prosecutors seem to be focusing on the cyberbullying issue even though <i>that's not what the trial was even about</i>.  She was convicted of computer fraud in giving a false name to MySpace, violating its terms of service.  The actual "cyberbullying" isn't what she's on trial for at all.  It's really rather despicable to see the legal process twisted, in a Salem Witch Trial type of show, in which the sentencing recommendation has no relation to the actual conviction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/0402344779.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/0402344779.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090507/0402344779.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sickening</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090507/0402344779</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Would You Sentence A Convicted Spammer?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/0135051683.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/0135051683.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've covered some of the case against spammer Robert Soloway.  He was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070530/232149.shtml">arrested</a> back in May of 2007 on criminal (rather than civil) charges.  He'd already lost multimillion dollar civil lawsuits from Microsoft and an ISP.  He hadn't paid a dime of what he owed. Instead, he just kept on spamming.  When he was arrested, of course, officials claimed that it would have an immediate impact on spam -- but it doesn't seem like spam has decreased at all.  Earlier this year, Soloway <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080316/212058558.shtml">pleaded guilty</a>, and now the judge in the case <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148412/judge_puts_off_spam_king_sentencing.html" target="_new">is struggling over what the sentence should be</a>, noting that there's little to compare it to that may be appropriate (her closest approximation: a polluter).
<br /><br />
Of course, Soloway is hardly the first spammer to receive a jail sentence.  A few years back Jeremy Jaynes received <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050408/1358221.shtml">nine years</a> in jail for spamming.  This certainly seemed <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050411/1721233.shtml">excessive</a>, no matter how much you hate spam.  It seems like there would be better ways to punish spammers than give them sentences worse than some violent offenders.  And, of course, for all the talk about how these long sentences would deter spammers, the only thing it seems to have deterred is their willingness to so openly brag about their achievements.  There's more spam than ever before and it's harder than ever to track the spammers down.  So, are there more creative ideas for how Soloway should be dealt with beyond just locking him up? <b>Update</b> In related news, another spammer has just been given <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1536737320080715">30 months in jail</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/0135051683.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/0135051683.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080715/0135051683.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-makes-sense?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080715/0135051683</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>