Find Post Investigations On:
Facebook Scribd Twitter
Friendfeed RSS Google Reader
» About This Blog | Meet the Investigative Team | Subscribe
Ongoing Investigation

Top Secret America

The Post explores the top secret world the government created in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

Ongoing Investigation

The Hidden Life of Guns

How guns move through American society, from store counter to crime scene.

Have a Tip?

Talk to Us

If you have solid tips, news or documents on potential ethical violations or abuses of power, we want to know. Send us your suggestions.
• E-mail Us

Categories

Post Investigations
In-depth investigative news
and multimedia from The Washington Post.
• Special Reports
• The Blog

Reporters' Notebook
An insider's guide to investigative news: reporters offer insights on their stories.

The Daily Read
A daily look at investigative news of note across the Web.

Top Picks
A weekly review of the best
in-depth and investigative reports from across the nation.

Hot Documents
Court filings, letters, audits and other documents of interest.

D.C. Region
Post coverage of investigative news in Maryland, Virginia and the District.

Washington Watchdogs
A periodic look into official government investigations.

Help! What Is RSS?
Find out how to follow Post Investigations in your favorite RSS reader.

Hot Comments

Unfortunately I believe that we are limited in what we can focus on. I think that if we proceed with the partisan sideshow of prosecuting Bush admin. officials, healthcare will get lost in the brouhaha.
— Posted by denamom, Obama's Quandary...

Recent Posts
Bob Woodward

The Washington Post's permanent investigative unit was set up in 1982 under Bob Woodward.


Archives
See what you missed, find what you're looking for.
Blog Archive »
Investigations Archive »

Have a Tip?
Send us information on ethics violations or abuses of power.
E-Mail Us »

Other
Investigations
Notable investigative projects from other news outlets.
On the Web »
Top Picks »

'MySpace Suicide' Case Expands Web Law

POSTED: 05:43 PM ET, 11/28/2008 by Derek Kravitz

In what legal experts are calling the country's first cyber-bullying verdict, a Missouri mother has been convicted of impersonating a teenage boy online in a hoax that led to a young girl's suicide.

Lori Drew was convicted of three misdemeanors for violating MySpace's "terms of service," which requires users to submit "truthful and accurate" registration information.The impact of the case in a Los Angeles federal court is significant, experts say, in that it expands the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986 as a tool against hackers, to include social networking Web sites.

The case has drawn worldwide attention and criticism from online experts, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, which accused the government of misusing the law.

The case was tried by the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Thomas P. O'Brien, after Missouri officials determined that Drew had broken no state laws. MySpace is based in Los Angeles. O'Brien said the verdict yesterday sent an "overwhelming message" to Internet users.

Drew, 49, of Dardenne Prairie, Mo., posed as a teenage boy, "Josh Evans," using a MySpace account to send romantic, then disturbing, messages to one of her daughter's classmates, 13-year-old Megan Meier. Meier thought she was messaging with a new, good-looking boy in town. As the New Yorker magazine said in a January article about the case: "Megan and her peers carried on an online social life that was more mercurial, and perhaps more crucial to their sense of status and acceptance, than the one they inhabited in the flesh."

Meier, who suffered from depression, killed herself in October 2006 soon after reading a message from Drew's account that said: "The world would be a better place without you."

Drew faces a sentence of up to three years in prison and $300,000 in fines. Meier's mother, Tina Meier, told Wired that the verdict was a "stepping stone," and that she would continue to lobby for Drew to face jail time.

New York attorney Nick Akerman told The New York Times that the ruling was "simply another important step in the expanded use of this statute to protect the public from computer crime."

But former federal prosecutor Matthew L. Levine, who is now a defense lawyer in New York, told The Associated Press that O'Brien's legal theory was "very aggressive." "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," he said.

Online safety experts told The Los Angeles Times that the verdict now put the onus on social networking sites to police their users' activities.

"I think the industry was hoping there would be a strong verdict blaming one user for abusing another because that way it's not their fault," Linda Criddle, a safety expert, told the newspaper. "These companies claim to have good standards and then do nothing to enforce them. They let people breach their terms and conditions and do nothing about it."

Andrew M. Grossman, senior legal policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, said the ruling could have a broad impact for Web site administrators.

"If this verdict stands, it means that every site on the Internet gets to define the criminal law," Grossman told The Times. "That's a radical change. What used to be small-stakes contracts become high-stakes criminal prohibitions."

And Phil Malone, director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, said that it could have a chilling impact given that the "vast majority of Internet users do not read Web site terms of service carefully or at all."

By Derek Kravitz |  November 28, 2008; 5:43 PM ET
Previous: Coming Sunday: The Poker Cheats | Next: Picks of the Week: Hacking, Rangel and Bad Loans

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



This is insanity. Suppose you rent a car and the contract says you must return it with a full tank of gas. If you fail to do that, are you guilty of grand theft auto? Of course not, but you would be if this judge's logic was applied.

Posted by: PaulFromCali | November 28, 2008 7:39 PM

This is abuse of prosecutorial discretion. The ruling of the case sets a bad precedent. We all stretch the truth on the Internet, and it could arguably lead to somebody's death.

I suppose if I call somebody and "S.O.B." and it causes him to trip and fall and die, I could be in big, big trouble. It would be terrible if I flipped him the "bird" and caused him to have an automobile accident--vehicular homicide.

Posted by: roggeraardvark | November 28, 2008 7:49 PM

Lori Drew should have been convicted of a felony and done HARD TIME. Lori Drew is one evil, sick woman.

This is not s constitutional case, it is like any sexual predator or sick abuse case.

Posted by: wildcleotis | November 28, 2008 8:08 PM

I hate what Lori Drew did. I'm glad she was prosecuted, because her punishment is she has been dragged through the mud. That being said, the case should be thrown out and she should be found innocent. Not because what she did wasn't wrong, but because there is no good law to presocute her. The solution is to enact a new law that covers cases like this for the future. The idea of saying you voilated terms of service and you are now a criminal is ludicrous. Nobody reads the terms of service. There are now millions of criminals in this world based on this verdict. Millions and millions. Good that she was dragged through the mud. Now the judge should do the right thing and throw out the case.

Posted by: larrye781 | November 28, 2008 8:08 PM

For those who uses the INTERNET as a source of revenge or payback - I think now would be a good time to grow up and hopefully act like responsible adults instead of ignorant kids that cannot hide behind there mother's back.
I hope this causes others to think twice or more before posting any other harsh language that might cause others pain and suffering as what Mrs. Drew - with her accomplishes caused Megan to take her life by thinking that - This world would be better off without her - as the last words she saw before hanging herself.
My thoughts - Mrs. Drew should had been founded guilty on all charges.

Posted by: BigGeorgiaDawg | November 28, 2008 8:13 PM

The rental car analogy is a bad example. There are laws covering rental contracts, and have been argued many times in court. By returning the car with less than a full tank you would have violated the terms of the agreement and would have been charged a penalty by the rental agency. If you had however, refused to pay the extra fee you could be prosecuted failure to meet the terms of the agreement you signed. (Which you probably didn't read.) If it went to court the judge would almost certainly rule with the rental company.

The argument with this case had to do with applying a federal statute written for entirely different reasons than the ones to which it was applied.

I would rather have seen this handled in civil court. But Lori Drew did perpetrate a fraud, violate contractual terms, (which are stated in multiple places when she signed up, and she did harass Megan. (And to have involved her 13 year old daughter and a friend in the whole scheme is just sick.) So I am not opposed to seeing her punished for her behavior. I'm just not sure this was the way to go about it.

Posted by: stewarth | November 28, 2008 8:15 PM

I fully agree with the civil court filing - but I don't think [????] that we've heard the last of this particular case. I look for further court proceedings to begin against Mrs. Drew and probably others.
Or - At least I would think so.
I for one would have rather seen her receive twenty years.
But? It could come later?

Posted by: BigGeorgiaDawg | November 28, 2008 8:26 PM

I agree. There will almost certainly be some civil action. Not only do I feel for Megan and her family, but I feel sorry for Mrs. Drew's daughter. To think that she was actively encourged to participate in this whole incident is just sad.

Posted by: stewarth | November 28, 2008 8:33 PM

too much time on her fat little hands. this is a sick woman who pleasured in the reaction of her comments, then death was the ultimate. Can not hide now lady.

Posted by: rfdsee | November 28, 2008 8:33 PM

By the way, I did not read whatever the agreement on this website said, and I am not disclosing my name due to security concerns. That said, the procecutor of this case is an idiot and a dangerous one.
This verdict must be overturned or each and every user of the Web will live to regret it. If that mean that Lori whatever her name is, is going to get away with it, so be it. If the girl is so flimsy, she would find the reason to hang herself sooner or later. It does not mean that I have to sacrifice my right for anonymity on the web.

Posted by: anonymous91 | November 28, 2008 8:55 PM

Words are not magic spells, and nobody can compel another to commit suicide. Mind control is fiction. The defendant did nothing wrong. This is a miscarriage of justice, and a dangerous legal precedent. Overturn immediately.

Posted by: nospam778 | November 28, 2008 9:08 PM

Paulfromcali: That is the dumbest comparison I have ever read. There is no corelation to you post and what took place in this case. Where is the parallel? Anyway, this was a hanis act by this woman and she should pay for her stupidity. You just be thanful it's not a crime to make a stupid post.

Posted by: engine29 | November 28, 2008 9:14 PM

This woman's actions are a far cry from changing the spelling of your name or not give a web site your truthful birthyear. While arguments could be made as to violation of law and whether or not they are proper, actions like that are not going to intentionally provide harm to anyone. There are many laws on the books that are not usually enforced but kept in order to prevent or solve problems. However, this lady deliberately misled who she was, how old she was and what gender she was and set out with the sole intent to seek harm to a teen-age girl. In my opinion, she was in effect performing the online equivalent of stalking this teen-age girl.

The flip side is that it should be a reminder to all of us parents to closely monitor what our underage children see and do on the Internet. Of course, there are those that do not believe in that either.

Posted by: mark1011 | November 28, 2008 9:16 PM

Since when are a web pages terms of service considered law? Were they voted on or put in place by elected officials? If I have a webpage that says everyone who reads the page must send me a dollar in the terms of service then everyone who agrees without reading that is legally liable to criminal extent?

This is abuse of the law and if she can't afford an appeal then ACLU or others should help. Terms of Service are not law.

Posted by: NathanielGreene | November 28, 2008 9:19 PM

"Lori Drew should have been convicted of a felony and done HARD TIME. Lori Drew is one evil, sick woman. "

I agree...what pisses me off is people like this procreate and add more morally slighted creatures to live amongst us

Posted by: DD163 | November 28, 2008 9:23 PM

nospam778 wrote:
> Words are not magic spells, and nobody
> can compel another to commit suicide.
> Mind control is fiction. The defendant
> did nothing wrong.

If we were discussing an interaction between two mentally-competent adults, there might be some truth to this. In this case, however, we're talking about an ADULT woman deliberately inflicting severe emotional distress upon a 13 year old CHILD who was already dealing with depression. Either this woman is a complete moron, or she knew very well what was likely to happen. In other words, this was manslaughter.

Posted by: washpost31 | November 28, 2008 9:36 PM

This is crazy. Yes Drew is evil, yes she deserves to be punished. But the crime is stalking/harrassment, not terms of service related. Violation of the terms of service should lead to a maximum penalty of being disconnected.
Taking the rental car analogy one step further. This is like if there wasn't a law against dangerous driving - so you'd get someone on a technicality of not having filled their tank, and they'd get three years for it.

Posted by: frankiesays | November 28, 2008 9:40 PM

"we're talking about an ADULT woman deliberately inflicting severe emotional distress upon a 13 year old CHILD"

BINGO! The problem is there are a lot of those "adults" who were not raised well and act like a 13 year old children themselves.

Posted by: DD163 | November 28, 2008 9:48 PM

Whether Lori Drew is a bad person has nothing to do with it: violating TOS should never become a criminal matter.

This verdict is wrong and a threat to freedom and democracy. I hope people will take it all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Quite apart from the legal issues, I'm tired of parents pushing for a nanny state. If you have a suicidally depressed son or daughter, it's your parental responsibility to make sure she's safe and not to let her on the web unsupervised. "Josh" could just as well have been a real person.

Posted by: igkjr3 | November 28, 2008 11:07 PM

PaulFromCali and roggeraardvark are completely moronic and shows the paranoia that most husband and husband couples have. Your use of analogy is par for the first 4 letters of the word.

Posted by: JWx2 | November 28, 2008 11:32 PM

igkjr3 wrote the verdict is "a threat to freedom and democracy." Could you explain how punishing a woman who helped push a child over the edge just how this will affect our democracy?

Posted by: mark1011 | November 29, 2008 12:10 AM

I agree with many of the comments above. Lori Drew is one of the most evil types of people, hiding behind her phony personage. She obviously acted with clear intent to cause great harm to the child. It was not random. She should be re-prosecuted for intentional and premeditated manslaughter. She deserves at least several years in prison for a felony. To split legalistic hairs about cyberspace in this instance is moronic. This monster of a woman could as easily have used the telephone, the mail, or personal confrontation to the same affect. She is nothing less than a premeditaded murderer!

Posted by: daveboyle | November 29, 2008 1:31 AM

If you are one of the persons that want Lori Drew punished, then you wouldn't mind not using a stage name on all your Internet use, so that the police and everyone else would know who you are when you say nasty things on your comments. And if they decide you said anything disturbing, they take you to court. Just think what Megan's mother would do if "Josh" was a real boy, Megan herself used nasty words to Josh too, and he killed himself. Who would she blame now? Megan her daughter? Herself? The Internet?

Posted by: daniwitz13 | November 29, 2008 1:32 AM

I guess this can't go without some kind of punishment what she did was wrong. But at the same time maybe the parents should be punished for not watching what there kids are doing online. I think the sad thing is everyone wants to blame someone for this but in my opinion if her parents had been looking out for her well-being then this wouldn't have happened.

Posted by: icush | November 29, 2008 1:36 AM

If you are one that wants the Internet to be anonymous, and I assume so because your posts are anonymous names, Them the Identity of "Josh" should have been taken as anonymous too. ONLY because it was revealed that made it become a problem for every hateful person to jump on. If Lori communicated from France, with an unknown age, (age does not matter in anonymity) would any one be charged? I think not. Lori Drew did not hack into the system. She used it to gain information, as everyone do. What someone might do half way around the world is no ones fault. (Could have been).

Posted by: daniwitz13 | November 29, 2008 3:07 AM

This Drew woman is a heinous, disturbed individual who obviously has no understanding of acceptable behavior. She will be haunted for the rest of her life with the knowledge of her role in the girl's suicide.

But it was a suicide, not a murder. The decision to kill herself was the girl's alone. Drew may have a degree in responsibility that caused the depression that led the girl to the act. But that is not the same thing as committing the act itself.

Hard to accept, but that's how it is. They should have prosecuted Drew for aiding and abetting a suicide, because that's the crime she's guilty of. Breaking Myspace's rules should be grounds for being kicked out of Myspace, that's all.

Posted by: itchy2008 | November 29, 2008 4:32 AM

How is what she did not identity fraud? Why wasn't she tried in that context?

She fraudulently used a computer to abuse someone to the point where they died. She did it knowingly, with malice and premeditation. She even admitted to it.

If Lori Drew were a 'hacker', and this was a crime with a financial end, she'd have been charged differently. If she'd been out to defraud the Miers, well the courts would know how to deal with that, and there wouldn't be any pissant little penalties about it.

If Lori Drew were named 'Bill Drew' and this was a man? The reaction would be different as well.

The level of hypocrisy associated with this case is disgusting. That this woman is walking around free shows that there's too few good minds at work on the case. Excepting that is her lawyer, who's damned good.

Posted by: timscanlon | November 29, 2008 6:26 AM

It's a threat to freedom and democracy because she didn't get convicted for what she said to the girl, but she got convicted for using a computer while providing inaccurate personal information to the provider. If she had done the same thing using a telephone, or pretending to be a priest in a confession booth, or wearing a Halloween mask, she couldn't have been charged with anything. The only reason she got charged in this case is because prosecutors abused a computer fraud statue and took advantage of the technical ignorance of the jury.

With this precedent, all web users are criminals since you cannot use the web without violating someone's TOS. If this is allowed to stand, prosecutors can essentially throw any computer user in jail as long as long as they can somehow get a jury to hate the defendant sufficiently. In fact, the legal precedent is even worse since you might get thrown in jail for breaking any rule on private property.

Lori Drew didn't even get to defend herself against the accusation that she is a monster that drove Megan to suicide since that wasn't what she was charged with.

This verdict is a travesty of justice. I hope that organizations concerned with protecting the Constitution and our liberties will take this on and take it all the way to the supreme court if necessary. And people who try to defend this verdict should be ashamed of themselves: your attitudes are contrary to the principles this nation was built on. Our nation should be a nation of laws, not a lawless mob.

Posted by: ats0j8 | November 29, 2008 6:31 AM

While it is true that there are differences in meaning of similar words for similar people, there is the matter of civility: if I decided to live in the middle of a group of people, I must adapt to certain poli-convenient rules of conduct, for instance: not to be aggressive.
This woman was deliberately aggressive, deliberately overpowering, and deliberately uncivil.
We are finally taking distance of a far-west mentality, where the one with the fastest gun wins. We cannot go back there.
This woman committed several punishable acts, among others torture (mental cruelty).
She doesn't belong to society.
It is necessary for us citizens, to control our urges, our rages, and our actions. Her prison would give us reflection about it. As well as boundaries.
Aside, depressive or not, A LIFE has been lost. Her family needs relief.

Posted by: SouthStar | November 29, 2008 8:45 AM

Lori Drew was not convicted of causing Megan's suicide. She was convicted of misdemeanors related to violating the terms of the agreement she made when she signed up with MySpace. While no one reads these things, it very plainly states right up front and in bold that not only do you agree to the terms but that you will not falsify your information or harass other MySpace users. You do not have to read the whole agreement to get the point. Lori Drew was convicted of violating the MySpace agreement, not of causing the suicide. I agree with what the jury did.

Posted by: stewarth | November 29, 2008 10:14 AM

Eventually the kind of person you have become shows on your face - and Lori Drew is one hideous monster.

Posted by: T-Prop | November 29, 2008 11:45 AM

Lori Drew must go to jail- when the girl died she had No regrets. No remorse. No respect - she is a monster!

Posted by: ok4u | November 29, 2008 12:46 PM

It is with a heavy heart that I post this. I however must agree, that Lori Drew had to be tried for the violation of "terms of service" agreement and found guilty. Let me explain why. First and foremost there is no legel precidence for this type of cyber crime, and second Lori Drew must be tied to to crime in some manner before she could be prosecuted in any further action. By being found guilty, she opens herself to mental anguish and harrassment charges which then also could lead to premeditated manslaughter or at least involuntary manslaughter.

If for example a person was driving a vehicle on a foggy roadway, and stikes a vehicle that was stopped in the roadway with no running lights or hazard lights on, and the driver or a passenger of the stopped vehicle perishes as a result of the collision, regardless wheather or not the vehicle was stopped legally or not, the driver of the moving vehicle would be charged for reckless endagerment, diving to fast for road conditions, and involuntary manslaughter. The reason that I bring this up is simple. The driver must be tied to the accident in a way that this person could be found guilty for his/her actions of striking a vehicle. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT. So it must be proved that due to the decision of speed and driving ability on the roadway, the driver did knowingly place themselves and others at a risk that could cause a death - involuntary manslaughter.

The same goes for Lori Drew. If she could be found guilty of knowingly and willfully misleading her Identity and with that mislead in an act of fraud that did violate terms of service agreement, then she could be held liable for the further harrassment and reckless endangerment. The fact that a person did die as a direct result of the harrasment and mental abuse also brings forth involuntary manslaughter. Many civil cases of abuse are reported everyday, in every city around the globe. This case changed the venue of abuse, nothing more. A fact that seems to elude the posts are the charges, or rather lack there of, for Lori Drew's daughter. She too was part of the crime and should also be held accountable for the crimes that led to the death of a child.

Posted by: levistus | November 29, 2008 1:10 PM

DEFFINETELY JAIL TIME. THESE TYPE OF CRIMES SHOULD BE PUNISHED ON CASE BY CASE BASIS, NOT WHAT IS IN CONSTITUTION OR STATE LAW. IF YOU ARE LAST PERSON DIRECTLY BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF OTHER PERSON, YOU NEED JAIL TIME. NO JUSTICE, ITS JUST LEGAL OR ILLEGAL THINGS IN AMERICA.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | November 29, 2008 3:06 PM

Some people really should follow Samuel Johnson's advice..."Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Posted by: SoCynical | November 30, 2008 3:49 AM

The only answer to problem of kid's safety online is by using age verification systems such as the innovative biometric age verification system provided by VerificAge (www.verificage.com):

- Establishes full segregation between adults and children online
- Does not use any kind of data base. Eliminating risks involved in storing and maintaining data.
- It does not identify the user personally but rather his/her age group category; therefore, the user's privacy cannot be jeopardized.
- The system is based on a "one time" biometric measurement that can distinguish a child from an adult with a very high accuracy rate.
- It can assert a user's age every time he wishes to access a website, content, or while interacting with others.

It seems that VerificAge's solution is going to change children's surfing culture on the Net and increase dramatically children's safety online.

Posted by: amnonlevin | November 30, 2008 7:06 AM

Let me start by saying to the Meier family my prayers are with you.I'm no expert on the law but to me this woman needs to be punished with life in prison,she made a fake my space page and drug a little girl in to lies that all little girls like to hear buy cute boy's.Strung her along to make her think she was liked by this boy and then one day tells her this world would better off without you.That's cruel and don't think if the shoe was on the other foot that crazy lady wouldn't push it for her daughter.I feel sorry for her kid's having such a cruel and mean mother who know's what she tells them.If it would be my daughter they would have to peel me off that woman cause I would hurt her.But also let me say my children are monitored while they or on their my space because of crazy people like her.And if a child preditor did this that person would go to jail and that's where she needs to be because thats what she is.Now a young life is over because a woman didn't have anything better to do with her life but to make a little girl feel unwanted.She may not ever pay in life but GOD knows what she did and I feel sorry for you on judgement day lady.And to all those who said she shouldn't get jail time what if it was your child think about that.

Posted by: s_hantz | November 30, 2008 9:42 AM

I can only assume that she'll get taken for every penny she has in civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I don't know my law... but it seems to me like they could have gone after her for involuntary manslaughter, or endangerment of a minor at least. They should also write a new law to cover this kind of behavior - intentional infliction of emotional distress on a minor via any medium. The fact that she knew Meier was a minor is important, because should I really be prosecuted if I call some adult on this thread an idiot and they go kill themselves? Pretty easy to put a clamp on free speech if things get that broad.

So yeah, she deserves some serious punishment. But the decision itself is a bad one. They got her for violating Myspace TOS. Guess what, I've violated TOS on a half-dozen sites by not giving them real address information. It's illegal to even read match.com's TOS if you're married. And so on. "They won't come after you unless you do something they think is bad" is not a good argument.

Posted by: Nissl | November 30, 2008 11:40 AM

The only answer to the problem of kid's safety online is by using age verification systems such as the innovative biometric age verification system provided by VerificAge (www.verificage.com):
- Establishes full segregation between adults and children online
- Does not use any kind of data base. Eliminating risks involved in storing and maintaining data.
- It does not identify the user personally but rather his/her age group category; therefore, the user's privacy cannot be jeopardized.
- The system is based on a "one time" biometric measurement that can distinguish a child from an adult with a very high accuracy rate.
- It can assert a user's age every time he wishes to access a website, content, or while interacting with others
It seems that VerificAge's solution is going to change children's surfing culture on the Net and increase dramatically children's safety online.

Posted by: odedy | November 30, 2008 2:28 PM

Lori Drew deserves everything she will get, she not only violating MySpace's "terms of service," but she was harassing a minor , and that is child abuse . and she falls in the category of a sexual predator and should be convicted for that. since she was posing as a teenager and was making sexual advances. that is sick.
who in their right mind would do such a thing..
she should be convicted as a sexual predator. YOU WONT UNDERSTAND UNTIL SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO YOUR CHILD.
DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN ?

Posted by: buterfly769 | November 30, 2008 2:41 PM

stewarth wrote:
>>Lori Drew was not convicted of causing Megan's suicide. She was convicted of misdemeanors related to violating the terms of the agreement she made when she signed up with MySpace. While no one reads these things, it very plainly states right up front and in bold that not only do you agree to the terms but that you will not falsify your information or harass other MySpace users. You do not have to read the whole agreement to get the point. Lori Drew was convicted of violating the MySpace agreement, not of causing the suicide. I agree with what the jury did.


I too agree Lori Drew should have been convicted for the TOS violation. I feel that all these other misinformed comments you writers need to look at the reason she was convicted which really didn't have anything to do with the child's suicide. If she was depressed, a comment made to her, isn't what pushed her overboard. Her family shouldn't be feeling like justice was served by Lori Drew being convicted. What should have been #1 on their list is why the child at such a young age was depressed in the first place which usually involves family issues.

Posted by: whatAworld | November 30, 2008 6:12 PM

Anonymous91 said "By the way, I did not read whatever the agreement on this website said, and I am not disclosing my name due to security concerns...If the girl is so flimsy, she would find the reason to hang herself sooner or later. It does not mean that I have to sacrifice my right for anonymity on the web."
I agree you should remain anonymous - and you sound a little paranoid, too. Probably have good reasons. To call a young, troubled girl "flimsy" is prety sick - it is good judgment on your part to keep your identity private with thoughts like that, lest you be judged for who you are. Nice compassion there, buddy. I pray you are not a parent.
Preying on known targets (the young girl in this case who had depression) needs to be taken seriously. We are not talking about a level playing field when it is a sick and twisted adult preying on a troubled child. While I don't agree with the method, and I believe that there need to be laws put in place to protect people against this sort of thing - just like there are laws to protect against sexual predators, I am thankful that this "woman" is being punished. She is twisted - and most likely would agree with your "flimsy" assessment, anonymous91.

Posted by: mhr1985 | December 1, 2008 10:59 AM

Shocking. No one who has not lost a child could imagine the pain - the never ending pain associated with this loss. This woman should do hard time for what she did to this little girl, and for what she has done to the mother of the young lady. I lost a child to an auto accident, and I cannot imagine the horror the mother is living with this terrile, terrible death. The disgusting woman who tortured this little girl should suffer for what she did. I truly believe the adage "what goes around comes around" - but that will Of ease the pain of the grieving mother.

Posted by: daschundpower | December 1, 2008 2:36 PM

I'll say it again, the Govt. was itching to try Lori Drew where Missouri declined, the Govt. was gunning for more authoritative power in prosecuting the masses on our FREE SPEECH, now they have it, so many people wanting her to be guilty not realizing the increased police state power the Govt. will now have to selectively prosecute whom ever they choose for breaking TOS agreements, wake up people! How nice it is going into an Orwellian Society isn't it?

Posted by: ConcernedUnAmerican | December 2, 2008 1:44 AM

This seems like a very complicated case. A couple of questions. Was the girls myspace account private? Did see agree to let "Josh" be her friend? Not knowing who he was? Was the computer in her room? My father committed suicide when I was 15 years old. I know there is nothing I could have done to stop him; I will never know why he did it. (No letter or reason) I know he tried a couple of different ways before he shot himself, and someone was with him, do I blame her? Should she have gone to jail? She said she was outside when he pulled the trigger? We always want to blame someone else. Anyway I think children should be nicer to each other, but I don't think that will ever happen. And Adult should teach their children to be nicer to each other....but I don't think that will happen either......Hopefully this case with make someone think before they push the send button....

Posted by: judyvanderhey | December 5, 2008 10:02 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company