More Active Posts
Front Page
Bullied to death
 |
 20 Comments |
A Missouri mother who posed online as a teenage boy to harass one of her daughter’s former friends has pled not guilty of “internet fraud and conspiracy to inflict emotional distress” after the friend committed suicide.
Lori Drew, 49, was indicted by a grand jury last month after using Myspace.com in 2006 to pretend she was a 16-year-old boy interested in Megan Meier, who was 13 and lived in the same neighborhood. The sham was intended to eavesdrop on gossip about Drew’s daughter, but the situation apparently became much more personal. Drew’s last message to Megan under the false account told the young woman, “The world would be a better place without you.” Megan hanged herself in her bedroom later that day.
Drew’s case underscores the lack of appropriate legislation regarding the Internet, which, aside from a few pornography, copyright and interstate tax laws, remains a relatively lawless location. The grand jury indicted Drew last month using laws intended to punish hackers who access protected information, but the shoe doesn’t really fit. Drew wasn’t a hacker, she was a verbally abusive bully.
A St. Louis news site reports that “state and federal prosecutors here reviewed the circumstances and said they found no applicable law under which to file charges.” Meanwhile, Drew’s attorney has vowed to challenge “both the venue and the prosecutors’ interpretation of the statutes” used in the case.
Apparently, the legal shortage is starting to cause a stir. CNet.com reports, “Lawmakers are newly arming themselves with laws that will protect kids from being repeatedly harassed via the Internet, text messages, or other electronic devices.” The bill, proposed by Rep. Linda Sanchez of California and Rep. Kenny Hulshof of Missouri, would criminalize ”cyber-bullying.”
The concern of lawmakers is “moving from a focus solely on sexual predators to the everyday harm that kids can inflict on each other in chat rooms, social networks, virtual worlds, or via text messages,” notes the article at CNet. Critics of the bill worry that it will interfere with free speech while being unable to control the bullying due to the anonymity of the Internet, but with the increase of cases like Drew’s, the necessity of the law remains uncontested.
 |
Topic: Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: internet suicide, Lori Drew, megan-meier |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Less is more
Let’s take a similar situation but remove the internet factor. Would this same woman be indicted if there wasn’t the physical evidence of the internet to convict her, if the abuse had been verbal and proof was hearsay? Having such things documented online could be a huge advantage for the judicial system once some sort of legislation can be agreed upon.
If there is something that her conduct does indeed fit into (harrassment or some sort of fraud/deceptive practices sort of thing), then she should be hit as heavily as the law permits.
If not, there should be something crafted to address it.
Life is too short for pretense, and THIS pretense shrtened a life.
Alana,
That’s the whole point - it wasn’t in person, it was hidden, the woman impersonated a young boy. She couldn’t have done that in person.
If the abuse was ‘verbal’ in person the young girl would have KNOWN she wasn’t speaking to a young boy her own age, she would have observed a woman who was her friends mother, a very different scenario. Most kids don’t take abuse from other kids parents.
Stalking a child, or anyone for that matter, be it on the internet or elsewhere is dangerous. Anyone who does these things, and changes their identity to continue their behavior is a dangerous person in my estimation.
The lure of the internet for many people is the anoniminity that it provides. I suppose we could use this discussion as an example, my name isn’t Alana at all. Should I be charged with fraud? Granted, I am not harrassing anyone, but you can’t remove the anonymous aspect of the internet. Sure, there are dangers with that, but if maybe the child had been better supervised things would have turned out differently. As far as the crude comments like “the world would be a better place without you,” while it is very juvinile for a mother to say such a thing, it is not uncommon among children in a break-up situation. While I think the woman’s behavior is deplorable and manipulative, she cannot be held responsible for Megan’s death.
Right on, Alana. I so agree. This girl chose to kill herself. This woman did not hold a gun to her head, or kill her through any other means. Megan would have committed suicide anyway, because she had no concept that someday (probably in 24 hours) she would feel better and all of this would be forgotten. She chose to throw away her entire life based on one woman’s sin. This girl did not value her life, this woman’s sin aside.
All this insanity is going to lead to is innocent people going to prison or being put to death for hurting people’s feelings. HATE CRIMES, anyone? Don’t think special interest groups aren’t looking at this as an opportunity to silence Christians. People hurt our feelings all the time, and we hurt the feelings of others. Should all the kids who teased us and made us feel like crap go to prison?
I’m so sick of hearing about this case. Megan killed herself for the same reason everyone who commits suicide does - narcissism.
Bianca & Alana - There is a significant difference between having discussions anonomously (even heated discussions on sensitive topics) and an adult undertaking over a period of time to pose as a teenager and harrass/torment an unstable teenager.
If similarly deceptive activity had taken place without the internet (I’m not sure how it could be done - but assuming that it could) I would be similarly predisposed to throwing the book at a woman who did this sort of thing.
Anyone who would commit suicide simply because someone made fun of them has many more problems that we can even imagine. To put the entire blame on this one woman (even though she should be shamed for the rest of her life for what she did) is wrong.
Bianca, Alana, and Outkast–
I’m astonished at you all shifting the blame to the girl who committed suicide (even stooping to trivialize her depression) and lifting it from the adult here.
For the girl, young teenagers feel things very deeply, and though her depression may not in reality have been so bad, it certainly felt like the very worst to her–more than she felt she could handle. Thus it should have been treated very carefully .
For the woman, it would have been horrible enough if an adult woman–supposed to be mature and caring, a mother herself–had merely made fun of the girl. But she hid her identity, posed as someone else, and tormented the girl by manipulating her emotions and depressions. She did this over a period of time, thus indicating it was done in cold blood and not in a moment of rash anger. She is an adult: she should be above such things, able to deal with her problems and her daughter’s problems in a civilized way, and certainly, certainly not taking advantage of someone younger than herself.
She deserves waaay more prison time than whatever it is she’s gonna get.
Alana - 5
That’s just the point Alana, it was a grown middle aged woman with a daughter of her own, who knew this girl, and trapped her into a relationship ‘PRETENDING’ to be interested and posing as a boy. Nothing common about this situation.
Whatever punishment she gets, she will deserve. She certainly had vengeance and hatefulness towards her daughters friend, and MUCH TO MUCH TIME on her hands to have dreamed this plan up, and then put it in motion.
I would liken this to psychiatric malpractice. If a psychiatrist were to lure a patient under the pretense of therapy, and use his training and skills to twist the patient’s mental state with the intent of causing suicide, he would be liable of premeditated murder.
No, this woman is not a doctor. But the anonymity and circumstances of the internet and chatrooms give her a similar level of power in this specific instance. In the wrong hands, it’s a weapon as powerful as an explosive or a loaded gun, and should be regulated. But I think the ordinance should be more specific in that it punishes using anonymity and deception to cause something.
I’m not shifting all the blame to the suicide victim, Kimberly. I’m merely stating that all the blame is currently being placed on this (cruel, granted) adult women, when it’s obvious there must have been other factors influencing this girl’s decision to end her life.
Outcast
Young girls at that age are vulnerable, — the adult woman in this case KNEW the girl very well, she knew all the BUTTONS to push.
Kids can be cruel to one another, they can say all kinds of things, but when an adult does it, and PRETENDS to be a boy, interested and caring and then pulls a stunt as this adult woman did, its her fault.
If this situation had been face to face with kids at school it would have been bad enough, at least she would have known who disliked her. Others would have stood with her and defended her, not to mention comforted her.
I agree she should get the largest punishment possible. But I don’t think that would be much. The justice system is pushing the laws pretty far. Regardless of the mothers age, the girl had no idea she was an adult. You can say she was trying to push buttons all you want and it still changes nothing. Kids and teens push buttons all the time to get people riled up.
What if the girl had committed suicide and it was an actual 16 year old boy? Would he be charged with her death? Could he be charged at all? He didn’t do anything illegal. No fraud or anything like that. Bullying is not illegal, and the day that it is is the day that 99% of all teens go to juvi.
There are many more factors that go into suicide than one sentence. So pinning the tragic death of a young girl on an irresponsible mother who though did something terrible, but nothing illegal, is not right.
If she is convicted of manslaughter or whatever they charge her with that would open a whole can of worms. How could you decipher who is charged? Most of the time people are not just picked on by one person. Who gets the blame? Do you have to say so many mean things to a person to be charged?
It is a violation of free speech. If I don’t like someone I am the type of person who usually keeps it to themselves. It does nothing to tell someone you don’t like them. But I know several people who will openly say that they hate you and wish you would die in a car crash. (I have heard that said before) Not everyone likes everyone or is liked by everyone.
People say mean things to other people all of the time. Does that mean that they should go to jail? I don’t think it should. I am not responsible for other peoples actions. I am responsible for my actions. Blaming someone for someone’s death because that said some mean things is as ridiculous as blaming the passenger in the car wreck for wrecking. the passenger has no control over the car. Sounds like the gov. is trying to be my daddy.
I agree she should get the largest punishment possible. But I don’t think that would be much. The justice system is pushing the laws pretty far. Regardless of the mothers age, the girl had no idea she was an adult. You can say she was trying to push buttons all you want and it still changes nothing. Kids and teens push buttons all the time to get people riled up.
What if the girl had committed suicide and it was an actual 16 year old boy? Would he be charged with her death? Could he be charged at all? He didn’t do anything illegal. No fraud or anything like that. Bullying is not illegal, and the day that it is is the day that 99% of all teens go to juvi.
There are many more factors that go into suicide than one sentence. So pinning the tragic death of a young girl on an irresponsible mother who though did something terrible, but nothing illegal, is not right.
If she is convicted of manslaughter or whatever they charge her with that would open a whole can of worms. How could you decipher who is charged? Most of the time people are not just picked on by one person. Who gets the blame? Do you have to say so many mean things to a person to be charged?
It is a violation of free speech. If I don’t like someone I am the type of person who usually keeps it to themselves. It does nothing to tell someone you don’t like them. But I know several people who will openly say that they hate you and wish you would die in a car crash. (I have heard that said before) Not everyone likes everyone or is liked by everyone.
People say mean things to other people all of the time. Does that mean that they should go to jail? I don’t think it should. I am not responsible for other peoples actions. I am responsible for my actions. Blaming someone for someone’s death because that said some mean things is as ridiculous as blaming the passenger in the car wreck for wrecking. the passenger has no control over the car. Sounds like the gov. is trying to be my daddy.
This is a Pandora’s Box that should not be opened. While the woman’s words and attitude were deplorable, that is all they were, deplorable.
If we choose to make that a crime, then we may as well rescind the First Amendment to our Constitution. Before that Amendment became a part of our culture, speech was also “free” so long as you didn’t criticize the King, or the church, or the local magistrate, etc. The list of prohibitions was such that the speech of an English citizen was not free at all. Hence our founding fathers saw the necessity of writing into the law of our Constitution the guarantee that people can speak their minds without fear. For our society as a whole, there is far more value in that than a virtually impossible attempt to protect the fragile emotions of 300 million diverse citizens.
Have we become so weak and “sensitive” as a people that we are no longer capable of standing on our own two feet amidst the inevitable turmoils of life? Apparently so, judging by the trends in our culture. In our indignation and rush to punish the likes of Mrs. Drew with the heavy hand of government, we empower the same government to smother our own freedoms.
How did Americans of years ago handle such situations? Offensive words are nothing new, regardless of the setting, or the respective ages of the parties. Basically, such situations were handled in private and by people who had a more firm and stable sense of their personal worth than the majority of Americans today. Could it be that our decline as a Christian nation has something to do with it?
In the Christian culture our faith is often depicted as a rock, a firm foundation upon which to anchor all aspects of our lives. This is not only a depiction, it is a reality that helps us weather the storms of life, without sinking into despair. We go to our faith for help in time of need, not the U.S. government. This USED to be the practice of the majority of Americans, but not any more.
This Pandora’s Box of new laws restricting our freedom of speech holds many snakes of unintended consequences. A ruffled feeling can become the equivalent of attempted murder. The offended party gets to define the crime based on their own variable emotions. What a boon that will be for whoever wants to use the law to get back at someone they feel has offended them. Such laws are going to do far more harm than the supposed good they are intended to promote.
This is one of those realms of life where we must choose either freedom or its permanent loss. For all practical purposes, once its gone, its gone.
I’m astonished at the breathless statements, assertions and assumptions made throughout Mr. Jackson’s write up:
“Somebody killed herself due to a fraud perpetrated upon her. We need a law for that!”
By all appearances, this woman is at least guilty of fraud. She did not hang Megan Meier. But she undoubtedly manipulated Megan’s phsche to the point that she despaired of her life.
This is a Christin weblog. We ostensibly believe that God’s Law-Word should have something to say about even this matter.
So I ask the following question — and freely admit right up front that I don’t claim to have the answer:
By what biblical principle would the infliction of psychological harm be considered criminal?
This should be the nature of the discussion, and not simply “Somebody physically killed herself, thus we need another law against causing the ‘everyday harm’ that led to this!”
Maybe we do, maybe we don’t. Care to discuss what God’s Word says about it?
And let’s not forget that we have the civil courts at our disposal. Perhaps Mrs. Drew should be punished there, rather than crying about the need for
still
more
laws.
Frank, I wish you’d sum up what you’re trying to say. Your quotes from the article seem fine to me–they only state that the current legislation doesn’t exist, not that it should exist. There are reasons that the internet should be monitored, but as has been pointed out, there is a possibility of infringing on the freedom of speech. If this woman is charged with fraud, as you propose, then everyone else on the internet is probably guilty too.
As far as the Biblical principle is concerned, i suppose “love your neighbor as yourself” would work. But the Bible deals with sin, not criminality, and the two are not equivalent. Your question leads into a discussion on where we should draw the line between biblical and civil law.
Alana (19): Frank, I wish you’d sum up what you’re trying to say.
Frank: I did at (17), but I’ll gladly do so again:
By what biblical principle would the infliction of psychological harm be considered criminal?
Alana (19): Your quotes from the article … only state that the current legislation doesn’t exist, not that it should exist.
Frank: Then perhaps it’s just a matter of perception. I get the strong impression that Mr. Jackson is advocating more laws.
All I am suggesting is that a discussion on the need for and merits of such laws be rooted in biblical principles.
Alana (19): … the Bible deals with sin, not criminality …
Frank: This assertion is incorrect — God’s Word — both OT and NT — lays out all manner of principles and commands re. punishment of criminals by the civil magistrate, starting with Genesis 9:5-6:
Alana (19): … and the two are not equivalent.
Frank: Your second assertion, however, is spot on. Sin and crime are not the same things.
All crimes (as biblically defined) are sins — a particulart category of sin that God calls the civil magistrate to punsish — but not all sins are crimes.