MySpace teen suicide instigator to be set free

[.Shane.]

Source

I've bolded what I consider to be the money part of the following quote...

[Judge] Wu said he was concerned that if Drew was found guilty of violating the terms of service in using MySpace, anyone who violated the terms could be convicted of a crime.
...
At the May hearing, Wu grilled Assistant U.S. Atty. Mark Krause at length about whether the government had prosecuted Drew under the appropriate laws when they asserted that violating MySpace's terms of service amounted to a crime.

"Is a misdemeanor committed by the conduct which is done every single day by millions and millions of people?" Wu asked. "If these people do read [the terms of service] and still say they're 40 when they are 45, is that a misdemeanor?"

Sad to say, but I agree. It would set a horrible precedent if violating your TOS was tantamount to committing a crime. TOSCrime anyone?

Its a shame that they didn't convict of the proper charge of... what was it? Using a computer to harm a child or summat? Maybe someone else can dig up the link to the things they acquitted her of.

At any rate, I'd prefer this thread not be a bashing of Lori Drew (much as she might deserve it) or an emo rant about the victim. I'll ask the mods to remove any such discourse.

Rather, I'm more curious... was this truly a "for the greater good" type thing? Meaning, as much as most of us want Lori Drew punished, was it wise of the judge to throw this out because of the larger potential ramifications?

 

[Archbob]

They need to charge her with something like "intentionally causing emotional turmoil to a child". It could be classified as "child abuse".

If kind of stupid they charge her with a violating myspace terms crime. That is not a crime as stated.

 

[Kozmos]

Such things happen on cryspace.

 

[RalofTyr]

I'm going to create a blog site in which the ToS are that you send me a check for ten bucks. Failure to do so will result in a Misdemeanor.

 

[Lay_Lay]

I'm going to create a blog site in which the ToS are that you send me a check for ten bucks. Failure to do so will result in a Misdemeanor.

Almost a good point, except that such a sneaky and unrelated ToS would not hold up in court. Lawyers write the ToS.

 

[.Shane.]

They need to charge her with something like "intentionally causing emotional turmoil to a child". It could be classified as "child abuse".

In the original trial she was charged w/ something like that (don't remember exactly, tbh and will look it up later, time allowing) but the jury acquitted her.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The wheels of justice grind quite slowly at times.

Was it a mean and nasty thing to do to an adolescent girl? Obviously.

Is violating a ToS a crime? What are these prosecutors smoking, and where can I get some?

 

[RalofTyr]

Almost a good point, except that such a sneaky and unrelated ToS would not hold up in court. Lawyers write the ToS.

My point is that a ToS is a civil agreement between two parties and not a criminal case.

 

[Shadylookin]

didn't the girl get into a fight with her parents right before she died about her being on myspace too much? If anyone has to be charged it should be the parents for letting her correspond online with someone she's never met in person. Even if the boy was real I wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter get romantically involved with a 16 year old.

 

[.Shane.]

Is violating a ToS a crime? What are these prosecutors smoking, and where can I get some?

I think it was a desperation play to find here guilty of ANYTHING...

My point is that a ToS is a civil agreement between two parties and not a criminal case.

Technically, would it be a considered a contract? And, in that case, would it be a metter for civil, not criminal, litigation, right?

didn't the girl get into a fight with her parents right before she died about her being on myspace too much? If anyone has to be charged it should be the parents for letting her correspond online with someone she's never met in person. Even if the boy was real I wouldn't let my 13 year old daughter get romantically involved with a 16 year old.

Let's not take this thread in this direction. Thanks.

 

[cardgame]

Why didn't they charge her with child abuse or something that's actually criminal?

 

[Narz]

I think she should get jailtime personally.

 

[Earthling]

Why didn't they charge her with child abuse or something that's actually criminal?

Because it fundamentally opposes the principles of many people, namely, that if anything related to "tubes"* could in fact be prosecuted as a real crime, it should instead be broadly interpreted in an entirely alternate manner to potentially conflict with First Amendment rights.

*see Afton vs. Crest Corporation

 

[GoodGame]

Source

I've bolded what I consider to be the money part of the following quote...


Sad to say, but I agree. It would set a horrible precedent if violating your TOS was tantamount to committing a crime. TOSCrime anyone?

I don't think it's a sad case per se. You need to examine the charges analytically, without fixating on the larger case. Violating a TOS is simply grounds for termination of service. TOS allow service to be terminated without some counter-claim of discrimination (e.g. a 'public service' that discriminates based on say race).

What's sad were the demeaning comments the the users made against another user, for which another law was created (which incidentally I don't agree with)---to the effect that curbs free speech on the basis that if someone on the other end of an internet connection is somehow offended by free speech.

So yes, it's always for the greater good to throw out wrongly applied charges, in the interest of charges being evenly and properly applied. The prosecutors need to get their job right and not be sloppy, and the judge is a check against that.

The greater crime, if there is one here, is probably one of stalking on the assumption that the perpetrators knew the victim. A single random comment amounting to "I wish you were dead" shouldn't be taken as stalking though, but if the perps did the crime repeatedly over a lengthy period of time I'd take it as some kind of psychological abuse/stalking. Would it be that they caused a death wrongfully? IDK, but probably only if they knew the victim's psychological profile deeply (i.e. they knew they were abusing a depressive person and egging them on to kill themself).

In general can a flame war have causality towards a death, in the eyes of court?

 

[aelf]

Because it fundamentally opposes the principles of many people, namely, that if anything related to "tubes"* could in fact be prosecuted as a real crime, it should instead be broadly interpreted in an entirely alternate manner to potentially conflict with First Amendment rights.

*see Afton vs. Crest Corporation

FREE SPEECH!!!

 

[Bill3000]

FREE SPEECH!!!

I will relinquish my god-given right to troll over my dead body.

 

[Yeekim]

I propose a nationwide poll. If majority decides that "world would be a better place without her", hang the hag.

 

[GoodGame]

I propose a nationwide poll. If majority decides that "world would be a better place without her", hang the hag.

I propose that you not be a citizen of my country.

 

[Newbunkle]

She should still be prosecuted for child abuse.

 

[aelf]

I will relinquish my god-given right to troll over my dead body.

Just don't eat your victims. Like she did.