# Conviction on cyberbullying case ... thoughts?



## shesulsa (Nov 26, 2008)

This woman deserves to be put away for a long, long time.



> Prosecutors said Drew and two others created a fictitious 16-year-old boy on MySpace and sent flirtatious messages from him to teenage neighbor Megan Meier. The "boy" then dumped Megan, saying, "The world would be a better place without you." Megan promptly hanged herself with a belt in her bedroom closet in October 2006.
> 
> Prosecutors said Drew wanted to humiliate Megan for saying mean things about Drew's teenage daughter. They said Drew knew Megan suffered from depression and was emotionally fragile.
> 
> ...



FULL STORY

Thoughts?


----------



## jarrod (Nov 26, 2008)

it was a dirty, disgusting thing that she did.  however i'm not sure that she broke the law.  in any case, she will have to live with what she's done & the social stigma will follow her always.  karm is a *****.  

it will be interesting to see what legal precedents this case sets.

jf


----------



## exile (Nov 26, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> This woman deserves to be put away for a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An oubliette for that one. And throw away the key.


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 26, 2008)

My wife told me about this story when it was first released to the public. I agree, this woman should be charged (reckless endangerment maybe?) and put away. Jail time, not community service.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 26, 2008)

jarrod said:


> it was a dirty, disgusting thing that she did.  however i'm not sure that she broke the law.  in any case, she will have to live with what she's done & the social stigma will follow her always.  karm is a *****.
> 
> it will be interesting to see what legal precedents this case sets.
> 
> jf




my thoughts exactly


----------



## grydth (Nov 26, 2008)

With convictions on only misdemeanor counts, don't expect this despicable creature to get any significant federal jail time - if any.

There was no state law, incredibly, at the time which punished this repugnant act. I believe that's been changed.

A federal prosecutor took this one to court, but with a law that had been passed for other purposes. That at least put this monster through the litigation process - a kind of punishment in and of itself - but it may be reversed at the Circuit Court of Appeals. 

There's another concern. While most love seeing this monster put on trial, expanding on laws is a trend which generally may imperil our freedoms.

I read somewheres that this **** had also been ostracized in the community and that is a great thing. Criminals need to rediscover shame. They should be shunned. But I also read that family had been subjected to a variety of threats and harassment.... that's criminal, too.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 26, 2008)

I think she got off too easy. She should have been tried for murder.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 26, 2008)

Of course, there'll be a _civil_ case-I hope they bankrupt the *****.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 26, 2008)

Exactly what crime did she commit? Last I checked neither being an ***, or a meanie was felonious.


> Drew was not directly charged with causing Megan&#8217;s death. Instead, prosecutors indicted her under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which in the past has been used in hacking and trademark theft cases.


 I'm guessing that that is because there is NO WAY that case could be made.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 26, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Of course, there'll be a _civil_ case-I hope they bankrupt the *****.



This is another instance the technology is a little ahead of the a law. I believe the state of MO has since enacted a law about online harassment as a result of this death. In the last few years there have been cases of individuals using spying on others with webcams; however, their actions were not covered under existing wiretap laws (no audio).

I haven't gone over this story with my students. However we did look at this case in Australia. Equally sickening, minus the suicide:


----------



## MJS (Nov 26, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Exactly what crime did she commit? Last I checked neither being an ***, or a meanie was felonious.
> I'm guessing that that is because there is NO WAY that case could be made.


 
I was thinking the same thing.  I'm guessing that alot will come down to what was said in the messages.  It doesn't say, but I'm wondering if there were any other messages that were mean, or was it just that one time and then the child killed herself?

Had the mother made threats or done things of that nature, then yes, a charge could be filed, but I'm not seeing that in the link.

Oh and yes, I'm sure there will be a civil suit and I hope she goes up the river.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 26, 2008)

grydth said:


> With convictions on only misdemeanor counts, don't expect this despicable creature to get any significant federal jail time - if any.
> 
> There was no state law, incredibly, at the time which punished this repugnant act. I believe that's been changed.
> 
> ...





Big Don said:


> Exactly what crime did she commit? Last I checked neither being an ***, or a meanie was felonious.
> I'm guessing that that is because there is NO WAY that case could be made.





Gordon Nore said:


> This is another instance the technology is a little ahead of the a law. I believe the state of MO has since enacted a law about online harassment as a result of this death. In the last few years there have been cases of individuals using spying on others with webcams; however, their actions were not covered under existing wiretap laws (no audio).



This is one of the few instances, I think, where technology enabled a criminal act that wasn't just a different case of an old law.  Identity fraud is really just a new way of committing a few different types of fraud; the only difference is that modern technology allows much greater impact because there are many more cases where we do business with people we don't know, and carjacking is just robbery or larceny, with the specific instance of the item stolen being a car.

This isn't really hazing, it's not transmitting threats over the telephone/internet...  but the actions of this woman were rather clearly the proximate cause of the girl's suicide.  I don't think a manslaughter argument can be made because I don't think that it's a typically foreseeable result of the torment.  Ordinary bullying typically includes some form of assault -- but there was none here.  What do you call leading someone to commit suicide?

I applaud the federal prosecutor who found a way to charge her -- but I don't know that stretching a code so far is a good idea.  Make the laws too elastic, and they cease to have any real meaning.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 26, 2008)

I agree. I don't know if making this a criminal act is necessarily a good thing. However.. a civil suit should gut her.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 27, 2008)

This was a 49-year-old woman telling a 13-year-old girl suffering from depression that the world would be better off without her. She built her up, made her feel good, gave her hope, then slammed her down. Her weapon of choice was a fragile psyche.


----------



## grydth (Nov 27, 2008)

I doubt there's any serious disagreement as to the dispicability of this woman's acts. She did about the exact opposite of what any parent should have done.

But note the juror's reactions to her intent on even the level of charges which were filed. This jury would not have convicted for a homicide charge on this record. 

Now....Change the facts, add some evidence such as a statement, " there - that should push her over the edge" or a statement to the others helping on this that indicated specific intent to produce a suicide.... maybe you get the felony conviction on that record.

I agree with prosecutors that this was a victory. Just making this evil cow stand trial on federal felony charges gave her a strong taste of what she put the victim through.

 But enough on cows, I'm signing off to instead pursue turkey. Happy Thanksgiving to one and all!


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 27, 2008)

See... I just don't know on this one...

Lemme ask you all somthing:

If that woman had been friends with the girl's family IRL, and then found out the girl was being mean to her daughter, walked next door and confronted her out of anger and said "The world would be a better place without you" and the kid decided to hang herself... would the criminal charges ever have been filed, or are we attacking the "evils of the internet"?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 27, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> See... I just don't know on this one...
> 
> Lemme ask you all somthing:
> 
> If that woman had been friends with the girl's family IRL, and then found out the girl was being mean to her daughter, walked next door and confronted her out of anger and said "The world would be a better place without you" and the kid decided to hang herself... would the criminal charges ever have been filed, or are we attacking the "evils of the internet"?


 
No-it's the craven contrivance of an _adult_'s actions towards a _minor_ that makes it so bad. If it had been one of the girl's _peers_ who set it up-if the woman's daughter had done it on her own, for instance- well, it would be sad, but not necessarily criminal, and we might not even have heard about it. Adults aren't supposed to interact with teens at that level. More importantly, it sounds as though she knew the girl had enough personality problems that she might be setting something like the girl's suicide off, so there's an implied intent, if not proof of actual intent.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 27, 2008)

agreed

for an adult to go after a child, and PROD them to suicide is criminal


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 27, 2008)

elder999 said:


> No-it's the craven contrivance of an _adult_'s actions towards a _minor_ that makes it so bad. If it had been one of the girl's _peers_ who set it up-if the woman's daughter had done it on her own, for instance- well, it would be sad, but not necessarily criminal, and we might not even have heard about it. Adults aren't supposed to interact with teens at that level. More importantly, it sounds as though she knew the girl had enough personality problems that she might be setting something like the girl's suicide off, so there's an implied intent, if not proof of actual intent.



Of course its easy to be angry at what the adult did... But that doesn't answer my question... would charges against the adult have been pursued if the situation had occurred offline?

Trust me, I don't condone the woman's behavior twords the child, but I do question the actions as taken simply because being, wel basically, mean to someone IRL doesn't seem to carry the same type of penalties, and I wonder what makes the net different?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 27, 2008)

Or perhaps I should rephrase the question:

Should being mean and rude to someone online carry a more significant weight then doing it in real life?

And if it is ok to regulate what amounts to social grace, (i.e being mean or rude becomes a crime) where does regulation end and freedom of thought  begin?


----------



## Lynne (Nov 27, 2008)

If someone had done that to my daughter, I would be going to prison for a long time...for premeditated homicide.  I believe that is how I would react.  No way to know for sure of course.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 27, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> See... I just don't know on this one...
> 
> Lemme ask you all somthing:
> 
> If that woman had been friends with the girl's family IRL, and then found out the girl was being mean to her daughter, walked next door and confronted her out of anger and said "The world would be a better place without you" and the kid decided to hang herself... would the criminal charges ever have been filed, or are we attacking the "evils of the internet"?





elder999 said:


> No-it's the craven contrivance of an _adult_'s actions towards a _minor_ that makes it so bad. If it had been one of the girl's _peers_ who set it up-if the woman's daughter had done it on her own, for instance- well, it would be sad, but not necessarily criminal, and we might not even have heard about it. Adults aren't supposed to interact with teens at that level. More importantly, it sounds as though she knew the girl had enough personality problems that she might be setting something like the girl's suicide off, so there's an implied intent, if not proof of actual intent.





Twin Fist said:


> agreed
> 
> for an adult to go after a child, and PROD them to suicide is criminal





Cryozombie said:


> Of course its easy to be angry at what the adult did... But that doesn't answer my question... would charges against the adult have been pursued if the situation had occurred offline?
> 
> Trust me, I don't condone the woman's behavior twords the child, but I do question the actions as taken simply because being, wel basically, mean to someone IRL doesn't seem to carry the same type of penalties, and I wonder what makes the net different?





Cryozombie said:


> Or perhaps I should rephrase the question:
> 
> Should being mean and rude to someone online carry a more significant weight then doing it in real life?
> 
> And if it is ok to regulate what amounts to social grace, (i.e being mean or rude becomes a crime) where does regulation end and freedom of thought  begin?



If you created a clever disguise for yourself - pretended to be a completely different gender, age with a completely different intention ... and prodded someone into self-destruction WITH THAT BEING YOUR SOLE INTENT FROM THE START ... what would you call yourself?

The adult woman did not go over to that girl's home as herself, she did not represent herself with honorable intentions - she deliberately disguised herself, befriended, seduced and ultimately bullied and destroyed that girl and it was her intention to do so from the very beginning.

There are newer laws on bullying in some states though it appears to be more of a local thing where they do exist and in some of those cases, if the bullying leads to the death of another then it qualifies as manslaughter.

I think the woman should be committed to an asylum for the criminally insane and let some doctor **** with her head.  THAT would do justice by her victim.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 27, 2008)

> Of course its easy to be angry at what the adult did... But that doesn't answer my question... would charges against the adult have been pursued if the situation had occurred offline?
> 
> Trust me, I don't condone the woman's behavior twords the child, but I do question the actions as taken simply because being, wel basically, mean to someone IRL doesn't seem to carry the same type of penalties, and I wonder what makes the net different?


That's why I said that this is one of the few times that I think technology has enabled a new sort of crime.  This couldn't have happened face-to-face; the girl would have known she wasn't talking to a boy.  I don't think it would have had the same effect were it merely passing notes or sending letters, either.  There's an immediacy and an intimacy to communicating via text/IM on the internet that's lacking -- while there's still a frightening anonymity, too.

It would still have been wrong even if the girl hadn't killed herself.  Let's say that rather than goading her to suicide, the woman had led her on that they were going to go to prom, and she bought a prom dress, etc., spending huge sums of money (as most proms today involve).  I don't think anyone would laugh and say it was a good joke; I think most people would be in favor of making the adult pay some sort of fine or restitution.


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> See... I just don't know on this one...
> 
> Lemme ask you all somthing:
> 
> If that woman had been friends with the girl's family IRL, and then found out the girl was being mean to her daughter, walked next door and confronted her out of anger and said "The world would be a better place without you" and the kid decided to hang herself... would the criminal charges ever have been filed, or are we attacking the "evils of the internet"?


 
IMO, its got more to do with the fact that this was a grown woman, who joined in with her child in tormenting another child.  What kind of adult does that?  I read in todays paper where 2 highschool girls were having issues, so one of the girls mothers goes to the school and with her daughter, tracks down the other girl and helps to beat her up.


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Of course its easy to be angry at what the adult did... But that doesn't answer my question... would charges against the adult have been pursued if the situation had occurred offline?
> 
> Trust me, I don't condone the woman's behavior twords the child, but I do question the actions as taken simply because being, wel basically, mean to someone IRL doesn't seem to carry the same type of penalties, and I wonder what makes the net different?


 
Yes, I would say charges of harassment and possible threatening would apply.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 27, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Of course its easy to be angry at what the adult did... But that doesn't answer my question... would charges against the adult have been pursued if the situation had occurred offline?



Helluva question. I have an addendum to it. Would this crime or misdeed have been committed without the Internet? It's much easier for the cowardly and creepy to function from behind a keyboard then out in the open.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 27, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Helluva question. I have an addendum to it. Would this crime or misdeed have been committed without the Internet? It's much easier for the cowardly and creepy to function from behind a keyboard then out in the open.



Thats an excellent point.


----------



## MJS (Nov 27, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Helluva question. I have an addendum to it. Would this crime or misdeed have been committed without the Internet? It's much easier for the cowardly and creepy to function from behind a keyboard then out in the open.


 
Would this have been committed without the net?  Absolutely.  Bullying is nothing new, its been happening for years.  Like you said, the only difference here, is the accused hides behind the computer vs. face to face.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 27, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> Helluva question. I have an addendum to it. Would this crime or misdeed have been committed without the Internet? It's much easier for the cowardly and creepy to function from behind a keyboard then out in the open.



That was my point - it likely wouldn't have been done in public because she's a middle-aged woman and it would be difficult for her to disguise herself as a teenage boy and toy with her.  But if she did and worked the girl up into such an emotional state that the girl committed suicide, would she not then be charged with aggravated assault leading to death by way of mental anguish?


----------



## exile (Nov 27, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> That was my point - it likely wouldn't have been done in public because she's a middle-aged woman and it would be difficult for her to disguise herself as a teenage boy and toy with her.  But if she did and worked the girl up into such an emotional state that the girl committed suicide, would she not then be charged with aggravated assault leading to death by way of mental anguish?



Exactly. The prosecution here wasn't predicated on the use of a particular technology. But it's a fact that without that technology, the nature of the fraud she perpetrated would have been much harder to duplicate IRL. Either way, it would be a matter of legally indicting mental cruelty and harrassment, with plenty of malice aforethoughtbut we're much more likely to see this in cyberspace than anywhere else, given the nature of what's required to pull something like this off.


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 28, 2008)

It would still have been wrong even if the girl hadn't killed herself. _"Let's say that rather than goading her to suicide, the woman had led her on that they were going to go to prom, and she bought a prom dress, etc., spending huge sums of money (as most proms today involve). *I don't think anyone would laugh and say it was a good joke; I think most people would be in favor of making the adult pay some sort of fine or restitution."[/quote]*_

i wish that were true. Nope - it would be spread over the net - or videoed and posted to Youtube or staged for an episode of Punked. 

Visible, shared 'cruelty-for-fun'. needs an audience. gets an audience.

the better organized, staged, believable and outrageous the con, the more popular and more shared... 'you've got to see _this_'. Can you top it? 

its a challenge lots of people can't resist. Having an overblown 'reason' for revenge/payback is the cheap justification - when it results in harm the perp can't dismiss or when the 'audience' recoils/creeps out, the perp gets confused but can't feel sorrow or repentance, after all, she/he says they 'didn't intend' the bad outcome. except thats exactly what they intended, they just wanted envy and applause too.

the law struggles to create a commensurate legal response. people can create a 'social' response. Shunning seems good.

maybe adding a quiet comment upon meeting this woman ' what a horrific act you did', said softly, no drama, no grand-standing. i witnessed that done by a person toward an individual under a similar situation. The responder followed by leaving the social occasion where the perp was present, made no scene whatsoever, no self-righteousness. i was young and floored by the older woman's integrity and backbone. I think even (*or especially) Miss Manners would approve. 

we aren't helpless when we refuse to be the compliant audience for cruelty.


----------



## exile (Nov 28, 2008)

aedrasteia said:


> > It would still have been wrong even if the girl hadn't killed herself. _"Let's say that rather than goading her to suicide, the woman had led her on that they were going to go to prom, and she bought a prom dress, etc., spending huge sums of money (as most proms today involve). *I don't think anyone would laugh and say it was a good joke; I think most people would be in favor of making the adult pay some sort of fine or restitution."*_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Outstanding post.

We've indeed succeeded in creating a cannibalistic popular culture, where people are carved up and served up to the voyeuristic sadism of a lot of bored people stuck in tedious lives. And that tendency, which starts off with relatively harmless airhead fluff like _People_ magazine, winds up on the dark side with the kind of thing you're describing here: anything to get attention, no matter how vicious. There are quite a few people out there who probably _envy_ this monstrous woman's fifteen minutes of sleazy 'fame'...


----------



## Bodhisattva (Nov 28, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> This woman deserves to be put away for a long, long time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I live close to this story.. about 15 minutes away via highway.

I have to say that I think that woman is a despicable, sad example of a human being.

I also have to say that we have all probably done some rather petty things in our time.

I don't think you can lay a person's suicide at the feet of anyone person.

We really like to hand out blame.

I think she did something disgusting.  I am not sure she deserves prison.

A person's suicide has many, many factors.

It is a very personal choice.

This one woman was not the cause.

She was just a nasty, disgusting final straw.

Life is hard.

Our culture is cold.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2008)

jarrod said:


> it was a dirty, disgusting thing that she did.  however i'm not sure that she broke the law.  in any case, she will have to live with what she's done & the social stigma will follow her always.  [...]
> it will be interesting to see what legal precedents this case sets.



Yup. I'm not sure she committed a crime and I think they've found her guilty of tangential matters...but it was certainly a cruel thing to do.

But outlawing impersonating people on the Internet could have far-reaching consequences that we might not all be happy about.


----------



## SA_BJJ (Nov 28, 2008)

jarrod said:


> it was a dirty, disgusting thing that she did.  however i'm not sure that she broke the law.  in any case, she will have to live with what she's done & the social stigma will follow her always.  karm is a *****.
> 
> it will be interesting to see what legal precedents this case sets.
> 
> jf


I agree, it will be difficult to charge her with anything, but she should be tortured for long painful periods of time.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 28, 2008)

*Guilty Verdict in Cyberbullying Case Provokes Many Questions Over Online Identity*



> Is lying about one&#8217;s identity on the Internet now a crime?
> 
> The verdict Wednesday in the MySpace cyberbullying case raised a variety of questions about the terms that users agree to when they log on to Web sites.


----------



## Carol (Dec 1, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> If you created a clever disguise for yourself - pretended to be a completely different gender, age with a completely different intention ... and prodded someone into self-destruction WITH THAT BEING YOUR SOLE INTENT FROM THE START ... what would you call yourself?
> 
> The adult woman did not go over to that girl's home as herself, she did not represent herself with honorable intentions - she deliberately disguised herself, befriended, seduced and ultimately bullied and destroyed that girl and it was her intention to do so from the very beginning.



Isn't it illegal for someone over 21 to try and seduce a 13 year old?  






jks9199 said:


> That's why I said that this is one of the few times that I think technology has enabled a new sort of crime.  This couldn't have happened face-to-face; the girl would have known she wasn't talking to a boy.  I don't think it would have had the same effect were it merely passing notes or sending letters, either.  There's an immediacy and an intimacy to communicating via text/IM on the internet that's lacking -- while there's still a frightening anonymity, too.



The only way it could have happened face-to-face would be if a 3rd party was involved.  What if the woman had instead orchestrated a complex scenario that involved hiring out a young male actor from a local studio and contracting him to pose as the new boy in town and carry out the same actions?  I doubt that would be dismissed as "just bullying", yet the woman online is essentially accomplishing the same ends with the fake identity.


----------

