Orin wrote: "The jury agreed that it was a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website,"

I had assumed that the jury instructions said something like this, so the jury was only following the judge's instructions. As to the misdemeanor counts, the jury question presented by the evidence, as I understood it, was whether Drew's violation of the TOS was "intentional."

Is Drew free on bond for the meantime?

I guess the best way to express my feelings about this matter is that, first, I have no sympathy for Ms. Drew, and second, she shouldn't have been convicted on the charges alleged. This reminds me of the railroading of Martha Stewart on the flimsiest of grounds.

"Hard cases make bad law/judgments/convictions".

I can't say that I wish Ms. Drew any luck, but I *do* wish *you* good luck in reversing a bad conviction based on a bad law that threatens us all. That Ms. Drew will benefit from this is simply a price that must be paid.

This probably summarises the attitudes of quite a few other people who aren't lawyers themselves, for whatever it is worth.

Hopefully this judge has used the tubes of the internets at least once in his life, and will throw this thing out of court.

The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website

my head asplode

One wonders if taking advantage of http://www.bugmenot.com/ constitutes a federal crime.

Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned jury nullification?

I know it won't go over real well with lawyerly types, but maybe a woman responsible for the death of a 13-year old girl should take her lumps and not appeal.

I know it won't go over real well with people who have irrational bloodlust, but maybe the legal system should not be viewed strictly as a results-oriented means of railroading convictions against bad people without regard for the consequences for the rest of the populace going forward.

becuase there was a jury conviction in the case-this means the US can appeal if the judge throws out the case on the motion to dismiss right?

I don't know. If the law really says what the prosecutors said, then a) the conviction is appropriate and b) the rule 29 motion should be denied. Of course, I really hope this is not the case, but at this point, that may be a matter for a higher court.

It would seem to my mind to be poetic justice and a fitting way for Lori to repay her debt to society for her case to be the one which establishes that this law doesn't apply to violations of terms of services for web sites. I wouldn't want to have to go through the process as she is, and especially with the infamy that the press coverage will bring. However, we are all better off with a strong ruling against the prosecutor's legal theory here, so I am hoping that the rule 29 motion is denied, and that the appeal rules in Lori's favor on the basis that 18 USC 1030 doesn't apply to this case.

If it is, everybody who's ever used the internet is likely a criminal. When everybody is a criminal governments are free to arrest anyone they choose through selective enforcement, as was the case in East Germany and the Soviet Union

this has been the case since the supreme court ruled that you can be arrested for PC of a crime as small as a seat belt violation.

I know it won't go over real well with people who have irrational bloodlust, but maybe the legal system should not be viewed strictly as a results-oriented means of railroading convictions against bad people without regard for the consequences for the rest of the populace going forward.

What an overreaction to a perfectly legimate point of view regarding personal responsibility. There is nothing "irrational" about it. Nor is probation or a few months in a mimimum security prison exactly "bloodlust".

An allegedly adult woman went out of her way to go after a teen age girl who she knew was unstable. The girl killed herself as a totally foreseeable consequence of Drew's actions.

It should be punished by the law. If the "rest of the populace" does such a thing, they should be punished too.

The next step in the case is that the trial judge will rule on whether there was enough evidence for the jury to find that Drew violated the Terms of Service intentionally, or whether the TOS violation was only negligent or reckless or knowing. If the judge agrees that there was enough evidence for the jury to find that Drew violated the Terms of Service intentionally, the case will go on to sentencing for the crime of having violated MySpace's Terms of Service.

I guess what worries me right now is that this is not the best basis IMO for a reversal, and only slightly softens the bits of the prosecution's core legal theory. Making 18 USC 1030 only cover intentional violations of a site's ToS would still criminalize me helping my son look up pictures of bridges on Google.

An allegedly adult woman went out of her way to go after a teen age girl who she knew was unstable. The girl killed herself as a totally foreseeable consequence of Drew's actions.


She was neither charged with nor convicted of any element of what you just described, so your statement is a non sequitur.

She was convicted of a federal computer crime for violating MySpace's Terms of Service. Full stop.

I'm appalled at even this lesser conviction. I hope -- against experience -- that Judge Wu will do the right thing. I hope that Obama will appoint a U.S. Attorney for CDCA who will lead my former office -- where I spent the most enjoyable and invigorating years of my career -- in a new direction away from such things.

But make no mistake -- this is no fluke. The feds can, if they put their mind to it, find a way to make nearly any unpopular modern transaction a crime through aggressive application of broad and badly drafted federal legislation. And in some times and places, they have the will to do so -- particularly when renown beckons.

scote wrote at 11.26.2008 3:39pm:

If it is, everybody who's ever used the internet is likely a criminal.

I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that both the prosecutors who argued the law before the courts, and the judges who ruled on it, all knew that.

When everybody is a criminal governments are free to arrest anyone they choose through selective enforcement, as was the case in East Germany and the Soviet Union.

I am equally certain that every one of those who made it the law will say they didn't really intend that result.

I, for one, welcome our new unintentional tyrant overlords.

Brian S.

Just because she sasn't charged with or convicted of it doesn't mean it's not true, right?

Your client is a cruel and depraved person. Looking at what she was charged for I agree that this conviction may not be what we want as a nation.
Given that she knew this child's mental condition, Mrs. Drew should have known she was playing with fire.
Pure stupidity. She might as well have walked over to their house and handed her a rope.
At least her neighbors and the nation have spoken. May she be haunted for the rest of her natural life.

Orin, it's probably a stupid question, but I can't seem to find the answer anywhere. What exactly *were* the instructions regarding the elements of the misdemeanor?

I don't know what is normal in federal criminal practice. Do trial courts typically just recite the statute? Is that what happened here?

Orin, I am glad to hear that you are representing Lori Drew, pro bono. Despite the rants infecting what should be a logical discussion about the rule of law, I personally believe that your case is a good one. Not all bad actions should be criminalized and prosecutors should not be allowed to manipulate the plain meaning of the law to fit their purposes of punishment. The fact is, she was convicted of a non-existent crime, and the federal court improperly allowed jurisdiction in an intrastate matter. As a 1L law student, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the court documents you posted on here. Keep up the good work and keep the updates coming!

Just because she sasn't charged with or convicted of it doesn't mean it's not true, right?

No, but it means it wasn't a crime.

Perhaps I should have quoted a larger block of the message I responded to:

An allegedly adult woman went out of her way to go after a teen age girl who she knew was unstable. The girl killed herself as a totally foreseeable consequence of Drew's actions.

It should be punished by the law. If the "rest of the populace" does such a thing, they should be punished too.

The only things that should be punished by the law are the crimes one is convicted of. The state convicted Drew of a particular crime. It is not the crime this poster is describing, but another crime altogether.

What the jury found as a matter of law and what Drew actually did are two separate issues, right?

As far as this question goes, both legally and morally I would not find anyone responsible for the suicide of another on the basis of the infliction of emotional "distress". One of the elements of this incident that I found disturbing was the idea that petty meanness was elevated to the level of murder by anti-Drew hysterics. If I don't like you and call you a son of a *****, that should be legal. [Assuming I don't do so in a disorderly way.] And if you get depressed because I don't like you and kill yourself, that should be your own damn problem. I am under no obligation to like you or be nice to you and you have suffered no actionable harm if I am unpleasant to you.

An allegedly adult woman went out of her way to go after a teen age girl who she knew was unstable. The girl killed herself as a totally foreseeable consequence of Drew's actions.

It should be punished by the law. If the "rest of the populace" does such a thing, they should be punished too.

Maybe we should prosecute her parents, too, since it must have been "totally foreseeable" that their daughter might have read something upsetting on the internet. Thus, they were bad parents for letting her use the family computer.

Not everything that otherwise qualifies as shitty behavior--such as bullying young girls--needs to be a federal crime.

The fact that very intelligent people who choose to become lawyers are willing to sell (or, in Kerr's case, give away) every iota of their intellect to ensure that such evil-doers escape their righteous punishment is why lawyers are seen by most people as subhuman.

Hyperbole much?

In a less pussified era of American history, this type of thing would have been resolved via street justice.

Even without resulting to petty violence, we still have plenty of ways to extrajudicially punish extrajudicial offenses. Shunning, for instance.

Laugh if you want, but I bet that social punishments such as shunning, loss of status, loss of respect, etc., are what's deterring most of you from acting like assholes in public, with friends, with co-workers, etc. It's effective.

The girl killed herself as a totally foreseeable consequence of Drew's actions

A civil jury could probably find as much -- in my neck of the woods, at least, foreseeability is usually a question for the fact-finder.

It's a bit of a mystery what Drew et al. *thought* they were doing to that girl, if not prodding her towards killing herself. Just having a good laugh?

None of this affects the criminal issue of course.

-- And whether Drew is despicable is beside the point. Despicable people need lawyers too. Maybe more than most people. And god help this country if "being despicable" becomes an impediment to obtaining legal counsel.

As they should, when the public demands it. Drew behaved in a way that almost everybody outside the legal profession believes should be punished. She is evil, and we want to punish evil-doers.

The fact that very intelligent people who choose to become lawyers are willing to sell (or, in Kerr's case, give away) every iota of their intellect to ensure that such evil-doers escape their righteous punishment is why lawyers are seen by most people as subhuman.

She is evil, and we do want to punish evil-doers. But we live in a society in which we punish evil-doers through the rule of law, not through mob rule. Most -- well, many -- of us see this as fortunate, because we know that the majority's vision of what is evil can be fickle and irrational. That's to say nothing of the mercurial nature of the government's view of what evil is. We are protected from these forces by a system that -- when it works -- limits punishment to situations where (1) we have violated a rule previously enacted by our elected representatives, (2) that rule does not violate certain fundamental rights set forth in our founding charter, and (3) the process by which the rule is applied does not violate that founding charter. Through this process, we reject the notion that it's a good thing if the government can punish us for whatever it, and the mob, thinks is deserving of punishment today.

Of course, nothing stops you from adopting a position of canine subservience to the state, in which you accept that the state should be able to punish you for any conduct that it dislikes at any given moment.

In a less pussified era of American history, this type of thing would have been resolved via street justice.

It's true. These days, you can get away with whistling at a white woman, too.

ex fed-

small quibble-(although i basically agree with you)

even criminal laws need not be made by elected representatives. (e.g. administrative regulations authorized to carry criminal sanctions and common law offenses in states that still use common law criminal offenses).

Maybe we should prosecute her parents, too, since it must have been "totally foreseeable" that their daughter might have read something upsetting on the internet. Thus, they were bad parents for letting her use the family computer.

Sure, why not? Maybe they even helped her search for material on Google.....

JB - here's the problem: the people's willingness to embrace the rule of law - as opposed to just shooting people like Lori Drew in the street - depends on faith in the law and that depends on whether or not they think the laws are just.

I don't know anything about the underlying case and Lori Drew may be wholly blameless, of course.

pintler raises a good point. Maybe Meier deserved it.

Brian P wrote:

The fact that very intelligent people who choose to become lawyers are willing to sell (or, in Kerr's case, give away) every iota of their intellect to ensure that such evil-doers escape their righteous punishment is why lawyers are seen by most people as subhuman.

Let me tell you a personal story about a relative of mine.

My mother's uncle went through law school and entered practice in the early 1950's. He graduated from Yale and went to work for a prestigious law firm. His first prospective client was accused basically of being a communist and stretching laws to make some sort of conviction possible.

His partners told him not to take the case. He left the law firm so that he could help ensure that his prospective client's constitutional rights were protected. Later the government came after him with similar charges (conspiracy, purjury, etc) all based on the idea that he was a community (which in all fairness he was, but that by itself was not illegal even in those days). He fought the charges and won.

Years and much pro bono work later, he was awarded the William O Douglass award by the ACLU. Interestingly, in my discussions with him, he was also a fervent defender of the 2nd amendment.

This is where mob rule leads us. Yet our system is designed to protect us against this sort of thing. In Lori Drew's case, as in the case of my mother's uncle, the fact that someone does something (like send hurtful messages to someone, or defend someone who is unpopular) is not supposed to be enough to get someone charged with a crime.

Lawyers defending rapists, murderers, and even the odd Lori Drew help ensure that we all continue to live in a free society. To suggest that the defending people free of charge or not, in order to protect their Constitutional rights is despicable is purely evil in my view because it leads to a point where the only real crime is that of unpopularity.

Drew performed actions that shocked the public conscience. She preyed upon a child's niavete and lack of emotional maturity. The public want her to be punished, and just because the legislators lacked the foresight to address this specific behavior doesn't mean she should escape justice. Sometimes it is necessary to get creative with unprecedented evil before we get a chance to fill in a crack in the system that went previously unseen.

If I write a letter to the US Attorney's office in charge of my area describing how I have knowingly and frequently violated terms of services in the following manner, will you contribute to my defence fund:

1) I have provided false information in registering to view content in sites that I did not trust. I did so to avoid spam.

2) I have helped my young son look up pictures of bridges, trains, and rockets on Google.

3) I have occasionally posted troll comments on sites in violation of terms of service.

4) As a married man, I have searched for and viewed Match.com's terms of service to verify that, yes, it is a violation of those terms of service for me to even read them.

I understand that it might be a federal crime to gain unauthorized access to a computer, which in the case of a "hack" resembles theft in my mind. However, elevating the violation of "terms of service" to that level of a crime sounds a bit too much. It bothers me that somebody can write up any contract and the violation of that contract becomes a criminal matter pursued by the government with taxpayer finance, instead of a civil matter where the party suffering the harm would pursue it. This breaks the link between the amount of harm and the punishment. The harm done to Myspace is negligible, so they could not ask for much compensation in court, but the government can ask for your liberty.

Tatil: If you are married, even reading the match.com terms of service is a violation of the terms of service.

I can't think of a more blatant due notice issue from this interpretation than that.

SupremacyClaus:

18 USC 1030(a)(2)(C) is the statute under which Lori Drew was convicted. Orin wrote a very good law review article on this point generally, available here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=399740

None of the jurors would comment as they left the courtroom, nor would Ms. Drew, whose face was red and twisted with rage as she departed.

A pleasant image.

I am curious - if Ms. Drew were to read these comments, and be so affected as to kill herself, do these posters think they should be prosecuted?

I'm not clear how our comments violate the terms of service (whatever they are! oops!), but another relevant distinction is that Ms. Drew persecuted a minor whom she knew "had struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts since the third grade." She is to all appearances quite a wicked person.

-- So I'll say again to be clear that wicked people need lawyers too. If Prof. Kerr were assisting with a mass murderer's appeal because it presented an important issue of Fourth Amendment law, that would not reflect ill on Prof. Kerr; neither should his work on behalf of Ms. Drew, which seems to be motivated by sincere opinions on the legal issues.

From the NYT story, which notes that Megan's last e-mail was revealed at trial:

After weeks of online courtship with "Josh,” Megan was distressed one afternoon in October 2006, according to testimony at the trial, when she received an e-mail message from him that said, "the world would be a better place without you." Ms. Grills, who is now 20, testified under an immunity agreement that shortly after that message was sent, Megan wrote back, ”You’re the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over.” Megan hanged herself that same afternoon.

Damn.

Sorry - I misused "convicted." Drew has not been convicted, because no judgment has been entered. She's suffered a "guilty" verdict, but there are motions pending.

Orin - your blogging on this case has been stellar. Thank you.

This is a bizarre verdict--to my mind, it was arguable (but OK is probably right) whether the conduct violated the lesser charge, but plainly obvious that if violating the TOS was a crime, then it was in furtherance of a tort. I would like someone to intelligently explain how the actual jury verdict could be a coherent result (the tort being intentional infliction of emotional distress.) This feels like a compromise verdict in a case where the compromise verdict made no legal sense.

prosecuted for a crime that almost everyone is guilty of

"Almost everyone" has successfully manipulated a troubled child into committing suicide?

Maybe you have, but I certainly have not.

Barry, how do you still not get that manipulating a child into suicide is not what Drew was convicted of?

If violating ToS is the only way to get her, then get her that way.

Unless you're willing to similarly punish each and every last person who has ever violated the terms of service of a website in any manner whatsoever, as soon as you make this statement I don't want to hear you make any argument based on a call for "justice" again.

"Almost everyone" has successfully manipulated a troubled child into committing suicide?

What does "due process" mean to you? What about "ex post facto?" Are you really suggesting we throw these things out the window because punishing one bad person is more important than the things that protect us from being punished at the whim of the executive branch?

would find it very tempting to take justice into my own hands

I was thinking that myself. I wonder if mental cruelty is a crime in any jurisdictions, and if so, how it's defined to exclude mere assholery?

second, I like the way you equate encouraging a distraught teenager to commit suicide with "mean." There are valid reasons to have concerns about this prosecution. There are also valid reasons to be concerned about a justice system where Drew's (alleged? actual?) conduct goes unpunished

not every mean act can or should be punished. especially when it comes down to mere words.

if the girl hadn't committed suicide, would we be here? she chose to commit suicide. libertarian = PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

is there arguably a CIVIL CASE here for emotional distress and all that? sure.

i'm not concerned about a justice system where this would go "unpunished".

I mean, think about it. If I were one of the girl's parents and the DA's office told me "tough luck, she's just mean, nothing we can do about that" I would find it very tempting to take justice into my own hands. I'd submit that most normal parents would as well. Isn't one of the goals of our justice system to discourage such things?

let me give you an analogy. i used to be a cop in hawaii. a woman made a statutory rape complaint on behalf of her 14 yr old daughter, claiming that when she had been on vacation a few weeks back (she was now finding out), her oh so fragile 14 yr old had been going to a hotel room and having sex with two males in their 30's.

that sux.

however, it's not a crime. hawaii's age of consent at the time was 14.

would the girls parents be tempted to take justice into their own hands? sure. so what? it wasn't a crime. she threw a friggin' hissy fit, but the law is the law.

the parent's redress should be civil court, etc. i am sorry, but being mean to a teenager is not something the courts should criminalize. in this case, there was no such crime, so they bootstrapped this TOS crap that is something that practically everybody who uses the internet does. it was ridiculous.

believing in the rule of law means that sometimes people can be mean and evil and the law can't do anything about it. i am fine with that. because i believe in rule of law and personal responsibility.

fwiw, i have little doubt in my mind that right now there are thousands, if not millions of people saying mean stuff to teenage girls, boys, etc. and that the vast majority of them won't commit suicide.

people want their pound of flesh and they want to BLAME SOMEBODY. that's what it comes down to.

Legally, yes, but morally? If a professional psychiatrist chooses to start exploiting a patient's known weaknesses - manipulating the patient's thought processes and emotions with words - to do harm instead of help, is this morally wrong? How about if the person isn't a professional, but say, a close family member with a deft grasp of the human psyche? Do you think such a thing as emotional abuse can exist, or that an adult can abuse a child in any way other than physically?


Well, the key word is "responsible". In some generalized sense it's more moral to be nice to people than to be mean to them [assuming we're in a morally neutral situation where the person in question has not done something themselves to deserve your hostility], so I suppose it can be immoral to be mean to someone. That would mean that "emotional abuse" is possible. But the fact that your behavior is immoral, or hostile, or abusive, or even that it violates some sort of duty of care [like the psychologist] does not make you morally responsible for the voluntary act of another.

If I'm being mean to you to manipulate your emotions, you can defeat my scheme utterly and effortlessly by the simple expedient of not giving a damn what I say. Or by not listening.

Just my own feelings about anti-cyber-bullying laws.....

Obviously there are limits to what is protected under the first amendment. I think that appropriately scoped legislation would be good, but that one would have to be careful so that protected speech is not unacceptably encroached upon.

One of the hazards of a free society is that we have to endure uncivil behavior. If we weren't a free society, we could outlaw impoliteness, rudeness, and general cruelty. Then we could prosecute selectively so that the state could always keep its enemies behind bars. So having said this, there are two elements I would like to see in such laws:

1) For something to be beyond protected speech (regarding harassment) on the internet the victim must request that contact cease and must take unambiguous steps to avoid such contact. For example, if I send an email to Orin and call him an apologist for lawlessness that is ok. If he blocks my email, and sends me a request not to harass him anymore, and I create a new email address for the purpose of continuing my harassment, that is clearly beyond what is my protected right to speak.

2) Bullying must be personally directed. We all have had flamewars over legitimate issues. I would hate to think that my continuing to send security flaw reports to a certain software developer might at some point be seen as bullying.....

If I pay my bill 1 day late, have I committed a federal crime?

some Previous commenter says;

Laugh if you want, but I bet that social punishments such as shunning, loss of status, loss of respect, etc., are what's deterring most of you from acting like assholes in public, with friends, with co-workers, etc. It's effective.

You're assuming quite a bit if you assume I'm not an asshole.


More Seriously, Barry P. says;

That is, she is unpopular and punishment is desired for the same reasons, not unrelated ones

Guess what, the KKK wanted to punish the freedom riders for inciting black folks to the crazy belief that they were equal to white folks. And that is exactly why the freedom riders were unpopular in the South (and much of the North). Moreover, the majority thought they were evil. There you go, we have the trifecta, let's go back and charge them freedom riders with something*. Barry P. has given it the go ahead.

*Anyone who doesn't recognize this as sarcasm is a freaking idiot...but that seems to describe some commenters, unfortunately.

JB - here's the problem: the people's willingness to embrace the rule of law - as opposed to just shooting people like Lori Drew in the street - depends on faith in the law and that depends on whether or not they think the laws are just.

I don't know anything about the underlying case and Lori Drew may be wholly blameless, of course.

She is guilty of -something-. IANAL, but manslaughter might stick, if you could prove that it was predictable that the harassment would lead to suicide. Being taken for every cent she owns in civil suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, certainly.

But if someone runs across the street to shoot someone, you don't prosecute them for jaywalking and introduce the gun as evidence, no matter how much of a douche they are.

The thing is, if morality and justice are the only things that matter, than Plato is right on every level, from the expansive authority of the state, through the abolishment of private property, even to censorship. However, in the bargain one loses every element of freedom and personal autonomy.

bingo.

in a free society, there are lots of things that are obviously immoral that aren't illegal, and in many cases would be unconstitutional to make immoral.

i don't think anybody (with any sort of developed sense of right and wrong) could argue that drew didn't do something morally suspect (at best) or just plain evil (at worst).

bootstrapping a law that is TOTALLY arbitrary and selectively enforcing it against her because people are outraged is also just plain evil, and dare i say it... unamerican.

several here have said that it's ok to misuse the law if you do it against a person who did something evil. that's just plain WRONG.

Just as a note, Iran isn't as intrusive in private matters as Plato's guardians either....

i really don't want to get into a long wank about the MORALITY aspect of what drew did (or didn't do).

that was just an aside. i'm way too disgusted about the legal aspects of this case.

no worries. devil, details, etc.

whit,

I think the moral aspects of the case are quite relevant. First, those moral aspects go to the issue of prosecutorial discretion. If someone's behavior is morally acceptable or harmless, then prosecutors are much less likely to devote resources to prosecuting them, even if technically they have committed a crime. Further, the more outrageous someone's behavior, the less I am concerned about "notice." (Especially since this "notice" idea is somewhat fictional. When was the last time you actually read the Federal Criminal Code anyway? What about most people?) If you engage in horrendous behavior, I wouldn't be too shocked if later it turns out to be a crime. Most of us stay out of trouble not by a careful parsing the Federal Criminal Code before acting, but instead by acting in ways that generally comport with generally accepted concepts of morality. As soon as you act outside those bounds, then you had better be extra careful that your actions are not illegal.

Yes, in our society, there are some actions that are immoral and evil that are not illegal. But, before you start engaging in evil and immorality, it would be wise to be sure that your actions are not also illegal.

Obviously, I am not saying that due process is not important. However, when someone engages in really egregious, immoral, and evil conduct, I certainly have less sympathy for them when they are prosecuted under laws that are not enforced against other technical violators who are not engaged in immoral or evil behavior.

Finally, overall, I find your dismissive language to lessen, not increase, your persuasiveness. (i.e. "wank," the sarcastic use of the words "precious" and "fragile" to describe people, and the phrase and "hissy fit" to describe the behavior of a mother that is rightly upset over the abuse suffered by her daughter by adult men.

I don't know if persuasiveness is important to you. But if it is, I would suggest more professionalism in your word choice. You may think being a jerk increases your persuasiveness (and I would definitely say that you sound like a real jerk, a real piece of work, given your description of the mother's rightly upset behavior when her 14 year old daughter is abused by two 30-year old men as throwing a "hissy fit.")

Obviously, I am not saying that due process is not important. However, when someone engages in really egregious, immoral, and evil conduct, I certainly have less sympathy for them

this doesn't have anything (for me) to do with sympathy for DREW. it has to do with belief in the rule of law, etc.

those are two entirely different things. i most certainly do not feel sorry for drew. i wouldn't feel sorry for her if she got beat up tomorrow. i am outraged at the vindictive application of a bogus law in order to "seek justice". it's crap. that says exactly ZERO about my sympathy for drew.


you are doing exactly what i find so egregious. here, i'll quote you...

However, when someone engages in really egregious, immoral, and evil conduct, I certainly have less sympathy for them when they are prosecuted under laws that are not enforced against other technical violators who are not engaged in immoral or evil behavior

again, this is NOT about sympathy for drew. it's about belief in the law and justice. it is not OK to misuse the law to "get" the bad guys. it aint ok when cops do it, and it aint ok when prosecutors do it. PER-I-OD.

"hissy fit" to describe the behavior of a mother that is rightly upset over the abuse suffered by her daughter by adult men.

except "hissy fit" is quite appropriate GIVEN her behavior. when i think hissy fit, i think screaming, ranting, name calling, crying, etc. which is what she did.

Simply put, leaving her actions unpunished weakens the bonds of society and makes vigilante actions more likely in the future.

I think confidence in the criminal justice system and the belief that we really are a nation of laws is what makes vigilante action unlikely. You think that when the legal system acts as vigilantes themselves, that makes it less likely that other people will do so.

If we agree that Lori did the things she is accused of doing....

Reuters now has another juror's view about who did what:

Juror Shirley Hanley told Reuters outside of court she and her fellow panelists cleared Drew of the more serious charges because they could not be sure who typed the MySpace messages that so upset Megan.

Megan Meier was 13 years old......my space TOS says one has to be 18. Why did her parents let a clearly fragile girl go on my space when it is well know that it is full of predator?

David Welker:

As far as the rule of law point, I do not think there are any real notice problems here. Clearly, Drew violated the law. Now, it is true that most people who violate TOS agreements in much less despicable ways do not have the federal government prosecute them. That is prosecutorial discretion at work. Here, prosecutors clearly decided it was appropriate to bring a case because of the despicable nature of Drew's actions.

Are you serious? What law did she clearly violate?

Prior to this prosecution, nobody would have imagined that ToS provisions had the force of Federal law. It was considered by most to be an absurd stretch to make that argument. The only reason that was even done here was, almost too obviously, because Prosecutors were desperate to find any law they could use.

All I have to say is this. I think if you want to be more persuasive, you should be more careful with your word choice. You should try to lessen your use of sarcasm.

well, it IS the "refuge of a scoundrel"...

Clearly, Drew violated the law. Now, it is true that most people who violate TOS agreements in much less despicable ways do not have the federal government prosecute them. That is prosecutorial discretion at work. Here, prosecutors clearly decided it was appropriate to bring a case because of the despicable nature of Drew's actions

and practically everybody who uses the internet routinely violates TOS agreements. and NONE of those people are prosecuted. nor should they be. the law is thus being applied totally vindictively and arbitrarily because she did OTHER stuff we think is atrocious.

simply not cricket.

for pete's sake, how many MILLIONS of myspace profiles ADVERTISE that the page holder is under 18?

On a related note, what do you think of the Spitzer prostitution case? It is unusual for the Federal government to pursue adult prostitution cases. Was this exercise of discretion in enforcing the law also a violation of due process?

no, because people KNOW (especially spitzer) the law in this regards, and hiring prostitutes is not routinely done by millions of people without even a consideration that they might be breaking the law. it is simply not analogous. now, i think it's a good thing that they dropped the whole spitzer thang, given a little time.

Speaking of which, as a police officer, is your decision to not give person A a ticket, but person B a warning, for conduct that violates the exact same statute a violation of A's due process rights?

You can see where I am going with this, I hope. Basically, I do not think there are any due process problems here. A still has to pay his ticket, whether or not B got lucky and got off with just a warning. Drew is still guilty of violating federal law, even though prosecutors do not usually pursue these kinds of cases.

i was kind of waiting for that. no, i don't. it's perfeclty ok to give a warning for (minor) criminal behavior and civil infractions, and that's based on the totality of the circ's known at the time. that is a bit different than taking a single case and applying a law that is routinely IGNORED by the millions of others who do it.

i'm not saying prosecutors (and cops) shouldn't have some discretion. but prosecuting somebody for something like violating a TOS is qualitatively and quantitatively different.

i look at the TOS thing like this.

every business has rules (no shirt, no service.. etc.)

is it fair to prosecute people for violating such a TOS if there was such a law? of course not.

i was hoping for jury nullification, frankly.

As a layman—is that the right term for a non-lawyer in this context?—I don't understand how a contract between private parties is a federal matter.

A civil matter I would understand, but this seems way out of bounds in how I would expect, or hope, the law to work. Am I missing something obvious that would be in a Contracts class in L1?

xyzzy,

Well, the jury thought it was very important who actually typed the messages to Megan. Maybe Ms. Drew had nothing to do with the intentional infliction of emotional distress in this case. I doubt it. The prosecutor's presumably thought otherwise.

Recent data from neuroscience suggest that the orbitofrontal cortex (the region of the brain implicated in social judgment and inhibition of socially inappropriate behavior, and presumably shame and embarrassment), which is smaller in children than in adults, may actually be more active in adolescents than in adults, making them extra-sensitive to the opinions of their peers.

that's kind of funny. recent data from neuroscience is letting us know that adolescents are more sensitive to peer pressure than adults?

really?

wow! :l

As a layman—is that the right term for a non-lawyer in this context?—I don't understand how a contract between private parties is a federal matter

i'm not a lawyer, and lord knows i'm not defending this law, but i think it is more likely justified as a sort of low grade computer trespass moreso than a contract thang.

iow, it is illegal to trespass on a person's computer. TOS violation is kind of like a low grade trespass where you are trampling around when you shouldn't be because you are there under "false pretenses" or in violation of their rules.

again, not that i am defending the logic of the law, but i see it that way

David Welker,

I find your comments in violation of our comment policy, and I am therefore referring you to the FBI for prosecution for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Please leave your name and address so the FBI can know where to arrest you for your crimes.

Best,
The Management

I can't think of a more blatant due notice issue from this interpretation than that.

I keep reading this sentence, but I can't figure out what it means. Come again?

BTW, I was just playing Devil's Advocate here today.

Proof that lawyers will represent anyone. Even the devil.

Do you want to bet your freedom on my failure to find a prosecutor to charge you for your crime?

orin just needs to dress like a 13 yr old girl when he meets with the prosecutor. apparently, they engender enough sympathy to cause unwarranted charging.

David Welker.

I assume you are new to this issue? I wrote a law review article in 2003 predicting that someday the government might try such a baseless theory and explaining why it is wrong. The reaction I got from prosecutor friends at the time was that no prosecutor would ever try such a theory, as it was obviously wrong. I responded to them that someday some prosecutor might try it anyway.

You can read the article here.

More seriously, you'll note that every former DOJ computer crime prosecutor who has spoken on the record about this case (which is many of them, actually) has completely rejected the theory that Drew is guilty. They uniformly take the view that Drew committed no crime. Notably, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Missouri agreed, declining prosecution in the case because no crime was committed.

If the law is what the law is, then Drew is innocent.

Gee, I did not know that guilt or innocence was determined by a poll of former DOJ prosecutors.

Your elitist contempt for the jury system is just stunning.

BrianP:

I want to thank you for playing devil's advocate. I think that you have done a good job of elucidating a position that too many people hold and hence arguing against you has been quite productive.

JMHO.....

whit wrote at 11.26.2008 11:06pm:

orin just needs to dress like a 13 yr old girl when he meets with the prosecutor. apparently, they engender enough sympathy to cause unwarranted charging.

JPEGs! JPEGs!

In the NYT: "Mr. O’Brien, who tried the case himself with the firepower of two subordinates, said he was pleased with the verdict. "The overwhelming message,” he said, “is if you are going to attempt to annoy or go after a little girl and you’re going to use the Internet to do so, this office and others across the country will hold you responsible.”

Is Mr. O'Brien of the opinion that no crime would have been committed had Drew used the public mails instead of the Internet? IANAL, so maybe there are already laws against so using the public mails. How about if Drew just slipped messages on paper under Megan's front door? How bizarre that one's loss of liberty would hinge on HOW one delivered an upsetting message.

As a physician, I am stunned by how much people are willing to presume a neighbor should know about the mental health and stability of another neighbor's teenager. Most teenagers have torment in their lives, some more striking than nasty email. The vast majority don't commit suicide. The vast majority of teenage girls who write "You're the kind of guy a girl would kill herself over" do NOT commit suicide.

Frequently professionals get it wrong, but Lori Drew should lose her liberty because it was OBVIOUS in the minds of many here that what any of us would not pay any attention to if sent to us in an email would CLEARLY drive this teenage girl to suicide, and successful suicide at that.

Stunning. Stupid. Dangerous. Wrong. Those words apply to Drew, but also to her critics.

Hey whit,

If you are so into "personal responsibility" why not take responsibility for the impact your actions have on the emotional well-being of others?

What do you think of the cases where someone has committed suicide after being "egged on" by strangers over the internet. Like this case.

My view, your not really that "into" personal responsibility if you think it is okay to take no responsibility about how your words and actions affect the emotional well-being of others. That is not okay.

Your idea of "volition" is also WAY overblown. You act as if people live in some sort of bubble and their decisions are disconnected from their relations with others.

Maybe this is true for you. Maybe you really are disconnected from others. But, this is not true for most people, and this idiosyncratic difference that you have with the majority of the population is obviously no basis for making policy. Policy should reflect the reality of most people, not exceptions like yourself. Our volitional decisions are influenced by those who we are around, how they treat us, our relationships with them, and how they try to influence us. This is obviously especially true of adolescents, who are especially susceptible to peer pressure.

Now, maybe we punish people anyway when they make dumb decisions. In most circumstances, we don't say, that the influence of others excuses bad behavior X, Y, and Z. That is personal responsibility. To be punished for our own behavior despite outside influences is actually empowering. It empowers you to declare independence from those outside influences, knowing that you will have to either enjoy or suffer the consequences of your own decisions.

The bottom-line is this. If you truly believe in personal responsibility (which I tend to doubt, given the excuses for bad behavior you have made so far), you hold people who have a toxic influence in the lives of others accountable too. Your conception of "personal responsibility" is deeply flawed to the extent that just because X is to be held accountable, that doesn't mean that Y, the toxic influence, should not also be held accountable.

See, personal responsibility is not a scarce resource. There is enough for everyone. That X made what you call a "volitional" decision to commit suicide (and I think that is probably not a very important perspective on suicide compared to other perspectives) that emphatically does not mean that Y should not be held accountable if Y "egged" X on. Even if X's decision was "volitional," Y, the toxic influence, really is still a bad guy. Something you seem to deny here ("we don't always find a 'bad guy'")

A final point. I am not sure what you think the significance of the word "DRAMA" is. If you could elaborate further on this, I would be interested. Is this word your way of trying to shift all blame from Y, the adult, to X the 13-year old emotionally unstable girl?

You know what, maybe the girl is to "blame" for her "volitional" decision. But, you know one thing that is really nice about blame aka "accountability" aka "personal responsibility" is that it doesn't need to be shifted. There is plenty to go around! Personal responsibility is an unlimited resource that can be tapped into over and over again to hold more and more people accountable for the impact of their actions on others. Oh yes indeed. You can assign all the blame you want to a 13-year old emotionally unstable adolescent, but that doesn't mean there isn't enough "personal responsibility" left for others. You don't have to treat personal responsibility as such a scare resource such that if it is "shifted" to the 13-year old there is not enough and as good left for others. There is plenty where that came from! I say this as a true believer in personal responsibility, not as someone inclined to let people off the hook (i.e. "we don't always need to find a 'bad guy' to blame")

You know what, this reminds me of the story you told earlier about the 14-year old girl and the two 30-year old men. I guess, unfortunately, their actions were legal in Hawaii at the time. But you know what. They deserve to be shot. Even if the 14-year old's actions were "volitional" these men were nothing more than predators. These predators deserve to be punished very harshly, even though I would be the first to agree that it is beyond the power of the state to do so if they did not violate any laws. Like I said, I believe in personal responsibility. My question is this. Do you?

obvious:

Is Mr. O'Brien of the opinion that no crime would have been committed had Drew used the public mails instead of the Internet? IANAL, so maybe there are already laws against so using the public mails. How about if Drew just slipped messages on paper under Megan's front door? How bizarre that one's loss of liberty would hinge on HOW one delivered an upsetting message.

I think this is a really good question, and I haven't seen it asked before (although I haven't read all the other Drew threads). I hope someone will try to answer it.

Winstontwo,

In an earlier thread, you argued that I was an apologist for lawlessless by not taking every opportunity to object as strongly as possible to the Bush Administrtaion's violations of the law and expansions of government power on principle:

Put simply: when your government is engaging in a wholesale unlawful torture of citizens and non-citizens, abridgement of fundamental rights, and so forth and you don't at least denounce those activities at every opportunity you have - you are an APOLOGIST.

Now, in the Lori Drew case, I am taking on the Bush Administration and fighting their lawless theory that would give the government the power to pick up and lock away anyone in the country who uses the Internet. I am working pro bono to protect civil liberties in this country against the Bush Administration's claim of extraordinary power that every former DOJ computer crime prosecutor has rejected. And yet now your response is to defend DOJ, dismiss the views of career DOJ lawyers who oppose the prosecution, and instead criticize those of us who are taking it on:

Gee, I did not know that guilt or innocence was determined by a poll of former DOJ prosecutors.

Your elitist contempt for the jury system is just stunning.

Winstontwo, I suppose the obvious question is, when did you decide to become an apologist for the Bush Administration's lawlessness? And why?

David Welker wrote:

If you are so into "personal responsibility" why not take responsibility for the impact your actions have on the emotional well-being of others?

This may seem like a nit-pick but I think it is at the core of the issue. There is a significant difference between taking responsibility for the impact one's actions have on the emotional well-being of others and taking responsibility for the destructive choices which follow. I agree with the former, but I am not sure I generally agree with the latter. After all, I don't really want every bad decision I have ever made to be someone else's fault.

Being responsible for being cruel is different from being responsible for someone committing suicide in response to that cruelty. Even if one says one is responsible for some small part in the resulting tragedy I might or might not agree depending on circumstances. However I am hard-pressed to imagine a case where I would hold someone fully responsible for someone else's suicide.

What do you think of the cases where someone has committed suicide after being "egged on" by strangers over the internet. Like this case.

Do you really think that it only happened because the individual was egged on? What other factors went into it?

The bottom-line is this. If you truly believe in personal responsibility (which I tend to doubt, given the excuses for bad behavior you have made so far), you hold people who have a toxic influence in the lives of others accountable too. Your conception of "personal responsibility" is deeply flawed to the extent that just because X is to be held accountable, that doesn't mean that Y, the toxic influence, should not also be held accountable.

Ok, let's move this to another level. My aunt (a public defender) once defended someone who was on trial for armed robbery. Of course he claimed it was someone else's fault and that he committed armed robbery in self defence. Before you laugh, your theory of personal responsibility would probably have backed his claim. His girlfriend was pregnant and her father apparently threatened to kill him if he didn't pay for an abortion. So since he didn't have money, he committed armed robbery to secure it. Under your theory of personal responsibility, the guy isn't responsible for the crime he committed-- his girlfriend's father is the one who should be on trial not only for the threat but also for the resulting crime since the perpetrator's action was conditioned by the communications he received from his girlfriend's father. But I don't I don't think anyone really believes that, despite the fact that a verbal threat to kill someone is likely to be far more psychologically traumatic (and hence more toxic) than a message that reads "the world is better off without you."

Such a view undermines real personal responsibility and the only way to get to a point where one holds people really accountable is to hold everyone responsible for every word one says in every way as well as every type of private contact (for example, who one marries). Who is responsible for making these judgements? These questions lead us inevitably back to Plato's vision in Republic-- a vision which was clearly the template for Khomeni's Iran but even then fell short in terms of governmental influence and lack of personal liberty.

We need to draw the line at actions. Suicide is an action, therefore the responsibility lies with the actor. Cruelty is a category of actions, so responsibility for this lies with the actor.

Correction on Yates v. US. It was the US Supreme Court which remanded and instructed a verdict of acquittal.

The decision was made that instructing people that there was a moral duty in the abstract to overthrow the US Government was protected speech under the first amendment, so the Smith Act had to be interpreted as encouraging specific actions, not mere beliefs.

david... what ein said.

just as human beings naturally try to find patterns and order where there is none, we also naturally looks to seek causes for effects, and people to blame when bad stuff happens.

i don't think you get it. lori drew sucks. morally, she sucks. but she isn't a CRIMINAL. similarly, the two 30 yr old guys suck. but they aren't criminals. do you grok the difference.

a big part of this has to do with infantilizing (is that a word) this 13 yr old girl. she still has free will, and accountability for her actions.

believe it or not,i know a fair bit about suicidal and parasuicidal behavior, both from job experience and graduate school in counseling psychology. my experience, education, etc. inform my opinion.

ultimatehly, i'm a libertarian. people are responsible for their actions.

ozzy osbourne isn't responsible for teen suicide btw.

lori drew, and the two 30 yr old men both SUCK. but they aren't CRIMINALS. do you get the distinction?

you are dealing with this emotionally, not logically. you see a dead 13 yr old girl, who probably never harmed a fly and thus... you want justice/revenge/somebody to blame.

understandable.

but irrelevant to the legal issues.

and of course cases like this make bad law, and i am sure we will see (if we haven't already) a spate of "cyber bullying" laws to make people feel better.
read again what ein says. he says it eloquently.

my views may sound sympathyless and cruel, but they are not. i don't want to see anybody kill themself, and i have personally seen somebody draw a gun and blow themself away while i stood about 5 feet from them. it sucks. but there is not always a criminal to blame. in fact, usually there isn't.

There ought to be a good business in creating web sites that are likely to be accessed, putting terms of service requiring payment of, say, $1000, snooping personal information to identify accessor info, and then sending nastigrams demanding payment or slse.

Heck, it doesn't matter if the feds really will prosecute anyone you refer to them. The question is how plausible can you make the nastigram. All those Nigerians can't be completely wrong. Someone will have to eventually fall for it and pay up. And as long as one has a plausible legal case, it would seem a completely legal business.

With regard to this case that seems to stipulate that creating an account with a pseudonym is a criminally prosecutable violation of the Terms of Service for any site, I have a few questions:

Is maliciousness or intent to violate a law an element of the offense;

Is this the internet equivalent of trespassing or providing a false name;

Is it commonplace that a citizen be criminally prosecuted for giving a false name to a commercial business in a civil contract if they do not commit fraud or benefit financially;

If the victim of the trespass is the provider, don't they need to swear out the complaint and doesn't this preclude the government from acting without the consent of the provider;

Most violations of trespassing are only prosecutable if the violator has positive notice that his actions are criminal. Towards that, a first warning to leave is generally required before an arrest is made, even if the property is posted, with many jurisdictions requiring a written warning;

If the ToS contract stipulates the conditions for use and they stipulate that the remedy for violation is the potential for cancellation, but nothing else, isn't that the extent of the actions they are limited to for the violation;

If criminal sanctions are a consequence, shouldn't that be clearly stated in the ToS, i.e. a trespass (unauthorized access) warning and the relevant federal statutes, i.e. full disclosure. If not, isn't a cease and desist remedy necessary prior to prosecution;

As a provider, isn't there some responsibility on their part to be aware of the relevant federal statutes and identify them in the ToS, or even provide a link;

If the provider allows access to their services without some affirmative attempt to request proof of valid identity and eligibility, doesn't that make them, at some level, vicariously liable for the access to that system. Somebody protecting a computer or server certainly wouldn't allow casual access without proof of identity and need;

In approving wholesale access to sites without requiring proof of identity or by stipulating civil remedies as the only recourse in the contract, aren't the providers failing to exercise due care bordering on entrapment;

I am unaware that a civil ToS violation, in and of itself, has ever been considered a criminal offense. Criminal intent and malicious behavior are usually elements of a crime;

Is it a defense to prosecution that your intent is to create an account to access a site where you are afraid disclosing your true identity might subject you to activity such as stalking, identity theft, harassment, or other such threatening behavior (like Myspace);

The vagueness of the statute and the ability to apply it to applications that were apparently never the intent of the Congress is deeply troubling. Laws cannot be vague and malleable if the ultimate outcome is the deprivation of life or liberty. One MUST be aware of the criminal consequences of an act if they are to be held criminally accountable.

On the net, every discussion on this issue seems to devolve into an emotional discussion of the behavior of Drew. It loses sight of the dangerous application of a law in a manner destined to open the floodgates to criminalizing what amounts to bad judgment. Drew's behavior is reprehensible, but should that justify the wholesale criminalization of a large segment of our society with no prior notice the behavior is illegal and not contractual?

I worry where this will end. If I loan my Costco card to my neighbor in violation of the ToS and in utilizing it Costco's becomes aware, will they have him arrested? Will they indict me? Are we guilty of a criminal conspiracy to defraud Costco's? (I don't have a Costco's card BTW and have no idea what their ToS states) At what level does an offense escalate to imprisonment? Isn't the intent of law to mete justice commensurate to the offense?

I agree that not reading the ToS is no defense if you state you did by clicking on yes. It is presumptive. It is also presumptive that the contract is complete, to include clear violations and penalties with no surprises. To create law in the manner in which this case has done smacks of Ex Post Facto. How many hundreds of thousands of people, or more, are now criminals awaiting discovery and prosecution? How many are in violation and have been for years believing that termination of the account was the only mutually agreed upon contractual remedy? That's one helluva Sword of Damocles.

Or am I just completely clueless?

something else i have been thinking of.

assume that the victim in this case was a 13 yr old boy and not a 13 yr old girl, that lori drew et al masqueraded as a young girl instead of a young boy, etc. iow, just change the genders of the victim and the (fictional) counterpart created by drew.

i wonder if people would be as sympathetic. people just see 13 yr old girl and it's VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM.

is there some latent sexism here? iow, a 13 yr old girl is so prone to be manipulated etc. in matters of romance vs. a boy?

it's an interesting question. frankly, i'm not quite sure if meier's gender plays a part in our sympathy for her. i would hope not. iow, i would hope that the fact that she is seen as such a helpless victim here is not due , in part at least, to her gender, as well as her age.

Under your theory of personal responsibility, the guy isn't responsible for the crime he committed-- his girlfriend's father is the one who should be on trial not only for the threat but also for the resulting crime since the perpetrator's action was conditioned by the communications he received from his girlfriend's father.

I suppose you did not read very carefully. I already addressed this. I said we should hold people accountable. As I said, personal responsibility is not a scarce resource. There is enough for everybody. Of course, the guy is responsible for his crime. And the father is responsible for making inappropriate threats. They both contributed to the negative outcome (although I am not usually in favor of formally punishing people for negative outcomes of their actions that are very unforeseeable).

If someone does make a credible threat on the life of another (and I am not sure what the facts are here), I would say they definitely contributed to the problem.

Now, of course, to what extent we take people who contribute to problems and hold them accountable formally in the legal system is another issue. For that, we do not want the chain of causation to become too thin. Nor do we want usually want to hold people formally accountable for chains of causation that are not foreseeable.

Formal punishment aside, people need to take full responsibility for their words and actions. To me, whit was using rhetoric that suggested otherwise. (We don't always need to find a 'bad guy.') It sounded as though the fact that someone takes a volitional action somehow lessens the responsibility of other actors. I do not think that at all.

Now, it is clear that whit has clarified that in this case, he is not necessarily saying that someone who does something like this is a "bad guy," only that in his opinion they should not be formally punished.

whit,

I am not sure if we disagree or not. I certainly agree with much of what you say. But, we might still have a few more disagreements that I think are interesting.

a big part of this has to do with infantilizing (is that a word) this 13 yr old girl. she still has free will, and accountability for her actions.

Your rhetoric suggests that if X is held responsible (we hold the the 13 year old girl responsible) we have to hold Y less responsible. I don't think is true. I think we can hold both X and Y fully responsible. That basic idea is really the point I am making.

Now, in general, I would not hold the Ys of the world who "egg on" the Xs of the world to commit suicide fully responsible. In most cases, I do not think that charges of manslaughter or anything of the sort is appropriate. But, the reason I think that doesn't have anything to do with how much blame we either do or do not heap onto X for the suicide. It has to do with issues of foreseeability and issues of causation. Let us say that X is not very blameworthy for the suicide - X was very uncontrollably mentally disturbed - or let us say that X is very blameworthy for the suicide - X is committing the act to hurt someone else. The blame we heap on X for the act, except to the extent that X's actions are related to the issues of foreseeability and causation, has no bearing on how blameworthy Y is.

In either case, Y might be very blameworthy, or not very much at all.

Let us say that X is less blameworthy. X is uncontrollably mentally unstable. Y would be more blameworthy if he knew that X was mentally unstable and it was more foreseeable that X would act in response to Y's efforts to "egg on" X. In contrast, Y would be less blameworthy if Y knew nothing about X's history and reasonably thought Y was acting or joking.

Let us say that X is more blameworthy. X is more mentally stable (keeping in mind that suicide itself is a sign of mental instability), but wants to commit suicide to emotionally harm someone else, perhaps in revenge. Y would be more blameworthy if Y knew that X was credible in his plans, and encourages him, suggesting that suicide was the perfect way to get revenge. In contrast, Y would be less blameworthy if, again, he reasonably thought X was just letting off steam and completely not serious.

So, that is how I see it. Personal responsibility or blame is not necessarily a scarce resource. In general (1) it is possible that both X and Y are to blame to a high degree, or (2) X is to blame to a high degree and not Y, or (3) Y is to blame to a high degree but not X, or (4) neither is to blame to a high degree. And in general, you have to look to the issues of foreseeability and causation and assess the actions of X and Y individually.

That we hold X accountable does not mean that we are not also holding Y accountable. Right?

If we hold Y accountable for "egging on" a suicide, that doesn't mean that we are letting X off the hook. You seem to suggest as much (and perhaps I am just interpreting you incorrectly) when you say that holding Y accountable is to "infantilize" X. No, that isn't true! It is not only the case that there is only one person to blame, or that the blaming of X either increases or decreases the blaming of Y or vice-versa. These have to be assessed independently.

but there is not always a criminal to blame. in fact, usually there isn't.

I certainly agree with this as a general matter. The relevance of this general point when it comes to assessing particular situations is rather low, however.

but the responsibilities must be limited to actions only

Limiting responsibilities to actions only does not make sense. If something is foreseeable and easily preventable, then your failure to act is a choice. A choice with consequences.

I think the reason that it sometimes seems like it makes sense to hold people less responsible for inaction is because the consequences of inaction usually are less foreseeable than the consequences of action. But, in some cases, the consequences of inaction are quite foreseeable.

If you are in the driver's seat of your car driving along and you decide not to swerve and not to brake and in fact not to do anything at all when you see children playing in the street because you have a definite preference to see those children dead, that is a choice with consequences for which you should be held accountable. The issue is not one of action versus inaction, the issue is one of foreseeability and causation.

I'm fascinated by the ongoing philosophical debate here, but I'm also wondering what impact the verdict will have on Internet behavior and practices. Will the verdict change the way you participate in social media? Will it change the way attorneys counsel clients? http://craigchval.wordpress.com/

I just "outlawed" all U.S. Attorneys, et al, to our domain in our Terms Of Service. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You conclusiont hat suicide is "totally forseeable" is the conclusory opinion that all of the ends oriented, put-drew-in-jail-for-life types rely on.

Thinking that she ought to take her 3 misdemeanor convictions with likely no jail time and simply walk away is not bloodlust or advocating "jail for life".

Thanks for this post; the only reason I got online tonight was to see if you'd commented on this! Leaving satisfied.

Thinking that she ought to take her 3 misdemeanor convictions with likely no jail time and simply walk away is not bloodlust or advocating "jail for life".

She probably ought to for the simple sake of getting on with her life, if that was the main goal of this. Maybe she will do so. However, she probably does want to beat the charges, and may be willing to suffer additional stress to do so.

Also, I think she ought to fight them just because this is a dangerous precedent and, being selfish, I don't want my involvement helping my son look stuff up on Google to become a federal crime.

So I guess the libertarian position is that it is wrong for government agents to waterboard terrorists, but OK for private citizens to torment teenage girls to help their daughter take revenge in a silly spat.

So I guess the libertarian position is that it is wrong for government agents to waterboard terrorists, but OK for private citizens to torment teenage girls to help their daughter take revenge in a silly spat.

That's just silly. Surely you can understand the difference between agreeing that something is morally reprehensible and agreeing that it should be illegal or is illegal under current law.

Do you believe that every morally reprehensible thing should be subject to punishment by the state?

I have another question regarding jury instructions.

The government's proposed instructions (which I found at http://www.citmedialaw.org) gave four conditions for finding that Drew accessed a computer "without authorization or in excess of authorization" (page 8, starting at line 25). The last condition is that the purpose was to further a tortious act.

If this is the government's argument, then it seems less offensive than what was being discussed above, which was that simply violating TOS is a federal crime on its own. If I'm reading this correctly, the government is instead arguing that violating TOS for the purpose of committing a tortious act is a crime. That's debatable as well, but doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea.

But it doesn't look like the government's suggestion is what actually happened here. From what I can tell, and also from what Orin says, the jury found Drew guilty of violating TOS *without* finding her guilty of committing the tortious act. So the judge must have issued instructions other than what the government proposed, which seems strange, because they seem even harsher. Is that correct? I guess we'll know more when we can see the actual instructions issued.

David Welker said "I would certainly give a mother whose daughter was abused in the manner you describe much more license before using the term "hissy fit.""

I disagree. Hawaiian society decided that 14-year old girls could have sex with with an adult, even two at a time. There was no abuse here. You may disagree, but that is not the way we do things in America

Legal and OK are not quite synonymous. In this case we can all disapprove of what Lori did (even helping with revenge) without saying the current law should be stretched to punish her for it.

The real issue has to do with the ideas regarding rule of law.

Indeed. It's amazing how often it happens that when a libertarian says "X shouldn't be a crime," the response from people on the left and/or right (depending on the topic) is "So you think X is okay?"

It's scary how many people think that anything they disapprove of ought to be illegal.

Megan Meier was all of thirteen (13) years old, Lori Drew was in her mid to late-forties and conspired with her daughter and Grill to harass and humiliate the thirteen year-old Meier in retribution for the latter's own harassing calls. Lori Drew is a sad case - even repulsive, given her age - but legal remedies do not seem to be appropriate in this case. Otoh, non-legal, community oriented censure and ostracization would seem absolutely condign; given the media reports of the community, however, it seems doubtful that will occur.

Rhetorically put, if Lori Drew is to be subject to legal remedy, then why aren't Megan Meier's parents subjected to legal remedy as well, for parental negligence?

I think it has to do with the gravity of the harm.

i think that's true, but only a bit of it. it also has to do with specificity, choice, etc.

contrary to the claims of some, we DO legislate morality (look at laws against bestiality and incest for example), as well as acts that cause others (or even the self) harm, generally.

we generally don't criminalize failure to act (when there is no special duty), lying (especially about relationships, love, etc. exceptions are when there is some sort of financial scheme or we are dealing with sworn testimony), being mean, being cruel, etc.

i deal with complaints of "harassment" all the time, and citizens frequently want sally smith arrested for "being mean" and i frequently have to disabuse them of the notion that being a pain in the keister is not a crime.

there ARE remedies when somebody is being mean to you - tell them to stop contacting you, and if they don't - get a anti-harassment order. i've argued this numerous times in other cases.

the drew case is unique from the above in that the whole meanness was done through the artifice of a false identity.

that's great. but...

it also shouldn't be illegal for a woman to pick up a guy in a bar by pretending to be all sorts of things she isn't (employment wise, past history wise, etc.), saying that she loves him when she doesn't, and tricking him into sex (feel free to reverse genders as well).

say that a particular vindictive lori drew'esque woman led you to think she loved you, you bought her lots of stuff, and then she dumped you and said the world would be better off w/o you. does ANYBODY think this should be a crime? even if you decided to kill yourself because of what she said/did? of course not.

just because somebody does this over the internet doesn't change things.

essentially people have the right to be annoying, creatively so or not. in the drew case, the "victim" voluntarily corresponded with drew etc. and she got taken for a ride. very mean. but not illegal.

it also shouldn't be illegal for a woman to pick up a guy in a bar by pretending to be all sorts of things she isn't (employment wise, past history wise, etc.), saying that she loves him when she doesn't, and tricking him into sex (feel free to reverse genders as well).

Why should it be okay to get sex by lying, but not get someone to give money by lying? Surely the harm done may be greater in some cases where it is a sexual relationship that is entered into wrongly than in cases where what is lost is financial.

I am speculating here. But I am going to guess that people just did not think it was proper to have sex outside of marriage and so did not want to dignify the interest here. Further, it would be too socially embarrassing to bring such a claim. My guess is the reason this interest is not protected is historical.

I wouldn't have a problem with a law that provided a punishment for lying in order to induce someone to have sex. I do not see it as significantly different from other types of fraud -- just as with financial fraud, I do not think the consent is truly freely given. I do not see any benefit from protecting the ability of someone to lie and commit a sort of fraud.

Now, of course, there is an issue of what is a "material" lie is in this context. There are some administrative complications there to be sure. But, I do not see those as being much more severe than in making this determination regarding financial fraud.

I wouldn't have a problem with a law that provided a punishment for lying in order to induce someone to have sex. I do not see it as significantly different from other types of fraud -- just as with financial fraud, I do not think the consent is truly freely given. I do not see any benefit from protecting the ability of someone to lie and commit a sort of fraud.

So if non-consentual sex is rape, and consent is not freely given, then an error by omissions (oops, one of the parties failed to mention he/she was married) becomes the basis of a rape charge?

In rare cases, I think that fraudulently gaining consent may raise to the level of rape, but those would be truly rare cases (for example the case in the UK of the doctor telling patients it was the only way to apply certain medicines). However, those are extremely rare and would involve some additional factors not generally found elsewhere.

Why should it be okay to get sex by lying, but not get someone to give money by lying?

because "all is fair in love and war" but not theft.

also, refer to the latin

caveat schtuppor

Regardless, I do not have a problem making this a crime of some sort.

i love threads like this because they CLEARLY demonstrate how incredibly unlibertarian some people are, how easily govt. powers can expand into the MOST personal areas of our lives, and how people fail to recognize that much that is morally suspect should not be within the realm of the govt. to investigate, let alone prosecute.

i most definitely wouldn't want to live, or be a cop, in a country where the govt. had such powers.

remember, every time you make something illegal (do it for the children!) you generally increase govt. power to detain, arrest, investigate, and look into people's private affairs.

lying/exaggerating/cojoling/heck... begging for sex has been going on since the beginning of time. it is the job of parents to teach people (teach your daughters well) not to believe every slick lothario who comes along and to be the gatekeeper so to speak of your own "house".

it really disturbs me that you (and probably many others) are so quick to cede liberty like this.

I am definitely not persuaded.

david. i am not interested really (that's why i gave a quick snarky answer at first) in persuading people of such basic principles regarding liberty. they are either self-evident to you, and/or come through sufficient reflection and experience. i'm a libertarian. you CLEARLY are not. fair enough. it scares the crap out of me that people with your mindset exist, but i accept they do.

you are espousing the standard statist mindset. fair enough.

living in a land of liberty means you necessarily have to put up with mean people, liars, etc. without help from the govt. to punish them for such horrible offenses against your fragile person. that's part of the tradeoff of liberty. if we cede less power to govt. to interfere in such incredibly personal areas of our lives, we retain way more freedom, but have no LEGAL redress for when people are mean to us by (god forbid) lying to us about that they love us, or some such tripe.

a smarter man than me (possibly):) wrote a book many years ago where he defined thought-crime and sex-crime.

feel free to read it. it's pretty good. and a warning

"out money" = "our money"

whit,

I am not playing devil's advocate. I just disagree with you on this one. I don't see it as a loss of liberty to make it a crime to lie to steal, whether what is stolen is money or a sexual relationship. The government already investigates "sexual transactions" when necessary for a variety of other crimes (prostitution, allegations of rape, human trafficking, etc.) Furthermore, plenty of people would prefer it if the government did not investigate their financial transactions. For that matter, most people would prefer that the government not rifle through their personal drug stashes. The need to investigate a crime and incidentally uncover private information does not sound like a very compelling reason to make that which should otherwise be a crime not a crime. Such investigations are incidental.

Furthermore, while you are correct that private property is key to a free society, so is the right to have sex with only those you wish and no others. Private property would not disappear if we decriminalized financial fraud. Neither would the ability to have sex only you wish if sexual fraud is decriminalized. In both cases, we could have a system where people have to take care of themselves and be more careful and have no recourse when lied to and tricked.

And anyway, having criminal penalties doesn't solve all of the problems associated with being financially defrauded anyway. It is not like criminal penalties save us from having to be careful in our financial dealings. Yet, even though such laws do not even save us that trouble, we have laws against financial fraud.

Basically, there really is no convincing argument distinguishing these two cases. In both cases, our society could function without laws outlawing the fraud, whether financial or sexual. In both cases, intrusive investigations would be necessitated in cases where such laws were violated. In both cases, we could outlaw the fraud without undermining our status as a free society. There is no compelling need to preserve the "liberty" to lie to others in order to take from them.

In any case, I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree. But, I do think it is just a little over-the-top for you to assert that our difference of opinion is "scary." This case is not all that different from another case where you think criminal law is perfectly appropriate.

the fact that you can draw an equivalence and speak of a "stolen sexual relationship" shows the absurdity of your reasoning.

No, really, it doesn't. In both cases, something that belongs to someone else is taken through lying. In neither case is the "liberty" to lie to take something that does not belong to you from someone else something that needs to be protected.

I am afraid that mere name-calling (i.e. "absurdity," "statist," "sophistry" and most amusingly "non-libertarian") also does not qualify as argument.

I think you know your response does not qualify as argument. You just want to express your strong disagreement. I understand that.

this shows another fundamental misunderstanding. the intrusiveness necessary to investigate a "crime" is very relevant to policy issues of whether it should or shouldn't be outlawed.

Is the fact that we outlaw prostitution and pimping an indication that we have given up our liberty? Surely, people find it very intrusive to be arrested by vice squads when all they wanted was a good time sexually.

Do you find it "scary" that our society has outlawed prostitution? What about laws against knowingly giving others STDs? Too intrusive?

What about divorce proceedings? A lot of dirty laundry can come out in these. Is our society "scary" because of the intrusiveness of divorce proceedings?

I have an idea. If you are want to avoid intrusive investigations under a regime where fraud in order to obtain sexual benefits was illegal, may I suggest that you avoid any such fraud in the first place?? Yeah, an uncomfortable investigation could occur in cases of false accusations. But, this is true with respect to false accusations of rape, or false accusations of prostitution too.

Overall, I understand the need to draw lines to protect liberty. But, I think you are drawing them in all the wrong places.


P.S. -- You still haven't explained why we shouldn't just decriminalize financial fraud under your theory.

If ever there was a case for a bit of non-precedent-setting vigilante justice, the Lori Drew case is it.

Her behavior was totally reprehensible, and the possibility that she would spend eternity suffering is, for my money, a great reason to believe in hell and hope that she rots in it. If I had been Megan's parents, I suspect that I would have inflicted bodily injury (or worse) on Ms. Drew.

However, any visceral pleasure derived from seeing Ms. Drew get some portion of her just deserts is far outweighed by the damage that this verdict inflicts on the judicial system.

the point is that there is a qualitative difference between property stuff and sex stuff

Agreed. You can sell your property. You cannot legally sell sex. (Of course, the distinctions between prostitution and pornography do boggle the mind slightly, but now it is I who digresses.)

But, there are also similarities, and I think those similarities are quite significant. One significant thing about property is that you get to choose how to use it. It is the same with sex. You get to choose how to use that as well.

When someone lies to you and deceives you in order to influence your choices regarding your property for their own advantage, they are corrupting your choice. Your consent is not truly valid.

To me deceit to get money and deceit to get sex are quite similar. In both cases you are using deceit to take something from someone else. Something that does not belong to you. I think our right to choose who we have sex with and under what conditions we have sex is as important as our right to make decisions regarding what we do with our property or our money.

You keep on saying these things are different. But, you haven't yet really said how and why. Mostly you have made vague references to traditions within Western civilization (which as you have noted has evolved).

fwiw, we USED to have sort of a ownership aspect to sex in that men essentially owned their wives' sexuality and basically she had no say in the matter. note that the jewish religious tradition is almost the reverse in that it is the duty of the male to provide same to his spouse but i digress.

Interesting digression. I will note that the modern trend, I still think we still have a "sort of" ownership in sex (not that we call sell it). Only instead of our husbands or wives owning our sexuality, we ourselves "own" our sexuality.

your divorce example is irrelevant because that's a civil proceeding and the disagreement is over CRIMINAL sanctions for what you deem to be a sexual fraud.

I don't think it is irrelevant. In civil proceedings, coercion is used to reveal information that people would prefer to keep private. It can be every bit as invasive as a criminal investigation.

There is a difference in what the information is used for in civil cases versus criminal cases of course. But, in both cases private information is obtainable via coercion.

This is certainly relevant when you say, well, I don't think it should be a crime, because of the investigation that results. Well, we already have other proceedings with intrusive investigations.

I think that if what I call sexual fraud should be a crime, whether investigations are intrusive or not is rather incidental. If someone accuses you of knowingly or purposely giving them an STD, there is the possibility of an intrusive investigation. If someone accuses you of rape, there might be an intrusive investigation. If you are accused of pimping or prostitution, there might be an intrusive investigation. So, I think the real issue is primarily one of whether the act itself should be a crime or not. Finally, many people might find investigations of finances to be every bit as intrusive as these other investigations. Are investigations into drug use and drug dealing intrusive? I would say so.

people like you would dissolve that distinction and turn every wronged man and woman who felt tricked/deceived/lied to by a partner into VICTIMS

First of all, when someone does trick, deceive, or lie to you (they actually did it, you don't just "feel" that way) to get either sex or property you would not otherwise give them, you ARE a victim, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

Second, notice the subtle rhetorical move you make, constructing something of a straw man. You are talking about people who "feel" defrauded. Well, in reality, I do not want to make law based on mere feelings. It is not a crime to make someone "feel" financially defrauded. It is a crime to actually financially defraud someone. My standards would be no different when it comes to sexual fraud.

Third, "people like you" would turn people who are tricked/deceived/lied to about a material matter when it costs them money into VICTIMS...

That is a good thing. Because they ARE victims.

we don't criminalize adultery (or cheating on your boyfriend/girlfriend), fwiw, despite the fact that we recognize it's wrong. and we don't accept sexual contracts for sex in exchange for X as binding, whereas we do accept contracts for property stuff all the time. a guy in WA state was recently convicted for rape, and he had the participants sign a contract in regards to allowing him to have sex with him in exchange for room, board, etc.

iow, we view sex DIFFERENTLY than property. it is a qualitative distinction that every western society i am aware of makes.

I agree with you that we don't treat these things differently. And rightly so. But that doesn't resolve the question at hand. Why shouldn't we be as protected from sexual fraud just as we are from financial fraud. It is not as though either interest is anything less than fundamental. And it is not as if either interest absolutely needs to be protected.

This is actually a somewhat unusual argument for a libertarian. It seems like most libertarians I talk to want to treat sex more like property (i.e. legalizing prostitution, not acknowledging the concept of obscenity, etc.)

Your point about adultery is interesting. Actually, adultery is still a crime in some jurisdictions, though usually not prosecuted. Not that I think it should be (see, I really do agree with the idea that law and morality should not overlap completely -- shocking, I know). What does this tell us about the traditions of western civilization that you keep on citing? Yes, western civilization has distinguished between sex and property. But traditionally not always in ways that either of us would agree with. Now that those distinctions are evolving, the question is what principles should guide us in that evolution.

Well, criminal adultery statutes protect an entirely different interest than what I propose to protect. Instead of protecting the interest of an individual in the sexual behavior of another individual, I propose to protect the interest of an individual in their own sexual autonomy. Consent is not truly freely given when deceit, lies, or trickery is involved.

Anyway, here is all I have to say. We will probably continue to disagree. I am nearly sure of that. But, if my view were to be implemented, that would not be the end of western civilization. Indeed, some would think that the view that adultery is now considered immoral but not criminal would be the end of western civilization. They were wrong. May I suggest that our disagreement likewise does not have the dramatic overtones that you suggested earlier.

P.S. - Just for the record, you still haven't explained why financial fraud should be a crime. Why isn't this just something we think is immoral, like adultery? Why not just have civil lawsuits as the only remedy? Why even have civil lawsuits? We have neither criminal nor civil sanctions for sexual fraud. Surely, the institution of private property would survive just fine without either criminal or civil sanctions for financial fraud. Especially as people need to be careful about such fraud anyway. What is the theory? Aren't the investigations that result from allegations of financial fraud intrusive?

Feel free to answer these questions, if you are up for the challenge. I don't expect you to. I just wanted to note the issues you haven't addressed but would need to address to truly make a satisfying distinction between financial and sexual fraud.

If you can't contract for sex, you can't defraud someone out of sex. Defrauding would require violating the terms of the agreement. If we are prohibiting sex for compensation, we cannot criminalize sex without promised compensation. It strikes me as a logical absurdity to "defraud" someone out of sex.

If you cannot trade sex for compensation, you cannot turn around and claim the compensation was inadequate.

More David Welker points:

But, there are also similarities, and I think those similarities are quite significant. One significant thing about property is that you get to choose how to use it. It is the same with sex. You get to choose how to use that as well.

When someone lies to you and deceives you in order to influence your choices regarding your property for their own advantage, they are corrupting your choice. Your consent is not truly valid.

...

To me deceit to get money and deceit to get sex are quite similar. In both cases you are using deceit to take something from someone else. Something that does not belong to you. I think our right to choose who we have sex with and under what conditions we have sex is as important as our right to make decisions regarding what we do with our property or our money.

Ok. So let's take this a step further. Your main point is that we have complete autonomy over our sexual lives to a certain point (absent crimes such as prostitution, adultery, wrongful seduction, and the like. though these vary strongly from one jurisdiction to another).

The same can be clearly said for nearly every other action we can make. If I trick you into making a political endorsement in the radio or on your blog that you might not otherwise have made, the same logic would seem to apply-- that I am using deceit to obtain something that is not rightfully mine.

So why limit this to sex? Why not make deception a crime in all cases? Every lie punishable by up to a year in prison?

ein, you got my back, man. these are much better points than i was making.

i knew welker's ideas were totally lame, but i wasn't as eloquent in noting the problems with it.

The content of a publication has First Amendment immunity, in a series of tort cases against books that caused damage. A chemistry book caused a lab explosion. A cookbook sickened people. A travel book failed to warn, the giant surf of Hawaii could hurt people. A mushroom encyclopedia caused liver failure by labeling a wild mushroom as safe. These did not even involve a fictional character. This case also criminalizes any fictional publication that induces a damaging behavior in any reader.

The exception was a pilot's map that resulted in a plane crash into a mountain. It was deemed a tool, like a compass, and not a publication (Jeppesen).

I have devoted a separate post to David Welker's question:

How does one go about drawing a principled line between financial fraud and sexual fraud?

Ok. As I have mentioned, there are cases where sexual fraud can rise to the level of a crime in my opinion where laws ought to make an offence punishable. After careful consideration I have come to agree with you that there is no such line, but that the severity of fraud does not apply to the original example, unless you make just about any lie punishable as fraud.

Ok, if I go around to strangers in a bar asking for $10 each with the promise to come back and pay a week later, and I don't, it is unlikely that this will rise to the level of a crime, even if there is an attempt to prosecute. At best that is a civil contract violation, even if I had no intention of paying the money back.

Given that sexual activity has no saleable worth by law, it would be inappropriate to use the same standard for sexual fraud. How do you determine when a lie is bad enough to make it criminal?

Similarly in rare circumstances financial fraud (substitute $10 with $10k, and offering to pay $100k back the next week and making this in bad faith) might be appropriate. Pyramid schemes for example would involve this.

But note that most financial lies are not fraud. For example, if a multi-level marketing firm touts the examples of their founders' wealth as attainable through their program, this is a lie. It is not fraud however.

Now, are there cases where sexual fraud can exist? Yes. For example, suppose a psychiatrist tells his attractive female patients that sexual intercourse with him is the only way to cure her of her problems, or suppose a physician tells his patient that it is the only way to apply some sort of medicine. However here you have a special duty which is dismissed and abused.

Most sexual contracts (as opposed to financial contracts) are void. In many states, however, marriage is a sexual contract (New York, for example, recognizes an unwillingness to have sexual relations with one's spouse for more than 1 year as a form of abandonment for purposes of at-fault divorce proceedings) Hence it is difficult to apply the same ideas to sexual activity in the absence of marriage, though in unusual circumstances, it might apply.

In short, perhaps there isn't a principled line, but it still would not generally apply to picking up men or women in a bar under nearly all circumstances imaginable.

Wintontwo:

Apparently you do not see that there is any difference between illegal policies that are promulgated by the Bush Administration (e.g. torture, imprisonment without charges, etc.) and the application of a statute enacted by congress.

The congressional record made it very clear that the statute enacted by congress was aimed at a problem other than terms of service violations.

illegal torture regime policies promulgated by the Bush administration.

begging the question 101.

being a scum-sucking bitch isn't illegal

Exactly. The girl's life may have been sad, but this case is silly.

Since the earliest BBS, sock-puppets have been a way of internet life, and TOS a waste of bandwidth.

If there simply must be legal action, parents who turn their kids loose on the internet are probably guilty of reckless endangerment.

Nevertheless, teenagers committed suicide before the internet, and parents will always look for someone else to blame, some outside incident; otherwise, they would have to blame themselves.