Mo. lawmakers vote to bar Internet harassment

I agree! I read about this story several months ago and was appalled at this womans actions. It's like this woman never left high school. Shame on her.

I remember when I first heard about this story. Heart-breaking and frightening all at once. Hopefully there will be justice.

tragic story...

There ought to be a predator law that applies here. What if Drew were male and opened the account for the same reason, to obtain information about Megan? Certainly he'd get prosecuted under several different laws. The authorities shouldn't have to dig into some obscure cyber hacking statute to find something that sticks.

I have to agree with you.

This woman knew what was going on and allowed it to happen......she bears great responsibility in the death of this young lady.

Sadly, nothing will bring this child back.........

I hope this sends a message to those who mis-represent themselves to others in the invisible world of the Internet.

I hope this shows parents, teen, and some adults, that the Internet, though a wonderful and entertaining tool, is not regulated and is not always what it can appear to be.

I can also see a civil lawsuit coming from this. Not for any profit or enrichment, but for punishment.

replytoj001

I'm happy to see the charges, as well. Murder charges wouldn't stick, but I'm betting these do.

Her malicious intent was a chilling indicator of what kind of woman she wanted to be known as, and I'd like to see her spend more than a few years in prison thinking about that.

I just can't wait to see the Law & Order episode they base this on.

*CHUNG-CHUNG*

Wow, that's harsh... You must have been there to know for certain that the deceased's parents actually didn't try to communicate with her. Because when the original story broke, they wre on record saying they tried to communicate with her, but she was unwilling. Not to mention that they monitored her myspace account from the get-go. Chock that on top of the victim's documented ADD and depression, and I would argue they were able to do the best they could.

Want to throw wild lynching desires, let's get Rupert Murdoch for buying Myspace in the first place. Or how about everyone's friend, Tom. Surely he could be hanged.

quixiotic
Want to throw wild lynching desires, let's get Rupert Murdoch for buying Myspace in the first place. Or how about everyone's friend, Tom. Surely he could be hanged.

I didn't mean that literally, lol.

I think it is a crime, or they wouldn't be going after her. I hope that they throw the book at her, or two or three if they can. What this lady did was wrong and she should pay for her crimes. The poor young girl and her family have already payed the ultimate price.

I'm missing the criminal intent as well. Did anyone really want her dead?

When someone dies as a result of someone else's actions there's almost always an "aggravated" something you can charge them with or a "negligent" something charge.

Based on my extensive knowledge of such things derived from watching "Law and Order," I believe the appropriate term is "depraved indifference to human life," and I hope they throw the book at her.

When someone dies as a result of someone else's actions there's almost always an "aggravated" something you can charge them with or a "negligent" something charge.

Certainly so. I don't really know the background on this enough to go against the masses in this public indictment. Definitely an adult playing mind games with a child is wrong, and I suppose the subsequent suicide places blood on her hands. I'm not here trying to necessarily defend the lady, as she seems like an idiot.

I guess I'm worried about the precedent being set in mere words becoming bullets that can get you charged with murder. I would hate for a discussion on the vine to later get me involved in a court case. That type of thing. Obviously this lady is guilty of a deeper misconduct than words, but it is teetering precariously on the verge of revenge for that which can't be avenged or explained. Suicide is always deeper than something one other person can be blamed or held accountable for.

Well, I think there's a difference of gaining control of a young, impressionable person and then drilling into their head the world would be better off without them, tell them they can commit suicide, etc. as opposed to other conversation conducted on the Internet.

Still words.

I believe the appropriate term is "depraved indifference to human life," and I hope they throw the book at her.

Sue, The woman is saying she didn't do it. I'm really shocked to see YOU joining the NV Ox Bow Incident lynch mob assembling here.

Darro:
How is this any different from the culpability someone would have if they convinced someone else to kill their husband? The killer and the person that convinced them to do it both get charged with the murder. I fail to see the difference. Is the difference the girl took her own life? Welllll, that's another matter. Doesn't count when you incite someone to kill themselves, only someone else. :-P

Scott - In case I ever deviate from this stance, my initial confession here is I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS.

But if we set this precedent, then I'd venture to guess any man who kills himself should look from the afterlife and see his wife indicted.

This case is a young, impressionable child versus a clear demon. I don't care if the lady gets beat up and eats Ramen soup for the rest of her life.

Just the internet being unchartered territory in re prosecution, I am fearful this first ruling may set the stage for a lot of blame and revenge in future cycles. You seem to feel awfully strong about this case and this lady, so perhaps she SHOULD wear orange jumpsuits eternally.

Again, I've seen court cases (OJ Simpson) where the burden of proof was such that we couldn't convict a cold blooded murderer. Don't want to see courts start letting too many words in or we'll have a Bigger Brother legal system that does more of what they want instead of what runs consistent with the old parchment up yonder called the US Constitution.

Darro:
The reason I am so damn obstinate about this case is twofold:
1) I hate adults preying on children, sexually or otherwise
2) I dealt with someone telling an ex-gf that the world would be better off without her and that she should run a warm bath and slit her wrists. His repeated comments like this really rattled her at which point I placed a telephone call to him and told him that if he ever talked to her again that I would come find him and he would not enjoy the encounter by any means

My simple point here is that an adult ought to know better than to treat a child like this and this woman should be charged with first degree murder because she premeditated to present herself as someone else, get close to this girl and then drive her to suicide. I really don't see how this could be viewed in any other light, honestly. I also don't think this opens the door for any of us to get persecuted for our words on the Internet because the precedent is set that if your words directly cause someone's death you are just as responsible as if you killed them yourself. It doesn't matter if the medium is the telephone, the US Postal Service or the Internet.

I dealt with someone telling an ex-gf that the world would be better off without her and that she should run a warm bath and slit her wrists.

Yeah, there are some sick f*cks out there. This verbal abuse can often lead to real physical abuse, or even violence that leads to murders etc. When a grown-up does it to a child, it's so much more frightening, though it's awful no matter what the case.

Predators should be punished, and harshly. Every single predator should be used as an example so that maybe, just maybe, that fear of punishment will deter some of these people from committing these atrocities....

I do agree that anyone who messes with someone in a life struggle should have dear consequences to pay. I tend to rely on conscience and God or karma to bring them their justice - When the law is not clear enough to do it on its own.

There are some universal laws supposedly out there about negative actions and feeling generating negative cycles and responses and if we aren't careful we may perpetuate that negativity by tying her up before we hear the case.

But Scott and all, I do respect your outrage. More than you know. I was in a place where occasional Chesters would pass through and I was part of the group that made them check in to protective custody. In that I always tried to look at the human that had such convoluted reasoning that he could harm a child and the only way I survived those face to face encounters without catching a case was by believing that at his core that person was a victim himself of something he probably wished he didn't have. Its all sick, the world is sick. We just need healers.

On a lighter note, I just can't wait for the indictment to fall on Courtney Love.

Its all sick, the world is sick. We just need healers.

Yes we do.

Kain:

Yeah, there are some sick f*cks out there. This verbal abuse can often lead to real physical abuse, or even violence that leads to murders etc. When a grown-up does it to a child, it's so much more frightening, though it's awful no matter what the case.

Predators should be punished, and harshly. Every single predator should be used as an example so that maybe, just maybe, that fear of punishment will deter some of these people from committing these atrocities....

I agree. I think there is a gray area between what is wrong and what is punishable and at certain points people that are strong enough to protect the victims have to do so when the law will not or cannot. I'm not ashamed of calling that guy and telling him what I did; I think it was a necessary action.

I think that there should be that little part down deep inside a predator's heart that fears vigilante justice... man is civilized, but he's still an animal and if someone does something to someone I love the perpetrator will see the animal within me let out of the cage I keep it in.

Darro:

But Scott and all, I do respect your outrage. More than you know. I was in a place where occasional Chesters would pass through and I was part of the group that made them check in to protective custody. In that I always tried to look at the human that had such convoluted reasoning that he could harm a child and the only way I survived those face to face encounters without catching a case was by believing that at his core that person was a victim himself of something he probably wished he didn't have. Its all sick, the world is sick. We just need healers.

It's a responsibility we all have because we are all responsible for one another in the end, IMHO.

Myspace isn't the problem. That's the issue I also had with this. People are blaming the internet and not the parents of these kids who aren't being monitored or kept an eye on. Myspace has an age limit and countless security restrictions that can be put on ANY Myspace account of any age. Parents just don't take the time to do it.

Also, Myspace being "overcluttered, poorly organized and confusing" explains the internet itself. You can't just refuse people the right to get online because of personality traits. Myspace is completely organized and really, really simplistic. It's just the scapegoat in the irresponsibility of both kids AND parents.

What a sorry @!$%#. Adults that think they can prey on children piss me off to the nth degree.

Well said, Scott. I couldn't agree more. Whatever form the predator takes, whatever predatory actions, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. This was child abuse. I still feel ill when I think about how a grown woman could participate in hounding a young girl like this. Just sick to my heart.

The woman knows she'll be charged and she's setting up her defense. The feds wouldn't be hot on her trail if they didn't have computer forensics that should reasonable proof she's the one that created and ran the account.

The feds wouldn't be hot on her trail if they didn't have computer forensics that should reasonable proof she's the one that created and ran the account.

The law still requires them to prove their case in court, and convince a jury of her guilt.

I don't like what happened to the young girl, but the lynch mob mentality being displayed on this thread is not good.

I don't like what happened to the young girl, but the lynch mob mentality being displayed on this thread is not good.

No, a lynch mob would ask for her trial to be undergone by the mob itself and would summarily dole out the punishment.

We in the "mob" simply are stating our belief in her guilt and our hope that through due process she will be convicted. What, is stating our opinion now classified as "lynching"? If she turns out to be innocent, then the system will have done its job, if not then likewise.

Is anybody here calling for her to be punished before a trial?

We in the "mob" simply are stating our belief in her guilt

BASED ON WHAT?

BASED ON WHAT?

Like most people who read and follow the news, we make judgment calls. If you have the ability to go through your life not making judgments based on the facts presented to you, then good for you. Most people, however, respond to the facts with judgments. There has been a great deal in the news about this, and if it's all BS then I'm sure everyone here will admit that they were wrong to be so misled. However, it sounds like the FBI thinks this warrants some merit, so based on that, the news, and the logically drawn conclusions, we come to our understanding of her guilt.

Of course, that is Opinion. Leave it to a judge and jury to come up with the final say.

Like most people who read and follow the news, we make judgment calls. If you have the ability to go through your life not making judgments based on the facts presented to you, then good for you.

Even the reporter of this article uses the word "alleged" several times in reference to the woman.

From the article:

"Lori Drew, 49, of suburban St. Louis, who allegedly helped create a MySpace account in the name of someone who didn't exist to convince"

The word alleged is even used in reference to the motive of cruel messages as being why the girl killed herself.

"Megan hanged herself at home in October 2006, allegedly after receiving a dozen or more cruel messages, including one stating the world would be better off without her."

However, it sounds like the FBI thinks this warrants some merit,

The FBI thought Richard Jewell warranted some merit too, and Jewel, just like this woman, was convicted by media trial, up until the time they found out Eric Rudolph had really committed the crime:

The Richard Jewell Persecution

Sure, it's alleged. We all know that. And nobody wants to put her in jail until it's been proved in a court of law. It's always unfortunate when someone is blamed for something they didn't do--especially when they're convicted for it, which fortunately didn't happen in the example you list.

But I'm sorry, you just can't expect people not to form opinions or make judgments. You can only hope that they make good ones, and that they receive good information.

Do you have any information that points to her innocence?

Do you have any information that points to her innocence?

Yes, the Constitution of the United States of America, which says she is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

jazzman646:
We have no power over her. We're just discussing the issue and what we think should happen to her. We have the freedom to presume her guilt as citizens. If I were part of the govt entity dealing with her case, I wouldn't have this right. But I'm not, so I do. And so does Kain and everyone else here.

Jazzman, let me amend my statement: IF A JURY SO RULES, then I hope the judge throws the book at her. As you may recall, in the Oxbow Incident there were no books involved, just a piece of hearsay that no one bothered to verify. In this case, there is a cyber-trail of messages. Now, the woman claims that she knew about the hoax but didn't send the message that led to the suicide. That remains to be argued in court. I doubt you can make a murder charge stick, but as the supposedly responsible adult who knew all about how this bogus web character was being used to manipulate that girl, she is certainly guilty of cyber-exploitation and harassment.

trex,

I learned my lesson with Richard Jewell.

I'll admit I was one of those who just knew he was gulity, because the media said so.

I won't make that mistake again.

Jazzman: True, and let's not forget Senator Gary Condit, whom everybody just KNEW had put out a hit on Chandra Levy, who had been drugged and thrown from an airplane over the Atlantic -- before her body turned up in a Washington D.C. park near a jogging trail where several other women had also been attacked. And then of course there was the guy who died of a stroke in jail while awaiting trial for the murder of Elizabeth Smart -- before the corpse of his victim turned up alive and well, although under the control of a sicko polygamist cult leader. And might she have been rescued sooner if the police hadn't been off on a wild goose chase after the wrong guy? Might the falsely accused man still be alive?

So yes, thanks for the reminder that we should be humble about the limits of our knowledge, whether we claim Lori Drew should hang for murder or that the Iranians are about to nuke Israel. But Drew did know about the hoax, and she should at the least have to answer a few pointed questions about that. How much responsibility she bears for driving the girl to suicide remains to be determined, hopefully in a rational manner.

I agree with you on that point. My anger stems from the possible mental state of the offending mother. What kind of woman is this? There will always be someone prettier, smarter, more talented, and more clever. This doesn't mean you shouldn't seek keen positions in life. It simply means that if someone beats you out, get over it and do something else or try again.

I have a teenage child (the oldest among many others). When he fails at something, my heart is literally broken, but I use that opportunity to show him the power of losing and how it can make him stronger for the future. What is wrong with the mom of the other girl? I am by no means perfect, far from it as a mom, but I would never cripple my child by hurting another child like she did. I'd rather die.

I know what you're saying. I understand that this offending mother was out of her mind, and that's obvious. I think she is, however, just being used as an example. This is the type of thing I'm talking about, though:

Tina Meier has acknowledged Megan was too young to have a MySpace account under the Web site's guidelines, but she said she had been able to closely monitor the account. Meier's family has also acknowledged that Megan was also sending mean messages before her death.

Megan was being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression, her family has said. Meier has said Drew knew Megan was on medication.

If this is all the case, then why the &#@* did she have the account in the first place? AND if it was so closely monitored, which by the way is complete bull&#@!, because you can't just "monitor" a Myspace account unless it's just checking the comments, picture comments and bullitens without the password and e-mail address to check messages, both sent, received plus friend requests sent a received, then why didn't the deceased girl's mother put a stop to her daughter sending hateful messages AND a stop to the offending mother sending hateful messages or an online relationship between a 16 year old boy and a 13 year old mentally unstable girl?

I'm personally outraged by both sides. But no one will hold the mother of the deceased girl responsible for not keeping an eye on her critically mentally ill daughter.

Perhaps they won't hold the deceased girl's mother accountable because her punishment is the worst of all the ones in this case: her daughter's dead. If she cared enough to attempt to check her MySpace, she cares enough to mourn her heart out. She doesn't need jail or lectures, she's got a lifetime full of empty tomorrows. This @!$%# that impersonated a 16 year old boy is perfectly pleased with the outcome, if not a little shocked.

Besides, parents can't be there all the time. It's easy to say, "she should have been watched more closely" but there is also the need to respect your child's privacy, to work out a relationship with them that is mutually respectful, and to hope for the best. Hope (and love) can be blinding.

Scott:

I'm not saying that she deserves to be punished and I'm just as sorry that her daughter took her life as the next person. But I'm completely against pushing this off on Myspace, the internet and everyone else in the free world(except the woman who impersonated the 16 year old). I'm not defending the actions of the person charged. All I'm saying is that everyone on NV or anywhere who is outraged about Myspace and the offending mother should also be outraged that the mother of Megan didn't take enough time to keep check on her mentally ill daughter.

It's sad that she lost her daughter and I couldn't say that enough. But it isn't Myspace's fault. It isn't the internets fault. The blame lies with the mother who impersonated the 16 year old and a very small amount of blame lies with the mother of the deceased. I know that's not something that is popular to say, but it's true. But she's paid for her mistakes. This other woman will soon enough.

E.D. Kain:

I'm sorry, I completely disagree. This is a child who was mentally afflicted by a chemical imbalance and was extremely depressed. You can let them have their privacy, but this was a 13 year old girl who was on Myspace AGAINST their age limit and wasn't being properly monitored, in turn. And then the mother of the girl wants to blame Myspace. And she did. When she allowed the kid to have Myspace against their rules!

My parents respected my privacy, but they didn't do so in a way that was going to put me in danger. The internet was a scary place when I was 13, according to every single adult on Earth and it's supposedly gotten even worse. No, parents can't be everywhere at once, but extra-safe precautions could have been taken that might have prevented this. But what is done is done. The mother of the girl has paid for her mistakes. And nothing that anyone here will say will make her feel worse and convict her any more.

I'm not saying we shouldn't monitor our children online. I'm just saying that this is easier said than done, and to pass judgment on parents when we don't know how much they actually were doing to help her or not is unfair.

After all, when I was young, I got away with lots of things without my parents knowing, and not for their lack of trying.... ;)

E.D.:

It really isn't easier said than done. Once more, this is 21st century. 2008. There are endless ways to monitor your child online and they should be done if the child is in such a fragile mental state like this young girl was.

It really isn't easier said than done. Once more, this is 21st century. 2008. There are endless ways to monitor your child online and they should be done if the child is in such a fragile mental state like this young girl was.

Okay, we're not going to agree. Sure there's a million ways to monitor your kid, but there's a million ways for them to get around it, too. Kids are almost always ahead of their parents in regards to technology.

That doesn't mean parents should be negligent. Maybe this mom was--who knows what sort of emotional battle was raging in that house? It's just not always (I know, I repeat) as easy as it sounds to monitor your kids....

I guess we aren't going to agree. Because there aren't a million ways for the kid to get around it if the parent is adamant on not allowing the kid to do what they don't want them to do. You can shut the computer down as quick as you start it up. What ever happened to groundings and punishments for disobeying your parents?

FunkyBunch:
If authoritarian govts like the Chinese govt cannot prevent their citizens from accessing things they do not want the citizens to see, how do you expect parents to prevent the same?

The issue is to allow your children to lead a normal life without serious physical harm coming to them. For her parents to "just turn the computer off" as you suggest would have prevented her from talking to this malicious slut pretending to be a boy, but likely would have made the girl's problems even worse by depriving her of the human connection that every single Newsviner seeks here and that most other people seek through the Internet: talking to their friends, meeting new people, etc. Sure, I could tell my (hypothetical) daughter that she cannot have accounts to anything unless I have the password but, just like criminals eluding the authorities, she can create a hundred other accounts while maintaining the ones I see like they are normal and doing what she wants on the others. Unless I'm a sysadmin, I'm going to have a difficult time divining what other accounts she has and what she is doing with them. I know how to install a keylogger, but who's to say that if she finds it that she'll ever trust me and talk to me when she has a problem she can't solve on her own? The fault lies not with her parents, for it is hard to be a parent, but with the predator because it is easy to be one of those. I don't agree with the parents blaming MySpace, but I also don't think that "just shutting it off" would have achieved the goal which was to raise this girl to be a normal person and keep her away from this predator. No offense, but telling a teen they can't use the Internet today is like telling them they couldn't use the phone in the 70's. They're a maladjusted outcast if they don't use it and that simply isn't what we want for our children.

I'm not saying that they should have just made her shut it off, all I said is that if she refused to allow them to monitor her Myspace usage, given her fragile mindstate, then they should have taken the extra step to discipline her and show that she isn't the parent, they are.

I guess it's just the way I was raised. It wasn't strict, but when I was told to do something, I did it.

I always obeyed my parents when they told me something... but starting around 12 they let me make my own decisions while monitoring me and jerking the leash to stop me from getting myself hurt or in trouble. I just don't think there was a way to stop this woman... all she needed was the ability to talk to the girl and her manipulation did the rest.

If you're implying that the victim killed herself because "Josh" told her to you would be mistaken. She had an emotional connection with this fictional person and it literally made her want to die when that horrible mother and/or her daughter told her (through Josh) that the would would be better if she were dead. This was a cruel manipulation on a girl who was easy to bend due to her depression.

And yeah the ladies a louse but you need to be more than that to get burned at the stake.

Well I guess we'll know soon enough.

This is certainly uncharted territory in many realms, including legally. At first blush, when this incident was reported months ago, I thought that the neighbor, Drew, should be prosecuted or punished in some sort of way. But the result of Drew's actions, in my opinion, was unforeseeable (so unlike others who are convinced -- I'm not sure what is right). Drew's actions were outrageous. She seems unfit to be a mother -- I think that it would be sufficient for child services to intervene with her ability to parent. Moreover, it is important that there exist federal laws to prevent online preying on children (whether this case should be included in legislation and whether something like this can be prevented is unseen). But most importantly, this should be a wake up call for parents to monitor their children on the internet.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel? :)

So you don't think someone who preyed on a vulnerable child and teased her to the point of suicide should have any legal consequences? Oooookay... clearly you and I are on different pages.

Scott - I appreciate where you're coming from and admire your sticking up for the lady who was being emotionally manipulated in a terrible way. The female in this case was also emotionally manipulated in a terrible way, but this was even worse because she was a teenager. If Lori Drew is guilty of setting up the account and tormenting the girl through it (again, she denies this) then what she did is morally reprehensible.

But law isn't made in a vacuum - if you convict her of, essentially, manipulating a person's emotions online, then you have to convict everyone of the same thing. For what it's worth, the Missouri PD didn't find anything she did to be illegal and she isn't charged with any form of violence in this case. She is charged with a violation of MySpace's terms of service (hence the trial taking place in LA and not in Missouri, where the original act occurred.)

The question I would pose to you is this, then:
Why is soliciting someone else to kill Person A first degree murder but soliciting Person A to kill Person A legal? I'm not suggesting that me saying "Hey, you should kill yourself" should make me legally culpable if you do, but if I engage in a concerted effort over a period of time to convince you to kill yourself and you finally do shouldn't that be punishable?

But, again, there is a difference between physical violence and psychological violence. Emotional violence and physical violence aren't considered equally pernicious; those who engage in the latter may be punished with death while those who engage in the former receive comparatively lax punishment from the law. As for a constant personal campaign to convince a person to commit suicide - presumably in extreme circumstances, the aggressor can be charged with harassment. That's about as far as it goes or as it should go.

Anything else would mean impinging on the first amendment.

To me I consider that type of person a predator.