LJWorld.com

srj (Anonymous) says…

I am glad they where charged, but I can't see anyway they get convicted of anything major.

nschmi04 (Anonymous) says…

Typical missourah folk.

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

Make sure you don't do anything to hurt the feelings of anyone. If they go crazy, and especially if they're on meds, then you're going to get blamed.

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

You're right, Confrontation. It's entirely appropriate and ethical to set up a young, vulnerable kid (whom you know to be emotionally/mentally fragile), only to knock her down with vicious insults and even the advice that the world would be better off if she were dead.

The legal grounds are very shaky, indeed, but ethically, this woman is a scumbag and deserves all the ostracism and criticism she has gotten since the girl's despair overcame her desire to live.

People can debate forever whether she may have become suicidal anyway without the added impetus. It is possible.

But it is also possible that, given more time and fewer demons (the heinous comments of the Drews), something may have clicked (the right meds, counseling, changing life circumstances as she got older?) eventually, and her life could've turned out very differently. They had no right to take away the chance for her to get better—and, really, that's exactly what they did.

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…

it was a 49 y/o woman bullying a 13 y/o girl……thats scandelous in itself! What a pud! I hope she gets exactly what she deserves, and hopefully her daughter will learn a lesson as well.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Well, Marion, at first I admit I thought you were a little off-base here, but after reading the indictment you don't appear to exagerating. It would have been one thing if they had only said that creating the account with false information constituted 'illegal access,' and I don't think that would have applied to making a post here that offends the sensitivities of the LJW post-police. But it does appear from the indictment that they are calling any access which includes TOS violations is kind of 'extra'-legal, since (apparently) you give up your right to access when you're behaving badly.

On the other hand, the woman is a real low-class dirtbag and I'm glad they finally found something to nail her with, and I hope it sticks.

VTHawk (Anonymous) says…

Marion,
I think that you adequately point out just how dangerous of a precedent this case sets. The lady is a creep, and I feel awful for the victim's family, but using the law to go after her in this way is horrifying. We don't live in a police state.

iplaysupernintendo (Anonymous) says…

Could she also be charged with some type of “sex offender” charge? lewd and lascivious behavior?

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

“If the indictment “sitcks” to her, it then applies to and could “stick” to you and you wouldn't like that.”

Then again, I'd like to think I wouldn't *do* that.

I understand what you're saying, just never pegged you for one of the slippery-slope crowd.

Several police organizations in places that don't have a specific “aggressive driving” statute have tried to expand the existing laws to cover that. E.g., a few years ago, the MO Highway Patrol was pulling everyone over one day in N. Kansas City for traveling what they thought was too far down an exit-only lane to bypass slow moving traffic, then cutting in. They were writing tickets under a statute that applied to unsafe lane changes (what exactly is the 'safe' distance between cars traveling at zero mph?). Now, are the cops going to pull over every single person who 'cuts in' and give them such a ticket for an unsafe lane change? Not likely. But if someone flys down an exit lane and cuts in suddenly causing a five-car accident with serious injuries, they might - and maybe they should.

There's quite a difference between what this woman did and posting a cuss word to one of the LJW's forums. I believe the indictment listed almost 20 overt acts, which document a deliberate conspiracy with malicious intent. As I said, I doubt the justice system is going to go after every person who violates every item in every TOS on every website on the internet. If they want to try - well, good luck with that. But if someone sets out to say, cause a lot of grief for their ex-girlfriend, and describes her sexual proclivities and encourages guys to show up at her job or call her mother's house asking for her, and posts the address and phone numbers, then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing for them to be prosecuted under whatever available law that can cover it.

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

So, does this imply that when a man posts a 20 yr old photo of himself on a personals site like Yahoo or Match with a full head of hair, and not an extra pound…then you meet them, and they are nearly bald and 70 lbs heavier, a girl can call the feds?
Or is he safe, because the photo actually was “he” just long ago?

(Yes, you men know who you are!)

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

thanks

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

The answer to the question might be a *qualified* yes. *Could* they prosecute someone for the situation described by multi? Yes. *Would* they? I seriously doubt it. What the woman in this case did was deliberately malicious, preyed on a vulnerable and disturbed adolescent, and contributed to her death. That's a pretty far cry from posting an old or doctored picture to a personals site. And if the guy who did post that kind of a doctored profile turned out to be another John Robinson, then I would say prosecute him under whatever statute you can to get him off the streets.

Technically if your car stalls in the travel lane, you can get a ticket for obstructing traffic. But it's not quite as likely as someone who deliberately parks their car in the middle of the street.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

So Marion, you're admitting you are clueless as to who I am and hope someone else cares. Thanks for laugh. As old saying goes, I'd like to buy you for price you're really worth and sell you for price you think you're worth. Be the only known case of a billion % markup. In other ones you are a worthless piece of nothing.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

Marion, maybe I misunderstood your post. Are you saying you are potentially mentally unstable and my dissing you may lead to your committing suicide? If so, guess that's a burden I'll have to live with.

janeyb (Anonymous) says…

People use fictitious names on social sites all the time. There are nuts out there and you are advised not to use your real name or give out personal information. Gee, my name isn't Janey. Big deal. Does anyone, other than a 13 year old really believe what they read on My Space?

The Missiouri/Los Angeles case is different in that the girl was essentially stalked on the internet. The account was set up with the intent of tricking and doing harm to this girl. It probably won't hold up in court, but if you were the people having to investigate this Mother (I mean that in more than one way) wouldn't you want to just do something to cause her a little harm too. They apparently can't find a reason to tase her, so charge her with something and make her hire an attorney—the greatest pain of all. I'm sure My Space wants to do some a$$ covering too.

What got the Phelpses wasn't picketing a funeral. They said they were just protesting their causes and using the funeral as a venue. However, they posted derogatary comments about the soldier and his family on their website proving their intent was for the picketing to cause the soldier's family mental harm.

akt2 (Anonymous) says…

She's no different than the perverts that pose as teens on line. She played her head games all the time preying on this vulnerable 13 year old girl. She has ruined her daughter's life as well. This woman needs to be put away for awhile. Maybe the families can salvage something of their lives while she is gone.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Hardly surprising that the charge of the slippery-slope brigade is being led by attorneys. I respectfully disagree, however, with their contention that “corporations would end up setting criminal standards.”

There is a law in most places, for instance, against creating a disturbance. What qualifies as a 'disturbance' is relative and decided by the venue or locality. In a library, it might be a loud conversation; in church it might be foul language or wearing a Pro-Choice T-shirt; in a theater, it might be talking on your cell phone; it might be a disturbance to cut in line at a crowded nightclub; on a street corner it might be setting up a soapbox and attracting a crowd; at a football game, it might take spilling your beer on or falling over the person sitting in front of you. Those various entities or venues aren't “setting criminal standards,” the standard is when your behavior disturbs others around you it's illegal, even though different entities have different definitions of when behavior reaches the level of 'disturbing' others in the areas they own or control. And they're all covered by a single law, relative as the definition is.

Similarly, there's a law against speeding even though the speed limit varies from place to place. And it's unlawful entry if you go into a stranger's house uninvited, whether the door was open, or closed, or locked, or double locked.

And once again, whether or not someone is going to even *be* prosecuted is an issue here. *Can* they prosecute someone for posting a fake profile because they're embarassed about their age/weight/hair loss? Yes. *Will* they? How could they go after everybody? And we have all kinds of laws where intent is part of the equation; if you run over somebody 'cause your brakes failed, it's not murder, but if you deliberately plow into them, it is.

As for curtailing free speech, that's up to the individual site, and why shouldn't it be? On this site, all you need is an e-mail address you have access to. Some sites require verification of who you are - the lack of anonymity itself curtails free speech for many people.

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

I have no email address set up with any identifying bits anywhere.

I get almost no spam.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

Actually, Marion aka as the expert, please support your claims that I have been banned. The site allows allows anonymous registration from valid e-mail addresses. There are no requirements that you must provide either name or address validation information. I am posting using a valid e-mail account properly registered. And since you have no clue as to who or where I am you have no basis for your claims. Seems I get to you because I don't bow to your superior “knowledge”. Maybe the reason you host your “sites” off-shore is no reputable on-shore hosting site will deal with you.

beobachter (Anonymous) says…

Marion, if you don't care, why the obsessive posts about me?

Ceallach (Anonymous) says…

Our legal system has become so skewed to favor criminals that every possible scenario must be written into the books for an action to be determined illegal.

If this woman had done the same things through the mail or over the phone she would have been charged a long time ago. The fact that she is pleading not guilty is a strong indication that she has not learned a lesson and is refusing to take responsibility for her actions. Let's face it, she has to be one twisted sister to have thought this was fun and games in the first place.

peachesncream (Anonymous) says…

Beo dont take offense to marions post hes mentally unstable … just laugh and go on …..he rambles non stop about things he has not a clue about, trying to impress someone who in reality knows hes full of hot air.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“No, it's a strong indication that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant is quite properly exercising her rights under the law.”

In a court, yes. In reality, no. If I see the kid next door throw a rock through my window, even if he can't be found guilty in court, I know he did it and he is not “innocent.” If you have been following this story, you might not use the word “innocent” in the same sentence referencing the defendant in this case. The smokinggun site you linked to earlier also has, among other things, the statements Ms. Drew gave to the police admitting she did all those things. Newspaper reports note that she warns the reporter not to cite those reports because she was fighting (apparently unsuccessfully) to have them changed. The woman is scum who victimized a child, she's not an innocent victim of government overzealousness.

“The fact is that the woman committed no crime in either Missouri or California and that in a effort to get her for something; anything, the feds moved in and have unreasonably applied a law in a manner which was never intended. … This gal is *NOT* being prosecuted for “causing a suicide”; she is being prosecuted for “illegally accessing a protected computer” by violating the TOS of MySpace.”

And Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion, not murder. And your point was? (And incidentally, Marion, if you read the header, you'd see that she's also charged with conspiracy and aiding & abetting.)

“By the standard used in this case, were “Beobacter/Observer/ObservAr” to run out and take his/her/its own life (Heaven forbid! ;)), anyone who had ever written anything nasty to him/her/it could be held liable for that suicide as writing nasty things to or about other users is technically a violation of the Terms Of Service (TOS) fo the LJW.”

If someone who knew that person, knew they were unstable (and a child), and deliberately conspired to persecute them online, maybe they should be similarly prosecuted.

(continued)

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

(continued)

“Some of you just do *NOT* get it!”

There's an aspect to this that *you*, Marion, apparently do not 'get.' It may not have been the intended purpose of this law, but apparently Ms. Drew's actions did techinically fall within its definitions. How long has the statute in question been on the books, Marion? 12 years? How many people have been prosecuted under your Red-China-government-control-big-brother-repression scenario?

As I said (a coupla' times), there's a big difference between whether the government *can* prosecute people for scenarios such as you mention and whether they *will* do so - it looks like the *could* do so for 12 years, and they have not done so except in this extreme case.

Also, there is all too often a difference between the law and justice. Maybe she couldn't be charged with a crime in Missouri - there's probably no Missouri law on the books yet against using a home-made teleportation device or an unlicensed cold-fusion generator, either. But the fact that the legislature in Missouri had not yet passed a law against the unforseen circumstances related to Ms. Drew's actions doesn't change the fact that letting her walk away scot-free isn't justice.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Marion, is there some reason you're more worried about this than everyone else? And please spare us any suggestion that you're the only one that 'gets it'; plenty of people here are smart enough to get it, Marion, just not all of us believe that our doors are going to get kicked in and we'll be dragged off to jail for saying a bad word on the LJW message boards. You're the only one here who sounds like they're 'rambling,' Marion.

Regardless of your spin, violating a TOS is *not* a federal crime. Unautorized access of a protected computer system is, and has been. And the owners of those computers are the ones who get to decide what 'unauthorized' means, and they always have been. Just as, in my example above, holding an audible conversation isn't a crime, but under certain circumstances when it rises to the level of creating a disturbance, it is.

As I also mentioned earlier, Marion, this has been the law for 12 years. If the government was going to be rounding people up for posting inaccurate pictures to personals sites, don't you think they might have started by now? And I really don't give a fig if the law wasn't intended for this use. The IRS code wasn't intended to to put away organized crime figures or drug dealers who didn't leave any evidence of their other crimes, but we still use it to lock them up.

I usually tend to agree with your posts, Marion, and have defended them often. If you want to be paranoid about this leading down some slippery slope, then by all means stay up all night and worry about it. Just don't be surprised that nobody takes you seriously when you compare telling someone on the LJW message boards to go to h*ll to the deliberate, cruel, malicious overt actions this woman conspired to commit against a vulnerable and unstable child.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“By the logic of this case and the logic which you espouse, every person who has registered on this site using a false name, an email address which contains a false name, every person who calls someone a nasty name in clear violation of the TOS of this website has comitted the same crime with which this woman is charged.”

Well, first of all, maybe it's been a while for you, but you don't have to give your name to register on this website. You only have to give an email address that you have access to in order to complete the registration process.

Which is neither here nor there. The salient point is: So what? Again, you seem to be the only one that has a problem with this. For the umpteenth time, just because everyone you describe *can* be charged in no way, shape, or form means they ever *will* be charged.

“Capone was charged and convicted under the IRS code because he hadn't filed his tax returns.”

Not as satisfying as convicting him for murder, but it got him off the streets. Ms. Drew is being charged with illegally accessing a protected computer because she gained access under false pretenses. Not as satisfying as seeing her charged with causing Megan Meier's death, but it'll (hopefully) get her off the streets.

We have all kinds of laws, Marion, that weren't written for a specific purpose, and have broad, sweeping definitions, which can be applied in extreme circumstances without enforcing every single similar infraction. Many places have tried and failed to pass laws against using a cell-phone while driving. Someone who causes a serious accident while chatting away on the phone can still be - and *should* be - charged with reckless driving (“Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” - Kansas statutes 8-1566). That doesn't mean every single person who answers their phone on the road is going to be pulled over and charged, despite the fact that s/he 'has comitted the same crime with which [the person who caused the accident] is charged.'

“The law in this matter is being used soley “to get someone” who has infact, committed no crime under any other law.”

Then I'm happy they were able to find a crime she *did* commit “to get” her.

(continued)

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

(continued)

From the comments on the blog you linked to:

“It should not be a surprise to any lawyer that virtually every citizen (and illegal aliens) runs the continuous risk of being picked up for one or more formal violations of state and/or federal law. The societal compact assumes that the discretion afforded law enforcement will avoid doing stupid and oppressive things lest society rise up to change the rules in a forceful manner.”

In other words, while you're raising holy heck about this case, the person who wrote that comment stated (apparently more clearly than I) that there are a lot of laws almost every person technically violates every single day. That doesn't mean that they're all going to be prosecuted for it.

“If this application of the law gains acceptance, the inteegrity of the internet as a viable means of communications and commerce will be negatively affected beyond all concept and belief.”

You mean, people might have to start being honest, and stop hiding behind the electronic facades that allow them to publish anything anywhere without recourse? [GASP!] How horrible!

“How would you like to be required to include your personal contact information with every post that you place on an internet forum? … How would you like to have to be “verified” by any website in which you participatae; chatrooms included, such that your real identity was splashed all over the net?”

I could choose not to do so, couldn't I? Tell me, Marion, where you can find a newspaper that will publish a letter to the editor without verifying who the writer is? Why *should* the rules for electronic publication be any different? Who came up with the idea that the internet was supposed to be a place where the rules we live by in normal society get suspended? Because *you* make your living that way? I choose to post anonymously because I, like many others, have legitimate reasons for not wanting my comments associated with my true identity. And if I had to be a verified user, I would stop posting. So what? This is a nice little forum, Marion, but believe me, there are some of us who can actually live without it.

“If the accused did what she is accused of, it's pretty crappy stuff but not criminal; she could not have reasonably foreseen the outcome anyway.”

Well, considering that you don't think her actions were any different than saying 'd*mn' on the message boards, I guess you wouldn't see her actions as criminal. I can only be thankful the justice department for seeing otherwise. But if you really think “she could not have reasonably foreseen the outcome,” you evidently don't know too much about this case in the first place.

“How far do you want internet law to go?”

As far as it takes to get some modicum of justice for a dead child. And, incidentally, I really wouldn't be heartbroken if they used the same statute to prosecute 40 year-old guys who prey on children in chat rooms.

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

“Well. in any case they have a long way to go to prove that the Myspace postings were the causal factor in the suicide of an already mentally unbalanced child.”

Except, as you so frequently pointed out already, they have to prove no such thing, do they, as she hasn't been charged with that. She's been charged with unauthorized access of information from a computer, which she has already admitted to.

“What are you going to do when *ALL* of your internet activites require you to be “verified” and that information publicly available?”

Um - duh. I think I already said what I would *choose* to do, which is not post. While I have my reasons for choosing to do so, many people would choose to continue posting, Marion Lynn (verified user). For one reason, verified is not exactly synonymous with publicly available; they require a phone number and address to publish a LTE, but they don't print them. And while I find it amusing to make my anonymous posts here, I never claimed, nor do I believe, that I have some god-given right to do so. I think I just said I don't see why electronically published comments should be held to any different standards than LTE's.

“And as far as as the comments on the WSJ site; I couldn't care less about them; it was the article to which I referred.”

Thank *you* for making *my* point. You “couldn't care less” about the anonymously posted comments, only to the article itself, from a source you can verify and trust. And BTW, the reason I made no comment on the (rather brief) article itself was there's nothing worth mentioning there. If Mr. Kerr believes that there's no evidence of conspiracy to access the information, he's as unfamiliar with the case as you appear to be. Once again, I urge you to read Ms. Drew's statements to the police (the ones she sought to have changed); they're available on the smokinggun site, and clearly show she did conspire to do exactly that.

“It's just that her actions were not criminal.”

The indictment handed down by a federal grand jury tends to dispute that opinion.

(continued)

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

(continued)

“What is a 14 year-old child doing in a chatroom and wherein lies the culpability of the parent(s) in such a matter?”

Again demonstrating your unfamiliarity with the facts of this case.

“And as we see in history, Capone's conviction stilled the Mafia, stopped bootlegging; all of the organised crime hoods went straight, Las Vegas was never built by the Mob and we have no organised crime today.”

And you know what, Marion? I don't expect the hoped-for conviction of Ms. Drew to stop all online predation, either. But it will keep her from being able to do it again. Or maybe you think we shouldn't bother prosecuting a murderer because it won't stop all murders. Sheez.

“I suspect the court will find that no crime has been committed and that the whole “accessing a protected computer” thing is a load of legal brouhaha.”

Under the terms she was indicted, she has already admitted to the overt acts named in the indictment. And for nothing more than “a load of legal brouhaha,” it seems to have you and your legal experts pretty worked up.

“And wherein lies the culpability of the “victim” a 13 year-old girl, who had a profile on MySpace in violation of the TOS of MySpace?”

Very good, Marion. Thank you, incidentally, for proving another, and my biggest, point. Just because they *could* charge the parents of Megan Meier with the same crime, they didn't *do* so, did they? Maybe you're pedantic enough to believe that when a driver unbuckles their seatbelt to turn around in their seat to reach into the back and grab another beer, the driver of the car they crash into should also be charged if their seatbelt wasn't on. But in the real world, Marion, there are hundreds of laws that affect (or don't affect) millions of people across the country that are applied (or not) based on intent and severity of consequences. Megan Meier joined MySpace to find friends. Ms. Drew did so deliberately to deceive a troubled adolescent girl who used to be friends with her daughter. Maybe in your world that's the same thing. That only makes me happy I don't live in your world.

And incidentally, Marion, I find it quite ironic that you complain of the possible impact to the 'integrity' of the internet, when what you're arguing so vehemently for is the right to dishonesty.