(Post a new comment)

	iamnotyourmuse 2008-05-15 09:58 pm UTC (link)
	A big fat WORD. I'm curious to see what the bitch's response will be to being held responsible for her actions. It's a morbid curiosity and I'm sure I'll be pissed, but still. Curious. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	beaglemum 2008-05-15 10:02 pm UTC (link)
	Here's the link to the AP story (just found it): http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERNET_SUICIDE?SITE=CARIE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Holy shit, she's screwed. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hallidae 2008-05-15 10:05 pm UTC (link)
	Good. The way some of the documents on The Smoking Gun had her trying to paint herself as the real victim (God forbid a family be pissed at you because you helped drive their daughter to kill herself) makes me want even more to see her get royally fucked in court. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iamnotyourmuse 2008-05-15 10:41 pm UTC (link)
	My favorite line: "Whether the defendant could have foreseen the results, she's responsible for her actions." Precisely. I cannot express how glad I am that this woman is getting smacked for what she did. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mistressrenet 2008-05-17 04:02 am UTC (link)
	Fuck yes. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	khym_chanur 2008-05-15 11:10 pm UTC (link)
	accessing protected computers without authorization Wuh? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	hurricane 2008-05-15 11:26 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I'm a little confused on this, too. I don't see how they can take that charge and apply it what this woman did. And if they do, what kind of precedent does it set? (Reply to this)(Parent)

smashingstars
2008-05-15 11:33 pm UTC (link)

I think that has to do with their fake MySpace page. The AP article linked by

beaglemum says the indictment was handed down in the same county the MySpace servers are in:

Both the girl and MySpace are named as victims in the case, he said.

MySpace is a subsidiary of Beverly Hills-based Fox Interactive Media Inc., which is owned by News Corp. The indictment noted that MySpace computer servers are located in Los Angeles County.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	khym_chanur 2008-05-15 11:41 pm UTC (link)
	So sockpuppeting is a crime? And possibly a felony? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hallidae 2008-05-15 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	According to the article, MySpace TOS requires you to confirm that your information is accurate, and that their servers won't be used for harassment or abuse. Apparently, that means that MySpace can press charges against anyone who does either or both, as in this case. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	khym_chanur 2008-05-15 11:50 pm UTC (link)
	But isn't that a civil offense (contract violation) rather than a criminal offense? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

hallidae
2008-05-16 12:00 am UTC (link)

Edited because I can't type for shit today:

I'm no lawyer, but I imagine if the harassment ends in death of any sort, criminal charges take precedent. They could probably sue her for breach of contract later, right now the issue is that she used their servers to prompt someone to suicide. Obviously, MySpace can't charge conspiracy, since that's the DA's territory, so they use what they can. Since "Josh" never existed, anyone using his information didn't have proper authorization to use the servers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

khym_chanur
2008-05-16 12:06 am UTC (link)

I'm not worried about which charges take precedence, but rather that it seems that sock puppeting is technically illegal, but that the DAs won't prosecute over it unless the person who did it is a scumbag whom did something awful that isn't illegal. I don't like the idea of having a type of crime which is only prosecuted when you can't find any other charges to stick to someone.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hallidae 2008-05-16 12:09 am UTC (link)
	I'm really not understanding what you're saying here. Sockpuppeting should never be prosecuted period, or that if someone like this gets prosecuted for it, everyone else should? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	khym_chanur 2008-05-16 12:20 am UTC (link)
	... or that if someone like this gets prosecuted for it, everyone else should? Yeah. I don't think there should by types of crimes that are held in reserve for when the prosecutors can't find anything else to charge the scumbags with. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	hallidae 2008-05-16 12:22 am UTC (link)
	Ah, gotcha. (Reply to this)(Parent)

smashingstars
2008-05-16 12:29 am UTC (link)

They weren't charged with sockpuppetting. Here's the relevant page on what they were charged with:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0515083drew5.html

"conspired...to access a computer used in interstate and foreign commerce without authorization and in excess of authorized access...[to] obtain information from that computer to further a tortious act..."

Given the inclusion of two other charges (conspiracy, aiding & abetting) I don't think this is a crime "held in reserve" because there wasn't anything else to charge Lori Drew with.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	khym_chanur 2008-05-16 12:34 am UTC (link)
	conspired...to access a computer used in interstate and foreign commerce without authorization and in excess of authorized access Okay, but what did they do that falls under that? All I can think of is them creating an account on MySpace with a fake identity, which is sock puppeting. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

smashingstars
2008-05-16 12:44 am UTC (link)

A group of people created a fake identity using MySpace (in violation of the MySpace TOS) to obtain information from a minor, which was intended to be used to deliberately inflict emotional distress and/or harass the minor. Afterwards, Lori Drew directed a minor to destroy evidence about the scheme.

If you look at page 7 of the Smoking Gun documents, you'll see that the adult Lori Drew used the fake Josh character to essentially solicit sexual acts from a minor (i.e. "touch my snake"). I'd be interested to see how that's fully presented by the prosecutors as well, it's really only briefly mentioned in the indictment.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

khym_chanur
2008-05-16 01:04 am UTC (link)

Yes, but that seems like a much different crime than accessing a computer without authorization. If the accused had, say, tried to install a keystroke logger onto the girl's computer so they could spy on everything they typed then that would be a form of unauthorized access, but it doesn't sound like that did anything like that.

Or, I dunno, maybe the "unauthorized access" law is worded so that using a sockpuppet to commit a crime is itself a crime, like how using a crowbar to break into a house is a crime in addition to the crime of breaking-and-entering.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smashingstars 2008-05-16 01:11 am UTC (link)
	I don't think it's the girl's computer which was accessed improperly. I think the indictment is saying it was the MySpace servers which were accessed without proper authorization and "in excess" of authorization, and it was done deliberately in an attempt to harass a minor. IANAL, of course. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mistressrenet 2008-05-17 08:11 pm UTC (link)
	Someone over on Salon who was less lazy than me says the indictment appears to nail her for using the MySpace page as part of the conspiracy/fraud, rather than sockpuppeting per se. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	beaglemum 2008-05-18 06:22 pm UTC (link)
	That's what I got out of it, too. "Benign" sockpuppeting or anonymity, fine. Doing it expressly to retrieve/elicit info and then intentionally harming someone (esp. a minor), way bad into legal Fraud. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	smashingstars 2008-05-16 12:04 am UTC (link)
	All I know is what's in the articles, and what's on the Smoking Gun. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0515083drew1.html Looks like there's also conspiracy charges and aiding & abetting along with the computer charges, if that makes you feel any better. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ealusaid 2008-05-16 12:06 am UTC (link)
	Maybe it's viewed as a form of hacking? Entering a network/accessing remote computers without proper authorization, ie, an account that was set up properly? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	luthe 2008-05-17 04:10 am UTC (link)
	The laws that they are using are mostly used for hacking, actually. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	randombastary 2008-05-16 12:31 am UTC (link)
	Is it wrong to hope that bad, bad things happen to her? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	shinga 2008-05-16 01:17 am UTC (link)
	If it is, fuck being right. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	t_boy 2008-05-16 12:34 am UTC (link)
	Oh, yes. (Reply to this)

	gaminette 2008-05-16 12:51 am UTC (link)
	confetti (Reply to this)

	the_seventh_l 2008-05-16 01:29 am UTC (link)
	Ahaahaa, that's my home town! . . . Oh God, I am so ashamed. I remember when this first broke out on the local news stations. D: I have never ever used this word in my life, but I think it fits here: Lori Drew is a cunt. Really. wishes she had an angry icon right now (Reply to this)(Thread)

	iwanttobeasleep 2008-05-16 05:01 am UTC (link)
	At this point, I don't think "Cunt" even describes it. Sociopathic waste of carbon, maybe, but even that doesn't seem harsh enough. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mister_terrific 2008-05-16 02:21 am UTC (link)
	Having followed this case since the beginning--you can go to stltoday.com and use their search function--while I would like nothing more than to see the Drews and their accomplish get some punishment, I have a bad feeling that this is going to be very, very difficult to prosecute. Very flimsy case for the charges brought. (Reply to this)

	Dear Anonymous, mcity 2008-05-16 02:55 am UTC (link)
	I think it's serious business now. -Sincerely, Jonn (Reply to this)

darksumomo
2008-05-16 04:14 am UTC (link)

I am in a position to nominate this woman for an award or two.

Bobo Award

The ultimate achievement in the Kook Arts. Given in recognition of the lifetime work of those who rise above and beyond the call of net.looniness, the Bobo is reserved for those whose sheer quest at whatever it is they're pursuing knows Absolutely No Bounds, whether they be global humiliation, jail time, even death. Several Bobo honorees are, in fact, in jail or deceased. Think of it as the Internet's version of the Darwin Award.

She'll doubtless win. I'm just debating whether to wait until the trial is over.

(Reply to this)

	inappropriate 2008-05-16 05:13 am UTC (link)
	Hahaha, about time! That woman is a fucking monster. I hope she gets all that she deserves. :) (Reply to this)

herongale
2008-05-16 07:38 am UTC (link)

I'm glad she's being prosecuted, but I think the vigilantes who have decided to go after her family IRL need to chill the fuck out.

After all, the reason that the mother did all that despicable shit in the first place was to exact revenge on behalf of her daughter. Complete strangers deciding that they have the right to use similar despicable tactics for the sake of vengeance make me sick with their hypocrisy. I know that these people think they are giving the woman a taste of her own medicine, and it's true she deserves to be held accountable for what she did, but the most disturbing thing about this case currently is the fact that it's uncovered the latent viciousness of social groups, and how the collective viciousness of everyone who feels they need to "do something" creates a level of oppression that is 10000x times worse than what that woman inflicted on that one girl.

I don't want to feel sorry for that woman. What she did was evil. But when I read about this case and hear about what has been happening to her because of it, I don't get a happy feeling. It makes me viscerally ill to remember that the sort of maliciousness that woman embodies is latent in everyone. Even if she is locked up in jail, where is the justice when thousands of people not even connected to the dead girl decided to self-righteously appoint themselves as enforcers of morality?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

beaglemum
2008-05-18 06:48 pm UTC (link)

I don't think that maliciousness is in everyone, but it's true that there will be a minority of dickwads who *are* by nature malicious, looking for an excuse, and who decide to go vigilante. I don't approve of vigilante justice, phone harassment, etc.

However, that's not the same as people ("thousands of people not even connected to the dead girl") who acknowledge that someone's (like Drew's) actions go far beyond the pale of decency and responsibility, and who choose to verbally denounce the actions in strong terms -- *maybe* that's what you interpret as "collective viciousness", maybe not, please correct me if not -- because the current laws don't directly address the issue. Laws are a response to the mores and beliefs of a constantly-changing society, and they are enacted or can be changed in response to the way that society believes/responds to by opinion or vote. And a whole helluva lot of people, directly affected or not, made it verbally clear that Drew's actions were reprehensible and deserve legal and societal consequences.

Not trying to pick a fight, here, I'm just trying to understand your POV and share mine. And I'm 100% with you on this: not one damn thing about this whole pathetic incident makes me happy; I'm just grimly satisfied that the Justice system is finally trying to respond, as best they can, to something that anyone with an ounce of sense or compassion could have prevented in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

rowanberries
2008-05-16 11:33 am UTC (link)

Jesus. And she apparently knew the girl was already on medication for depression? Yikes. All that to find out if a child was saying something mean on the internet about her own? Uh. Frankly, it sounds like a silly teenage spat which kids get into every day with nothing worse than a little hurt and moving on to different friends. Why did Mommy feel the need to butt in and victimise a thirteen year old, apparently with a group of other adults? That's really gross, even if it hadn't led to suicide.

Obviously she didn't mean that to happen to the poor girl. But... depression! Child! Forty-fucking-nine years old! I can't find a shred of sympathy for anything she recieves.

*Growls*

(Reply to this)

pipssister
2008-05-16 05:37 pm UTC (link)

Ugh. Why did I read the comments?

More silliness. Something bad happens, so someone must be punished by law. The woman is scum, and deserves every measure of shunning and social punishment. But send her to jail? Why not send the girl's parents to jail for not monitoring her internet use? For not raising her in such a way that she would come to them with her teenage Angst? If breaking up with someone (here, a virtual "person" breaking up with a MySpace "girlfriend") makes someone legally liable for a suicide, we're in trouble.

Did he miss the original reports where her parents had tried to wrestle her from the Internet, and before she hanged herself were on the phone, encouraging her to just wait until they get home?

I want to slap that guy so hard his ears ring for a month.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	seiberwing 2008-05-17 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	Why do people assume that relationships carried out on the internet have no emotional value? I met the people I love more than anyone else over instant messenger. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mistressrenet 2008-05-17 08:15 pm UTC (link)
	Silly! Don't you know extra Mommy and Daddy hugs totally prevent clinical depression? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eucalyptus 2008-05-20 08:15 pm UTC (link)
	Good. That poor girl. (Reply to this)