Megan's last words are certainly heartbreaking, but legally they are just window dressing. I've read about this case and there is bad parenting and foolish behaviour to go around. The trial is a dog and pony show to pacify the assorted sob sisters who seem to have glommed on to this.
@CarlinaZeikfried: I don't think that being horrified by an adult who would bully and humiliate a teenage girl is being a "sob sister." I also don't think that imperfect choices as a parent = "bad parenting." How many children are you raising?
I hate the "Midwestern Mom" comment, too, firstly because it is typical of the disdain typically shown by those East and West Coasters who don't understand people who are less interested in fashion, expensive accessories, and lavish self-maintenance regimens.
That said, is it possible that they were pointing out how 'staged' Lori Drew appears? How her attorneys are attempting to present her as an innocuous, "Every-Mom" sort of character so as to make her seem less heinous and calculating? And how sad is it that this choice of outfits could render her somehow more sympathetic to the jury?
In this case, the stereotype is working both for and against her.
Here's something to throw out: many people here and elsewhere (all over the world) are making statements like "How can this woman live with herself?" and stating directly that she is unfit to be a member of our society, that she should be a pariah, that she is disgusting and inhuman and everything else.
If she reads these, and then kills herself in the face of this overwhelming approbation, are we liable for her death?
I am sure she has received hate mail as well. The case may be even stronger in those circumstances: if people wrote directly to her that she is disgusting, unfit for decent society and less than a slug are they committing a crime if she shoots herself in the head?
@nellicat: Again, she is not being prosecuted for causing Megan's suicide. From the article:
"She is not on trial for murder or any violent crime, as CBS' Katie Couric noted yesterday. A judge said that girl's suicide should not be a factor in the case."
and
"Before the trial began, Steward tried to get U.S. District Judge George Wu to forbid mention of the suicide. Wu rejected the request but instructed jurors the case is about whether Drew violated MySpace's terms of service, not about whether she caused Megan's suicide."
The suicide and the public outcry that followed is certainly the reason that prosecutors have so doggedly tried to find a way to charge her. However, she is being prosecuted on a telecommunications charge and for the cyberstalking, NOT for the suicide.
@Blitzgal: I know. I'm not really speaking to the specific charges against her, more to the general idea that she should be held responsible for the suicide.
Many have lamented that this is best prosecutors could do because the laws do not address bullying someone into suicide. So my question is for the people (I'd dare say most people) who believe that she SHOULD be charged with some form of murder, what if she is "harassed into suicide."
@ineffable.me: No, there are many significant differences, but every case involving bullying or harassing a person are going to be different. Where do you draw the line?
@nellicat: Reminds me of the woman with the missing 2-year old boy who went on Nancy Grace, who played prosecutor and flayed this woman on live TV. She later killed herself, and no one knows what happened to her son.
@nellicat: Well said. This is the most distressing stuff I read on Jezebel, the insane absolute willingness to depart with things like the first amendment.
Let it be said that 1) I have kept up with this story from the beginning and 2) this has been the same thing over and over (and I sure would be interested in Jezebel possibly addressing the legal aspect of this case instead of stoking emotions, but I guess you do what gets you page views), and it doesn't keep being the same story.
This has got to be viewed with the impartial eyes of the law, and there's no law against being mean. No matter how mean. If you tell some guy at the subway to go fuck himself because he's talking to you and you just broke up with his boyfriend, and he goes and hangs himself, is it your responsibility? Does it matter if he's 16 or 19?
What she did was horrible, and she's a horrible person and it's so desperately, awfully sad, but goddamn if y'all don't need to take a step back and think of the implications of your own civil rights if we just start prosecuting people with trumped up charges just because someone did something mean. GAAH.
It is not difficult to conclude that this woman "fully intended to hurt and prey" on that poor young girl. What kind of illness leads a woman, a mother, to decide to hatch such a cruel and convoluted plan and then carry it out? I hope she is convicted of whatever can be thrown at her. Not being a lawyer, I don't understand why it cannot be construed as some form of child abuse or stalking or something, but regardless, I hope that Megan's mother is heard and that something to protect other children comes of this. I am not an outwardly emotional person typically, but this story brings me to tears.
@SomeAuthorGirl: the short answer is that the law has a lot of trouble generally with crimes that involve mostly psychological harm, i.e. where no one has physically inflicted harm on someone else.
I have no idea how this poor excuse for a human being can still be around. How can you live with yourself after harming a child, especially when you are a mother? I only wish for the worse for this lady. At least in terms of her being tormented by what she did for the rest of her life. every single minute and second.
That this Drew woman seems to feel no remorse is what makes me the sickest. Also, when anyone, but especially a teenager, talks about suicide - listen. If this woman had even a piece of a heart, she could have read that comment and done something productive like call this poor girl's mom and say she heard from her daughter that Megan might be depressed. Maybe then this tragedy could have been avoided.
@muppetprincess: You would think that as a grown up and a mother, there would have been a moment - like when Megan said "You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over" because how much clearer do you need your lines, lady? - when she decided the game was over and called Megan's mother. Then again, if she was a decent person or a good mother she wouldn't have done any of this, so I'm asking for way too much.
Lori: there is something that many people in your situation tend to demonstrate, either genuinely or half-assedly--let me see...it involves some form of reproach, or statement, or acknowledgment of what one has done...it usually is accompanied by tears, and some form of...oh wait, I have it. It's called You Can Show Remorse At Any Time Now, Lady.
@pandorasmittens: The way attorneys think is that Reproach/Remorse = Guilt. That may have a lot to do with why she seems so empathically removed from what's going on. I don't know if she has any remorse (as her actions toward Megan suggest Sociopathy), but I can assure you she's not having a good time in all of this. I, for one, comfort myself with the thought of what misery her actions are causing her.
What a horrible thing for her mother to relive and have to go through the emotions all over again. It's a shame the only thing they can prosecute Lori Drew for is cyberfraud.
@AthertonMerriweather: I'm still holding out hope for a massive wrongful death civil suit once this criminal proceeding is over. They want to get the criminal trial done first, since it may reinforce their case in civil court if Lori is convicted.
@BeckySharper: Wrongful death would be hard, I think. You would have a hell of a time establishing what's called "causation" - i.e. that but-for Lori Drew's asshattery (a legal term), Megan would not have killed herself. With a history of depression and whatnot, it'd be pretty easy to muddy those waters.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the other hand...
One of the most terrible details for me is Drew planning on printing out the emails and bringing it to school so everyone could make fun of her -- how cruel can you get? horrible.
@clamme: What bothers me most about that, is that is something a teenager would do. Not a full-grown woman. Which leads me to believe that this woman never really grew beyond childishness.
For real. It's a shitty, shitty thing to do, but it's even more bizarre and sociopathic because Lori is not a teenager herself. She's just a sadistic teenager stuck in a grown woman's body
@NefariousNewt: There are many people who don't. They are the ones who, even as they get older, try to dictate their children's social circle. If someone was spreading rumors about her daughter, a mother would speak with her child, take action if appropriate, and just generally be there for her. A best friend would create a fake myspace account and engage in name calling and social isolation. Lori Drew, you are NOT your daughter's best friend.
@devilchyld22: That poor girl. What exactly was this woman's motivation? I still don't understand it? Who the hell bullies a child?! I seriously just want to go up to this woman and punch her in the face. The thought of what she did to this girl, who as already suffering from depression, makes me really angry.
@rollergirl76: I couldn't even imagine at my age now (24) of ever doing this to someone. It's just wrong on all accounts. I can't figure out how someone could possible convince themselves that this is a good idea, that this is a way to handle things.
Like seriously, I can't wrap my mind around that type of behavior. But than again, I'm sane.
I'm so troubled by "You're supposed to be on my side." Just very mixed feelings about that. But none of what I think about it matters; it's all so terrible.
I still hope Lori Drew never has another moment's peace as long as she lives. I hope the media hounds her and neighbors whisper about her until the day she dies.
@TheFormerJuneBronson: How many times do we hear stories about the last words people heard from loved ones being negative and hurtful? Sadly, we just don't know when something like this may happen. It leads to a lot of regret and soul-searching. I only hope someday Tina can forgive herself. She did the best she could.
@TheFormerJuneBronson: Megan's "You're supposed to be on my side" comment just stabbed me in the heart. I'm not sure why you have "mixed feelings" about it, though. Am I missing something? (I'm not being snarky--I'm just confused, I guess.)
@girlhowdy: No, I just see everything like that from how I would handle it as a parent, and also how I would have meant it as a teenager. I can't be loyal to one perspective over the other. I would never blame Megan for anything; it's not like that. And her mother would probably be dying inside no matter what Megan had said last. It's just that I can see myself responding that way, and that I've always kept the internet something that I could disengage from if I had to, if I felt threatened or harassed or desperate. But I also wasn't thirteen when I had it, and I remember a lot of things from that time in my life that pushed me that far. And I can hear teenagers saying that to their parents and wanting them to participate in their lives in a way that isn't healthy, like by being unable to acknowledge their children's flaws in interactions with teachers or other parents. Just how Megan's mother was supposed to actively be on her side, I'm not sure, but telling her to disengage from that situation seems like sound parenting to me. Not that it helped.
What I find really scary about this situation is the lynch mob mentality being seen. While Drew may be a horrible person, she isn't being charged with that nor is she being charged with any sort of manslaughter.
The law is imperfect on this issue. However, as a society, it is a bad idea to retroactively change a law to prosecute someone. While in this instance we may find it morally justifiable, if the process is not protected now, the next time the law is retroactively changed, it could be against someone is acting in accordance with our value system.
@PandaGrrl: Quite so. I doubt and hope the case won't stand up on appeal. But just in case it does become a crime to misrepresent oneself in online social media, I issue this disclosure: I am not really a twat (I'm more of a cunt).
@PandaGrrl: Sorry if it seems like there's a lynch mob forming, but in fact, there is. We have a membership card. We've read thsi story from Day One and every time it resurfaces we are further appalled by it. Laws should be strengthened to take things like this into account, and it is unfair to punish Lori Drew retroactively. But that does not change the enmity we feel for her, because her callous disregard for the psychological health of another human being caused that person to commit suicide, and so far, she seems oblivious to the harm she caused Megan. I've yet to see any kind of mea culpa from this woman, and I don't think we will, because she has no compassion in her soul.
@PandaGrrl: @PandaGrrl: I can only speak for myself, but I am neither suggesting that the law be changed (I first of all am just trying to understand the law as it might pertain to this case) nor am I filled with anger at this woman because she has acted against my "value system", as I would read that term. To me, this is an extension of bullying, which has rightfully gotten more attention in the past few years and which is a very serious problem. Now, we have an adult getting involved in a most horrific fashion with tragic results. I wish there was more that could be done to prevent this sort of thing and, yes, to punish this particular woman for what she did.
So, you know, I take exception to your reference of a "lynch mob".
@NefariousNewt: laws should be strengthened to take what into account? i really don't think simply being a bad person should be a crime. think about it, its all well and good when you're the one deciding who's a bad person but what if someone else is in charge? someone who has completely different values. What about all those conservatives who think women who don't support Palin are angry and lashing out because of all their abortions. DO you really want someone like that having the power to criminally charge you based on statements (written or said) you've made?
Or, in the alternative, what if someone on Jez gets into a heated commentator battle of words and one person is a bit unstable and logs off and shoots themself. should the other people be hunted down and charged? And I know thats not a perfect parallel to this situation but its the slippery slope.
@NefariousNewt: I have also read about this case from day 1. I find her appalling as well. It is sick that someone would torment anyone like that.
@HarpMadness: Lynch mob is a poor expression to use. Sorry... and I agree that laws against bullying may be required to address that issue.
Having said that, the telecommunications law is not the appropriate means to prosecute this woman. Everytime we subvert a law to prosecute someone for another act not covered by any law, we are undermining the process. The process (ideally) protects people from the tyranny of the majority.
In this case, I am part of the majority but the next time, I may not be.
@bluebears: But that's just it -- if you and I argue on Jezebel, well, that's a public forum and we have no relationship beyond that (that I know of). We would be having this issue in a completely neutral manner. What Lori Drew did was a planned and calculated attempt to humiliate and demean Megan Meier, an issue of malice aforethought. It was her intent to cause Megan psychological trauma. It's one thing is someone calls you names -- it's another thing if they make systematic attempts to manipulate you until they can deliver a blow to your psyche. Maybe it's a slippery slope depending on context, but intent is the crux of this. I don't intend to get into an argument with you here. We can't say the same of Lori Drew.
@PandaGrrl: Well, it's not the appropriate method to prosecute the actual "crime" that occurred (I quoted crime because technically, there isn't one involving the actual causation of death), but in the commission of the deed, she did violate the rules laid out, specifically the Terms of Service for MySpace. This is imperfect, no question. But it's all we have right now. Like I said previously, no true justice will come of this, but at least the problem will be on the record, and it may help bolster the need to keep predators of any stripe from using social networking sites as psychological weapons.
@PandaGrrl: So one of the easy misconceptions I see floating around Jez is that the telecommunications law "obviously" does not apply in this situation.
I think - and I can't quickly find the indictment to double check but over the course of these discussions at Jez I have looked t it several times - they charged her under (a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(b)(ii).
now, on the face of it, I think that text does capture this activity. And in statutory interpretation contexts, if the text of a law is clearly worded, the "intent" of lawmakers and all this stuff doesn't really come in.
@NefariousNewt: wouldn't it be crazy if we knew each other in real life? I wonder that all the time on Jez. Anyway, she intended to cause Megan trauma but its practically impossible to prove she intended to cause her death. Honest to god, that "intended to cause psychological trauma" is so vague and that is the problem. Thats when it gets into the area of who is deciding what is "trauma" who is deciding when "trauma" reaches a criminal level. I just have no confidence in prosecutors, particularly feds, to make that decision to put that power in their hands. For every clear cut disgusting case like this there will be HUNDREDS of not so clear cut cases that will be debated endlessly and people unjustly imprisoned.
@PilgrimSoul: I glanced over the statute a while ago... I think that Drew's actions fall under the statute in terms of misuse of the TOS. To the extent that there is a tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the statute may cover the punishment... (but, full disclosure, I didn't review it in detail and this is a cursory read through.) (And I totally didn't think if the ED until you posted it below.)
But the law doesn't address the real issue that the public associates with this case- that Drew knowingly tormented a depressed child and that child killed herself. That she used a computer to do so is the only reason I can see why this statute is relevant.
But if someone can convince me on the law differently, I am open to it.
@PandaGrrl: OK, I read it over again and I don't understand where Drew "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access"
This could be because I don't have a definition to the term access right...
@PandaGrrl: The computer at issue would be the MySpace servers, which store the rleevant profiles - and under the MySpace TOS, Lori's access to those (by using MySpace) exceeded her authorization to do so.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
That said, is it possible that they were pointing out how 'staged' Lori Drew appears? How her attorneys are attempting to present her as an innocuous, "Every-Mom" sort of character so as to make her seem less heinous and calculating? And how sad is it that this choice of outfits could render her somehow more sympathetic to the jury?
In this case, the stereotype is working both for and against her.
11/20/08
If she reads these, and then kills herself in the face of this overwhelming approbation, are we liable for her death?
I am sure she has received hate mail as well. The case may be even stronger in those circumstances: if people wrote directly to her that she is disgusting, unfit for decent society and less than a slug are they committing a crime if she shoots herself in the head?
11/20/08
"She is not on trial for murder or any violent crime, as CBS' Katie Couric noted yesterday. A judge said that girl's suicide should not be a factor in the case."
and
"Before the trial began, Steward tried to get U.S. District Judge George Wu to forbid mention of the suicide. Wu rejected the request but instructed jurors the case is about whether Drew violated MySpace's terms of service, not about whether she caused Megan's suicide."
The suicide and the public outcry that followed is certainly the reason that prosecutors have so doggedly tried to find a way to charge her. However, she is being prosecuted on a telecommunications charge and for the cyberstalking, NOT for the suicide.
11/20/08
11/20/08
Many have lamented that this is best prosecutors could do because the laws do not address bullying someone into suicide. So my question is for the people (I'd dare say most people) who believe that she SHOULD be charged with some form of murder, what if she is "harassed into suicide."
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Let it be said that 1) I have kept up with this story from the beginning and 2) this has been the same thing over and over (and I sure would be interested in Jezebel possibly addressing the legal aspect of this case instead of stoking emotions, but I guess you do what gets you page views), and it doesn't keep being the same story.
This has got to be viewed with the impartial eyes of the law, and there's no law against being mean. No matter how mean. If you tell some guy at the subway to go fuck himself because he's talking to you and you just broke up with his boyfriend, and he goes and hangs himself, is it your responsibility? Does it matter if he's 16 or 19?
What she did was horrible, and she's a horrible person and it's so desperately, awfully sad, but goddamn if y'all don't need to take a step back and think of the implications of your own civil rights if we just start prosecuting people with trumped up charges just because someone did something mean. GAAH.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Lori Drew, Karma is coming and you deserve everything you get.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the other hand...
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
For real. It's a shitty, shitty thing to do, but it's even more bizarre and sociopathic because Lori is not a teenager herself. She's just a sadistic teenager stuck in a grown woman's body
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Jesus.
What a terrible. Terrible. Terrible woman.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Like seriously, I can't wrap my mind around that type of behavior. But than again, I'm sane.
11/20/08
11/20/08
I still hope Lori Drew never has another moment's peace as long as she lives. I hope the media hounds her and neighbors whisper about her until the day she dies.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
This is why I didn't try to explain it before.
11/20/08
The law is imperfect on this issue. However, as a society, it is a bad idea to retroactively change a law to prosecute someone. While in this instance we may find it morally justifiable, if the process is not protected now, the next time the law is retroactively changed, it could be against someone is acting in accordance with our value system.
Off soap box.
I feel horrible for Megan's mother.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
So, you know, I take exception to your reference of a "lynch mob".
11/20/08
Or, in the alternative, what if someone on Jez gets into a heated commentator battle of words and one person is a bit unstable and logs off and shoots themself. should the other people be hunted down and charged? And I know thats not a perfect parallel to this situation but its the slippery slope.
11/20/08
@HarpMadness: Lynch mob is a poor expression to use. Sorry... and I agree that laws against bullying may be required to address that issue.
Having said that, the telecommunications law is not the appropriate means to prosecute this woman. Everytime we subvert a law to prosecute someone for another act not covered by any law, we are undermining the process. The process (ideally) protects people from the tyranny of the majority.
In this case, I am part of the majority but the next time, I may not be.
11/20/08
11/20/08
11/20/08
Here is the text of the statute.
[www.law.cornell.edu]
I think - and I can't quickly find the indictment to double check but over the course of these discussions at Jez I have looked t it several times - they charged her under (a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(b)(ii).
now, on the face of it, I think that text does capture this activity. And in statutory interpretation contexts, if the text of a law is clearly worded, the "intent" of lawmakers and all this stuff doesn't really come in.
11/20/08
11/20/08
But the law doesn't address the real issue that the public associates with this case- that Drew knowingly tormented a depressed child and that child killed herself. That she used a computer to do so is the only reason I can see why this statute is relevant.
But if someone can convince me on the law differently, I am open to it.
11/20/08
This could be because I don't have a definition to the term access right...
11/20/08
Does that help?