Maybe it's just that I don't get around much anymore, but what internet site other than Jezebel actually enforces its TOS? One of the reasons I like this place is if you act like an asshole, you're removed, period, end of story -- the way it should be. I sometimes go to a third-rate lame-ass MySpace wannabe that would no more enforce its TOS than I would vote Republican, and I can only guess there are more sites like that place than like this one.
It's a moot point anyway. Like Michael Vick, there is nothing the law in the U.S. would allow to be done to Lori Drew that is anywhere near horrible enough to suit.
what the hell is Reason Magazine? It sounds like a refuge for all the crap lawyers who don't understand how to argue from principle, and Mr. Sullivan seems to be proving my thesis.
@PilgrimSoul: Well, Reason is a libertarian magazine. They published an article by a friend of mine about illegal immigration, once! But, yes, opining about whether someone has met a legal burden despite being completely unqualified to do so is, indeed, a libertarian thing.
I feel a little bit bad for Lori Drew's daughter. I don't doubt that she has gotten the shunning as badly as her mom has. Sarah's 13 too, and well, had Lori Drew for a mother.
Plus she likely views this whole thing as her fault.
@SlappySquirrel: I was thinking similarly. And I can't imagine that Sarah's classmates' parents want their own kids anywhere near Lori Drew, which would make things very hard for Sarah.
I'd love to see a follow up piece at some point, (I'm looking at you Megan! )regarding whether anything changed at that scho0l, that community, etc. You'd hope that the school and the local parents seized the opportunity to educate kids regarding internet social activities, cruelty, etc.
Somehow I think we're going to read a horrible story about the daughter in a few years. Probably complete with meth and homelessness. After all, if Lori is in charge of shepherding her through this experience...
@theysaidwhat: Oh, I don't know. It's just as likely that the daughter will bide her time, live under the radar screen, and go off to college, and be just fine.
@braak: Same, particularly considering that I mostly operate in google online services and jezebel. I don't download anything illegally. I'm so boring.
@ejc.wants.pie.now: Well, and most of the Terms of Service stuff is, 'Don't use this to harass people,' 'Don't talk about assassinating anyone,' 'Don't use this to commit crimes,' and 'Don't take any of this stuff from here and post it somewhere else and pretend that it's your own.'
As shitty as End-User ToS agreements are in theory, in practice they don't demand that you don't do anything that most people aren't doing anyway.
@anibundel: Yeah, this is what I personally beelieve is the correct sentencing. She is guilty of being a major immature, cruel asshole, but I am very uncomfortable with her being found guilt of any of these crimes with which she is charged.
And once again, I say: ignorance of the law (or TOS) is no excuse. If a person is on the site, it is assumed they know the Terms of Service.... and shouldn't it be common knowledge you're not supposed to be as asshole to another user? Wouldn't one just kind of assume that one should use some basic human kindness? The mother has already testified that she, her daughter, and her assistent wrote these horrible things TOGETHER. Isn't that the definition of collaboration?
@onlyelise: No shit. If it's found that people cannot be held to the TOS because they say they didn't read them, then arguably, any contractual term you didn't bother to read cannot be enforced. Fail!
@onlyelise: Isn't that the whole point of having the "I Accept" clicky button at the end of the TOS? If you don't click it, you can't access it - period. Agreeing to the TOS is agreeing - it's your fucking fault for not reading them.
Believe me, I learned to read the HARD FINE PRINT on credit card disclaimers the HARD way.
@dirtybee says we bee obama jammin: I *think* the argument here is that she didn't set up the account so someone else clicked the box? Not sure, as I too am pretty confused by it all.
@onlyelise: Generally, ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, this is about a contract and whether a person is bound by its terms. If the prosecution has failed to put forth evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Lori Drew was the person who accepted the terms of the contract (i.e. clicked the I Agree button), she isn't bound by the terms. Arguably, it doesn't matter if she used the service via an account that someone else set up because she never agreed to the terms.
It is frustrating when the law is not adequate to fit the situation, however, being an asshole is still not a crime.
@Mama Penguino: Actually, courts have shown lenience towards enforcing what are called "adhesion contracts" - boilerplate contracts that are imposed by one party with a lot of power onto individual consumers without barganing power. Considering that the TOS can't be altered by the consumer, I'd argue that appeals courts may be reluctant to use federal misuse of Internet statutes to punish people for violating a ticky-box adhesion contract.
Now, if MySpace wanted to sue Lori Drew for breach of contract, that's totally cool.
(I just reread the TOS for Gawker Media and it turns out that we can't post material that infringes upon copyright. I'm not sure if user icons count as fair use or not. If it doesn't, we're all screwed.)
@RocktheDebit: Once again - this is not a civil case. MySpace probably couldn't sue Drew - no privity. But the statute does not, to me, read as though it requires privity in this case.
@PandaGrrl: I don't practice crim, but I can see a pretty good argument for keeping privity out of this statute - mainly that hackers, as such, don't tend to use their own accounts to hack - they use someone else's - usually an admin one. They probably never click any "I Agree" buttons. So I think it's difficult to assume this statute requires privity.
(And again, the conspiracy charge takes care of the intent...)
@RocktheDebit: I understand, but in this case, the only way the site has to protect itself is with their TOS. From my experience, courts really dislike contracts of adhesion when it's a consumer-type issue where there's a dominant-subordinate type relationship and I'm not sure MySpace would necessarily qualify in that same way, but the only contracts I read are investment conracts, so what do I know???
@onlyelise: @Mama Penguino: The reason she will be convicted, if she is convicted at all, will be for that reason. You know for a fact that every web service which uses a ToS is quaking in their boots at the jury and/or judge will say she didn't violate the ToS, and if so, it sets a dangerous precedent. Suddenly, the ToS, which was any web service provider's weapon for dealing with people who were abusing their site privileges, will be weakened to the point of insignificance. It will be interesting to see what the buzz is in the tech world if that comes to pass.
@NefariousNewt: Meaning, if I use the account that YOU set up, since YOU were the one that accepted the TOS, then I can do whatever the hell I want and not be punished?
@Archetype: Don't count on it. I expect the verdict to come from visceral reactions, not actual consideration of the facts. Frankly, the whole thing has been distasteful.
Here's the thing. She's charged with conspiracy. Conspiracy is a specific intent crime, which requires the specific intent to do the act being charged. For example, you can't be charged with conspiracy to commit murder if you never intended to murder, you intended to vandalize a stop sign, and someone ends up running the stop sign and dying.
If she didn't read or know about the terms of use, she couldn't have formed the intent to violate them required for conspiracy. I think this woman is beyond evil, but this case is pretty flimsy and has the potential to set some bad prescidents.
This just applies to the conspiracy charge. I don't know about the unauthorized access to a computer charges.
Wow, I'm very surprised the Sarah can be so empathetic and her mother is soooo cold-blooded. I guess in that family, a conscience must skip a generation.
@NefariousNewt: Yes, face to face time is lessening, though I wouldn't agree with dying. Bullying can happen without a computer, it just takes on a different form. Though obviously this case is interesting because of it's relationship to new media, the bored, juvenile white trash mom and her dumb overweight daughter scheming to bring others down is practically a midwestern archetype.
@maemae: I think we can agree that the case is horrible, without resorting to name-calling Lori Drew's daughter, who was caught up in her mother's bad example. Her weight and intelligence do not need to be a part of this discussion.
@maemae: I'm not specifically talking about bullying. Back in the day, when I was kid, parents talked to each other when there was any kind of dustup. Heck, I just went through this this weekend with my eldest stepson -- our neighbor across the street called me to tell me that my kid had slapped her son on the bus. I worked it out over the phone, read my kid the riot act, then brought him over the next day to offer a formal apology in person to her son. That's how things are supposed to be done.
Heck, when I was his age, you couldn't do anything wrong without your mother finding out about it before you knew it. Mothers used to have a grapevine and any transgression was already processed and your punishment waiting when you got home.
"She was my best friend," the defendant's daughter tearfully recalled.
If she was your best friend, Sarah, then why did this happen? Best friend implies that no matter what may be said between you, you share an inseparable bond.
@NefariousNewt: Oh I don't know, when you're a 13-year old girl who's had her feelings hurt, and this is how your mother shows you to deal with your problems, you might not see the long-term consequences. I would find it really hard to pin blame on a 13- year old for engaging in catty behavior, but her 47-year old mother just should have plain known better.
To me, the good thing is this all coming out in a public courtroom. I really don't care about the verdict, indeed, as a matter of precedent, I think I want her to get off.
@SlappySquirrel: On the one hand I agree -- frankly Internet laws are pretty crappy right now. They contain no clear contextual understanding of the true intricacies of how the Internet works.
On the other hand, bad law, hard case, or not, let her be convicted. let this get appealed. let this stay news. Because I want the laws fixed. I want the law to work. I don't want the Internet to become a cheap, easy, and gratuitous weapon for people's petty grievances or misguided actions.
11/26/08
It's a moot point anyway. Like Michael Vick, there is nothing the law in the U.S. would allow to be done to Lori Drew that is anywhere near horrible enough to suit.
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
Also, I do it a lot, too.
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
Plus she likely views this whole thing as her fault.
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
Lori Drew - I hope this was all worth it, you stupid lady. Way to be a role model to your children.
11/26/08
11/26/08
I'd love to see a follow up piece at some point, (I'm looking at you Megan! )regarding whether anything changed at that scho0l, that community, etc. You'd hope that the school and the local parents seized the opportunity to educate kids regarding internet social activities, cruelty, etc.
Somehow I think we're going to read a horrible story about the daughter in a few years. Probably complete with meth and homelessness. After all, if Lori is in charge of shepherding her through this experience...
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
As shitty as End-User ToS agreements are in theory, in practice they don't demand that you don't do anything that most people aren't doing anyway.
11/26/08
I try to always read 'em if I'm going to post or comment, 'cuz I'M INSANE.
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
Believe me, I learned to read the HARD FINE PRINT on credit card disclaimers the HARD way.
11/26/08
11/26/08
It is frustrating when the law is not adequate to fit the situation, however, being an asshole is still not a crime.
11/26/08
Now, if MySpace wanted to sue Lori Drew for breach of contract, that's totally cool.
(I just reread the TOS for Gawker Media and it turns out that we can't post material that infringes upon copyright. I'm not sure if user icons count as fair use or not. If it doesn't, we're all screwed.)
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
I still think that whomever clicked the button is an important factor in the case.
But I could be wrong. I don't practice criminal law.
11/26/08
(And again, the conspiracy charge takes care of the intent...)
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/26/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
If she didn't read or know about the terms of use, she couldn't have formed the intent to violate them required for conspiracy. I think this woman is beyond evil, but this case is pretty flimsy and has the potential to set some bad prescidents.
This just applies to the conspiracy charge. I don't know about the unauthorized access to a computer charges.
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
Heck, when I was his age, you couldn't do anything wrong without your mother finding out about it before you knew it. Mothers used to have a grapevine and any transgression was already processed and your punishment waiting when you got home.
11/25/08
If she was your best friend, Sarah, then why did this happen? Best friend implies that no matter what may be said between you, you share an inseparable bond.
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
Hard cases make bad law.
11/25/08
On the other hand, bad law, hard case, or not, let her be convicted. let this get appealed. let this stay news. Because I want the laws fixed. I want the law to work. I don't want the Internet to become a cheap, easy, and gratuitous weapon for people's petty grievances or misguided actions.