valentinakunasz

posts about #valentinakunasz more →
MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

RStewie
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
I work as a contract manager for my company.

I read and sign contracts on a daily basis, and there is no way for a member of this organization to say that they are not liable to the terms and conditions of those contracts just because it's not Their signature.

She essentially delegated the right to bind her to the ToS through her assistant, and her subsequent use of the site makes her liable for the terms of the site. This is very cut and dried to me, and I'm not sure where these people are coming from that say "No one reads those" as some kind of excuse for them to be irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you are irresponsible enough to not agree to something without reading and understanding it. Your acceptance of those limitations is all that is required, in order for your to be bound by them.

\rant

This is just very confusing to me. If I'm going 80 in a 45 zone, I'm still speeding, no matter if I saw a sign or not. Just because I wasn't paying attention, doesn't mean that the sign doesn't exist.
Reply

RStewie was starred RStewie was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@RStewie: this isn't a civil contract action though.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Elaken
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
I am probably the only one who thinks this whole thing was too extreme of a reaction. I think the only reason the suicide happened is because the girl had severe mental issues already, in addition to not the best parental supervision over her myspace account, who chose to continue the harmful interaction. It was just a bad confluence of events and Lori Drew is not the Hitler version of mothers. People are jerks and just because they age doesn't mean that changes, no one stepped in to stop this even though apparently several other adults were aware of the account.

I have experienced life situations just as hateful/harmful as the one she was in, I sincerely don't believe Lori Drew expected this to result in a suicide. I am not condoning her behavior but I see vicious behavior a fair amount, she isn't unique in this and I have come to accept it is a part of human nature. I never would have convicted her because I am adamantly opposed to convicting someone of one crime because you wish you could punish them for another action.
Reply

Elaken was starred Elaken was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@Elaken: No I agree with you. And the thing is that in civil tort actions you can actually consider factors like victim's underlying vulnerability (which could cut both ways) and other intervening factors. It just doesn't work for me as a criminal case. Lori Drew is definitely an epic asshole and pathetic excuse for a grown up, however, and I would totally sue her ass for all her porn-spam money.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
Let me say this: all this talk of violating a web service's Terms of Service agreement is missing the point. The fact is, this was the only legal recourse available (outside of a civil suit) to hold Lori Drew accountable for her despicable actions. This case highlights the fact that there are no laws currently on the books which state unequivocally that someone using an Internet service to harass, stalk, or bully another is committing a crime and is liable for their actions. If anything does come of this, whether overturned on appeal or not, it should be that society has to decide on fair standards to use when it comes to using the Internet as a weapon. If we do not, the next case will be worse, and the next one worse still. We have the opportunity to do something about it now, before the problem escalates.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

aspiringexpatriate
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: I still think the civil case was a way to go, if not the way to go. As, like JD Regent said, a violation of the terms of service should only apply to punishment from the service provider- or if an additional criminal law was broken. Which, yes, means someone needs to write an internet harassment law. Course then you'll need an internet police force, and if you've had any experience on boards and chat rooms, about 70% of the internet is abuse of some varying degree.

OK, 40%, if you don't count the 50% of the internet which is solely dedicated to porn.
Reply

aspiringexpatriate was starred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: I should know -- I'm on the road crew.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

SarahMC
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
I never read the Terms of Service but when I click "accept" anyway I am accepting that I am being held to those terms anyway.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@SarahMC: I don't know, I worry about this attitude a little. On myspace it's whatever, but think about all those crazy contracts that cell phone companies force you to sign, credit cards, employment contracts with KBR, and other legal black holes where you end up contracting away basic constitutional rights because you don't have the bargaining power to change the terms, or because it is too long and confusing to read. Obviously this is not the same situation but I think it is too simplistic to say, "you violate the ToS, you pay" or whatever.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

rosasparks
12/02/08

@SarahMC: Exactly. The point is, even if you don't read it, you know you're being held to some kind of standard.

Once you click, you're in. If it's your account, the defense of YOU didn't click it, someone else did, is basically bunk. They certainly didn't prove that she didn't and that the assistant did, either.

ugh.
Reply

rosasparks was starred rosasparks was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: a lot of these concerns should be tempered by prosecutorial discretion though, no?
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@PilgrimSoul: pfft is what i say to prosecutorial discretion. like i said in this particular case it doesn't seem overly nefarious but i just really worry about implications. it doesn't seem like a good fit for the behavior we want to punish, which is intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: There are some things you simply cannot contract away and your constitutional rights -- to an extent -- are one (or more) or them. They get you in the end by having the means and the determination to hack away at your life with a never-ending lawsuit or some such soul-sucking venture. If it's arguably something you don't need in order to live (MySpace) opposed to something you do need to live (medical help), I can easily see why you would be held accountable to the small print.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@Mama Penguino: that's not actually true. plenty of contracts like the ones i mention above actually do stipulate that you waive basic rights, esp mandatory arbitration clauses that say you can't sue the company when they fuck you, oh and they get to choose the arbitrator too.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: Understood. Which is why I wrote "to an extent." Anytime I see a mandatory arbitration clause, I cross it out, initial it, and send it back. Unfortunately, most folks don't know you can at least try that. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, I think real hard about whether I need the thing or not.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@Mama Penguino: good for you. how has that worked out for you practically? do they respond?
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: Once, I called the place (was going to sign a subscription agreement) and they told me it was fine to go through the document and strike through the arbitration clause and to even change the controlling law to my own state (!), but usually, they say "tough luck" and I have to either sign or give it up.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@Mama Penguino: Oh, and one time, too, after the fact, I called and re-negotiated a term. I was very nice and they were very nice and it was all very nice.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

breccia
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
I think everyone's guilty of trolling or lying on the internet at some point. But most of those times it doesn't lead to something as heinous as this. I highly doubt there's going to be a rash of teenagers crying in court over how their internet sweetheart really had a phony picture of them on their myspace profile. But the assholes who push people to suicide or other forms of self-harm SHOULD be held accountable, I think. Internet anonymity isn't an excuse to screw with people's lives in such an extreme way.
Reply

breccia was starred breccia was unstarred

Mafalda para Presidente
12/02/08

@breccia: @breccia: Can anyone "push" suicide, though? It seems to me like Megan had some previous issues unrelated to Lori which, and she was just pushed over the edge by this person's actions. While I think what Lori did was despicable for a grown woman, I don't think the INTENT of her was to push Megan to suicide, it was just to annoy her. Wrong? Yes. Worth 20 years in prison? I'm not so sure.

It would be a little like blaming some guy because her girlfriend committed suicide when he broke up with her. Did he play a part? Partly, but it doesn't make him guilty of the suicide.
Reply

Fate'sBitch
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
"I always read the terms of service. . . . If you choose to be lazy and not go though that entire agreement or contract of agreement then absolutely you should be held liable"

I agree with this 100% I don't understand how you can get away with ignoring the terms of an agreement because you didn't bother to read them in the first place. That, I think, would set a worse precedent, that you can sign something, agree to it, and then claim ignorance, and get away with violating the terms of that agreement. If you don't agree or you don't understand, don't sign. Right?

I am I making any sense? I just don't get how ignorance works as an excuse here.
Reply

Fate'sBitch was starred Fate'sBitch was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
I have great respect for Pamela Jones, but she's overreacting. If there's a reason to get off the Internet, it's because it makes information about you accessible to anyone through the auspices of Google, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, et. al., and you have very little control over what happens to the information. Ask anyone applying to the Obama administration for a job -- they are going to want to know everything about your on-line persona(s), and that could be bad for you, depending on what information is publicly accessible.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

AthertonMerriweather
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: What if my Second Life persona applies for a position with the Obama administration? Will they be interested in my real life persona?
Reply

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

@AthertonMerriweather: I'm not sure your Second Life persona can apply for a job. There are parts of The Internet which still don't mesh well with reality. But I'm sure they'd want to know.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either the Terms of Service are legally binding, or they are not. Either you accept them, or you don't. This doesn't mean there's going to be a rash of cases where people are going to be taken to court over violating the Terms of Service over minor things. The precedent it does set is that if you use a service like MySpace to perpetuate a fraud or commit a crime, you will be held liable.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

pinkyBella
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: Beautifully said. Even though most people don't read them, it is still legally binding. In a case like this, it's hard to separate emotion and legalities.
Reply

pinkyBella was starred pinkyBella was unstarred

Anne is Spiderman
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: That's the part of the defense I didn't understand (well, other than the fact that she was defending herself at all)--even if she didn't read them, she still agreed to them.
Reply

Anne is Spiderman was starred

doctorsnowy
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: Eh...it's funny though because technically terms of service aren't really legally binding. As a lawyer, you can always argue your way out of them! (I know, we are SKETCHY!)
Reply

doctorsnowy was starred doctorsnowy was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@LizbethAnne: wasn't the defense that she wasn't the one who clicked the I accept button?
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: yeah, I still don't know why you'd want to write privity into this statute. The use of the account violated the ToS - it shouldn't matter too much who clicked what button. and hackers/computer abusers are often not going to use their own accounts...
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

@doctorsnowy: Well, not legally binding in the sense of law, but you have to accept them to use a service, and the company uses that as a means to control how you use the service. They can remove you from the service for violating the ToS, and are under no obligation to reinstate you.

Look, either this works or it doesn't. My point is that either we're going to take this kind of thing seriously, and make sure that people who use such services for malfeasant purposes are held accountable, or we should just let everyone do what they want and hang the consequences. The idea is that Megan Meier's death should lead us to taking a long, hard look at what we are willing to tolerate as a society.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

but then it seems like the violator should be the person who allowed Drew to use the account in this way, if she knew it was happening.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: Yes, but whether she did or not, she still violated the ToS. It doesn't matter whose account it is if they use it for untoward purposes. Most Terms of Service agreements include clauses that say that if you let someone use your account who is not the original initiator of the account, you are liable and will lose your access, and you and the person using your account will be banned from the service. That's to prevent people from allowing people access to sites where they have been previously been banned, by getting some dupe to let them use their account.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: Yeah but being banned from myspace and being held criminally liable are two different beasts.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

PilgrimSoul
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: but let's say I'm a hacker and I steal your myspace account, that you haven't been using for awhile, to impersonate you. I can see wanting to capture that kind of use under the terms of the statute.
Reply

PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred

NefariousNewt
12/02/08

@J.D.Regent: True, but both things cross over in a case like this. If Lori Drew had sent letters to Megan Meier, I'm pretty sure there would be little quibbling. It's not so much about the medium as the method; unfortunately, the method has become the issue. I agree there's a sea of gray here, but this is the opportunity to start turning the gray into a more useful color. This verdict is probably imperfect, but so are many legal issues when a new technology becomes widely available. Was the first person who struck a pedestrian with a car called a murderer, or was it simply an accident? Given that traffic laws were next-to-nonexistent at the time, how do you decide?
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

J.D.Regent
12/02/08

@PilgrimSoul: yeah i do see that. I just think it is very weird and dangerous to move from the most casual of contracts into criminal liability.
Reply

J.D.Regent was starred J.D.Regent was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: Excellent response. I concur.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

samethingwedoeverynightpinky
12/02/08

@NefariousNewt: Given what she was actually accused of, if she had sent letters to Megan Meier, would she be guilty of anything at all? Legally, I mean?
Reply

little_engine_that_could
12/02/08

In reply to MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew
"I always read the terms of service" Um. No you dont. I think what happened to poor Megan was despicable but I dont think the computer fraud act was the way to justice and I agree with Pamela Jones. Its time for the law to catch up to the times not to interpret old laws to fit situations they werent intended for.
Reply

so5minutesago
12/02/08

@little_engine_that_could: I agree as well. Lori Drew did a horrible thing, but I do worry that this gives prosecutors license to go after people for seemingly unrelated offenses, just because they violated a tiny clause in a many-page user agreement.
Reply

so5minutesago was starred so5minutesago was unstarred

RainbowBrite
12/02/08

@so5minutesago: Credit cards, mortgages, etc also have multi-page agreements with teeny tiny mouse print. You can't violate those if you sign on to them. This is no different. It seems like she was convicted on the right things, and the jury rightfully acquitted her of the charges that were a real stretch.

Agreed about the need to rewrite the laws to include this sort of thing, though.
Reply

RainbowBrite was starred RainbowBrite was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@little_engine_that_could: I've never clicked YES, OKAY or I AGREE without reading the entire frigging terms of service of whatever website or whatever that I want to engage. Granted, I'm a lawyer who was told by her lawyer father to never, ever, ever sign or agree to something that you haven't read, but in any case, not reading the terms of service--at least skimming them--is ridiculous.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

CollierLibra
12/02/08

@Mama Penguino: And isn't there the qualifier that ignorance is no excuse? If someone doesn't know that stealing is illegal, and they do it, they're still committing a crime, despite any ignorance to the law.
Reply

CollierLibra was starred CollierLibra was unstarred

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@CollierLibra: That reminds me of the Steve Martin skit where he wonders why no one on trial for murder uses the defense of "I forgot!" Yes, ignorance of the law does not excuse you from breaking it. I've had to defend cases on tiny little statutes that nobody in their right mind would be reading, but they're on the books and there goes the defense.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

Red-headed bookworm
12/02/08

@Mama Penguino: In this case, I think enforcing TOS is a good thing. What if it was a case of someone like a pedophile pretending to be younger than they are on MySpace? You could bring a similar type of case against them, correct?
Reply

Mama Penguino
12/02/08

@InCahoots: Amen. In law, you take your victims as you find them. I think it's called the Thin Skull syndrome. You may not have known the guy you just scared into a heart attack had a weak heart, but he did and now you're liable.
Reply

Mama Penguino was starred Mama Penguino was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#valentinakunasz

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

MySpace Trial: Jurors Wanted A Harsher Sentence For Lori Drew

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment