Myspace bullying going to trial

[Gator95]

there have been cases in the past where maliciousness against a person that resulted in suicide have been prosecuted successfully.

If this is the case, the prosecution should move forward on that grounds. The case being presented used violations of interstate commerce law (victim and villian were in same neighborhood) and also holds that information people disclose in chat rooms could be unlawfully obtained simply by reading- and that the reader of that information could be prosecuted if they violated the internet TOS that nobody reads.

If taunting someone until they kill themselves is a crime, the prosecute the woman under that law. If it isn't, it should be- but then that ***** didn't break the law.

She's still a douchebag.

[LinuxRandal]

eg : I am allowed to dress up as a Cop, paint my car as a Cop's car, and still not cross the law; it's only when I try to act like a cop with somebody (traffic tickets, say), do I cross it. So my date-of-birth in most places online is not something that could land me in jail .

Not completely accurate!

Depending on HOW MUCH you dress like a cop! Being all the police and federal officers I know, I do have a few badges. If I were to make up a uniform, I could make one that is JUST like a local department, and that would be impersonating an officer, and they would also charge me, (if I was carrying), with some gun rules (carrying a concealed, unlawfull possession of a firearm, etc).
There are also restrictions of police vehicles, based on states and cities rules. Most do NOT allow their stickers/decals, to remain on a vehicle. If it is before a certain date (antique) vehicle, then the light bar must have an out of service cover, as an example, locally.

[cgallery]

Al Capone was finally put away on tax evasion 'cause they couldn't get him on racketeering. I say use whatever means are available. I will leave it to the discretion of the prosecutor, judge, and jury.

I know some people gasp at statements like that. But that is how our legal system works. Congress makes laws, the courts interpret them. Precedents are set, and if one of them becomes that violating the TOS and using that company's assets to attempt to inflict emotional harm on another person, then I feel that is a criminal act.

Going forward, 42-year old men that pose as 16 year old high school students for the purpose of trolling for 13 YO girls would be breaking the law. They wouldn't even have to act on their impulses, the act of creating a fake profile (where prohibited by the TOS) would be enough.

Am I missing something? Is that not a good thing?

[LinuxRandal]

There are well over 1000 teen suicides each year in the USA. I would suspect that in many/most of them there was a "mean" person that in some way contributed. Then there are the MILLIONS of kids who don't commit suicide and also have regular interactions with "mean" people.

Obviously you're not going to find anyone who would condone what this woman did. That said, there are hundreds or thousands of times that the same scenario is being carried out each year by other kids. And before the advent of the internet the SAME thing would happen with kids pretending to be friends or let someone into a cliq in order to then turn around and be mean.

Is that a nasty thing to do? Of course. Should it be illegal to call someone a name though? That's a very scary road to start down in my opinion.

Finally, aside from the details of the case, twisting a law in a way it was not intended as a way to satisfy a particular desire to punish someone is a perversion of the system IMO.

If this is the case, the prosecution should move forward on that grounds. The case being presented used violations of interstate commerce law (victim and villian were in same neighborhood) and also holds that information people disclose in chat rooms could be unlawfully obtained simply by reading- and that the reader of that information could be prosecuted if they violated the internet TOS that nobody reads.

If taunting someone until they kill themselves is a crime, the prosecute the woman under that law. If it isn't, it should be- but then that ***** didn't break the law.

She's still a douchebag.

This was a female that killed herself. How many of them, have gone on rampages, killing people? If it were a male, and then a colombine happened, would this be the same discussion (bullying Spelling?)?
What about the original report that the mom and the daughter, had a fight, JUST before she ran (or was sent to her room, depending on report) and hung herself?
I believe I had read that it was the daughters personal computer, in her room (not a centrally located, family computer), that can/should make a difference. (computer access AND monitering)
we are not in the (jurors) box, and haven't heard the evidence, and sometimes it doesn't matter if the person has the money to pay a judgement (any judgement at all could bankrupt and make homeless a person, I know), but there are times you do it anyway! (civil case) The above factors, will most likely be used in both the criminal and civil cases (mom/her just had a fight, is that the reason she killed herself, doubt).
We will have to wait to see.

[Kristofor]

Here's a snip from Earthlink's TOS.

"You and members of your household or business, if you have purchased a business account, are the only authorized users of your EarthLink account and must comply with this Agreement. "

So, if you have your friend over to watch the game, and he wants to check BT3Central while he's at your house do you really think that it should be a criminal matter that could send you to jail if you let him? That is absurd. If they somehow found out, and if they cared, then a more appropriate civil remedy would be to cut you off, or make you purchase a more expensive unlimited account, etc. I realize that there's almost no chance that a prosecutor would pursue this type of case, but that logic has lead to a whole bunch of similar examples of aggressive enforcement when there is a political agenda involved.

Using interstate commerce and anti-hacking laws to prosecute mean (EVIL) behavior is not the approach I support. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the behavior is illegal, then user those laws, if it's not then lobby for a new law.

[Gator95]

In an unrelated note- great the "douchbag" doesn't trigger the profanity censor the way "*****", "*******", or "stupid ****" does.

[Mrs. Wallnut]

I have a few thoughts and comments about this thread and the subject matter. But I am not going to voice them as I believe that what I would have to say would upset a few and I don't want to do that.

Although I will say this and hope that I don't offend anyone. Me being the mother of a 12 yr. old girl and knowing how their hormones and minds are working and want to fit in would, if I was in this kind of situation just hypothetical would wonder if it was the fight that I had with my daughter, the online relationship or some other factors in there. I am not the type of person to blame other people first. I would look and think back as to what occured before this tragic incident.

Another thing, my kids have access to our computer but I absolutely refuse to let them have any kind of Myspace or those kinds of pages...their emails come to "our" emails and I keep an eye on what websites and places they are on all the time. I am concerned about the predators on line so to keep my kids safe they don't have access to anything like Myspace, or Google etc.

[scmhogg]

I seriously doubt that they will be successful in prosecuting the woman. However, they will make her life miserable for a long time. I'm okay with that.

When I complained that my client, a reluctant witness, couldn't be convicted of anything, the FBI agent said, " She may beat the rap, but she won't beat the ride." I didn't like that then and I don't like it now.

That said, I hope they nail her with something.

Steve

[cgallery]

Here's a snip from Earthlink's TOS.

"You and members of your household or business, if you have purchased a business account, are the only authorized users of your EarthLink account and must comply with this Agreement. "

So, if you have your friend over to watch the game, and he wants to check BT3Central while he's at your house do you really think that it should be a criminal matter that could send you to jail if you let him?

But, criminal charges are at the discretion of the police/DA. I doubt Earthlink would be able to convince the DA that your buddy is a scofflaw and should be prosecuted under the scenario you painted.

The magnitude of the circumstances need to be weighed. In this case, a young lady is dead and a trial will get all the facts out in the open. Still think it is entirely reasonable.

[JimD]

There is a huge difference between letting somebody use your email or BT3central account for innocent purposes and impersonating a teen age boy to hurt a 13 year old girl. I also think the dead girls mother did less than she could have to protect her daughter but there are many what I would call permissive parents. We did not give the kids TVs or computers in their room. We had our current house built and the builder encouraged putting the lines in but we did not for resale. We did not because it put us one step closer to doing something we thought was risky. Kids hate supervision but they need it.

The mother that committed the potential crime was acting very immaturely. Picking on somebody elses child in this matter shows extreme immaturity and lack of judgement. I struggle with wether its criminal, however. I guess its up there with buying your under age child booze to be a cool parent. The later is illegal, probably the former should be. You would not have to make either law if all parents could just grow up.

Jim