Latest on MySpace Teen Suicide....

[3113]

Remember that case of the depressed teen who became friends with a boy on MySpace who turned out to be the mom of a former friend? She killed herself when this "boy" said cruel things to her. Well, there's a new twist to the story, in case you haven't heard. They're looking at charging the mom with defrauding MySpace:

A federal grand jury in Los Angeles has begun issuing subpoenas in the case of a Missouri teenager who hanged herself after being rejected by the person she thought was a 16-year-old boy she met on MySpace, sources told The Times. The case set off a national furor when it was revealed that the "boyfriend" was really a neighbor who was the mother of one of the girl's former friends.

Local and federal authorities in Missouri looked into the circumstances surrounding 13-year-old Megan Meier's 2006 death in the town of Dardenne Prairie, an upper-middle-class enclave of about 7,400 people, located northwest of St. Louis. But after months of investigation, no charges were filed against Lori Drew for her alleged role in the hoax. Prosecutors in Missouri said they were unable to find a statute under which to pursue a criminal case.

Prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, however, are exploring the possibility of charging Drew with defrauding the MySpace social networking website by allegedly creating the false account, according to the sources, who insisted on anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the case. The sources said prosecutors are looking at federal wire fraud and cyber fraud statutes as they consider the case. Prosecutors believe they have jurisdiction because MySpace is headquartered in Beverly Hills, the sources said.

It's still unclear who created the fictitious account. In a police report, Drew told authorities she, with the aid of a temporary employee, "instigated and monitored" a fake profile prior to Megan's suicide, "for the sole purpose of communicating" with the girl and to see what the girl was saying about Drew's daughter.

The grand jury issued several subpoenas last week, including one to MySpace and others to "witnesses in the case," sources said. One source did not know who else had received subpoenas; the other declined to provide that information. MySpace officials could not be reached for comment, nor could Drew or her husband, Curt, be reached. Attorney Jim Briscoe, who represents Lori Drew, said: "We have no knowledge of . . . anything dealing with a grand jury anywhere dealing with this case. . . . The only comment I have is we can't comment on rumors from anonymous sources."

The news came as a shock to Tina and Ron Meier, Megan's parents. Both said they were unaware of the grand jury and had not been contacted by the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles. "If MySpace is considered the victim, fine. I don't care at this point," said Tina Meier, 37. "We've been begging for someone -- anyone -- to pick up this case. If the Drews can be charged -- and even get the chance to be convicted -- it would be a day I could be happy with."

Cyber-bullying has become an increasingly creepy reality, with the anonymity of video games, message boards and other online forums offering an outlet for cruel taunts. Former federal prosecutor Brian C. Lysaght said such a prosecution would be "not as much of a reach as it might appear at first glance." In recent years, he said, Congress has passed a series of statutes that make criminal conduct involving the Internet federal offenses. Still, it could be difficult to draw the line between constitutionally protected free speech and conduct that is illegal.

Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the idea of using a fraud charge to tackle the unusual case was "an interesting and novel approach. But I doubt it's really going to lead to the type of punishment people really want to see, which is this woman being held responsible for this girl's death," she said. Levenson, a former federal prosecutor, said that if the grand jury brings an indictment, it could raise 1st Amendment issues and questions about how to fairly enforce such a law on the Internet, where pseudo-identities are common. "This may be a net that catches a lot of people," she said.

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney who specializes in privacy and free speech issues for the legal advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the potential of this case to set legal precedent criminalizing online speech is worrying. "The right to speak freely online is hugely important. Whistle-blowers create pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "So do many people who anonymously report on corporate or government bad practices." In the neighborhood where the Meiers and the Drews live, protecting the 1st Amendment has not been the main concern.

Teenagers and furious neighbors have protested in front of the Drews' one-story, white house. Virtual vigilantes have posted the Drews' home address, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and photos on websites such as RottenNeighbor.com. Tina and Ron Meier, high school sweethearts, have struggled to deal with their daughter's death; the couple is getting divorced. Their youngest daughter, Allison, now 11, splits her time between the two.

The mounting tension and heated emotions worried community leaders enough that they are having the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department regularly patrol the suburban neighborhood. Late last year, Dardenne Prairie's Board of Aldermen passed a law that makes cyber harassment a misdemeanor -- with a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail or a $500 fine or both for each violation.

A number of area communities have passed similar measures. And Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt pulled together an Internet task force, which put the final touches on a proposal Tuesday that would make it a felony crime for adults who use online technology to harass children.

I wonder what the results of this--succeeding or not--will have on internet forums, alts and such?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I still don't get it. Bullying a child until she kills herself is at the very least, manslaughter. it should not matter how the harassment was carried out. And that's what they should be going after.

"Defrauding myspace" is not the problem. I have two myspace accounts, that express two different parts of my life-- am I defrauding the site by using two different pseudonyms?

 

[sr71plt]

I wonder what the results of this--succeeding or not--will have on internet forums, alts and such?

Well, if anything comes of it, I'm sure the roar of "people" rushing for the exits in this chat room will be deafening.

 

[Pure]

i think i can see the problem. though we all think the neighbor is guilty of something, which law?

there is a principle that you can't be charged with a mental act. like casting a spell.

neither should murder be charged if there is 'false wooing' (indications of marriage) leading to suicide.

it's quite tricky to state what a new law would look like. i can play 'captain hook', if i want, and if a fair maiden falls for it, then offs herself, do i go to prison?

i'd add to, that proving 'intent to cause a death' not to say, intent to murder, would be a tough one. you have to kind of have a law which not only is about impersonation [which is often legal], but recklessness or negligence as to outcome. esp. death.

 

[jomar]

They're trying to approach it how they can at this point. Who to charge and with what. Slippery slopes and all.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, if anything comes of it, I'm sure the roar of "people" rushing for the exits in this chat room will be deafening.

Chat rooms are much more transitory-- this is a forum, also known as a bulletin board... Just sayin'.

But, yeah.

 

[Stella_Omega]

i think i can see the problem. though we all think the neighbor is guilty of something, which law?

there is a principle that you can't be charged with a mental act. like casting a spell.

neither should murder be charged if there is 'false wooing' (indications of marriage) leading to suicide.

it's quite tricky to state what a new law would look like. i can play 'captain hook', if i want, and if a fair maiden falls for it, then offs herself, do i go to prison?

i'd add to, that proving 'intent to cause a death' not to say, intent to murder, would be a tough one. you have to kind of have a law which not only is about impersonation [which is often legal], but recklessness or negligence as to outcome. esp. death.

Manslaughter.

 

[TxRad]

Stella, the difference is that your two accounts are both you and not you posing as a teenage boy and out to hurt someone.

At least I hope you're not posing as a young teenage boy. I know you're to nice to be hurtful in any case.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Stella, the difference is that your two accounts are both you and not you posing as a teenage boy and out to hurt someone.

At least I hope you're not posing as a young teenage boy. I know you're to nice to be hurtful in any case.

I did pose as a teenage boy, back in the day... Now, I'd have to pose as a teenage man, I guess

And, just in case the feds are listening-- yes, I'm much too nice to be hurtful. Not a fly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

According to every definition of manslaughter I've seen, the perpetrator has to do the killing while in the commission of an unlawful act....like speeding or driving drunk or running a light.

We had a case here several years ago. Mom ran a traffic light and hit a truck going thru the intersection. One child was killed, one child was paralyzed. Police charged the truck driver with manslaughter because his license was suspended. Mom was charged with nothing.

 

[emap]

In that case mom was fucked up enough, she killed one of her kids and paralyzed another, has to care for one and mourn the other the rest of her life.

I beleive I said it before, but in this case the woman at least who did or helped with the impersonating a boy is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which far as I know is for when you do something that kills someone else though not looking to cause a death. Things like tossing marbles at someone who then slips on them and falls down a flight of steps.

Problem lays in, nobody has ever been tried for leading someone else to commit suicide. Not because it could not lead to a conviction, just a very tough sell because the victims life would be under intense scrutiny which would be bad for everyone considering her age and the way kids tend to exaggerate everything.

 

[Pure]

i actually think the crime is closest to harassment, and that term exists in the law.

it's very hard to prove something about 'outcome,' except recklessness as regards outcome.

it's virtually impossible to hang 'suicide'; most people have a history; it's a bit like the old 'thin skull' problem (where there's a hit on the head).

not being a lawyer, i can only say it looks like a tort. harassment followed by serious bodily harm or suicide, that was likely related.

prove on balance of prob. in a civil suit.

 

[cantdog]

i actually think the crime is closest to harassment, and that term exists in the law.

it's very hard to prove something about 'outcome,' except recklessness as regards outcome.

it's virtually impossible to hang 'suicide'; most people have a history; it's a bit like the old 'thin skull' problem (where there's a hit on the head).

not being a lawyer, i can only say it looks like a tort. harassment followed by serious bodily harm or suicide, that was likely related.

prove on balance of prob. in a civil suit.

Harassment is civil law, not criminal.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

EMAP

The marble scenario is criminal negligence. For manslaughter you have to be the agent of the act. Like if I sic my dog on you and he kills you. Or I run a traffic light and hit you.

 

[Caitano]

You are an ass, JAMES. Look up "involuntary manslaughter."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CAITANO

I know what it is, and I know what criminal negligence is. If I hit your head with a pipe, to knock you out, but kill you...its manslaughter. If I run a red light and kill you, its involuntary manslaughter. If I set a space heater by the bath tub, and the kids pull it into the water, its criminal negligence....unless I expected them to do it, which is murder. The intent has to be there for murder.

The whole scheme is very simple, Caitano.

 

[Oblimo]

Manslaughter.

You need to look at the Missouri criminal law. Voluntary manslaughter is a defense to second degree murder, that reduces the murder charge when the killer was under "influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause." (Classic example: coming home to find your spouse in bed with someone else.) That's not the case here.

The involuntary manslaughter statute is here. "Cause" has a pretty strict meaning, and here the voluntary act of the victim to end her life disrupts causation if the charge were involuntary manslaughter. (Cases where the killer is accused of causing the victim to kill themselves almost always require purposeful intent of the killer and direct action such as duress.)

 

[Oblimo]

Harassment is civil law, not criminal.

Not so in Missouri. Harassment is a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, the elements do not fit the fact pattern.

 

[Pure]

so obl., is there a criminal law you could draft that would fit the case, and not 'false promise of marriage' leading to suicide?

---

i believe there is a US federal law against phone harassment, the other concept being 'emotional distress'

U.S. Code

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > § 223Prev | Next § 223.

Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications
(a) Prohibited acts generally

Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,

 

[Stella_Omega]

The problem is that, as long as these people aren't being charged with something, by someone-- they have to deal with the lynching mentality of an angry neighbourhood. Could be dangerous, yanno?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Thats a real consideration. A century ago lynching was likely when the courts and law enforcement were unmotivated about deaths in the community.

 

[Oblimo]

so obl., is there a criminal law you could draft that would fit the case, and not 'false promise of marriage' leading to suicide?

It's not really the law, IMO, it's the facts making showing a causal link and intent so difficult. If Drew were aware of her victim's state of mind, or were some clever evil genius shrink like Dr. Lecter, the classic elements of homicide could be there.

I'm just shocked there isn't a civil remedy for emotional distress. I mean, the poor girl killed herself; the ultimate demonstration of damages. I'd have to research Missouri's civil law to see why the heck tormenting someone to death isn't a tort.

I suspect it's a matter of the facts not presenting enough evidence to meet a burden of proof in a court of law.

 

[Pure]

i agree, obl. the connections cannot be proven to a criminal law standard.

the issue of intent, is perhaps irresovable. do bullies intend to kill? are they reckless *as to possibility of death*. i don't know. they want to torment the hell out of someone, maybe forever.
make their lives, as the saying goes, 'living hell.'

 

[emap]

Ok, you shot my thought all to hell. I'm going with Pure on this now.

Now about Lynching, that was not when a court did not show interest in a death, lynchings happened whenever the person killed was a fine upstanding member of the community or liked by the goup he/she ran with and the evidence for this person's guilt was not terribly good. As in we all know this person killed this peron but the courts may let them go let's get em. Not to mention the really dumb that person is not our color, let's get em.

Sorry I was looking at another thread about Sharpton saying we can't use lynch anymore at all and well it kinda stuck with me.

 

[JPMMURPHY]

It would seem to me that there was 'intent' to harm in some way. Bullying, if nothing else. Why the elaborate 'effort' on the part of the underage kids (with the blessing of an adult) to create an account that misrepresented them, find the girl, and send intentionally mean and demeaning messages?

It's like the mob. With all their misdeeds - the first nail in their coffin was - tax evasion. Over time a whole set of new laws have been created to deal with their specific type of crime.

I'm glad to see first steps being taken.