Lori Drew Acquitted by Judge in Cyber Bullying Suicide Case

On July 2, a federal judge overturned guilty verdicts rendered by the jury against Lori Drew, 50, who was accused of participating in a cyber bullying scheme against 13-year-old Megan Meier, who later committed suicide. This case demonstrates why we need federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The facts in the case were agreed upon even by Drew.  She set-up a MySpace account under an assumed name, “Josh Evans,” that was used by her daughter and an employee to harass, bully and abuse 13-year-old Megan Meier.  It is not clear what other actions Drew took to use or promote the use of the site.  After many attacks on Megan, the fake identity eventually encouraged her to commit suicide.  The three perpetrators would not admit who sent that message.

While that sounds straightforward and obviously wrong, and most people react with outrage, there are no Federal laws to prevent such attacks.  Since there are no laws making the cyber bullying, harassment and abusive actions of Lori Drew, her daughter and her employee a felony, prosecutors had to bring weak charges based on unauthorized computer access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Despite difficulties in stretching the application of these laws to cover the cyber bullying, a jury found Lori Drew guilty of three misdemeanor counts in the case.  However, the judge overturned the jury and acquitted Drew of the charges.  Some of the arguments for the defense were: * The three bullies didn’t know the terms of agreement for setting up their MySpace account because they hadn’t read the MySpace contract they agreed to. * Stretching the laws to cover their actions could set dangerous legal precedents.

Even though we can follow the legal arguments, the sense of outrage still remains.

This situation makes an obvious case for the need for strong Federal anti-cyber bullying laws. If there were clear laws and stiff penalties against, for example, using sites to defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties the case against the three people would have been different.  In addition, we must not offer people anonymity or secret identities to attack other people online.

Of course these laws would infringe on free speech and some people’s desires to create secret identities online.  Which is more important, protecting adults and children against anonymous attacks or free speech?

In the case of the suicide of Megan Meier, had Lori Drew’s daughter accosted Megan in person, laying forth whatever complaints she had, saying whatever vindictive and nasty things she wanted to say, the situation would have been very different.  Megan would have been able to face her accuser.  She would have known her accuser’s personal agenda.  She could have argued or ignored the attacks.  But online attacks through a false identity are a very different matter.

Of course lawyers debate legal precedents.  But we all know the protection we’d want against anonymous people who put signs or graffiti on our homes or burn crosses on our lawns.  We clearly see the need to regulate these actions, even if they aren’t direct attacks with a deadly weapon.  Cyber bullying, harassment and abuse require the same regulation.

Lori Drew and her attorney are trying to drum up sympathy for her.  They say that she’s had to pay legal fees and move from Missouri due to the publicity and anger her family has faced.  They may not have envisioned the final consequences of their hoax, but once we go down the pathway of harassment, bullying and abuse, we can’t control the results.

As parents, this case also should make us question our children’s use of social networking sites like MySpace.  I always recommend drawing firm lines that encourage face-to-face friends and prohibit virtual friends, who, by definition, aren’t real friends.

Coalition Stops Go Daddy Cyber Bullying Web Site

Numerous articles, including Sandy Maple’s on parentdish.com, “Teen Insult Web Site Shut Down,” have reported that online free speech has bowed to the pressure of community values.  In an effort to stop online harassment, cyber bullying and abuse, a coalition has pressured Go Daddy, the internet host, to pull a web site, “People’s Dirt,” out of cyberspace.  Calling it an “insult site” is misleading.  The site was forum for anonymous hate mail. What did it take to pressure Go Daddy to drop the site?

The site was very popular with vindictive and vicious high school students who used it anonymously to publically trash-talk, harass, abuse and embarrass their targets.  The combination of slander and defamation on the hate board was illegal, but the anonymity offered by the site protected the abusers.

A joint effort by parents, students, school administrators and the Maryland Attorney General brought sufficient pressure on the Go Daddy Group and the “People’s Dirt” advertisers – the advertisers pulled their support and Go Daddy acted to preserve its reputation.

Whether protecting kids from physical bullying or from cyberbullying, that grouping is always necessary to stop bullying at school or online.

The Go Daddy hosting service agreement with its users allows Go Daddy to end service for sites whose content includes activities that “defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties.”  The contents on the site, including a threat to kill students and staff, racial slurs, claims of promiscuity about named high school students, and accusations against named teachers fit into those prohibited categories.

Go Daddy could have resisted the effort and forced the group to go to court to prove some sort of illegal activity.  But this is a much better solution: common cause to stop bullying and abuse.  Go Daddy will find other ways to make money.

Every society or community limits complete free speech because of a more important value: The balance necessary to maintain the strong sense of community that enables the people to live together peacefully.  Neither end of the scale – complete free speech or complete censorship and repression – yields a society worth living in.  Some form of compromise, some balancing of individual and communal desires and needs is always reached in communities that move ahead amicably.

Whether the site will remain offline is still an open question.  Other internet hosts may be willing to carry it.  Alfredo Castillo, the site's founder, has previously said that if the site was removed by Go Daddy, he would move it to an international host, where it could skirt any American prosecution.

Mr. Castillo is a person who doesn’t care about his community.  He’s an individual isolated from his community’s values.  He’s interested only in his own desires to make money.  Those are some of the identifying characteristics of bullies and sociopaths.  Anyone know where he lives and where his children go to school?

Beating the CyberBully

In his post on Urban Semiotic, “Beating the CyberBully,” David Boles discusses the hate mail, anonymous and faked comments, and other tactics of cyberbullies.  He lists some cases that have finally been heard by courts with jurisdiction, including the one when a vengeful adult drove a neighboring teenager to commit suicide.  David points out that some states have adopted anti-cyberbullying laws while others don’t It’s so frustrating for parents and kids because we often feel pretty helpless, even when we can see the warning signs of cyberbullying.

I’m glad some states are finally passing laws to outlaw cyberbullying and I hope the Federal government will also.  I’m glad YouTube, MySpace and Facebook also have become part of the policing effort; good for them.  If these social networks don’t take strong action, then parents shouldn’t allow their children to use those sites; whether the kids like it or not.

It’s the only way we’ll have a chance to stop cyberbullies.  Writing and enforcing these laws will be as difficult as enforcing the libel laws we already have.  We’ll have to distinguish between an angry exchange and a pattern of on-going attacks.

The laws will make it possible to draw the line that outing and prosecuting cyberbullies is more important than the anonymity and privacy that the internet affords … and that we all like.

I don’t let my empathy, sympathy and pity of cyberbullies get in the way of doing what’s necessary to stop their behavior.  Not only put them in prison, but make it illegal for them to get on the net again.  Just like we restrict some activities of convicted felons.

I learned effective techniques to deal with bullies through growing up in New York City, by watching our six children (three girls and three boys) deal with each other and with bullies at school, and through my experience as a coach, psychotherapist and consultant.