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.

Federal Anti-Cyber Bullying Laws Needed to Stop Harassment, Bullying and Abuse

According to the Wall Street Journal article, “CyberBullying Report Opposes Regulation,” a recent report on cyberbullying suggests that, unlike other Internet scares, this one is well-founded, but it questions some of the regulatory efforts that are gathering steam.  “The report, by the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a right-leaning Washington think tank that focuses on technology public policy, says that data from child-safety researchers” indicate that much of the furor is overblown. I disagree strongly: The furor is not overblown and we do need Federal laws to stop cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.

The right-leaning think tank’s objections to new anti-cyber bullying laws are that:

• Worries over online predators are overblown because one study of arrests from 2000 to 2006 showed that most of the offenders approached undercover investigators, not kids.  I’m glad the offenders approached undercover investigators.  But that’s no reason not to have laws.  Between 2006 and now, offenders have gotten smarter.  And, of course we want laws so we can protect the kids who are approached.
• They estimate that threats due to peer-to-peer bullying are more serious than those due to cyber bullying.  Even if that’s true, that’s no reason to abandon kids who are targets of cyber bullying, harassment and abuse.  As shown by the case of Lori Drew, without Federal laws, cyber bullies can’t be prosecuted effectively.  The Judge acquitted this adult even though she set up the MySpace site that was used to harass and abuse teenager Megan Meier until she committed suicide.
• Laws pose “thorny issues” that are entwined with free speech.  Again, that’s no reason not to enter the thicket.  That simply lets us know that the laws will have gray areas and both the law and the interpretations will be continuously evolving as hardened criminals find loopholes.  Laws encourage angry, potentially vindictive people to think twice before doing anything impulsive and rash.
• Laws would make statements that defame, embarrass, harm, abuse, threaten, slander or harass third parties illegal online, even though such statements would be allowed if said on a playground.  That’s not a problem; that’s an obvious benefit.  That acknowledges the truism that statements made in a local context or face-to face usually have very different consequences than hostility put out to the whole world on the internet, especially if the statements are anonymous or made through the safety of false identities.
• We can solve the problem best through better education.  Nonsense.  Of course, education and vigorous stop-bullies programs are very helpful, but they’re not enough.  Education alone does not yield the most benefits.  Education, anti-bullying programs and enforced laws all together yield the most benefits.
• Teaching people to behave civilly online is no different than teaching children to use proper table manners, to cover their mouths when they sneeze or to say, “thank you.”  That’s also nonsense.  If an adult is a slob at home, no one else is harmed.  If someone gets drunk and disruptive at a restaurant, a movie theater or a ball game, they can be asked to leave or ejected or arrested.  The harm caused by eating with the wrong fork or not saying “please” or “thank you” is minor compared to the harm that can be caused by cyber bullying, harassment or abuse.  Ask the families of Megan Meier or Jessica Logan, both of whom committed suicide after they were made the targets of cyber bullying.  Ask the families of the thousands we don’t hear about them in the media.  They suffer, helpless to stop their abusers, but valiantly and quietly to struggle through life.

Online attacks are becoming an epidemic.  Some sites even specialize as forums for anonymous bashing and attacks.

Laws are made to state the standards to which we aspire and to diminish people’s ability to harm others as much as possible.  Laws may be imperfect and enforcement may be difficult and spotty, but that’s better than nothing.  I’d rather have anti-bullying laws that protect kids 90% of the time and have difficulties 10% of the time, than have no laws to stop cyber bullying and leave kids vulnerable 100% of the time.

Our laws and even our system of checks and balances are founded on our understanding that no matter how much education people have, they will often seek power and revenge.  They won’t always be good and sweet and kind.  If given the chance, people will be mean, nasty and vicious to others, especially if they can act anonymously or the target can’t fight back effectively.

We must rise to the challenge posed by new technology and keep evolving laws and enforcing them the best we can.  We must stop cyber bullying.

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?