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.

A narcissistic, stealth bullying boyfriend justifies his internet porn

Julie (late 30’s) had been living with Harry (also late 30’s) for 6 months when she discovered that he often snuck off to his computer room in the middle of the night to look at internet porn.  They both have good jobs and Julie says the sex is good, so what’s with Harry? Harry says that there’s no problem; it’s perfectly normal and it’s no big deal.  It doesn’t affect how he feels about her; it’s on his own time and there’s no reason for him to stop.  She shouldn’t be so judgmental.

Julie can’t find a good reason to justify her dislike of it, but she’s concerned about where it might lead.

What would you do?

Julie shouldn’t debate about what’s normal or try to convince Harry that her feelings should matter.

She should see clearly what’s ahead and get out of there.  She has already gotten her gut response to the question, “Do I want to be with someone who leaves our bed and sneaks off to look at porn?”  She should trust her gut response of “No.”  Her feelings are sufficient for her to act; she doesn’t have to convince him she’s reasonable or right.

She may be getting along well with Harry now, but in addition to dealing with a person who leaves their bed to look at internet porn, she’s also dealing with a narcissistic, covert, stealthy bullying boyfriend.

When there are problems or pressure in the relationship, he’ll choose porn over her.  He’ll withdraw from the difficulties of face-to-face intimacy and turn to virtual, not real, reality.  Later, as a stealth bully, he’ll get blaming, manipulative and demanding.  He’ll try to make her feelings sound wrong, old fashioned and uncaring.  He’ll claim that his porn habit is her fault.  He’ll say that she should stop nagging and trying to guilt-trip him.  If she only gave him what he needed, he’d stop.  But no matter what she does, it’ll never be exactly right or it’ll never be enough for him.

Why do I predict that?  Experience as a coach and therapist.  I’ve seen it over and over.  And it also happened in this example.

Julie should focus on behavior she wants or doesn’t want in her environment; not on philosophical arguments.  She’s never going to change him.  Later responsibilities as a husband and father won’t change him.  He’s a bullying, narcissistic control-freak who’s addicted to porn.  She doesn’t need to convince him that he needs therapy to end his addiction.  She should get the coaching she needs to get away as fast as she can.

Julie needs coaching to decrease self-doubt and self-bullying (Case Studies # 8 and 9 in “How to Stop Bullies in their Tracks”).  She also needs counseling to get past her fear that Harry is right; if he leaves, she’ll never find anyone else.  She should ignore her self-bullying; that little voice that doesn’t like her, that tells her that Harry might be right.

She needs to start living the life she wants to lead.  Just like Lucy in case study # 14 of my book, if she doesn’t trust her own guts, she’ll get sucked in.  The longer she goes on Harry’s roller coaster ride, the harder it will be to get off.  Does she want to settle for Harry as the best she’ll ever get?  Does she want the pain?

No easy answer for protecting kids online

A new pseudo-scientific and misleading study has been reported on by the Wall Street Journal, “No Easy Answer for Protecting Kids Online” and the New York Times, “Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown.” I’m sorry the headlines on this article allow people to draw the wrong conclusions, like “Threats exaggerated.”  It’s a mistake to base decisions on comparisons stating that cyberbullying isn’t much worse than other bullying.  A study that concludes that there’s no easy solution is a waste of time and money.

Of course there’s no easy solution.  No one is really dumb enough to think there’s an easy solution.  No amount of software will make the internet any safer than giving your money to Bernard Madoff or crossing the street.

Ignore the pseudo-science of the report.  Instead, pay attention to our individual kids and teach them that “friends” on social networking sites aren’t really friends, they’re merely virtual contacts; no matter how sympathetic they sound or how friendly they claim to be.  Obviously, dealing with malicious and vindictive virtual people (kids or adults) is much more difficult than dealing with people face-to-face.  And we all know how difficult that can be.

Remember the adults who encouraged a teenager to commit suicide.

Cyberbullies and predators on social networking sites are with us.  Of course we’ll find some software to help track down malicious rats and sexual predators, but we can never guarantee safety in the real world.  Striving for absolute safety is the wrong approach.

There are no safe environments.  That was the message I always got from reading the great hero stories when I was growing up.  And each tale challenged me to prepare myself for similar dangers.

Schools and the real-world have never been safe.  I remember a biography of Harpo Marx (remember the Marx Brothers).  He went to school for one day.  The kids threw him out the window (first floor).  He came back in.  They threw him out again.  After the third time he didn't go back in.  And never did again.

Schools and social networks are testing grounds for the real world.  And the real world is not and should not be safe.  Facing risks and danger helps us develop good sense, good character and the qualities necessary to survive.

Imagine growing up on a farm, in the wilderness or in the middle ages.  Not safe.  I grew up in New York City.  Not safe.  Millennia ago we had to learn what a saber-toothed tiger’s foot prints looked like and how long ago they were left.  The world still requires survival skills, even if different ones.

As parents, we have the responsibility to monitor and guide our children and teenagers.  Of course kids will object.  How many of us thought our parents were right when they tried to limit what we wanted to do?  As parents, we must be wise enough to know more about the dangers of the real world than they do and strong enough to stand up to their anger.

We must teach children how to face the real world in which they’ll meet bullies all their lives, even if our children are small and outnumbered.  That’s independent of the type of bullying – cyberbullies, physical bullying or verbal harassment or abuse.

As I show in my books and CDs of case studies, “How to Stop Bullies in their Tracks” and “Parenting Bully-Proof Kids,” bullies are not all the same, but their patterns of behavior, their tactics, are the same.  That’s why we can find ways to stop most of them.

When children learn how to stop bullies in their tracks, they’ll develop strength of character, determination, resilience and skill.  They’ll need these qualities to succeed against the real world bullies they’ll face as adults.

Of course, coaching can help you design tactics that fit your specific situation.