So it's MySpace's fault that someone lied to them, violated their contract that didn't allow them to use the site in the first place, and then killed themselves because they were upset by the site? And it's not the fault of the girl and the parents, who obviously DID know how old the girl was?

Because there was no legally binding contract between the woman and the girl, in order for there to be an enforceable contract, there must be consideration given by both parties.

What the woman did was dispicable, and she should be forever shunned and scorned by society, but insofar as the law was concerned, it was not a violation based on what I have read. Failing to follow the rules of an online service or forum is not the legal equivalent of hacking.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I'm beginning to wonder just how scornful it actually was. Now, the girls suicide was a major overreaction. So, if she hadn't killed herself, would this have even made the news? It would have been a few hours of feeling bad, and then she'd probably forget about it. The difference between this scenario and what happened is the girl's reaction, not the woman's posts.

I think people would still have the same opinion of the woman's behavior whether the incident made the news or not. Any adult who spends his/her time inventing personas online for the purpose of embarrassing or harassing children is a pretty pathetic scumbag.

The difference with the suicide is that the wider world found out about it, rather than the wider world's opinion being changed.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

The actions of the woman were utterly disgusting and worthy of her being a social pariah for life. That the reaction by the girl was evident of some deeper and more profound issues she had does nothing to dimish how unacceptable the woman's actions were.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

She just flamed a little.

The woman was charged with the computer crime and not the child. Get it? The child isn't charged in the rape case even if she lies about her age. So, by YOUR logic the child would also be culpable. But then I have never said that MySpace should get off scot free now have I?

I can go on and on about strict liability and children. Sex, sale of alcohol, cigarettes, porn, all of those things carry strict liability when children are involved...

__________________

Yes, that clears it up. Your post to which I responded was a non sequitur rather a point about MySpace's culpability. The woman was fully aware of the age of the child, so strict liability is irrelevant to the case in the context that you raised. None of the charges against her had to do with her knowledge or lack thereof of the victim's age.

The only way that strict liability would have been relevant at all to the case is if crazy mom's defense had hinged on not knowing that violating the TOS constituted computer fraud. But, I doubt the computer fraud is a strict liability statute (especially since one of the first words in it is "knowingly": "Whoever... having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access...").

Yes, logic dictates (nobody owns logic, so there is no "my" logic or "your" logic) that the child is culpable, inasmuch as children are capable of being culpable. The charges against crazy mom that the jury applied were charges of "computer fraud" by virtue of misrepresenting information in violation of a website's terms of service. The child did this as well by claiming to be 14 and thus old enough for MySpace when, in fact, she was not. So, if crazy mom is guilty of computer fraud, the child is equally guilty.

MySpace's hypothetical culpability in the matter may be passingly interesting, but they weren't charged with anything.

Feel free to go on as you like about that, if it makes you happy to do so. I probably won't bother reading or responding since we've already established that your introduction of strict liability is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the case we're discussing here.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Sadly, none of the charges had to do with the child, but with her unauthorized access to MySpace. In the absence of any law that would hold her accountable, the authorities did the best they could with what they had.

In the instances I mentioned strict liability applies regardless of what the person knows. They are strictly liable when children are involved whether they know the age of the child or not.


Try to imagine if you can how little I care whether you read or respond to anything I post.

__________________

If you could point out where anyone has said that her actions were acceptable, that’d be just swell…

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Yes, I know. That's been established already in the thread.

This is a tautology. Strict liability, by definition, applies regardless of what the person knows. Either way, it continues to be as irrelevant to the thread and case as when you first mentioned it.

I don't need to imagine. I already have a pretty good idea based on your proclivity for attempting to turn all discussions into anecdotes about yourself. I can take an educated guess that you very much want people to read about you and listen to what you have to say.

But, it wasn't my intention to be snarky about depriving you of the attention you want as much as it was an expression that I wasn't going to participate in the derailing of the discussion for the sake of you posting the definitions of random, unrelated legal terminology.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Ah, yes, the ol' "grasping at straws" prosecutorial tactic...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

I can't speak for Marcus, but I think he meant to weight that against his own opinion that the woman should not have been convicted of the crime(s), as opposed to against anyone else's take.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Regardless of the internet or if this woman had done it throught the Post Office, what she did was still intentional harm to a minor, and is still illegal.
The question is just exactly what laws should be used.
Child abuse is perhaps a better one than an internet regulation.
But media that comes into your home does have additional restrictions, like swearing, so laws were probably violated.

Doesn't matter.
The child was 13.
So the intentional adult bears all legal liability.