"Cyberbully" Case Overturned - Page 11 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

drgoodtrips · #**151** (**permalink**) 07-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

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

Apparently not, since the woman was acquitted of legal (criminal) liability.

Maat222 · #**152** (**permalink**) 07-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

She just flamed a little.

It was a lot more complex than that.
She pertended to be a male schoolmate that knew her, spend days setting her up, and then turned on her, threatening to publically humiliate her.

Maat222 · #**153** (**permalink**) 07-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Apparently not, since the woman was acquitted of legal (criminal) liability.

I think more likely the problem was they charged her inappropriately with civil laws over the terms of aggreement on MySpace use.
Bad move.
Those are not enforceable.
Child abuse is enforceable.

drgoodtrips · #**154** (**permalink**) 07-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

I think more likely the problem was they charged her inappropriately with civil laws over the terms of aggreement on MySpace use.
Bad move.
Those are not enforceable.
Child abuse is enforceable.

As I recall, the heavier hitting criminal charges snagged over a jurisdictional issue having to do with MySpace's location and the location of the parties involved, since they were in different states (I'm recalling from reading about this on slashdot back when the indictment happened). I think they couldn't find a federal statute for it or some such thing.

Steve · #**155** (**permalink**) 07-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

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

Which is why she wasn't charged with murder, but with computer crimes...

MeadHallPirate · #**156** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

*ponders this contentious thread*

ahoy me friends!

imma pretty law abidin' citizen, however, that bein said;

if i was the parent 'o the child who ended her own life, i'd be doin' cartwheels and havin' a party.

ye know why?

because i'd be able to drive to the women's house who tormented me daughter into suicide and kill her myself. with me hands.

it would have been far more difficult fer me to carry this out had the woman been protected in jail.

*puts his foot down*

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Redv · #**157** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

I think more likely the problem was they charged her inappropriately with civil laws over the terms of aggreement on MySpace use.
Bad move.
Those are not enforceable.
Child abuse is enforceable.

You have a good point here. What that empty-headed woman did to that child is child abuse. She deserves some sort of punishment.

Sunshine · #**158** (**permalink**) 07-09-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

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.

Now that's just damn pathetic.

John Drake · #**159** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Is destroying a person's good name simply unimportant in a civil trial, even if the person hasn't done anything?

This is what I don't understand.

How is it reasoned that the damage someone may suffer from a civil lawsuit is, somehow, not as important as that suffered by someone in a criminal case?

The law should not permit civil prosecution of someone who has previously been found not guilty in a criminal case. The fact that the criminal case requires a far greater burden of proof, I believe, actually supports this. If a DA, and all of his resources, cannot find guilt, the person bringing a suit in a civil court should be required to prove how the prosecution screwed up in the criminal trial. That’s my opinion, and I realize that’s not the law. Just felt I had to say that before “Marcia Clark” here throws one of her hysterical little hissy fits.

If someone is found guilty in a criminal trial, I have no problem with them being pursued in a civil court, as well. But, if they’re found not guilty, that really should be the end of it…

I have to admit I agree with you somewhat, however, the civil/criminal dichotomy has been with us since the beginning of Constitutional law and has AFAIK never been even seriously questioned let alone challenged.

The main thing to remember, I think, is that it still limits the trials to two, and the idea of protection against double jeopardy is being tried over and over again, until you get a conviction, an abuse which was, I think, commonplace in British law at the time of the Revolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

The important fact being not that she is THIRTEEN YEARS OLD, but that she COMMITTED SUICIDE.Lori Drew didn't lay a finger on Megan, legally or illegally.Actually, I didn't expect her to stand up to any of that. In fact, I believe I have suggested she stop reading the messages, be they "psychic attacks" from special operations units that can read minds, "deceptivness" and "depravity"-filled texts, or anything else. That would have avoided them. You're making her situation seem infinitely more difficult than it actually was, which is unsurprising since you think she was apparently murdered.Maybe, but that doesn't mean everyone has to make up for her stupidity.
Well, yes, actually, although I guess it would depend on the circumstances. Suicide isn't ALWAYS stupid. Sometimes it's the rational thing to do.

Assuming you're not dying and in excruciating pain, when??

Steve · #**160** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

I have to admit I agree with you somewhat, however, the civil/criminal dichotomy has been with us since the beginning of Constitutional law and has AFAIK never been even seriously questioned let alone challenged.

It should be.

If someone is found "not guilty" in a criminal court, and then they're sued in civil court after that, the person bringing the civil suit should have to suffer the burden of overcoming that "not guilty" verdict in the criminal case...

drgoodtrips · #**161** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redv

You have a good point here. What that empty-headed woman did to that child is child abuse. She deserves some sort of punishment.

While I'm inclined to agree regarding what the woman deserves, I don't think punishing someone who deserves punishment is worth setting bad legal precedents.

Slon · #**162** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

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.

But she didn't harm the minor, intentionally or otherwise.

Quote:

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.

Uh, what? The Internet posts didn't "come into her home," they were downloaded by the kid because the parents paid for it and allowed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

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

I guess you better jail all the MySpace owners/operators for not knowing she wasn't 14 (because she lied, apparently).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maat222

It was a lot more complex than that.
She pertended to be a male schoolmate that knew her, spend days setting her up, and then turned on her, threatening to publically humiliate her.

Uh, no, they could not have "pertended" to be a male schoolmate that she already knew because Josh Evans does not appear to have even existed before they made him up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Assuming you're not dying and in excruciating pain, when??

Everyone is dying. Some more slowly than others. The end result is that we will all die and all of our work and lives will not even be remembered by us, as our brains will die when we do. So, it depends on your goals in life and your life as it is. If your goal is to have more pleasure than suffering, then suicide could be a reasonable choice for many people who work dead end jobs, live payment to payment, and don't have the qualities needed to improve their situation. The choice of suicide is derived from your desires and your capabilities, not just your state of mind or only your situation (some people wouldn't mind living for a few more days, even if they are dying and in excruciating pain).

Slon · #**163** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redv

You have a good point here. What that empty-headed woman did to that child is child abuse. She deserves some sort of punishment.

She said she didn't like her so it's child abuse? If someone says something mean to a kid and it hurts their feelings, it's child abuse?

Redv · #**164** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

While I'm inclined to agree regarding what the woman deserves, I don't think punishing someone who deserves punishment is worth setting bad legal precedents.

Child abuse is illegal and punishable by law. No setting of bad legal precedents would be involved here.

Redv · #**165** (**permalink**) 07-10-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

She said she didn't like her so it's child abuse? If someone says something mean to a kid and it hurts their feelings, it's child abuse?

I think she said a lot more hurtful things than, "I don't like you". To emotionally abuse a child is just as harmful as physically or sexually abusing them.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode