So if I hurt somebody's feelings, I should be held liable for abuse? Or is this just for children?

We were discussing child abuse. In this case, an adult intentionally engaged a child via the internet for the sole purpose of inflicting emotional pain on that child. That adult should have been charged with abuse because that is exactly what she did. She knowingly and intentionally abused a child.

No, we're discussing hurting someone's feeling, over the Internet, no less, where the kid went out of her way to access the information repeatedly.Why the hell else do you think mean people call other people mean names?

So the child went out of her way to access the information. That just goes to show you that children can't be expected to react in the way a rational adult would be expected to when faced with the same situation. That is why children ned to be protected. They especially need protection from mean adults like the woman in this case.

I'm gonna' go out on a limb on this and say that the prosecutor involved probably had more of a clue regarding the case than you appear to have...

__________________



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...

Then her parents were the failures, and should be held to account for that...

__________________



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...

ad authoritatem. Everyone is entitled to a judgement and all judgements should stand or fall on the facts and arguments they use. By your logic noone should ever discuss or criticise anything, as the principles can be assumed to know more than anyone not involved.

You quite frequently call the POTUS a pure idiot. I assume, however, that he's probably better informed on most subjects and probably really even smarter than you are, nevertheless most people here answer your arguments on their merits.

The prosecutor woefully undercharged this and there were jurisdictional concerns that probably muddied the waters considerably.

Then any parent who lets their child go out to play, or walk home from school, or be unsupervised at any time, is also a failure. And all the shopping centers that have ever had a child abducted are also liable etc, etc.

Bullshit. For some reason you guys want to blame EVERYONE but the person who actually did the crime; the victim, the parents, the computer, everyone but this immoral pig of wasted skin who should be in the dictionary next to "evil, fucking bitch." Mental abuse is as real as any other kind and is and has been recognized by law for centuries even among adults. The fact that this was done to a vulnerable person aggravates rather than excuses the crime and ALL of the arguments I've seen both Slon and Steve use are "questions of degree" where the degree is then not considered.

Civilization. Protects. Children. It protects them from each other, from depraved adults and from themselves. It's paramount among the reasons why we have civilization at all.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

So, according to you, the parents who purchased the Internet access and her computer aren't the ones who need to protect her. No. Instead, the police need to go and arrest anyone who dares posts something particularly offensive to any given child and arrest them for it, huh?

Indeed, it is. However, Steve isn't (apparently) the one who believes the logic from which such a conclusion is derived. Note the "Then" in the beginning of his post, which replies to Redv. What Steve did was actually apply Redv's (similar to your own) logic to the situation equally, and came up with the solution.

Now, we both know it's not true. The point is that sometimes the kid is at fault. What you and Redv are doing is getting angry at the girls suicide and, since you can't punish a dead girl, you're trying to find someone on whom you want to dump this.

The truth is that any number of factors could have led to her suicide. Maybe her parents were too strict and her first encounter with a flamer ended in suicide. Maybe she had poor self-esteem because of her weight since her parents didn't control her died. It could be any number of things, and the online flaming could simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

The real answer is that the girl was defective. She couldn't handle the world around her so she killed herself. Seriously, who the hell ends her life over a bit of online flaming and some hurt feelings? Kids endure way more via actual school bullying. You know, where they are FORCED BY THE LAW to be (in school). Let me guess, you don't have a problem with THAT one, eh? Actually, I'd be happy with just blaming the person who committed SUICIDE for the SUICIDE and not the ISP, MySpace or some online flamer she happened to encounter. However, if you WANT to go ahead and delve further into what led the girl to having such low self-esteem and such problems, the parents (who control her) and the school (where she is forced to go) would be the places to look. I think you'll find far more issues with those two. You, on the other hand, limit it to MySpace (a hobby) and, even further, concentrate on a single flamer on the Internet. Look, I can practically guarantee that the Internet will have something offensive for any given person that has opinion. So, we either ban the Internet or we ban kids from accessing it. We can't have people voluntarily get themselves offended, now can we? Actually, that would be called authoritarianism. You know, the whole "protecting people from themselves." Have they instituted a ban keeping kids from buying fast food, yet? Chips?

The restaurant scene from Demolition Man comes to mind.

I was responding to the person who said that the woman "should've been charged with child abuse" (or something to that effect).

If he "should've" been charged with that, I'm sure the prosecutor would've charged her with that...

If I do it "quite frequently", then it should be no problem for you to now provide, say, five instances where I've called him a "pure idiot".

Go...

He may be, he may not be...

And then there are people like you who answer my arguments by making up bullshit like "You quite frequently call the POTUS a pure idiot"...

If I understand this correctly, the girl's computer was in her home. If she was 13, I'd say it's a safe bet that Mom and Dad provided it to her.

I monitored my daughter's internet usage. Clearly, this girl's parents did not...

Whine all you want, Drake.

And, if you don't mind, please show us where any of us have promoted the idea that this woman did nothing wrong...

__________________



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...

Will you PLEASE stop trying to answer arguments with goddam quibbling over minor semantic points, and then follow it up with triumphant insults as if you actuallly said something? I will admit that you probably did not call the POTUS a "pure idiot" in THOSE EXACT WORDS. You HAVE disagreed with his opinion with some vehemence on several occasions, and he usually has at least as much more info and expertise than you say this prosecutor had than the poster in question. My argument is that just saying "someone who obviously knows better than you disagrees" is specious as rebuttal if it is the entirety of your statement.

So if someone breaks into your house and kidnaps your children they should be let off, as it was entirely your fault?

You HAVE said you hope she gets off scot free, which would imply she did nothing wrong in any logical person's opinion.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

That does not appear to be Steve's position. He said that, if Redv's logic is to be considered valid and applied further, "then" the parents would be responsible. However, I don't recall Steve actually saying that Redv's logic was accurate (feel free to show otherwise).I would say she did something assholeish which was probably a consideration in Megan's mind when she made her decision to commit suicide. But then, it is likely that numerous people have. Based on what I've read, her parents kept her on a tight leash. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the kids at her school played a part in her considerations, too. You really think a person who has a great life, devoid of oppression, is going to kill herself over a MySpace flame?

More than likely, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, and those who refuse to accept the facts choose to scapegoat it.

What would you have said if there was a Josh Evans who was interested in Megan but then found out she was a bitch and broke up with her because of it? Seriously, people break up ALL the time.

Again, stop whining...

So vehemently disagreeing with someone is, in your opinion, the same as calling them a "pure idiot"?

Well, that's just "purely idiotic"...

Well, let's see; there would be the commission of an crime to facilitate the kidnapping. Kinda' changes the dynamic a bit.

What the woman did was mean and reprehensible, but it wasn't illegal...

Criminally, she did nothing wrong. I believe that if someone is found "not guilty" in a criminal proceeding, they should be immune from civil action...

__________________



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...

Your apparent thesis here seems to be that child abuse is not criminal. How do you come to that conclusion?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

You've come to an incorrect conclusion. But, hey, that's what you do: Make things up to reach an incorrect conclusion.

I do not believe what she did amounted to "child abuse".

Apparently, the court didn't think so, either...

__________________



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...