Since you can't seem to understand that deception can be tantamount to physical force then how about the other comparison, where I tell an overwrought military wife I'm from the Army and her husband has been killed. Oh wait, that's just a harmless prank, according to you.

And its "stupid" to be illegal to solicit children for sex, by your lights,... soo....

Hmm... you win. My bad, I had thought we were a civilized nation who had some concern about our children. I guess since childhood is already mercifully short we have decided it should be nasty, brutal and coarse as well.

One question, besides have a rather common mental disorder what did this little girl ever do to you so you defend the person causing her death with such vehemence?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Technically I could capture someone and torture them endlessly and leave rope in their room with many places to drape it around. If the person ended up killing themselves it would still have been their decision and I would, in no way, be responsible for their death. That is according to Slon, anyways.

Mental brutilization can be as bad or worse to certain people. How many people would get a spanking from their parents and cry a little bit and then be over it? How many were devistated when their parents gave you that look and told you how you disapointed them or they couldn't trust you anymore?

Also, not everyone is of the same sensativity. What doesn't bother one person could have a huge effect on another. The problem is were do you draw the line. At some point would it be a crime to say anything negative to someone? Regardless, I think JD did have a point with saying that an assult charge could have been leveled at this woman. It's not like she did simple flame fest with her. It was a very complicated and involved plot to cause mental harm to this young girl. Do you guys even know what the full story is? Do you know what this grown adult did to this girl? It just seems that you don't.

So what? She doesn't have anything happen to her? I stand by my statement that she deserves a beating. Some may think that is barbaric and blah blah blah. It just so happens that there is merit to corporal punishment.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Ah, your poison scenario. The fundamental difference is that the girl was not tricked into hanging herself.

If she was suicidal before she met the woman, how the hell do you conclude that the woman is completely responsible? Maybe she'd read some mean words against Obama and kill herself then. Would the writer be responsible, even if he lied about Obama?Well, it would be a prank.Well, there is the little technicality that the supposedly solicited child (in the game show) doesn't even exist, but I guess it's convenient to ignore such things.We are and we do. We protect children, and other people, from actual attacks. We've partly surpassed both racial and age discrimination, but there is still some there (Affirmative Action, drinking age, etc...). I think we've gone a little in ridding ourselves of presumptuous laws that claim to protect people from themselves, as well as laws pretending that dumb children turn into smart adults at the same arbitrary age. There is still a long way to go, though.No, we haven't. You are treating a lack of special and unjust protections as if they were equal to harsh discrimination laws AGAINST that party. Like a black guy complaining that it's discriminatory to not give him reparations and a guaranteed good job just for being black.Unlike you (apparently), I tend to choose which side to defend based on justice and liberty, not based on personal vendettas.

You are on the right track:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________

No you can't, because it would be an illegal and unjust thing which you committed against them. Internet flaming is perfectly legal and not inherently unjust.No, that's according to what you have contorted my position into based on your delusions.If you had your way, maybe.Yes, disregard that bit of horrible reality associated with your position on this matter. We now return to your regularly scheduled brainwashing.What the hell do you think is the point of flaming and insults? To have a good mutual laugh?She already had a lot happen to her. She was disgraced by the government, which is far more than she deserved.

What Justice is there in driving someone who has done nothing to you into suicide? Does our liberty entitle us to hurt vulnerable people just because we can?

My idea of Justice is a matter of balance. It is the redress of wrongs, not the excusing of them

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Because in your scenario, you're imposing your will on another, regardless of their acceptance of it. You said you wouldn't let the person eat, which would cause them to starve and die. Oh, and let's also not forget that you would need to kidnap the person in order to lock them up and deny them food.

In the case at hand, though, the woman imposed nothing on the girl. Nobody put a gun to the girl's head and told her to chat on MySpace.

And that's the difference.

I'm not saying the woman is a model citizen; far from it. But she never should have been charged in the girl's death...

__________________



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 don't think we've heard the last of this. This case wasn't 'overturned' as the title of the thread says. The defendant was given a directed acquittal. There are many steps left to go yet, and there is also the civil system, which I hope this child's mother utilizes to the fullest.

I have raised two children, one of them a girl. Teenage girls can be really hateful to one another. That is a dynamic of their age and culture. For an adult to go into that culture, utilize skills of hatefulness not available to a teen is not unlike these mothers of teenage girls sleeping with their daughter's male friends. This type behavior is also a boundary violation.

I can't say with aplomb that the judge was entirely wrong in this case, as it centered more around computer hacking and TOS violations than anything else. BUT we need a law that addresses this type of adult behavior which is devastating and potentially fatal to a teen, troubled or not.

__________________

Someone remind me: Who killed the girl?

Oh, that’s right. The girl did it…

__________________



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...

And that superceding event has been held in many cases which have exonerated another.

That doesn't make it right in this case. Laws can be changed, and that includes statutes AND case law holdings. This was a child who was pursued in a hateful and merciless way by an adult. If this woman had sexually molested her, people would be saying it was the adult's duty to protect the child. This woman did far worse. This woman's actions did not merely kill the child's spirit, it took her very life.

Just as there was a time when there was no law to protect children from sexual molestation, there is no law to protect children from this type of internet predator. That does not mean there should NEVER be one.

Laws CAN be changed.

We have entered a new age of danger and destruction of our children. The law needs to catch up with this type of predatory behavior on the part of adults. This woman's actions are unconscionable.

__________________

No, they didn't...

And, until such time when such a law is on the books, a person shouldn't be charged for something because a law "should" be on the books...

I agree.

But were they illegal?

I don't believe they were. After all, she was charged with what? Violating some Terms of Service?

Oh, my...

__________________



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 cannot post any criminal statute. However, under tort law, yes, they were. And I hope this girls mother takes her to the cleaners.

__________________

Hmmm...

MySpace cyberbullying suicide verdict overturned : Christopher Null : Yahoo! Tech
Legalbrief - Judge overturns guilty verdict in MySpace suicide case
Conviction in MySpace suicide case tentatively overturned - CNN.com
Judge overturns MySpace bullying conviction > Cybercrime > Legal > News > SC Magazine Australia/NZ
Looks like the news outfits, including the one I cited, have no issue with the verbiage. Of course, common sense also would include the use of the term, since the jury rendered one verdict, and the judge directed another one (i.e. overruled or overturned it, if you will).

This has some helpful information, in terms of definitions:

directed verdict - legal definition

It seems that in the more common case, overturning and directed acquittal would be mutually exclusive since it happens prior to the rendering of any verdict at all (i.e. there is nothing to "overturn"). In this specific case, however, the trial proceeded to the point where the jury returned a verdict and then the judge overturned that verdict.

__________________
"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 same justice that exists in any Internet flame.No, and this has been explained numerous times to you.

Well, since it's the girl that killed herself, can we simply blame her for it and then count her death as the punishment?

Wouldn't it need to be shown that the woman intended for the girl to actually kill herself?

I think that would be a bit difficult to do. Even if the woman told the girl "the world would be better if you killed yourself", that's more akin to saying "Man, if my Dad finds out, he'll kill me" than it is to "I think you should kill yourself".

Again, I don't believe this woman is anything even approaching a decent human being.

But she's not a killer.

I’ve always had a problem with differing standards of proof in various courts. If someone is found not guilty of a crime in a criminal court, in my opinion, that should preclude any and all action against a person in a civil court. As much as I think he’s guilty, the Goldman family never should’ve been able to sue OJ Simpson. A criminal case, with a much higher standard of proof, found him not guilty. That should’ve been the end of it.

In this case, the woman did not physically kill the girl. She was mean to her, but she didn’t kill her, nor did she conspire with someone else to kill her. Ergo, she should not be held responsible for her death. To allow a civil suit, to me, would permit her to be held responsible for the death when, in fact, a court has already found her to be not liable for the death. That’s a dichotomy for which I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s one which I think should be addressed and rectified…

__________________



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...