It is in tort in the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

And even in contract law if a contract is written so as to be unconscionable.

You and your ilk look as bad as Slon on this thread.

__________________

My "ilk"?

Oh, Puddin', try harder, because that was weak.

It's truly sad when someone with your alleged education is unable to construct a point better than "You and your ilk".

I don't believe that the woman should be charged with murder. Apparently, the District Attorney didn't think so, either, as the woman was charged with what amounted to computer crimes...

__________________



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...

It's getting a bit heated in this thread, perhaps everyone should relax a bit before someone gets murdered by a rude post.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Yes, your black and white ilk.

Just because there is no law that covers this type of thing doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Laws are changed, added, and repealed every day. That is why we have legislators and courts.


The fact that there was no law that covered this makes what she did no less reprehensible. There are people in the world who don't need laws to make them honorable. And those people would not have done something like this. But this low life bottom feeder is not an honorable person.

Let's just say you are out on the lake in front of my house (God forbid that you ever should be), and you deliberately swamp a boat with the wake from your own, and someone dies, you would be charged with second degree murder. You are responsible for the water waves that your boat creates.

Likewise, if you are on the internet doing the same thing with words, you should be responsible when someone dies.

A 13 year old is too young to drink, smoke, or consent to sex with an adult. And any adult who sells alcohol, cigarettes to a 13 year old, or one who has sex with her is criminally prosecuted. So, it makes no sense that an adult who sets out to torment her and does so until she dies should be held blameless. The wake of her actions caused this to happen. BUT FOR this hateful woman's actions the girl would still be alive.

__________________

Trust me, this chickie is not one who would kill herself over being called 'puddin'.' Nor would she allow what the term suggests.

__________________

So Steve would only be charged with attempted murder.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Have I said there shouldn't be a law regarding this?

Have I said that what the woman did isn't reprehensible?

As always, you've been a failure at making a point...

Did the case at hand happen in Kentucky?

Again, you've been a pathetic failure at making a point...

Hardly the same thing...

The girl was 13 when she signed up for MySpace. MySpace TOS requires someone to be 14. In any legal action, MySpace should, therefore, be charged. In fact, a case could be made that her parents were complicit if they knew about her account...

I've read that the girl suffered depression. Given that, your comment is kind of silly. Depressed people off themselves all the time without the aid of MySpace.

It's a convoluted case. But it's not a murder case...

__________________



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...

Sadly, there is no law against obnoxiousness.

__________________

If there was, you'd get a death sentence...

__________________



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...

Dream on.

__________________

Snappy comeback...

__________________



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...

Not really. The "spirit" of prohibting double jeopardy should actually be called multiple jeopardy, and the idea is to prevent one from being tried over and over until the state gets the result it wants. Equity law is a much different entity than criminal, with different rules and, importantly, no actual penal consequences. One of its major functions is, in fact, for cases just like this, where no actual law was violated but substantial damage was still done, hence the need to restore "equity".

Thank god for that, I and many others here would be serving long sentences as habitual offenders

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Quite true, I'm sure, though also irrelevant to what I said where you quoted me.



If wishes were fishes... I'd suggest that you not post from wiki or else not worry about getting shit for posting from wiki. That's likely to be more effective than doing something and declaring that you don't want shit.

__________________
"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

You seem to have a valid point here. And, to be clear, I don't have any issue with the idea of civil suits being brought where there is no specific law that is broken. That is, I'm not saying that someone need to have been convicted in a criminal court in order to be (successfully) sued.

But take the OJ Simpson case as an example (what I was thinking of). He was tried and found not guilty in a criminal court, but then tried and found guilty of the same crime in a civil court and punished accordingly. The fact that it wasn't the state trying him twice, but rather the state trying him and then a private citizen trying him doesn't seem to be an important distinction to him, in my book. He was absolutely on trial twice for the same crime.

I also don't like the potential for shadiness and shenanigans that seems to create. If the DA is too aggressive or reckless in the charges brought or botches the case, then the consolation prize to putting the offender behind bars can be rendering him destitute in collusion with the family of the victim. It also theoretically creates an incentive for the victims not to want criminal charges sought, since a man is likely going to be worth more if the criminal justice system doesn't levy fines against him and remove his earning power by throwing him in jail. You might get victims more interested in a pay day than in justice.

__________________
"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 whole idea is that it's a different type if guilt, one might argue it's not actual guilt at all but simply a recognition that damage was done and should be redressed. That would explain why the standard of proof is less.

My understanding is that your second para scenario rarely happens, most of the time if one cannot be convicted criminally then there is no case civilly either. Contrary to conservative myth it is not easy to "get off" once you are brought to trial and if you do you usually shouldn't have been brought to trial in the first place.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips