It appears that the judge tossed out the jury's verdict against the woman who was on trial for being mean to a 13 year old girl on MySpace, ostensibly causing the girl to commit suicide.

Judge Acquits Lori Drew in Cyberbullying Case, Overrules Jury | Threat Level | Wired.com

Given the nature of the charges on which the woman was convicted (essentially that one can be criminally liable for violating the TOS of a website), I'd say that this bodes well for freedom going forward in the online sphere. While the woman's actions are certainly both despicable and pathetic, I think the only question is whether she could be charged with some sort of manslaughter or not. The charges that wound up being levied against her relating to MySpace's TOS are preposterous, reek of desperation for public approval, and set a horrendous precedent (i.e. if you go on eharmony.com and list yourself as "fit" instead of the "average" that you really are (or whatever) you could do jail time).

I'm glad the judge ruled the way he did and that she was not ultimately convicted of "unauthorized computer access".

__________________
"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

I think I have to agree as well. The legal repercussions of convicting the woman could have been horrible. I, like you, don't approve of what she did but I don't know how one could be convicted of murder or something else like that for violating a TOS.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

I fully concur with the judge's decision. The charges brought against this woman were inappropriate to the offense. However, I regret that the woman, who obviously participated in activities which resulted in harm to a young girl, may now go scot-free.

One other thing is troubling about this case. The "informant" who served as the principal witness for the government was given immunity from prosecution, even though she played a key role in the plot to harm Megan Meier.

Judge should have awarded the right to the dead girl's parents to one free, doctor supervised, asskicking.

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

Why? Ultimately the parents were at fault for not supervising their child's activities online and for not raising her well.

If you raised your kid so poorly that they become terminally depressed from an online discussion....well...

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

I dont' understand this. If this woman did nothing wrong in defrauding this girl then why is Bernie Madoff doing 150 years?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Defrauding? Please explain.

Umm...because she deserves it. Even if their kid hadn't have killed herself she'd deserve it for doing that to a kid.

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

She lied to the girl as to who she was, her intentions, feelings about her, etc etc. How is this all that different from lying to someone as to what you are doing with their money?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Because the latter involves a contract. They gave Bernie money because he promised them something in return. Bernie lied and the money was lost. Both parties offered consideration, but only one party handed it over because the other party lied about it.

The woman lied to the girl, but took nothing from her. Hence, nothing was lost. In other words, no consideration was exchanged, nor was there even a promise of any consideration being exchanged. It would be like if Bernie told you he was an honest, expert investor (while being a total fraud), and then nothing happened (you didn't promise him anything and he didn't promise you anything).

Being mean to someone on the Internet = severe beating?

So you have to have a contract to do harm to someone?

The woman intentionally acted to cause harm to the girl. And I believe you can be sued for breach of promise in breaking an engagment, so feelings can be seen as having tangible value.

Someone fraudulently calls you up and says they are a policeman and you have to come down to the morgue and identify your daughter's body, as they have her driver's license but need a positive id from a family member. You have a heart attack from the shock. There's nothing that can be done to this person?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

Lying on the internet is not a crime. Unless something of value was gained, I don't think the term "defrauded" applies here. Madoff's lies were directly tied to the cover up of his theft of client's money. He financially gained from his lies, that is the difference.

Lastly, how can one be liable for someone else's suicide? It is tragic, to be sure, but criminally liable? I don't see how it could be.

To prosecute someone for lying, yes. For instance, you can tell someone they look pretty when they're actually ugly (and you think they're ugly) and you won't be liable for a lawsuit.She caused no harm to the girl. The girl killed herself.According to contract law, promises have to have consideration from both sides, or they at least have to promise something tangible upon which expectations are built. For instance, someone promising to lend you a car which you plan to use to drive to a very important business meeting. I don't think lying about your sex, age and emotions in a non-business environment passes for that. If you think it does, then you'd be able to sue someone who lies to you about their age on this forum or falsely tells you they like your posts and hurt your feelings with it. It would get pretty fucking ridiculous.Not really. There probably are "emotional distress" torts, but I don't support them because it's ridiculous to sue people for hurt feelings. I'm guessing if the person had a heart attack, it was because of poor health. Besides, they became worried on their own.

In any case, the girl clearly had plenty of problems and who is to say she would not have committed suicide 2 weeks later because someone called her fat?

Good decision. This woman didnt put the noose around the kids neck. What next? Parents of suicides having the school bullies charged?

__________________