I think the hardest thing to accept in this story is that it was a grown woman, a mother, who was behind the acts that led to this girls suicide.  In reference to what MindOh! said "what if the boy's identity hadn't been a hoax" then perhaps it wouldn't have been as big of a deal, it would have still been harrassment and cruel and her death would have been senseless  but it wouldn't have been done by a woman who should have known much better than that.

~K

Being that cyber-bullying is new & no clear boundaries have been set up, to me this falls under the idea of common sense law. It is one thing for a young man to do this to a young woman, it is something entirely different for a grown adult and mom to do to a teen.

My daughter is only two and I find myself wondering all the time where do I draw the line between being the mom and being a friend. There is no question here this mom crossed it!

http://lilmomthatcould.com/

There is precedent to be set here, and in more than one way.

Words alone aren't usually sufficient to warrant charges unless libelous or slanderous. 

Yet an adult for heaven's sake - a parent - knowingly bullied an adolescent. Excuse me? Would we be kewl with this if she got in the child's face and screamed indignities at them? Can you say 'restraining order?'

In this case, how could one eliminate the contact, when the threat was in disguise? My gosh, the big bad wolf liveth. How could any parent reasonably interfere and protect their child, when their awareness might have been only on a level of peers are mean to peers?

IMO, this opens the door to looking at law from yet another adult/child perspective. We have to presume greater ability to deal with issues, greater knowledge, greater responsibility to an adult. If it isn't already written under paedophilia laws around the nation, we need to address the adult/child interaction on more than just a sexual level. Should it be ok for an adult to *ever* misrepresent themselves to a minor? I think not.

When it comes to being pragmatic and prescient in writing such law, what an incredibly difficult line to invision, to walk. Something tells me we will be setting precedent in this regard some distance into the future.

nelle

I posted about this story here when I was discussing the boundaries we bloggers have to create when sharing our private lives in the very public manner that is blogging.

I'm glad to see that Lori Drew, an adult and a mother who should have flat out known better, will face charges for her irresponsible and slanderous actions.

What will come of those charges - who knows?  No matter what happens to Drew, a child is dead because she believed she had no value in this world.  A prison term pales in comparison to the loss of Megan Meier and the the suffering her family will endure for the rest of their lives.

My hope is that there will be more discourse and discussion on the power of words. The right words can inspire and uplift us as humans; the wrong words can erode and destroy our very humanity.

Now, in the age of www.everything, everywhere, all-the-time, we as humans can combine those two opposites - one awesome and one fearsome - with the power of the internet to reach every corner of the globe.

We're treading on new ground...

I hadn't heard of this story yet.  So sad.  What kind of a world do we live in that a 13yo kills herself?  That a mother of a classmate harrassed the girl?  Such a petty thing that had huge consequences.

The more time that I spend learning about the moral consequences of technology (I wrote a paper about the ethics of virtual worlds specifically), the more I realize that technology is not morally neutral.  Not all of it is bad (I love blogging, facebook, and email), but not all of it is okay either.

"Drew's conduct may have been reprehensible, but state prosecutors in Missouri could not conclude that it was criminal."

This is why I tell people I'm not from Missouri, I only live here.

I read of this when Nordette reported it initially and I'm glad this woman will be made to pay for her Evil behavior. I worry for her daughter and hope that nurture will trump nature and she'll turn out to be a decent person.

Jim Heivilin

the more I realize that technology is not morally neutral.

Technology is a tool we use to interact, whether passively (television) or more actively (like here.) 

People will always find ways to use the tools developed to suit their own purposes. I would guess Lori was living in the myopia of her child's world, so intent on satisfying her child's wants that she left her brain away from the keyboard and mouse.

Picture a child who is getting beat up every day on the way home from school. If a parent beats up that child in order to protect their own, well... we won't look very favourably upon that act.

Cyberspace carries so many wonders, including the ability to interact with relative anonymity, that it becomes almost like video game abstract/disconnect. We don't see and feel the real consequences of an action that a real time physical presence all of our senses might otherwise trigger in our minds.

And to compound it all, there is no law against internet surfing and consumption of mind altering substances. So who the hell knows if she just had 4 martinis before acting stupid?

We have to remember to keep our brains relatively close to our actions. We have to remember the whole 'it takes a village' thing. (even if you curse the day Hillary wrote it.) I have a responsibility in society to do no harm to a child.I have a responsibility to mitigate disputes between children and adolescents, not fuel them. I have a responsibility to teach my own children how to interact responsibly with others.

And I wonder... is Lori out there now, pondering why she was so damn stupid and dysfunctional? Lord knows I know that feeling.

nelle

this url on the board, and then ask a question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24670474/

Are we coming to a time when an online site - such as BlogHer - will have core and equired registration information that is standardised by statute, and wilful misrepresentation will constitute a violation of law? 

nelle

I am glad that finally Lori Drew is getting punished for her acts, but I must take umbruge about how this whole story is being twisted in the media.

A grown woman has committed a very grave act, and yet it seems that techology particularly social media that is on trial.

Even in this article social media is made to look like the bad guy with this quote, "Most of all, this case sadly points out the dark side of social media.
The technology we bloggers love can facilitate unspeakable evil."

Most technology can facilitate unspeakable evil, but this fact seems to escape most people. The phone can be used to make calls to emergency services to save lives, but it can also be used to stalk people and to plan terrorist activities. However, when these bad things occur does the media start saying that the phone should be banned or its use be regulated? Of course not.

So why should social media be on trial? Yes, it can be used for bullying kids, but so can the mobile phone and the act of attending school. Kids should be taught how to use these technologies safely, but in an age where they understand and can use a technology that their parents can not, there is going to be trouble. If parents are so concerned about their kids' activity online, then get online with them, educuate yourselves about their digital world and then armed with the correct knowledge and not the fear mongering stirred up by the media and government can you help your child be safe online.

You are the parent; the government, the media and the internet are not. Get out there are start actively parenting instead of playing the blame game.

Dancing About Architecture - Blogging just got queerer.

Unbelievably sad. I hope they throw the book at her! I've been the victim of internet harassment/bullying myself and it is every bit as painful as real life bullying is. More needs to be done about people like Lori and parents defintely need to keep an eye on their children's internet activities.

Wedding Tips Blog

It is so hard for me to believe that an adult could be so heartless to a child. It is really disgusting to me.  

~Michelle

http://myyeartogetskinny.blogspot.com/

I had a long comment with a whole lot of facts that have been ignored by most people making comments here, but something in your system caused it to be lost.

Next time you all condemn a woman, get the facts first, before you toss your first rock.

Fact: Lori Drew gave her daughter permission to open this account. Lori Drew did not directly participate, particularly in the last day. 

Fact: Megan and Lori Drew's daughter had opened a MySpace account under a ficticous account previously, which is where Drew's daughter got the idea. Megan's access to MySpace, while in violation of MySpace terms of service (she was underage), was monitored by Megan's mother because of her past actions in this regard.

Fact: Megan broke the friendship off with Lori Drew's daughter. Lori Drews' daughter also had indication that Megan was saying bad things about her, which is why she wanted to start this account. 

Lori Drews daughter gave the account password to a friend of hers, and she was the person who wrote about Megan "not being nice to her friends". Megan responded, by all accounts, viciously. This led to a flame war, with others being involved. 

Mrs. Meiers' had to take Megan's younger sibilng to the dentist and told Megan to log off. Megan did not. Megan called her mother some time later telling her that people were "being mean to her". Her mother told her to log off the account. Megan did not.

When Megan's mother got home, she saw what Megan wrote and was horrified. She told Megan she was very upset with her for writing the things she did. This caused Megan to storm out of the room, yelling at her mother that she never took her side. 

Megan brushed by her father, upset. Megan's father went into the kitchen where Megan's mother was and they started talking about the issue. Twenty minutes later, Megan had hung herself. 

Who is to blame for Megan's suicide? In the trial, the first question that will arise was whether Megan's suicide attempt really was an attempt to kill herself, or to get attention, and the attention getting went terribly wrong. After all, most serious suicides attempts do not happen when the entire family is in the house. 

Does this sound harsh? This is exactly the kind of issues that will come out in trial now, something that I imagine our local prosecutor wanted to avoid because of the pain these questions will cause Megan's family. However, Megan's family wants this trial, which means that Megan's actions will be heavily scrutinized in the trial. What Megan's parents have forgotten is they will also have their actions go under the magnifying glass in open court.

WHy did Megan's parents allow her to have a MySpace account when she's obviously emotionally unstable? Why did her mother let her carry on this relationship with an unknown boy? Why didn't Megan's mother log her daughter off when she saw what was happening? Why didn't Megan's father and mother follow an obviously upset Megan, to talk with her?

Does this also sound harsh? Once this goes to trial, nothing is sacred. The stakes are too high.

The LA prosecutor is using the fact that Lori Drew violated MySpace TOS to charge Drew. Well, then we assume that the Meiers' will also be charged because they, too, violated the TOS. 

Megan will go on trial. If the defense lawyer is worth her or his weight, of course they're going to question Megan's mental state before this whole MySpace incident occured. 

As for punishing Lori Drew, I have to wonder how many parent's feel that they should go to jail for making a mistake in judgment when it comes to their kids? Lori Drew has lost her business, most of her friends, and the respect of her community. She was, at most, a passive participant in the MySpace account. She definitely did not participate when things got ugly. But yes, she did allow her daughter to set the account up, which was really stupid. Criminal though? Only if your idea of criminal differs drastically from mine. 

What happens, now, since the prosecutor has decided to use TOS as the basis for a criminal case. How many of you weblog or comment anonymously? Why, that makes you a criminal. Are you all absolutely sure you're following every last line in all the TOS you agree to? If not, you could face criminal charges. 

Is this really what you all want?  Think real hard before you answer.

As for the whole "cyberbully" thing--define "cyberbully"? Seriously, define this term in such a way that criminal prosecution of 'cyberbully' can't be abused, or used badly. 

Oh, and the person who mentioned about when to know to draw the line between being a Mom and a friend--you're always a mother, and you let your kid find his or her own friends. 

 

 Fact: Lori Drew gave her daughter permission to open this account. Lori
Drew did not directly participate, particularly in the last day.

By your statement you are saying that Lori Drew knew that her daughter was creating an account on My Space for the sole purpose of harassing another person.  This makes her an accessory to the crime, which is a criminal offense.

Also, what mother in her right mind would willingly let their kid harass and bully another kid online?  It doesn't matter what Megan did or did not do on that last day, Lori and her horrible daughter are still responsible for the bullying that drove her to suicide.

Dancing About Architecture - Blogging just got queerer.

"By your statement you are saying that Lori Drew knew that her daughter was creating an account on My Space for the sole purpose of harassing another person.  This makes her an accessory to the crime, which is a criminal offense."

Then you did not read what I wrote. I wrote that Lori Drew allowed her daughter to set up a MySpace account for the sole purpose of checking out whether Megan was saying bad things about her to people online. That is not harassment. If it were, that idiot in California wouldn't have to rely on old, obscure computer laws to charge Lori Drew for her daughter setting up an account under a ficticous name.

Lori Drew was basically charged with helping to set up a MySpace account under a ficticous name, which is a violation of MySpace TOS. She was charged, criminally, for a TOS violation. My god, they list MySpace as a victim--how absolutely overreaching can you possibly get?

"Also, what mother in her right mind would willingly let their kid harass and bully another kid online?"

Are you privy to facts the rest of us don't have? Lori Drew did not allow her daughter to set up this account in order to "harass or bully" another kid. She was completely unaware of the exchanges that were happening the last day. Frankly, I don't think she was even that aware of what was happening with this account. It was just something that "kids do". That makes her an irresponsible parent, but a criminal?

Tell me parents who are reading this: do you want to be held criminally responsible for every stupid thing your kid does online?

"Lori and her horrible daughter are still responsible for the bullying that drove her to suicide."

Oh now, here we go. It's not enough now to go after Lori Drew, let's drag her daughter in, shall we?

By common knowledge, being 13 is synonymous with being "horrible". Kids are mean. Being mean, being clannish, fitting in, following the crowd--these are all part of the great experiment in social interactions that happen when you're a teen. We don't need technology to practice being mean, either. I remember kids being mean when I was a teen, and the only computers around then were big suckers, or small primitive boxes more gimmick than not.

I also remember parents who weren't particularly good at helping kids understand how being mean could hurt others. Who encouraged their kids to "fit in", sometimes to the point where the kids became "mean". Kids killed themselves then, too. Who was typically held responsible? Usually the parents, or other close family members. Rarely was it the kids "being mean", because we can no more stop kids from "being mean" than we can stop the planet from rotating.

Why did Megan's parents allow an emotionally unstable girl like Megan to have a MySpace account? 

Why didn't Megan's parents follow Megan upstairs that day to talk with her, when she was obviously upset?

Why did Megan's mother allow Megan to remain online when she had told her to log off before she left home, but Megan did not. Was Megan's mother physically unable to reach over and push the off button?

Why on earth would her parents allow her to establish a long term communication with a boy they didn't know, and who said things that didn't make sense. Could it be that they were relieved that she seemed "happy" (read that less difficult to live with) that they didn't want to look deeper?

Who was the cyberbully? Even Megan's mother admits that her daughter willingly participated in the "mean" exchange. And yes, was "mean" herself.  

All of this will now be coming out in court. Ironically, sadly, this trial will probably end up being good for Lori Drew, because the questions no one wanted to ask because of "sensitivity" to Megan's family will now have to be asked. I think that Megan's parents are going to end up regretting this trial, very much.  

Lori Drew and her daughter drove Megan to suicide? Unlikely. Their actions by themselves were not enough to drive anyone to commit suicide. 

(Note to Blogher folks: you have an ad or something in the page that makes attempting to comment almost impossible with Firefox 3RC. I've lost three attempts at comments, and am now using a different browser.)

I only know what has been reported in the media, so I don't feel that I can accurately comment on what happened or whether or not Ms. Drew is at fault for anything.

I will add one thing to this dicsussion: Cyber-bullying is a terrible form of relational aggression that is growing rapidly along with all other forms. The Ophelia Project is a national organization that works to prevent relational aggression -- not just in teen girl relationships but also boys and adults. I've gotten a lot of information from the organization (I'm not affiliated with the org in any way). I simply put it out there because it is a growing issue all across the US and it is something I think is pretty scary. Kids -- and adults -- need to understand what their actions and words can lead to.

Felice at The Little Jobber

its pretty cruel yes.  but she was 13, not 5.  she had her problems and if she was that delicate sooner or later she was going off the deep end.  you can't legislate against free speech.  it was the parents responsibility to teach their children and have some control over their internet access and be involved in their lives.   the prosecutors are going over board with their stretching the law to the breaking point to sooth some popular outrage.

its not the pc thing to say. but sometimes girls should grow a thicker skin. its part of being equal and responsible for yourself. gone are the days when women were considered delicate flowers and inferior to men because of their delicate dispositions.  

lesson 2, teach your children not to be naive online.  i thought this was a given for most.  i've seen programs where they asked children and they were actually pretty smart about it.  i think this girl was just a special case, a very naive and sheltered case.