If you're new to DBKP, you may want to subscribe to the DBKP.com RSS feed. Thanks for stopping by!

The verdict is in regarding the Lori Drew trial and the Megan Meier MySpace suicide. Was Drew’s conviction, a “bad law that threatens us all”?

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles jury acquited Drew of the three felony charges of violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act but found her guilty of three counts of gaining unauthorized access to MySpace for the purpose of obtaining information. Drew faces a maximum sentence of 5 years prison time for each count. The judge may still throw in a monkeywrench: U.S. District Judge George Wu hasn’t ruled on the defense’s motion to dismiss, which if he agrees, would mean an acquittal for Drew. Prosecutors could seek a new trial on the deadlocked conspiracy charge.

While researching the Drew verdict I happened across the website, The Volokh Conspiracy, and a piece written by Orin Kerr, who worked pro bono on the Drew case and outlined the jury’s verdict:

The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website, and that Drew directly or indirectly did so, but it acquitted Drew of having violated Terms of Service in furtherance of the tortious act. That is, the jury ruled that Drew is guilty of relatively lower-level crimes for violating MySpacs Terms of Service (for being involved in the setting up of a fake MySpace account). It acquitted Drew for any role in inflicting distress on Meier or for anything related to Meier’s suicide. The maximum allowed penalty for the misdemeanor violations are one year in prison for each violation, although the majority of federal misdemeanors result in a sentence of probation.

Kerr stated that the sentencing, “if it happens”, will be followed by an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, and that the “legal question” concerning the verdict is whether “it is in fact a federal crime to violate the Terms of Service of a website”.

While some were initally outraged over the hoax perpetrated on 13-yr-old Megan Meier, and her subsequent suicide, the “outrage” now comes from the legal community over Drew being charged with any crime, and that violation of website terms of service should never have been a federal crime.

It seems the consensus among some attorneys, Kerr, and those that commented on Kerr’s site, was that the Drew conviction was a “bad” conviction based on a “bad law which threatens us all”. Another comment stated “I know it won’t go over real well with people who have irrational bloodlust, but maybe the legal system should not be viewed strictly as a results-oriented means of railroading convictions against bad people without regard for the consequences for the rest of the populace going forward”.

Another comment had this reply:

What an overreaction to a perfectly legimate point of view regarding personal responsibility. There is nothing “irrational” about it. Nor is probation or a few months in a mimimum security prison exactly “bloodlust”.

An allegedly adult woman went out of her way to go after a teen age girl who she knew was unstable. The girl killed herself as a totally foreseeable consequence of Drew’s actions.

It should be punished by the law. If the “rest of the populace” does such a thing, they should be punished too.

The question being bandied about, and that has attorney’s hackles raised, is whether it is a federal crime to violate the terms of a website. According to one commenter, anyone using the internet is now a “criminal” based upon the conviction of Lori Drew:

If it is, everybody who’s ever used the internet is likely a criminal. When everybody is a criminal governments are free to arrest anyone they choose through selective enforcement, as was the case in East Germany and the Soviet Union.

I can only hope this case is appealed and soundly reversed.

Another comment had this warning:

But make no mistake — this is no fluke. The feds can, if they put their mind to it, find a way to make nearly any unpopular modern transaction a crime through aggressive application of broad and badly drafted federal legislation. And in some times and places, they have the will to do so — particularly when renown beckons.

One of the arguments was whether Lori Drew’s actions were “criminal”. One comment asked whether “just because she (Drew) wasn’t convicted of it (the conspiracy charges) doesn’t mean it’s not true?

The following comment answered this question:

That is correct but just because it is true that she committed a deplorable (but non-criminal) act doesn’t mean that she should be criminally punished for it. Legally it does not matter how despicable she is. The correct response to her actions is a civil trial and the entire world shunning her. The only criminal response should be to make cyber bullying a crime, exactly what most states have done. I generally am not big on the slippery slope arguments but in this case it is appropriate. If we start ignoring the actual law and start punishing people just because they are “bad” there is a very dangerous precedent.

Yet Drew was charged with the felony conspiracy charges relating to “harrassment”, which seems to fit the “cyber-bully” category.

The outrage from some in the legal community, again, stems from:

-Drew being charged of any crime in relation to the Megan Meier MySpace suicide.

-That Drew was convicted of violating MySpace’s terms of service under a Federal statute.

-That there is a law which allows federal prosecutors to pursue “violators” of website’s terms of service.

Were Lori Drew’s “actions” merely “deplorable” and not “criminal”?

According to Wired.com, MySpace’s user agreement is threefold:

-requires registrants to provide factual information about themselves,

-refrain from “soliciting personal information from minors”,

-and using information from MySpace to “harrass or harm other people”.

Drew was convicted of violating MySpace terms but not the more serious charge of conspiracy to “harrass” Megan. Which begs the question: which part of MySpace’s terms did the jury find Drew “violated”? Since she wasn’t convicted of the more serious felony charge of conspiracy, or harassment, it would seem the jury either found Drew had used MySpace to “solicit personal information from minors”, or that Drew had provided “false information” when registering an account on MySpace.

Drew’s employee, Ashley Grills, testified that Drew wanted to find a way to “spy” on Megan in order to find out what she was “saying” about Drew’s daughter, Sarah. A plan was concocted by Grills which Drew thought was both “clever” and “funny”. Grills testified Drew was at the computer when Grills accepted the MySpace terms of service in order to make up a “fake” sixteen-year-old “hot” boy, who then sent a message to Megan Meier’s MySpace page. Drew participated in the messages and even thought up a new plan: the fake Josh would ask Megan to meet her at a mall, where Grills and Drew’s daughter, Sarah, would “pop” out and “tease” Megan. There was testimony, that at one point, Drew communicated to Megan’s mom on MySpace as “Josh”.

A hairdresser testified that, before Megan killed herself, Drew wanted to tell her a “funny” story, then proceeded to tell the hair stylist about Megan and the “fake” Josh. The hairdresser also testified that on the day of Megan’s wake, Drew had another appointment. When the hairdresser asked Drew why she was going to Megan’s wake, given Drew’s involvement, Drew responded: “It’s not like I pulled the trigger”.

Another comment stated that neither Drew, Grills, nor Drew’s daughter knew the MySpace terms of service, and that anyone who doesn’t read the “terms of service” on a website can be “hauled into court” and charged by the Feds.

Yet, this statement seems to imply that everyone who accepts the terms of service to a website is behaving like Drew: using a fake name, lying about your age and sex, and attempting to lure a 13-yr-old into a “relationship”.

Again, the plan was for Drew, not Grills, nor Drew’s daughter, but Drew, who wanted to “spy” on Megan in order to gather “evidence” to take to Megan’s Mom, that Megan was saying “bad” things about Sarah Drew. The plan was concocted in Drew’s home, put into action on Drew’s computer, with Drew present. Drew participated in the messages to Megan and even bragged about the plan to a hairdresser.

The jury convicted Drew of a misdemeanor and not the more serious felony charges so it would seem the jury decided that Drew’s actions were more in line with the lesser charge. It’s now up to the judge on whether he’ll dismiss the misdemeanor conviction.

Is the violation of a terms of service on website a “bad law”? Again, MySpace’s terms of service specifically say one cannot use their website in order to “harass” or use false information to contact a minor. It also makes one wonder why attorneys don’t think it’s “criminal” for a woman in her mid-40’s to set up a fake MySpace account in order to “spy” on a 13-yr-old girl? What if Drew had been a man? Would lawyers still defend the actions of a grown man posing as a “hot” 16-yr-old boy, in order to “spy” on a 13-yr-old teen girl living in his neighborhood? The same teen who was previously “best” friends with his daughter?

It also begs the question: what about Megan’s right not to be lured into a “fake” relationship online by an adult pretending to be a “hot” 16-yr-old, rather than Drew’s right to be merely “bad”. Drew’s behavior crossed the line from “bad” to “criminal” when she participated in the MySpace scheme, a scheme which was a result of what Drew wanted: to spy on Megan.

Attorneys felt this was a “bad” law, but also felt Drew was a “bad” person. Drew’s conviction was, it seems, a case of poetic justice.

By LBG

Image - Poetic Justice