Cyber liberties groups protest indictment in MySpace cyberbully death
Megan Meier's story is tragic -- the 13-year-old Missouri girl hung herself in 2006, unable to cope with the verbal abuse suddenly heaped upon her by a supposed friend on MySpace. But three consumer advocacy groups and 14 law professors have urged a federal judge not to let federal prosecutors put all Internet users in legal jeopardy in their zeal to punish someone for Megan's death.
Here's the background. Megan's hurtful MySpace pal, purportedly a flirtatious 16-year-old boy who was new to the area, turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by a handful of people in her neighborhood. Among them were Lori Drews, whose 13-year-old daughter had fallen out with Megan, and an 18-year-old girl who had a temp job working for Drews' firm. But Missouri had no law against cyberbullying at the time (a situation the state legislature has since addressed), and prosecutors there declined to bring charges. So federal prosecutors persuaded a grand jury in Los Angeles three months ago to indict Drews for conspiring to violate the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act.
As the Times editorial board opined in May, the indictment would stretch the anti-fraud act far beyond its intended target -- computer hackers -- and apply it potentially to anyone who violates a website's terms of service. Drew's lawyers have asked the court to dismiss the indictment, and on Friday the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy & Technology, Public Citizen the law professors filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting that motion. The brief notes that federal law has other statutes outlawing verbal harassment, which balance the rights of victims of abusive speech with the First Amendment rights of the speaker. The anti-fraud act, however, includes no such balancing test, and to extend it to violations of online terms of service would be particularly threatening to anonymous speech online, the brief argues. It also would put the government in a position to prosecute people for behavior that's routine online:
This effort to stretch the computer crime law in order to punish Defendant Drew for Miss Meier's death would convert the millions of internet-using Americans who disregard the terms of service associated with online services into federal criminals. Indeed, survey evidence shows that the majority of teenage MySpace users have entered at least some false information into MySpace, and would thus be subject to prosecution under the Government’s theory....
On the Government's view, a user who is under the age of majority violates the CFAA every time she enters a search query on the Google.com webpage and obtains information. Under Facebook’s terms of use, if a user changes jobs or addresses or even her thoughts on what her favorite movie is, she would need to immediately tell Facebook, as this is information she has provided to the company, or run the risk that her continued use of the site could lead to criminal sanctions.
A hearing on Drew's motion to dismiss the indictment is scheduled for Sept. 4.
The Nov. 19, 2007, AP file photo of Tina Meier holding pictures of her daughter, Megan, was taken by Tom Gannam.



As wisewon commented, the issue here is not poor parenting skills but an adult who committed a cruel hoax against a child. I'm not a lawyer but it unfortunately does appear as though this anti-fraud case will not succeed. If the law were interpreted so broadly as proposed in this case, we'd all have to read and accept, line by line, all the user agreements we currently skip over and click "accept." And if we lie about our age, or our identity online, we could pay a penalty for this. How closely does your Second Life avatar resemble your real life self?
That doesn't mean there wasn't a crime committed - that's obvious and I hope and pray that the Meier family can get the justice they deserve. It just won't happen via this particular lawsuit.
Posted by: Marian Merritt | August 05, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Waitaminute, wasn't it the mother who posed as a 16 year old kid? What is all this about parents being responsible for their children's actions? It was a parent that committed this crime! Did I read this wrong three times or are all you commenters just reading parts whilst salivating over the prospect of getting your thoughts out there?
Posted by: wisewon | August 05, 2008 at 08:25 AM
That "mother" is guilty. The EFF just "cheapened" that child's life. This is issue is not about "loss of freedom" for everyone just "due process of justice" for those individuals who denounce basic human rights enshrined under the US Constitution. That 'mother' a term I use "loosely" is a poor excuse for a human being. Some mother, as a mother myself there are no words to express my outrage, horror, shame, etc. Obviously the EFF does not "value life". That "mother did the crime, now pay the price!
Posted by: E.M | August 05, 2008 at 07:54 AM
Jon, I would say any activity by a child under 18 would be the parents fault online. It is their electricity on the PC, their Internet connect and their PC. If you are a parent and do not keep track of what your child is doing it is your own fault. Now in this case the mother was helping do this to the poor girl, charge her and throw her in prison for a few.
Posted by: ASH | August 05, 2008 at 06:27 AM
I for one hope to see her sentenced for 20 PLUS YEARS.
The facts are shown that she and her daughter had knowledge of her mental health, planed this outrageous criminal act to drive her "over the edge".
And if it takes the Federal government to try her - then it should be.
And those that want to see her freed and no justice recommended. Must not HAVE CHILDREN OF THERE OWN...
Posted by: OldGaDawg | August 04, 2008 at 06:30 PM
That's a good argument, Kenneth, but where do you draw the line in terms of what online behaviors parents are responsible for? Would you include copyright infringement? Downloading porn? Creating computer worms or hacking into the school mainframe? Also, if it's just about terms of service, how would you protect anonymous speech? Say a term of service on a Google-powered blog is, "No defamatory posts." Someone who gets ripped off by Auto Mechanic Chain X creates a blog blasting the chain and inviting other people to post their horror stories. But he/she does so anonymously. Chain X complains because it doesn't like being criticized -- should Google be required to turn over the name?
Posted by: Jon Healey | August 04, 2008 at 05:04 PM
This is just another example of poor parenting so common today. This "mother" didn't monitor and control her child's, illegal, abusive actions and should be held accountable. If you don't update your favorite movie you might be prosecuted is a poor example of breaking rules of service. Using a false name or lying to hide unacceptable,illegal, abusive behavior is more likely. Because something is common doesn't mean it is acceptable or legal and shouldn't be prosecuted. I would say common sense would dictate online behavior, but common sense and knowing right from wrong aren't common anymore. This family didn't seem to know right from wrong. Adults are held acccountable for their actions and should be held accountable for their children's actions. This teenager's, tragic death may be a good place to start (online) to put an end to the unacceptable, illegal behavior of all these bullies. Identities online should be private until rules of service or laws are broken. At that point, An ISP and law enforcement should be able to quickly retrieve the necessary information to find the offending party. Honest, decent users are safe and the criminals and or abusers can be held accountable.
Posted by: Kenneth | August 04, 2008 at 04:48 PM