More thoughts on the Lori Drew case
The Times editorial Wednesday on the Lori Drew prosecution sparked a great discussion, which you can read here. That's not surprising, given the nature of the case -- Drew joined her daughter and two other teen-aged girls in humiliating a neighboring 13-year-old girl on MySpace, who committed suicide. A jury in Los Angeles recently found her guilty of violating a federal law against computer hacking (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), and we opined that the charges never should have been filed. Readers who didn't like (OK, despised would be more precise) the piece, which essentially called for the judge to throw out the guilty verdict, made a "by any means necessary" argument that went something like this: any adult who torments a vulnerable child through the Internet should be punished, regardless of the legal niceties.
Here's an example from a reader identified only as "Sam":
Drew's conduct was not free speech, but rather, predatory Internet stalking. The Times minimizes Drew's intentionally brutal and sadistic harassment of a 13 year old. Drew’s "cruel hoax" was nothing short of stalking with the intent to inflict mental suffering. MySpace explicitly prohibits "stalking or harassment." The Communications Decency Act, (47 U.S.C. § 230) states that the policy of the United States is to ensure vigorous enforcement of federal criminal laws to "deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer" which has no place in the real world or the cyberworld.
The thing is, Drew wasn't prosecuted under the CDA (much of which was thrown out by the Supreme Court). Here's what the law she was prosecuted under (47 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)(2)(c)) says:
Whoever "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains ... information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section."
The government's case hinged on the theory that violating MySpace's terms of service amounted to making unauthorized access to the MySpace computer servers in Los Angeles County. Even if you accept the absurd idea of the federal government enforcing private companies' terms of service, the key issue here is whether Drew intentionally violated those terms. The evidence in the case showed that Drew didn't create the bogus MySpace account. Is it reasonable to expect Drew (or anyone else, for that matter) to read the service terms of every site they use? Is it reasonable to suggest she should have known MySpace barred fake identities, when almost no one on the site uses his or her real names? As another reader wrote in response to the editorial,
Lying per se is not a crime except if you lie to the guv in anyway. Lying to people on the internet does not and should not qualify as lying to the guv. I never reveal my real name on the internet, and I believe even the IDIOT feds have issued written advise to minors and others never to reveal their true name on the internet. If I were this evil woman's lawyer, I would find those federal advisories and introduce them as evidence that the feds have told people not to reveal their real name on the internet, regardless of the terms of service agreement.
Of course, the public sentiment is so strongly against Drew because she and her confederates did more than just take an assumed name. They flirted with victim Megan Meier for a while, then suddenly turned on her with a burst of nasty messages. Seems like grounds for a lawsuit by Megan's parents, based on state laws against intentional infliction of emotional distress. But again, consider what the feds did here. They couldn't find a federal criminal statute that applied to the case, so they used Section 1030 to prosecute Drew for violating MySpace's rules. Think about how things could play out if this logic were applied by other U.S. attorneys. When confronted with deplorable online behavior that wasn't specifically addressed by federal criminal law, they could almost certainly find something in the relevant ISP's or website's terms of service to support an "unauthorized access" argument. Voila, suddenly the feds have the basis for prosecuting people who use fake names to post blog comments accusing the president of corruption or war crimes. Shouldn't that make you nervous?
AP Photo/Nick Ut
We need to call on legislators to have a congressional hearing on why internet law is apparently coded in a way that allows those in "the know" the loopholes and ignorace to stalk, harass, defame and cyber victimize citizens at will while we as a public are totally unprotected from the social, economic, employment, business effects from Internet Victimization.
There is a huge cover up that rings in the same vibration as "broken government" and "money corruption" and we the people demand answers in the decoding of what has been coded.
There are federal laws for general harassment coded creatively under sexual harassment, giving legal cover to mostly women due to the way it is coded and that most people would assume it does not cover the general public due to the title. Much of this being related to a general advertised assualt on rights for certain classes of people, rather than all of us. So when this law is used for anything else, it would not seem right.
The US code for stalking would be more appropriate:
2261A. Stalking
Whoever—
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(2) with the intent—
(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—
that person;
a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses through of subparagraph (B); [2]
shall be punished as provided in section 2261 (b) of this title.
A further investigation of laws will point to some others which all reflect the promotion of correcting the actions of wrong doing when saftey and a persons well being is involved.
Reference
Extortion - 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), (d) (transmitting, with intent to extort, threat to kidnap or harm a person, or threat to injure a person's property or harm a reputation) (Hobbs Act)
Notice the title Electronic---Electronic Threats 18 U.S.C. § 875 (transmitting communications containing threats of kidnap or bodily injury) (Hobbs Act)
Notice the title Electronic---Electronic Harassment 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(E) (repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunication device solely to harass person who receives communication) CCIPS
Cyber stalking 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (using any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that places person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to person, person's spouse or immediate family) See also Electronic Harassment DSS
Also notable, the numerous California tort laws that cover this as well showing intent of overall laws.
and - intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude or into his private affairs; and- publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye.
These are all evidence that intent is to protect people from intential acts that include any form of threat of harm or one that would have horrible phycological effects to the victim, whether it is on the internet or on your T.V. set or in the newspaper or live in public.
This is the same level of protection we currently recieve from criminals for people intentionally imposing the victimization on others. Especially when a persons safety, well being and life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness are involved. The medium absolutely makes no difference should make no difference .
Posted by: Americas Voice | January 06, 2009 at 12:08 PM
No offline organization should have authority over the Internet. Now we are seeing every state, county and township making laws for the world wide web. So if I am a Japanese citizen and do something that is against the laws of the legislature of the state of Missouri (or whatever local, state or federal agency) I might be extradited to the state of Missouri to face charges? It's only adding more confusion to the situation and does nothng to clarify matters.
Support Lori Drew
Posted by: artificial gripe | December 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM
This is justice by mobs and demogogues. Everybody's liberty is in danger.
Posted by: cynical | December 05, 2008 at 06:09 PM