Our own SarahW is mentioned in a WaPo story about the cyber “lynching” (a strange choice of terminology) of Lori Drew for her role in Megan Meier’s suicide:  a poignant potboiler version of the story that is nevertheless accurate.
What’s hilarious, though, is the author’s representation of cyberspace as a place where falsehood reigns supreme–as opposed to the mainstream media–and where poor judgments have terrible consequences for real people.  Not that naming the Drews in a national newspaper might have further repercussions, you know, because what they do . . . that’s reporting.ÂÂ
Richard Jewell was unavailable for comment.
In fairness to the author, whom I came to regard as a very ethical specimen of journalist, of no little skill or talent; the internet is, as someone who sort of writes here once told me, “a hall of mirrors”. All we ever have is reputation and our own sense to guide us about what is for real, and on the level.
And since kids have very little sense, perhaps it isn’t so outrageous to think about singling out those who abuse that lack, for exposure and shaming, if not some legal penalty.
Not to mention that the WaPo story is on the Internet.
Drew can blame the timing of her blog-naming on Dan Rather.
The story was too awful, at least in my estimation, to name names without absolute certainty the right person was being pointed at. In the blog circles I travel in, that would just not be jake with anyone whose opinion I value. So even after I got names from tax records strongly suggestive of the identity of Drew ( and I know other people did, too) that was just not enough to meet the kind of blog etiquette rules I’ve been exposed to. Before Rathergate, I just would have stopped right there, the media would have to fact check, and I would wait for them to confirm what I thought was probably true.
But didn’t Bill INDC do something during Rathergate that made my jaw drop? He picked up the phone and called his own farking source for typeface expertise. He made inquiries. Maybe that was a little different, but the effort made a big impression on me at the time. So as I always do, I asked, What would BillINDC do? And farking found out for myself.
Even then I sat on it for awhile. In the end, it was the police report ( of which portions were read to me) that made me realize that she had put the case in the public domain herself. That’s a local paper, they perhaps have their own local reasons for keeping the name quiet, and it could even be due in part to conflict of interest, because of Drew’s local connections or the advertisers that might be embarrassed. There was no rule or convention of journalism that had barred them naming her. None, and the matter was actually already in the public domain, including her name. And Meier’s parents wanted her named, if Steve Pokin is to be believed.
I don’t want to give the wrong idea, I never considered my action a coup or triumph or achievement,
’cause obviously it was not. I looked up a stinking name and confirmed it. To me, after Rathergate, I just believed this is what bloggers do. They don’t sit on their bloggy arses, they go get the facts they can get, or check the things they can check. I regret that any attention has been wasted on bloggers spreading the story, vs the story itself. If I were to repent, I’d repent that.
I regret that any attention has been wasted on bloggers spreading the story, vs the story itself. If I were to repent, I’d repent that.
We’re still in the Thomas Edison epoch of the Internet Age, so the spectacle of citizen journalism in pajamas is still a novelty. The medium remains the message, for now.
Uh, right. Whereas meatspace is replete with unimpeachable authorities to which we can defer when evaluating truth. The intarweb is what? The universe next door? Subject to a different cosmology? No amount of Kant, Hegel, Russell, Quine, et al has led me to the conclusion that absolute truth is anything but, practically speaking, incommensurable. All practical truth is of the squishy variety. Whether adduced from people, protons or pixels, it requires the intercession of critical thought.
I find this woman’s behavior mind-numbingly infantile, but I agree with others that have suggested that the attempt to criminalize it seems, um, wooly-headed. Such an errand strikes me as a palliative for our need to do something by golly more so than a demonstratively effective solution. But I’m pissing in the ocean. Legislation cures all that ails!
And I’m having a shitty day, so there’s that.
Sorry ’bout that, mtt.
Dan, it’s strange. Somehow, I just know you’re being sincere. In fact, without having ever met you in person I feel no compunction saying I genuinely like you. Although if it turns out that you’re actually an asshole (or a backstabby suburban mom), I can always blame cyberspace for my error in judgement.
I like that Jeff guy who runs the joint quite a bit too. I hope he’s well.
Thanks. I miss Jeff, too. I should be helping out at my usual digs.
MTT, you did see the part about “All we ever have is reputation and our own sense to guide us about what is for real, and on the level.” ‘Cos I think I kind of agree with you.
I’m not in favor of new legislation to restrict internet content or communications; I would hope if any arise out of attention to this case, that it would be as narrow as possible and limited to restrictions on adults disguising themselves as age peers of minor children, given that they are not able to think as critically as adults, in meat or virtual space.
I’m sorry you had a bad day too, hope you have a better one tomorrow.
.
I apologize for the tenor of my comment. I assumed the above was intended as somehow unique to the internet; which scarcely justifies my pissy response. I worry about slippery slopes and unintended consequences even the narrow legislative prescription you suggest, but then I’m one of those rabid libertarians.
Anyway, thank you for your graciousness in wishing me well. It compelled me to begin reading your blog – for which I am richer. Perhaps I should go off half-cocked in blog comments more often.
“Wellerson”. Heh.
The old boundaries are gone, kids, and it’s as a good a thing as it is bad. It’s just different, really. Unless you make your living as a guardian of the information deemed unfit for plebian consumption and purveyor of the acceptable truth. In that case, it sucks to be you.
“Woolly-headed” doesn’t even begin to describe it. In the final analysis, all that really happened was that somebody said some mean stuff to someone else. You can’t make that against the law, for crying out loud! For that matter, it’s not really practical to make it against the law for adults to say mean things to children–how am I going to cuss out the little fuckers who threw a rock through my kitchen window?!
Jim, actually, more happened than “mean stuff was said”.
My alma mater gave it the old college (heh) try.
After a rather thin-skinned student was taken in by an elaborate April Fool’s joke intended to make a point in a political debate, the thin-skinned student whined to one of the feel-good nannies (“wellness administrator”, “student life” — a title along those lines). Said nanny consulted with the voices in her head and decided that what we needed was a new rule — that if you said something “misleading” online, you could lose your access.
The student body — left, right, drunken frat boy and drunken GDI — took one look at this idea and said, “What the hell are you thinking? We’re all adults here; if there’s anyone who needs attention, it’s the fellow who can’t take a joke.” The nanny backed down, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea keeps popping up.
The deeper question is at what point we define harassment. Sure, everything done on the ‘net is voluntary, and restricting of free speech on the internet is something none of us want.
But the malicious, and more to the point, continuous application of verbal cruelty with the express purpose of breaking someone down is a horse of a different species than a one-off prank or a healthy plateful of snark. And I for one don’t have a problem with considering the point when that ought to be criminal.
What the hell are you thinking? We’re all adults here
Sort of not unimportant.
The trojan boy persona was not only not a friendly deception, but a malicious device used by a 48 year old woman, (who was passing in the real world as a friend of the family and an adult authority figure for Megan,) to trick a simple and foolish 13 year old, who she knew was highly reactive, and on medication to treat a cognitive processing disorder, for the specific purpose of “messing” with her, and for a no less ridiculous, petty, self-serving reason than to “teach her a lesson”for what she should know perfectly well is the ordinary upheavals in early teen girl friendships.
It was far from a straighforward scolding, or harsh rebuke, for walking across her lawn, being loud or acting up or misbehaving – “Josh Evans” was created as a lure, to dupe the 13 year old girl, make her think she might be special or important or valued by an attractive peer, something, given her social awkwardness in the past, meant so much to her.
Drew pressed at least one other and possibly more minor children to participate, and made a call to a minor child to tell her to keep her mouth shut about it. Which, if I had been that girl, I would have been intimidated and afraid. Because if she would do stuff to MEGAN, what would she say about HER, or do to HER?
I just wanted to tag this on the end of the thread, in case it should pop up in someone’s google search – The Wapo article incorrectly stated I had “Posted the Drew’s names and address” on my blog.
I posted only Lori Drew’s common name and never posted her address, not in a blog post, not in a comment, or on any other forum or message board,
See my blog post here for complete clarification on those points.