The slap-on-the-wrist verdict is a partial rebuke to federal prosecutors, who chose to charge Drew federally even after authorities in Missouri  where the hoax unfolded  found that Drew’s behavior did not violate any state laws at the time. Some legal experts and civil libertarians decried the prosecution as an abuse of computer-crime laws.
Underscoring the importance of the high-profile case to the government, Thomas O’Brien, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, personally oversaw the prosecution and handled some of the witness testimony himself. O’Brien was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007 to oversee the 266 federal prosecutors in the second-largest U.S. Attorney’s office in the country.
The verdict followed three days of testimony by 15 witnesses.
“Hard cases make bad law”
The jury decided that there wasn’t enough evidence for the law. IIRC, the community has already passed its judgment. May that scorn follow her for the rest of her days.
No law against pushing someone over the edge. Maybe that’s good, or the sufferers of BDS or whatever derangement syndrome comes next could blame starboard blogs for their friends’ bloody suicides by self-bludgeoning.
Public mocking, scorn, and shunning should be the bare minimum this twat should have to endure for the rest of her days on earth. Then, the BBQ begins …
Shit, next thing you know she’ll be running for Senate. Worked for Teddy.
Speaking as a guy who lives within Drew’s media market, I can tell you her name is mud here. She won’t find anywhere to live where she will not be shunned and scorned.
I can’t help but think she’s been overpunished already. I don’t think it was ever shown that she realized the girl was so unstable. SarahW would know. Either way, the scorn plus legal fees is … me I would be very very depressed if I were her even for getting off so light. Being scorned and poor and all.
Let us hope she walks the streets spit-stained and crying.
I share happyfeets’ dismay – all those fees and misdemeanor convictions for this poor alleged adult who chose to torment an unhappy 13 year old girl. It’s just not fair.
Dip.
Sorry, wrong law. Drew deserves whatever comes her way, but she didn’t do what she was charged with here. The jury got it right.
It sucks that jackasses can come up with things to do that are not covered by the existing laws. The idiots and criminals are smarter than the lawmakers.
I think you’re just being sarcastic Mr. Thorn.
Lori Drew put on an amazingly cretinous show of chuckleheadedness, but I don’t think she intended for death to be the outcome. To avoid this felony conviction is probably correct in a purely legal sense, given the chilling ramifications that a conviction would bring to internet discourse, but the outpouring of public scorn and the humiliations she’s getting are appropriate as well.
I think she’ll not forget this matter anytime soon.
“Hard cases make bad lawâ€Â
Maybe, but this is not really a hard case. It is a clear example of conduct that is repulsive but not prohibited by law. Lori Drew is a vile person. That is no basis for imprisoning her, unfortunately. This is where libertarians and social conservatives get entangled and exasperated with each other:
— Not everything that is morally wrong can be enjoined without making nonsense of the law.
— Not every offense against another person is a violation of that person’s rights.
— Not every legally permissible action is morally right.
Lori Drew should be acquitted by the court, and no one should be required to sell her groceries or gas, listen to her speak, acknowledge her presence, or treat her with any more respect and consideration than what would be required by law. We must not douse her in kerosene, but we are under no obligation to tell her that her coat is on fire. Beeotch!
Libertarianism vs. informal social sanctions – please discuss among yourselves. Quiz on Thursday.
Mitch, I was told there wouldn’t be any quizes on this blog.
Ya know, my Verizon news page on my cell phone listed the verdict and a really hot blond chick in the photo. Wonder when they’ll post a correction?
Spitzer got a better deal.
I blame the fathead Orin Kerr for this.
Serr8d, you seem to have the idea that it was necessary to show Drew intended for Megan to kill herself. I’ve heard that from others and it bothers me.
I wonder if the jury wasn’t hung up on that a little.
What was necessary to show is that Drew intended to commit the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The law covered this, btw. The jury bough into the idea that it would be DANGEROUS to convice Drew of the felony, even though they found her guilty of the misdemeanor breech of Myspace’s computers Even though I believe they understood she had done so in order to obtain information in furtherance of a tort, the felony.
I have always said the most difficult thing to prove would be the tort. But I think they bought that case, so I blame Orin Kerr for the verdict.
Aha, so that’s the origin of your Kerr problems I wondered about sometime back, Sarah?
SarahW, I respect your posts and opinions every time I read ’em.
That said, this particular case shouldn’t have called for a felonious prosecution (well, other than the ‘slap’ effect that such a prosecution presents; in many cases, I think that many charges, indictments and prosecutions go forward with just that effect in mind). I can’t believe that “intentional infliction of emotional distress” is felonious! What has happened to the backbone of American citizens, anyway?
If emotional distress can be prosecuted, then I need indictments against every person who voted for BHO, for advancing my distress.
Sdferr, there’s other things, but that was the beginning.
Serr8d, intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort. It’s not a felony by itself. The felony was a both-and boolean deal. Actually a both, and, and, and deal
For there to be a felony, She had to have been guilty of the standalone misdemeanor charge she was found guilty of, (access a computer protected by the statue without permission) AND have done so in order to obtain information AND done so in furtherance of a tort AND (in this case, because she didn’t create the account herself) intend to conpire with others to do so.
That’s what the law she was charged under requires. It’s not enough to commit a tort. But intending to commit a tort when accessing the protected computer raises what is ordinarily a misdemeanor, to a felony.
And re-reading that, I don’t feel very respectable today. One hour’s sleep and a big pot of coffee do not make for clarity in writing.
Oh well. I hope my turkey doesn’t come out as tragic-comically. I have brined it in buttermilk, which I’ve never done before. I hope it won’t be weird.
That sounds fascinating. I bet it will be very tasty.
Sorry, haps. Ms. Drew cannot suffer enough scorn. She is an adult, and she decided to torment a child. Adults are supposed to act like adults, and she did what she did. She is despicible.