Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Should pretending be a crime?

Mathew Ingram, May 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM EDT

It's a horrific story: a 13-year-old girl who had self-esteem issues and suffered from depression made friends with a boy on MySpace, but later the boy started saying terrible things to the girl, about how she was ugly and how no one liked her. The girl, Megan Meier, later hung herself in a closet. The boy turned out to be a fake -- an online persona created in part by Lori Drew, the mother of a former friend of the victim's. But as terrible as it might be, does it justify twisting the law to convict Lori Drew of a crime?

The U.S. authorities who have indicted Lori Drew have charged her with conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- a law that was designed to catch hackers and criminals. All Lori Drew did was create a fictional character on MySpace. That's against the rules of the social-networking site, but then thousands of people breach those rules and regulations every day, either by sending spam emails or pretending to be someone they're not. Will they be charged with federal offences as well?

There's no question that what Lori Drew did was a terrible thing, and she deserves some kind of punishment. But aren't existing laws against harassment and fraud enough? It's possible that the U.S. authorities wanted to make a strong statement about this kind of online bullying -- but they seem to have gone a little overboard in doing so.

"This is a novel and extreme reading of what [the law] prohibits," Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Wired magazine. "To say that you're violating a criminal law by registering to speak under a false name is highly problematic. It's probably an unconstitutional reading of the statute."

  1. Albin Forone from Canada writes: I'll leave the US legal regime to itself, but certainly it looks like some form of manslaughter (involuntary homicide) regardless of what these dimwit adults thought they wanted to do by baiting the poor little girl. Both criminal and civil law hold a perpetrator accountable for the damage done regardless of any pre-existing vulnerability or predisposition, google "thin skull" rule.
  2. Jocelyn Morlock from Canada writes: If you charge her with manslaughter, what happens when someone kills themselves because a real person breaks up with them? I agree that what she did was dreadful, but if it had been a real boy and the girl killed herself, would he have been charged with something? Of course he would not have been...As Jennifer Granick states, this is highly problematic. After all, aren't people on this very forum registering to speak under false names when they call themselves Stefan Dion, etc.?
  3. bethany middleton from Canada writes: The problem here is that there was wilful and malevolent intent to hurt someone - and while that 'hurt' may not have been intended to kill, the same arguments, when made by other people "I didnt mean to kill her" - don't hold water...the other complicating factor in this incident is the fact that this cyber bullying was then compounded by a bunch of other people who joined in; a mad dash to the bottom, one might say. finally, bullying is a form of violence and the outcomes from extreme bullying often include suicide or at least attempted suicide)...should that go unpunished?
  4. bethany middleton from Canada writes: Jocelyn: It wasn't just a case of 'someone breaking up with them.' And there is also much to be said about the relative impact of someone verbally telling you they think you should die (which is one of the thigs that was said), and someone writing this down and being followed by a bunch of other people sayijng the same thing.
  5. Ken DeLuca from Arnprior, Canada writes: Bullying is reprehensible but seldom deemed criminal. Being offensive, antagonistic and downright mean are anti-social traits but not criminal unless and until harm to person or property occurs as a result and intent is proven.

    If driving someone to distraction were to be considered a crime, most bosses or husbands would be on trial. Purposely driving someone to a state of extreme depression ( as seems to be the case here ) with intent to harm ( hard to prove that !) should have social sanctions of some kind; I agree it's a shame, I just don't think it's a crime.

    The fake identity is not relevent to the culpability of Ms Drew. As Jocelyn rightly points out, a real boy spurning her, for whatever reason and in whatever manner, would never be held criminally liable although he might be morally so.

    Finally, a general rule of thumb must be you are responsible for what you do, not for how people react to what you do.
  6. Ashley Mungal from Canada writes: This was a malicious and cruel intent to hurt a young female which worse off led to her death as she found no way to escape the pain but through suicide. Megan did not ask for someone to "pretend" to be a boy and to intentionally try to hurt her by taking full control of her emotions. People need to keep in mind that she was young and more importantly she was a young FEMALE and once emotions are toyed with it can be completely self destructive. Ms. Drew needs to be severely reprimanded for her actions and shoud serve time for what she inflicted upon this young female. No one could ever understand what Megan was going through unless they had taken the time to walk a mile in her shoes...
  7. r john mckinley from fredericton, Canada writes: Charge her with involuntary manslaughter. what makes this repugnant was she was an adult and the girl who took her life was under 14 years old.
  8. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: To reflect on the terrible tragedy itself, I've said it many times before "The Internet isn't a toy" parents should be held accountable for the actions & consequences that arise when allowing children unrestricted access to the Internet.

    Why not create a law to reflect that, oh wait! parents are already legally responsible for their children in the eye's of the law. So why doesn't it apply in this case?

    If these parents weren't so negligent in raising this child, she'd have had supervised Internet access & Megan's parents could report Lori Drew's actions to MySpace when it first started & her account would've been canceled & Lori banned for life from MySpace. Further action may also have resulted in Lori's ISP banning her Internet account altogether as it likely violated her ISP's user agreement.

    so no! pretending, using online persona & such shouldn't be a crime, most of which is used for individual privacy purposes anyway.

    Put the brunt of the blame where it belongs on the parents of Megan in this case!
  9. been there from Toronto, Canada writes: This interpretation of the Act is extremely dangerous. It is intended solely by the government to extend its power to force everyone and everything to be registered and thereby stifle discussions and chill behaviours on the Internet.

    It is simply an intimidation tactic by the state. This would move the US regulation model closer to China.

    When there is a serious matter (e.g., death of a victim), existing laws already allow for probable cause investigation which, in turn, led to the alleged perpetrator. It will be up to the judge and jury to decide on whether the perpetrator's actions of tormenting the victim led to her death.

    It is irrelevant whether the alleged intimidation, harassment or manipulative acts are done via Internet or done through old-fashioned means such as letters, anonymous phone calls or person-to-person whisper campaigns.

    The fact that the government now wants to slap on additional charges solely because of the use of a false PERSONAL identity on the Internet and make this a prima facie offense certainly increases its power -- any time you make a false or even anonymous personal identity for whatever reason or whatever consequences good or bad (including whistleblowing), you will be charged and conviction guaranteed. This is broad, sweeping and unconstitutional assault free speech and privacy.

    It is understandable that some parents are frightened by this prospect and want all sorts of extra laws to "protect the children", but this is nonsense. It is those parents that need to adjust to modernity.

    Most parents already teach their kids to not talk to strangers, don't accept rides in stranger's cars, don't talk to any anonymous person on the phone and divulge all sorts of secrets. They just need to teach their children to take the same care on the Internet.
  10. Ashley Mungal from Canada writes: I can't understand how full blame can be placed on the parents of Megan if you do recall Lori was pretending to be someone else so how would the parents have known that it wasn't "Josh Evans". Pretending to be someone else is identity theft; someone pretends to be someone else when they want to fool and manipulate others to benefit their criminal acts.
    I do agree that parents should keep a watchful eye on their children whether it be not talking to strangers or remember to look both ways when crossing a road. But once again the underlying fact is that Lori Drew pretended to be someone else and her actions caused the loss of a 13 year old girl. How would you feel if that was your daughter, sister, or friend? Everyone is so quick to say that it isn't a crime but just wait until you have to face a similar situation then you'll cry out for justice.
  11. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Ashley Mungal -

    It's not illegal to use an alias, persona, pseudonym or pen name, by all accounts Lori wasn't pretending to be some other living person she was simply pretending to be a boy. This is not a case of identity theft, I could use your name online & it wouldn't be identity theft unless I was actually passing myself off as you.

    The parents wouldn't have known Josh was Lori but they would've seen the messages if they supervised their daughters online Internet activities & could've put a stop to it before anything serious happened. Which is my point, they were negligent by not ensuring Megan's safety, which as parents they have a legal responsibility to ensure.

    To many parents today use the Internet as a babysitter for their children & unless parents are willing to supervise such access it's child neglect plain & simple. Do you let your child play with matches, do you let your child drive the car, do you let your 13 year old child watch the late night porn movie at 1am? Then why on earth would you let your child surf the Internet unsupervised?

    It's not the Internet's responsibility to ensure a child surfing it doesn't see porn or chat with someone who isn't who they are, just as it's not a cars responsibility to ensure a child doesn't drive it....it's the parents responsibility!

    That is why Megan's parents should face the brunt of blame! Yes Lori should be charged, but not for using a persona.
  12. Jamie McQuaid from Canada writes: Ok, I haven't chimed in on these forums in a while but I think something should be said to this regard.
    The underlying issue in all of this is the fact that an adult willfully harmed and exploited a child. It might not have meant to be physical, but it meant to be mental to the very least.
    In all reality I do not see any difference in this case to any of the hundreds of crimes against online sexual predators. The only difference is that this is not sexually motivated. As far as I'm aware, when online sexual predators are caught, they don't even need to be caught in the act, they merely need to prove the intent of the suspect. Why doesn't the same rules apply here?
    Legal specifics aside, there are some serious parallels to these crimes and if the laws are not updated to reflect these problems, they should be and quickly as this will probably not be the last case of this nature.
  13. Jim Mac from Spring Hill, Florida, United States writes: Lori Drew, posing as a 16 year old boy talking to a teenage girl most assuredly would have been talking sex with the teen Megan when she was talking about romantic interests in Megan. That is harassing, harming, and abusing Megan and telling her the world would be a much better place without her was in fact, telling her to kill herself.

    The “boy” would have known Megan’s vulnerability to suicide with the exchanges they both had with each other. I would think Lori, the mother, knew perfectly well what might happen when she told Megan the world would be better without her around.

    What happens to a man when he poses as a teenager on line to lure some girl into a devious act. Lori performed the same act in luring Megan to kill herself.

    As far as I’m concerned, let the courts do their thing and give the correct harsh punishment for horrendous bullying with intent to cause the victim to do harm to herself.

    It’s unfortunate that with all the advances in technology that the laws haven’t kept up with the crimes being committed by new methods.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Ingram 2.0

Back to top