Comments on: Myspace “Outrage Indictment” Perverts Justice

By: Brett Trout

Brett Trout — Fri, 30 May 2008 21:28:21 +0000

Brian, Correct me if I am wrong, but rather that copying you, wasn't I writing about this topic months before you? My issue is not with the topic (obviously, since I selected it before you). Instead, my issue is with using this case to make the point. Highlighting prosecutors who unfairly use ambiguous laws to pursue much less morally repulsive defendants, on more tenuous charges might be better. There are many out there. Choosing a better champion for your cause also may go further toward a voter backlash against the lax scriveners who write ambiguous laws in the first place. Brett Brett Trouts last blog post..BlawgIT Has Moved

By: Brian Cuban

Brian Cuban — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:24:03 +0000

@Brett Trout: Knock yourself out Brett. I don’t own the topic. I did find it pretty bizarre that you criticize my choice of topic and then copy it for your blog….

By: Brett Trout

Brett Trout — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:57:05 +0000

Brian, I copied your post, but I changed all of the words, included completely different outbound links and took a position diametrically opposed to your own? Is that your argument? You must run into that a lot. Brett Brett Trouts last blog post..BlawgIT Has Moved

By: Bonzo

Bonzo — Fri, 30 May 2008 07:29:53 +0000

Michael M, with all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. This prosecutor has indicted a woman for “accessing protected computers without authorization”, a felony offense, over a minor violation of a private website’s TOS. It is the setting up of the account under a fictitious name that was the violation. Otherwise, her speech is protected and cannot be prosecuted at present. In other words, if this charge sticks, we are ALL felons if we ever got mad at someone on the internet. What constitutes unlawful bullying or illegal speech anyway? You sound like you are willing to let a federal prosecutor make those decisions. Me, I’m not.

By: Gene Goldring

Gene Goldring — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:54:17 +0000

Brian
The paragraph above the video has, “Until that time, the rule of law is not about turning Lori *Meir* into some high tech cyber criminal for which the…”

You may awant to change that to Lori *Drew*.

By: Richard R.

Richard R. — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:04:07 +0000

I hate to say this but if someone is weak how are you to know? whats next? Getting life because you told someone to get stuffed and they took you seriously? Its absurd on its face Period. That poor kid had issues no one knows what would have set her off. But going after someone who was clearly mean is garbage…um excuse me the thought police are at my door.

By: Arros

Arros — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:10:21 +0000

“That child would still be alive if it wasn’t for the actions of this defendant, let’s not forget that.”

Huh? I think you’re confused. She would be alive if she didn’t hang herself.

By: Brian Cuban

Brian Cuban — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:40:37 +0000

@Fanning: I don’t know whether the laugh my head off or be terrified that there are people like you out there. God I hope you are not in a position of judicial authority! You have actually just defined how a lynch mob works. You can take the white hood off now. The wizard has been exposed….

By: Fanning

Fanning — Sun, 18 May 2008 04:54:42 +0000

Brian,

You have no idea how the Law actually works. Firstly Drew committed a fraud, that was a direct cause of the death of a teenage girl. She is guilty of a crime. Because of the real workings of the judicial system she will certainly be convicted. Most importantly however, society sees things that are wrong, and has a myriad of abiguous laws that can arbitrarily be applied to a behavior, to get a conviction from a Jury. Read here, Martha Stuart. Obstruction of Justice. There are 100s of ridiculously vauge statues that prosecuters use every day to charge people their gut tells them did something wrong. That Brain, is exactly how justice works in America.

By: somepunk

somepunk — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:13:17 +0000

Yes, that was my point — although I probably didn’t word it very well.

Al Capone was convicted on what seemed a minor crime when compared to the crimes that many people believe he committed (or that were committed on his orders). The Justice Department was unable to convict him for the murders but they managed to punish him nonetheless.

By: Brian Cuban

Brian Cuban — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:07:44 +0000

@somepunk: Al Capone actually evaded income taxes and there was a law on the books to deal with that exact crime…

By: somepunk

somepunk — Sun, 18 May 2008 02:03:43 +0000

The only way just would be perverted in this case would be if the jurors who hear the evidence convict the accused regardless of what the law says. The Justice Department is free to pursue whatever trial they wish to (and they should) but they are not guaranteed a victory.

Would Al Capone have served any time if the government hadn’t decided to attempt to convict him on income tax evasion?

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:40:11 +0000

Logical Dude, you would also have to imagine that person is a middle-aged woman dressed up as a male teenager, interacting with a 13-year old girl in a romantic way. After several months of interactions, in which the middle-aged woman draws the 13 year-old into a relationship with her, and knowing her mental state, the woman says that the world would be better without her. The Missouri statutes are clear on cyberstalking and harassment, although relatively new (I think they were revised and set in place about two months before this happened, I’d check that though). However, coming up with a variety of hypotheticals could be a lifelong endeavor if one so chose. Did Drew interact with Meier on a regular basis with the intent to harass? Would this emotionally damage an average person? Did this harassment cause substantial emotional damage? These seem valid questions for a court to decide. Okay, I’m done now, thanks for the post.

If you guys want a really fun Saturday night, spend it reading U.S. codes relevant to this case: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html
It will proably end up being a successful civil case, if nothing else.

By: Devan888

Devan888 — Sun, 18 May 2008 00:37:12 +0000

This is precisely the type of situation that the civil court system was created to address. In the absence of criminal precedent, redress to civil proceedings, with all its attendant publicity and social stigma, serves the cause of justice in the law’s stead.