TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Advanced search  


We are Allaxys
We moved our news front to

The Forum 1 on is only a backup archive!

Twin Update 8.5.2023

Warning to Amazon Data Services Singapore
Warning to Amazon Data Services Japan
Do stop your sabotage or you will be shot!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: What was said to Megan Meier / May come back to haunt you, Lori Drew.  (Read 1721 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1201

What was said to Megan Meier
May come back to haunt you, Lori Drew.

"Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person
and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life.
The world would be a better place without you"

The background story:

MySpace Cruel Prank Leads to Teen's Suicide

Beim "Standard" in Wien:
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 01:32:56 PM by ama »
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1201
What was said to Megan Meier / May come back to haunt you, Lori Drew.
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2008, 11:10:09 PM »


Bis zu 20 Jahre Haft für Online-Mobbing

In den USA hat der Prozess gegen Lori D. begonnen, die 2006 eine
13-Jährige durch gezielte Manipulationen in eine Depression getrieben
 haben soll - die mit dem Selbstmord des Mädchens endete.
Der Fall könnte den juristischen Umgang mit Online-Schikane verändern.

Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1201
What was said to Megan Meier / May come back to haunt you, Lori Drew.
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2008, 06:44:12 PM »

Mit der Auswahl von Juroren hat am Dienstag der Prozess gegen eine
Amerikanerin begonnen, die sich in einem Internetforum als männlicher
Jugendlicher ausgab und online eine Teenagerin drangsalierte. Das junge
Mädchen beging später Selbstmord.

Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik


  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1286
Re: What was said to Megan Meier / May come back to haunt you, Lori Drew.
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2022, 02:20:25 AM »

One more proof that the courts in the USA are insane...

United States v. Drew
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                             United States v. Drew
Full case name    United States v. Lori Drew
Decided                August 28, 2009

Docket nos.   2:08-cr-00582
Citation(s)   259 F.R.D. 449
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting   George H. Wu

United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009),[1] was an American federal criminal case in which the U.S. government charged Lori Drew with violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) over her alleged cyberbullying of her 13-year-old neighbor, Megan Meier, who had committed suicide.[1][2] The jury deadlocked on a felony conspiracy count and acquitted Drew of three felony CFAA violations, but found her guilty of lesser included misdemeanor violations; the judge overturned these convictions in response to a subsequent motion for acquittal by Drew.

    1 Allegations leading to indictment and trial
    2 Legal history
    3 Indictment
    4 Amicus brief in support of defendant
    5 Jury trial and split verdict
    6 Motion for acquittal granted
    7 Legislative responses
    8 Reactions
    9 See also
    10 References

Allegations leading to indictment and trial

In 2006, Lori Drew (née Shreeves)[3] lived in St. Charles County, Missouri, with her husband Curt and their teenaged daughter, Sarah. Megan Meier, who at one time had been friends with Sarah Drew, lived down the street from Drew.[4]

During the summer of 2006, Drew reportedly became concerned that Meier was spreading false statements about her daughter. Lori Drew, Sarah Drew, and Drew's employee, Ashley Grills, allegedly decided to create a fake Myspace account of a 16-year-old boy under the alias "Josh Evans". They allegedly used that account to discover whether Meier was spreading false statements about Sarah Drew.[5]

A Myspace account in the name of "Josh Evans" was created in September 2006.[6] Drew allegedly used the Myspace account to contact Meier, who apparently believed that "Josh Evans" was a 16-year-old boy. "Josh Evans" communicated with Meier through October 16, 2006, via the Myspace account in a manner described by the prosecution as flirtatious.[5]

On October 16, 2006, "Josh Evans" allegedly sent Meier a message to the effect that the world would be a better place without her. Additional Myspace members whose profiles reflected links with the "Josh Evans" profile also began to send Meier negative messages. Subsequently, Meier's mother discovered that her daughter had hanged herself in her bedroom closet.[4]

After Meier's death, according to the indictment, Lori Drew removed the fake "Josh Evans" account and commanded a juvenile who knew about the fake account "keep her mouth shut".[7]
Legal history

In early December 2007, Missouri prosecutors announced they would not file charges against Lori Drew in connection with Megan Meier's death. At a press conference, St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas stated there was not enough evidence to bring the charges.[8] As a result, the federal government decided to pursue the case in Los Angeles, where Myspace is based.[9]

The Meiers did not file a civil lawsuit.[10]

Thomas O'Brien, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, undertook prosecution of federal charges in connection with the case.[11][9] On May 15, 2008, Drew was indicted by the Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the Central District of California on four counts.[5] The first count alleged a conspiracy arising out of a charged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, namely that Drew and her co-conspirators agreed to violate the CFAA by intentionally accessing a computer used in interstate commerce "without authorization" and in "excess of authorized use", and by using interstate communication to obtain information from the computer in order to inflict emotional distress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C). Counts Two through Four allege that Drew violated the CFAA by accessing MySpace servers to obtain information regarding Meier in breach of the Myspace Terms of Service, on September 20, 2006 and October 16, 2006.
Amicus brief in support of defendant

On September 4, 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of Drew's motion to dismiss the indictment.[12] The brief argued that Drew's indictment was wrongful because Drew's alleged violation of the Myspace terms and conditions was not an "unauthorized access" or a use that "exceeds authorized access" under the CFAA statute; that applying the CFAA to Drew's conduct would constitute a serious encroachment of civil liberties; and that interpreting the CFAA to apply to a breach of a website's Terms of Service would violate the Due Process protections of the Constitution and thereby render the statute void on the grounds of vagueness and lack of fair notice.
Jury trial and split verdict

This jury announced on November 26, 2008[1] that it was deadlocked on Count One for Conspiracy. It unanimously found Drew not guilty of Counts Two through Four, but convicted her of lesser included misdemeanor offenses on those three counts.[5][11][13]
Motion for acquittal granted

On November 23, 2008, Drew filed a motion for acquittal.[14] On August 28, 2009, U.S. District Judge George H. Wu formally granted Drew's motion for acquittal, overturning the jury's guilty verdict on the three misdemeanor CFAA violations.[1]

In his opinion, Wu examined each element of the misdemeanor offense, noting that a misdemeanor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) requires that:

    The defendant intentionally have accessed a computer without authorization, or have exceeded authorized access of a computer
    The access of the computer involved an interstate or foreign communication
    By engaging in this conduct, the defendant obtained information from a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication

Wu found that many courts have held that any computer that provides a web-based application accessible through the internet would satisfy the interstate communication requirement of the second element, and that the third element is met whenever a person using a computer contacts an internet website and reads any part of that website.

The only issue arose with respect to the first element, and the meaning of the undefined term "unauthorized access". Wu noted the government's concession that its only basis for claiming that Drew had intentionally accessed Myspace's computers without authorization was the creation of the false "Josh Evans" alias in violation of the MySpace Terms of Service. Wu reasoned that, if a conscious violation of the Terms of Service was not sufficient to satisfy the first element, Drew's motion for acquittal would have to be granted for that reason alone. Wu found that an intentional breach of the Myspace Terms of Service could possibly satisfy the definition of an unauthorized access or access exceeding authorization, but that rooting a CFAA misdemeanor violation in an individual's conscious violation of a website's Terms of Service would render the statute void for vagueness because there were insufficient guidelines to govern law enforcement as well as a lack of actual notice to the public.

Wu cited several reasons an individual would be lacking in actual notice:

    The statute does not explicitly state that it is criminalizing breaches of contract, and most individuals are aware that a contract breach is not typically subject to criminal prosecution
    If a website's Terms of Service control what is an "authorized" use or a use that "exceeds authorization", the statute would be unconstitutionally vague because it would be unclear whether any or all violations of the Terms of Service would constitute "unauthorized" access
    Allowing a conscious violation of website's Terms of Service to be a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA would essentially give a website owner the power to define criminal conduct

Wu summed up his opinion by stating that allowing a violation of a website's Terms of Service to constitute an intentional access of a computer without authorization or exceeding authorization would "result in transforming section 1030(a)(2)(C) into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that would convert a multitude of otherwise innocent Internet users into misdemeanant criminals."[1] For these reasons, Wu granted Drew's motion for acquittal. The Government did not appeal.[15]
Legislative responses

Missouri legislators amended the state's harassment law to include penalties for bullying via computers, other electronic devices, or text messages. The bill was approved on May 16, 2008.[16][17] More than twenty states have enacted legislation to address bullying that occurs through electronic media.[17] These laws include statutes that mandate that school boards must adopt policies to address cyberbullying, statutes that criminalize harassing minors online, and statutes providing for cyberbullying education.[18] California enacted Cal. Educ. Code §32261 that encourages schools and other agencies to develop strategies, programs and activities that will reduce bullying via electronic and other means.[19]

A bill was introduced in Congress in 2009 (H.R. 1966)[20] to set a federal standard definition for the term cyberbullying,[21] but the proposal was criticized as overbroad and did not advance.

Legal experts expressed concern that the prosecution sought effectively to criminalize any violation of web site terms of service.[22] Andrew M. Grossman, senior legal analyst for the Heritage Foundation, said "If this verdict stands ... it means that every site on the Internet gets to define the criminal law. That's a radical change. What used to be small-stakes contracts become high-stakes criminal prohibitions."[1]

Law Professor Orin Kerr, one of Drew's pro bono attorneys, commented that he was "very pleased" with the vacated guilty verdict as the case was "an extremely important test case for the scope of the computer crime statutes, with tremendously high stakes for the civil liberties of every Internet user".[23]
See also

    LVRC Holdings v. Brekka
    Social media and suicide
    United States v. Nosal
    Virtual crime


United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
Stelter, Brian (27 November 2008). "Guilty Verdict in Cyberbullying Case Provokes Many Questions Over Online Identity". The New York Times.
Kim Zetter (2 July 2009). "Judge Acquits Lori Drew in Cyberbullying Case, Overrules Jury". Wired. Retrieved 29 December 2018 – via
Maag, Christopher (28 November 2007). "A Hoax Turned Fatal Draws Anger but No Charges". The New York Times.
United States District Court for the Central District of California (10 November 2008), Government's Trial Memorandum (Case 2:08-cr-00582-GW Document 64)
United States District Court for the Central District of California (15 May 2008), Federal Indictment (Case 2:08-cr-00582-GW Document 1), p. 7 – via
United States District Court for the Central District of California (15 May 2008), Federal Indictment (Case 2:08-cr-00582-GW Document 1), p. 8 – via
"Prosecutor: No Criminal Charges in MySpace Suicide". Fox News. 3 December 2007.
"Megan's Law; Cyber-bullying and the courts". The Economist. 11 July 2009.
Pokin, Steven (11 November 2007). "'MySpace' Hoax Ends with Suicide of Dardenne Prairie Teen". Suburban Journals.
Zetter, Kim (26 November 2008), Lori Drew Not Guilty of Felonies in Landmark Cyberbullying Trial, Wired
McCarthy, Tom; Michels, Scott (July 1, 2009). "Lori Drew MySpace Suicide Hoax Conviction Thrown Out". Retrieved 2021-12-05.
United States District Court, Central District of California (Western Division − Los Angeles), Criminal Docket for Case No. CR 08-0582-GW
Zetter, Kim (20 November 2009), Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case, Wired
Associated Press (17 May 2008). "Missouri Lawmakers Pass Bill Against Cyber-harassment after MySpace Suicide Case". Los Angeles Times.
"Cyberbullying: Responses". National Coalition Against Censorship. 1 October 2009. Archived from the original on June 6, 2015.
"Cyberbullying: Statutes and Policies". National Coalition Against Censorship. 6 July 2010.
"Education Code, Section 32260-32262". Official California Legislative Information.
111th Congress (2009-2010) (2 April 2009). "Bill Text: H.R.1966". Archived from the original on 11 August 2009. Retrieved 1 December 2009.
Wertheimer, Linda (5 April 2009), Prosecuting Cyber Bullies (Radio Broadcast on "Weekend Edition Sunday"), National Public Radio
Zetter, Kim (15 May 2008). "Experts Say MySpace Suicide Indictment Sets 'Scary' Legal Precedent". Wired.

    Kerr, Orin (29 August 2009). "Lori Drew Opinion Handed Down – Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss on Vagueness Grounds". The Volokh Conspiracy.


    2009 in United States case lawCyberbullyingUnited States District Court for the Central District of California casesUnited States Internet case lawUnited States federal criminal case law

Navigation menu

    Not logged in
    Create account
    Log in


    View history

    Main page
    Current events
    Random article
    About Wikipedia
    Contact us


    Learn to edit
    Community portal
    Recent changes
    Upload file


    What links here
    Related changes
    Special pages
    Permanent link
    Page information
    Cite this page
    Wikidata item


    Download as PDF
    Printable version

In other projects



Add links

    This page was last edited on 27 September 2022, at 18:37 (UTC).
    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Écrasez l'infâme!
Pages: [1]