Rose Speaks.com will be updating this weekend for the BLOG part only. The blog main data base will be rolled back and changed over at about midnight [Sunday December 28], IF the current theme works then all will go smoothly, if not it will be a tad bumpy through part of Monday. Yes we did not finish on Saturday night so it is being done tonight [Sunday] If the blog is down a few hours late at night never fear the full blog is always saved in a roll back database. We will also be adding some new features like a much easier category section, and a translation into several other languages we have been asked to add. We hope we keep improving and you keep stopping by to read.

We thought we might add this bit about cases, old and new ones you have told us you would like Rose Speaks.com to follow. If you want something added to this list, please post it here and let us know.

Casey Anthony – Caylee Anthony – George and Cindy Anthony – Lee Anthony - Anthony case.

The Mike Corona case out of Orange County California, and the interwoven cases that have all come from this case (I.E. Don Haidl and before Corona’s case how it relates to Haidls’ son’s case, And the tail of the two Debbies)

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his staff and family as they all began to lawyer up.

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht - Because you just can’t make this up, the government needs help in a change of venue to “convict” the doctor on the second go round, cause the people love him.

D. C. Madame, Deborah Palfrey and her Estate.

Henry T. Nicholas III - California Billionaire, just had to allegedly possess and with intent to distribute drugs, with secret rooms beneath his homes. You have to just love California and what they bring to us, last year Anthony Pellicano and this year Henry T. Nicholas III.

The Hogan family’s continued problems and associated lawsuits.

Michelle Braun, Millionaire Madame and her Client list you are not going to believe who all is included and those she intends or might take down with her unlike the D. C. Madame, Deborah Palfrey.

Lori Drew, the ultimate case of cyber bullying and what her conviction is going to do to the rest of the nation in new laws.

A couple of Rock Bands just to spice things up here on Rose Speaks.com with people who know them well and are willing to give us their take on the current woes a couple of these bands find themselves in.

Thanks to Sprocket the ongoing Phil Spector trial in California, take two.

Roland Carnaby Civil Rights case from Houston Texas of an alleged CIA or FBI operative gun down, who died from gun shot wounds causing death due to blood lost, and why no one is standing trial for this death listed as a “homicide”.

Two Yale Law Students who decided to sue anonymous blog posters for defamation and what this also might generate in online defamation and/or law changes.

New Cases that catches the attention of John J. Nazarian P. I. – Security Consultant, whatever catches the fancy of Mr. Nazarian, we hope he will share with Rose Speaks.com.

All things Anna Nicole Smith related as many of those trials come to an end in 2009. Which by the way the New York Judge has granted Howard K. Stern’s legal team’s request for more time to answer Rita Cosby’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The new date due is February 6, 2009, based on that all of the paperwork filed by Elizabeth McNamara on December 15 was wrong and so had to be refiled on December 19, 2008.

If there is a case you would like to see us follow, let us know, and if we can we will. If you would like to follow a case and write articles for the blog, we welcome you, just drop us an email.

There will be a new article up on Casey Anthony today, and debunking of the blond ambitious, Cosby’s book will be up before the stroke of midnight on December 31.

©Rose Turner
December 27, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Deborah Palfrey, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, George and Cindy Anthony, Hachette Books, Henry T. Nicholas III, Howard K Stern, Hulk Hogan, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, John J. Nazarian P. I., Lana Clarkson, Lee Anthony, Lin Wood, Lori Drew, Michelle Braun, Phil Spector, retrial, Rita Cosby, Rod Blagojevich, Roland Carnaby, Roland Carnaby Estate, Rose Speaks.com site maintenance, Rose Speaks.com site updates, Sprocket, Susan Carnaby, The D. C. Madame, The Hogan family

In Los Angeles California, today will begin the trial of Lori Drew for “Violating the Terms of Service of My Space.com”. When you read that sentence, I think we all go WTH, violate the terms of service of an internet site and go to jail? Yet in the Landmark case of the government vs. Lori Drew that is exactly what is happening and it could change the internet world forever.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles will try to prove that Drew knew she was breaking the Terms of Service of the social networking website MySpace.com by creating a fictitious 16-year-old heartthrob named Josh Evans to woo, then humiliate a minor girl to the point she killed herself. The ultimate Cyber Bully, but is this trial fair to the rest of us that could be affected forever by this case.

As a headline in a newspaper in Australia said yesterday, this could result in something to the affect of, “Say goodbye to anonymity on the web.” The online paper goes on to say:

“So what did they charge with?

How about ‘conspiracy and fraudulently gaining access to someone else’s computer’.

Yup … that’s it and as much of a twist of the laws as it might be this is exactly what they got indictments against Ms. Drew which has more than a few legal scholars a little worried. The one thing that was in Lori Drew’s favour though was that the judge hearing the case had originally said that any evidence relating to … suicide would be excluded from the trial. Considering that the young girl’s death had nothing to do with whether any computer fraud laws were broken this made sense.

Unfortunately, though the judge has now reverse his decision and this evidence will be allowed. In light of how emotionally charged this whole matter is evidence such as this will make it very hard for a fair trial to be heard on the charge of computer fraud; as that is the only charge against Lori Drew.

So how does this affect any use of anonymous accounts or aliases?”

After months of many of us saying that this was a horrible example of an adult bullying a child but it did not meet the criteria of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and would never see a courtroom we have now been proved wrong and the trial of Lori Drew begins today. In recent weeks U. S. District Judge George Wu appeared to have agreed with most of our armchair take in this with his initial hints of rulings to be expected with comments leaning toward either dismissing the case outright or barring prosecutors from mentioning the death of the minor child. However, on Friday, Judge Wu stunned a globe of sites/forums/blogs following the case by deciding that the case would go forward, suicide and all. In an irony he mentioned a Law and Order television program on NBC called SVU that had a segment last week based on the Lori Drew case.

Dean Steward, Drew’s lawyer had said that if the suicide of the girl was allowed into the trial that the jury would convict his client, himself and anyone sitting near him. Perhaps he maybe closer then he might think in that assessment with the Pro Bono Expert Orin Kerr deciding he could not attend the trial citing that this is the last week of classes at George Town University on the East Coast after paying the fee to appear Pro Hac Vice to represent Drew.

The case against Drew marks the first time the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act has been used to pursue allegations of cyber bullying rather than computer “hackers”, those whom have intentionally access a computer without access or exceeds the access they know they have to take something from that computer or network.

State and local governments have passed laws to address cyber bullying, in part out of frustration after local, state and federal prosecutors in Missouri stated they could not find a statute to try Drew under. NO ONE is claiming that cyber bullying is not a horrible phenomenal effect on the world web net where anonymity is the rule of the day and thereby allows bullies to do things they would seldom think of doing face to face. There are federal laws pending in congress to address cyber bullying now pending for the new congress to take up next year.

Why is Drew then being tried in Los Angeles? Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles tried the computer fraud approach, claiming jurisdiction because MySpace.com’s computer servers are in that court’s district.

The statute being used has been challenged so extensively in pretrial motions that many of us have predicted the trial would never take place and more people on the internet then ever before understands what “hacking” is. It does not mean what many of us thought of the old vision of someone “hacking” into a site to take it down so in that respect this case has served as a teaching tool to millions of internet users.

Per one of the best articles outlining the case out of Saint Louis, Missouri, it restates in easy to understand language the basis of what the government has to prove including all four parts of the Computer Fraud act of:

“That Drew “intentionally accessed a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization.
That the access involved interstate communication.
That Drew obtained information that way.
That it was done “in furtherance of a tortious act in violation of the laws of any State.” In this case, the alleged tort is the intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the suicide as proof.”

The government’s case hinges on the fact that Drew violated the MySpace “terms of service,” which prohibit lying when registering, or soliciting information from someone under 18 and/or harassing other users. As we have noted almost all sites, including Rose Speaks.com has Terms of Service and a Privacy Statement as does others sites examples of TMZ.com, MySpace.com, Topix.net and thousands of other online forums/sites/blogs.

The article in the Saint Louis papers states in part, “To prove the elements of emotional distress, prosecutors normally would have to show the conduct was intentional and “beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

If Drew is convicted, each charge carries a potential penalty of five years in prison. Judge Wu did rule however that the jury could find her guilty of a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized access to a protected computer that would mean much less than a year, and possibly probation for Drew.

The girl who committed suicide father, Ron Meier, is in Los Angeles, where he says he will stay until the end of the trial.

Per the Saint Louis newspaper article, “Meier did say that a guilty verdict and even minor punishment would be enough if it came with a broader awareness of cyber bullying.”

I think we all hope that laws that fit the crime as many here at Rose Speaks.com knows address cyber bullying. It has become almost insane in nature as to how some of our members and moderators have been stalked online and have had everything about their private lives that can be dug up put out on the internet to scare and/or harass them.

We are hoping one of our Los Angeles Court Watchers will be writing on this case from inside the courtroom this week so stay tuned to Rose Speaks.com for the latest in coverage of the USA vs. Lori Drew.

You can pick up all of the papers in the Lori Drew Case in our download section Opened to ALL not just registered members.

©Rose Turner
November 18, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Cyber Bullying, Dean Steward, Josh Evans, Judge George Wu, Judge Wu, Lori Drew, MySace.com, MySpace Cyber Bully case, Orin Kerr, Orin S. Kerr, Ron Meier, TMZ.com, Topix.com, U. S. District Judge George Wu

There were new filings in the USA vs. Lori Drew in the California Federal Court hearing the case including the October 14 Application for records of another minor girl.

An Application for an Ex Parte Application of a Subpoena Deuces Tecum to Sprint Cell phone records was requested to be Court Ordered on October 14 by Lori Drew’s defense team. It appears that after receiving the mirror of the hard drives from the FBI, the defense forensic expert examined the mirror copy of both the Drew computer hard drive and the M. family’s hard drive, and has concluded that M.T.M. was not the sender of one of the messages that the USA is basing their case on.

The Subpoena Deuces Tecum is to get the cell phone records from Sprint to find another minor girl with the initials of S.D. who actually sent the message, in question, in the indictment to the fake “Josh Evans” Myspace.com account.

A Stipulation of Protective Order by the parties concerning the court-approved subpoena to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Lake St. Louis, Missouri of the minor M. T. M.’s records was also presented to the Court for its approval on October 14.

On October 15, 2008, the Court issued an Order Resetting the Trial Date to November 18, 2008; however, the hearing on the Motions to Dismiss is set for October 30, 2008 at 8:30 AM and the Court has Ordered that defendant, Lori Drew, be present.

The renown specialist on the internet Orin Kerr, attorney, was granted Pro Hac Vice status by the Court after his application to be part of the legal team representing Lori Drew, his application says he is defending her on a Pro Bono basis.

I still predict this case will never go to trial because although Lori Drew violated My Space.com TOS, she did not still anything, and now with a top attorney that specializes in computer law, I see them beginning to chip away at the government’s case.

All of the documents for this case are available in our download section, OPEN to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
October 19, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Cyber Bullying, Lori Drew Cyber Bully case, Lori Drew Cyber Bullying Case, Lori Drewn, My Space Cyber Bullying suit

In a Court Order and minutes on September 23, the Court is not sure the USA can prove that Lori Drew “stole” anything with her violations of the MySpace.com TOS.

The Court asked the USA and for Lori Drew’s lawyers to extend Drew’s trial date from October 7 to a date in the future by agreement and to notify the Court of that joint decision. The Court is also asking for brief to explain what did Lori Drew “steal”, that is what a lot of us have been saying is what will become the focal point of having this case dismiss.

What Lori Drew is horrid, but she did not steal email addresses, user names, password, nor committed identity theft. The existing laws do just not cover Cyber Bullying, nor did Lori Drew in my opinion steal anything, which is a basic for the Cyber Crime statutes, other than stalking which Ms Drew was NOT accused of doing to the young girl.

The USA prosecutors have also filed two Motions to exclude evidence used in Missouri in both state and federal investigations. They want it excluded either because of the “hearsay” provision or that what those entities used as evidence to in Missouri to make the determination there was nothing that they could do with existing state or federal laws in this situation.

I still predict as sad as what Lori Drew did this case will be dropped and the U. S. Congress will need to broaden or enact laws on Cyber Bullying.

You can read all of the documents involved in this case in our download section open to ALL not just members of Rose Speaks.com.

©Rose Turner
September 29, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Lori Drew, MySpace Cyber Bully case, MySpace.com

During a hearing on September 4, the California Federal Criminal Court, Judge Wu, issued decisions on two of three Motions to Dismiss by the defense team of Lori Drew.

The Court ruled that the USA [government prosecutors], had met the burden of proof under two of the defenses Motions to Dismiss. Those two was the “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment as the Unconstitutional Delegation of Prosecutorial Power”, which was DENIED by Judge Wu on September 4. The other was the “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Vagueness”, which was also DENIED by Judge Wu. The Court took under advisement the “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Failure to State an Offense”. Those present in the court have reported the judge’s only question on that final “Failure to State an Offense”, was could the USA prosecute Lori Drew if the government cannot prove that Lori Drew specifically “read MySpace.com Terms of Service/Use”.

The Court is going to issue its ruling on that in the next few days. However, if the minutes of the hearing released on September 5 as well as a Subpoena for the young girl’s medical records are any indication added to the fact the Court did not continue [reset or put on hold for the time being] the pretrial hearing on September 23. The Court as well stated in the Court’s Minutes that the Trial date of October 7 was still on the schedule. That has led to the thoughts that the judge is going to allow the prosecution to go forward with USA prosecution case and the trial of Lori Drew.

The conspiracy theory is based on the government’s argument that the government must prove in order to go forward with the trial the following under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [CFAA]:

1. That Lori Drew with others “conspired to access protected computers without authorization in violation of the 18 U.S.C. § 371”.
2. That “accessing the protected computers without authorization to obtain information to further a tortuous act in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1030(a) (2)

The government maintains that the “terms “access” and “unauthorized” are not so imprecise that people of common intelligence must guess at the meaning stating that both can and have been applied in common sense fashion such that the statue itself places individuals on notice of prohibited conduct and is sufficiently definite to protect against arbitrary enforcement”. The Court agreed with the prosecution on this issue heard before the court on September 4.

The prosecution appears to have met its burden that the CFAA covers “cyber bullying which is a relatively new phenomenon, as is social networking.” The government maintains that “Congress specifically envisioned that statute as a tool to address all manner of cyber crimes”. The government in it’s argument, which the court agreed with, pointed to a case involving a student of the University of Texas. In using that case the prosecutors stated in part; “that conviction being upheld by the firth circuit of appeals stating, [c]ourts have … typically analyzed the scope of a user’s authorization to access protected computer on the basis of the expected norms of intended use or the nature of the relationship established between the computer owner and the user.” [United States v. Phillips, 477 F 3d 215, 219 5th Circuit 2007]. “Accordingly, some courts have concluded that when users access computers in violation of rules established for the user of those computers, the access is unauthorized.”

The Court agreed that the Section 1030 (a) (2) is applicable only where unauthorized access is used to obtain information. The prosecution presented the argument that, “Unauthorized access to obtain information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication”.

The government quotes in section 1030 that Lori Drew is being tried under the following section for 1030 (a) (2):

“the section … provides: any person who intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate of foreign communication … shall be subject to a fine, imprisonment or both.”

In addressing the “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment as the Unconstitutional Delegation of Prosecutorial Power”, the government stated that the statute’s content demonstrates there is no implicit delegation. Section 1030 instead sets forth several elements that must be met before criminal liability will be imposed:

“First: The defendant intentionally committed the unauthorized access to a computer; or intentionally exceeded authorized access to a computer; or intentionally accessed a computer with;

Second: The defendant’s access of that computer involved an interstate or foreign communications;

Third: By exceeding authorized access to a computer, the defendant obtained information from a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;

Fourth: The defendant obtained the information to further a tortuous act.

One type of tortuous act that the government is using to prosecute this case, is intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are four additional things that the government would have to prove to show that defendant obtained the information to further a tortuous act:

First, the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly
Second: the defendant’s conduct must be extreme or outrageous
Third: the conduct must be the cause of
Fourth: extreme emotional distress

In relation to using the My Space.com website TOS to prosecute Lori Drew the government stated that most of the facts relevant in a prosecution under Section 1030 (a) (2) have nothing to do with the website owners.

Those facts that the government must show, therefore, exist independently of any website operator and demonstrate there is no delegation of authority.

Nor does it matter that Section 1030 criminalizes “unauthorized” access to protected computers. “The fact that the statute looks to what a website operator identifies as “authorized”, as opposed to “unauthorized access,” makes it no different from a host of other statues that likewise proscribe conduct by reference to what a private party authorizes or consents to: State trespass laws, for example, criminalize conduct where the trespasser lacks the permission of the property owner to enter onto the property.”

The prosecution attacked the defendant’s Motions to dismiss stating in part; “The essence of defendant’s argument appears to be that written terms of service are somehow different. They are not. Property owners often post signs outlining conduct that will result in ejection (backed with a call to law enforcement)”.

“.. the implication of defendant’s argument appears to be that website operators should not be allowed to regulate the use of access to their web sites; however, if the operators of web sites cannot identify what conduct on their property is “authorized” or, by implication, “unauthorized,” they become hostage to the whims of users, no matter how detrimental to the online communities they may wish to sponsor.”

The government’s position went on to address using the violations of My Space.com TOS to prosecute Lori Drew stating; “Although their property, defendant would deprive website owners from being able to control conduct at their websites. After all, although defendant repeats a parade of horribles related to creation of arbitrary terms of service, an alternative world which website operators could not rely on enforcement of their rules to prevent people from using the their sites to “harass, abuse, or harm” others or to seduce children would be an undesirable one indeed”.

Indeed the government disagrees with the assumption underlying defendant’s series of hypothetical. Although defendant describes a series of websites and calls them “public,” to the extent the owners of those websites seek to restrict access, enact safeguards to restrict access (including sign-in pages that require prospective users to agree to terms of service), and put the users on notice of the rules governing the website, their website cannot truly be considered “public”. Nor should it matter that the websites are attractive to prospective visitors, even if only to see why they are excluded. How strange it would be if the homeowner whose view of the ocean is the envy of others could not exclude outsiders traipsing across his property because the property was “too attractive” for people to help themselves from intentionally entering his property without permission.

The prosecution in it’s filings list cases that support the prosecution of Lori Drew for violating My Space.com TOS. Stating, “The plain terms of the statute allow a prosecution of a defendant who lies to gain access to a computer and intentionally violates the rules established by a computer’s owner for the use of that computer for the purpose of committing another crime or tortuous act. This plain reading of the statute has been embraced by courts throughout the United States, and is consistent with the statute’s legislative history. Through its development and continual expansion of the statue, Congress demonstrated its desire to address through Section 1030 the newest cyber crimes, of which cyber bullying is just one of the latest.”

The prosecution addresses the concerns of it prosecuting Lori Drew in violations of her First Amendment Rights as follows. “Second, Section 1030 does not implicate any First Amendment rights. The statue does not proscribe speech… it proscribes conduct. Specifically, a felony violation of section 1030 (a) (2) (c) requires the government to prove that:

“1. A defendant intentionally accessed a computer without authorization or in excess of authorization; 2. To obtain information 3. To further a tortuous act; 4. In addition to other jurisdictional requirements. But even if the conduct the statue proscribes is tangentially related to speech that would not justify dismissal. Courts have repeatedly recognized that there is no privilege to trespass in order to exercise First Amendment rights. Nor does the constitutional avoidance doctrine apply because no First Amendment rights are implicated and, in any event, there is no ambiguity that could invite the application of the canon of construction.”

The government also won the argument that TOS such as MySpace.com can be prosecuted under the CFAA. The government quoted part of the MySpace.com TOS as the following:

1. “Criminal or tortuous activity… Including copyright infringement…
2. “Using any information obtained from MySpace.com services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person.
3. “soliciting personal information from anyone under 18”
4. “harass[ing] or advocate[ing] harassment of another person…
5. promot[ing] information that the member knows is false or misleading; and
6. using a photograph with out a person’s consent.

I suggest that all of you read the terms of service/use of the sites you post on, including TMZ.com, Topix.net and our site. We like other sites, (I. E. MySpace.com) when we update our TOS on the site, makes it mandatory when you sign onto the main site to read the newest version of our TOS and to agree to them. I look for more sites to be doing this as well as we post a link to our TOS at the end of each article now.

What if someone accesses a website via a proxy to not be “traced”; harvested information from the website in violation of the TOS; shared that information with others; took members identities via user names, email addresses and passwords; and then went to other sites. What if the person or persons doing that knew that the person whose identity had been taken perhaps used the same user name and password on other sites and then harvested private messages; data that a non-member would not be entitled to; and disseminated that information to others in a concerted way to harass? What if that person or persons used that information to find out other personal information and intentionally caused extreme emotional distress to others by humiliating them on other forums; in your opinion would that be covered under the CFAA?

©Rose Turner
September 8, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Tags: Lori Drew, Lori Drew Cyber Bully case, MySpace Cyber Bully case, MySpace.com, TMZ, TMZ.com, Topix.net

An incident where Missouri authorities stated there were no state statutes that would allow them to file charges on Lori Drew has now become a federal case — and a case that should get the attention of Internet users across the nation. The indictment alleges that Internet harassment of a teenager was allegedly a factor in the girl’s suicide and should stand as a cautionary tale for cyberspace users. Will the prosecution serve a useful purpose if it helps curb Internet bullying? It’s hard to imagine why anyone, would perpetrate such a hoax. We all say adults know better, right? If they are mature responsible adults, but how many turning on a computer tonight falls into the immature rash “adult”, taking out anger behind the obscurity of a computer screen? It’s also hard to imagine that even an immature online joke such as this one that Lori Drew had any idea it might lead to tragic consequences. That doesn’t erase the fact that playing with people through anonymous online communication isn’t a smart, ethical, or perhaps legal, thing to do.

The four count indictment accuses Lori Drew of violating MySpace’s terms of service [TOS]. The indictment charges Lori Drew with “Conspiracy; Accessing Protected Computers to Obtain Information; Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to Be Done”. The indictment states that Ms Drew committed a Tortious act, Namely intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of 18 U.S.C.; used the information obtained over the MySpace computer system to torment, harass, humiliate, and embarrass the juvenile MySpace member. The indictment goes on to say Ms. Drew allegedly deleted the account information for the account opened under the fictitious name from the MySpace computer system in order to obstruct detection of their scheme and posted a photograph of a boy without that boy’s knowledge or consent.

The indictment of Lori Drew brings a small sense of satisfaction to Richmond-area blogger Sarah Wells. Though Megan killed herself in October 2006, allegedly in response to the messages, the case didn’t become public until an article was published in the St. Louis-area Suburban Journals newspapers on Nov. 11, 2007. Sarah Wells posted Lori Drew’s name Nov. 13 on her blog, bluemerle.blogspot.com. As Wells explained the charges in postings on another blog, proteinwisdom.com: “She’s being charged with illegal use of a computer system owned by someone else, to hurt someone.” The original Suburban Journals article didn’t name the perpetrator of the hoax, but it gave enough clues that Sarah Wells was able to work through public records to find Lori Drew’s name. Wells revealed Drew’s name in a post titled: “What was said to Megan Meier May come back to haunt you, Lori Drew.” For days after the posting, Wells’ blog, which she calls “just a little obscure fluff blog,” became a focal point for outrage over the crime and lack of punishment. Wells, 45, knows something about the legal system because her husband, Michael Wells, is a lawyer. They live in the Westham area with their 17-year-old. “The medium still sort of seems to be the message. …I looked up a stinking name. The cyber vigilante accusations were hard to take. I never advocated that,” Well’s said on her blog following the indictment.

The U.S. attorney’s office and FBI agents in Los Angeles opened the investigation in January. The indictment occurred in Los Angeles, because that is the home of Beverly Hills-based MySpace. “After thorough investigation we’ve charged Ms. Drew with criminally accessing MySpace and violating rules established to protect young and vulnerable people,” said U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien. MySpace said it was “fully co-operating” with prosecutors. “Whether the defendant in this case could have foreseen the tragic choice made by Megan, she’s accountable for her fraudulent actions,” said FBI Assistant Director Salvador Hernandez. Hernandez says Drew “hid behind the walls of cyberspace…”

Prosecutors argue that to access MySpace’s servers, Drew first had to sign up for the service, which meant providing her name and date of birth and agreeing to abide by the site’s terms of service. Those terms bar false registration information, solicitation of personal information from anyone under 18 and use of any information gathered from the Web site to “harass, abuse, or harm another person.” By using a fictitious name, among other things, Lori Drew violated MySpace’s terms and thus had no authority to access the MySpace service, prosecutors charge.

The U.S. attorney prosecuting this case said it was the first time a federal statute on accessing protected computers has been used in connection with a social-networking case. Unfortunately, it may not be the last.

It has been agrued that the suicide occurred because on October 16, 2006, “Josh” sent Megan a message saying, “I don’t want to be friends with you any more because you’re not nice to your friends”.This post set off a deluge of hate mail from other users of the site including all of “Josh’s friends” and all of Megan’s friends.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in L.A. says Lori Drew will likely have an initial court appearance in California sometime in June. If Lori Drew is convicted on each of the four counts, Ms. Drew could go to prison for twenty years.

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. Lori Drew did 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?

This new interpretation also gives a business contract the force of a law: Violations of a Web site’s user agreement could now lead to criminal sanction, not just civil lawsuits or ejection from a site.

The NEW YORK (AP) said the following in a report on May 16; “Think twice before you sign up for an online service using a fake name or e-mail address. You could be committing a federal crime”. Legal experts warned Friday that such an interpretation could criminalize routine behavior on the Internet. After all, people regularly create accounts or post information under aliases.

“I think the danger of applying a statute in this way is that it could have unintended consequences,” said John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor who leads a MySpace-convened task force on Internet safety. “An application of a general statute like this might result in chilling a great deal of online speech and other freedom.”

Lori Drew’s lawyer, Dean Steward, said Thursday that a legal challenge to the charges is planned. Lori Drew’s defense in this case may well rest on free speech arguments. Experts from Harvard to St. Louis warn criminalizing routine behavior on the internet could produce a chilling impact to online speech.

Andrew DeVore, a former federal prosecutor who co-founded a regional computer crime unit in New York, said Friday the interpretation raises constitutional issues related to speech and due process — in the latter case, because it doesn’t allow for adequate notice of when using an alias online is criminal. Because corporations would end up setting criminal standards, a completely legal act at one site could be illegal at another, said DeVore, who has no direct involvement in the case.

Responding to the suicide of the Missouri teenager Missouri state lawmakers Friday [May 16, 2008] gave final approval to a bill making cyber harassment illegal. The bill updates state laws against harassment to keep pace with technology by removing the requirement that the communication be written or over the telephone. Supporters say the bill will now cover harassment from computers, text messages and other electronic devices. Sen. Scott Rupp said there is no way to be sure his legislation would have guaranteed a conviction, but it would have allowed prosecutors to continue investigating without having to ship the case to a different state. State Sen. Harry Kennedy, D-St. Louis, said the law is “definitely a warning shot for those folks who want to use the Internet for harassment.” The bill also requires school officials to tell police about harassment and stalking on school grounds and the new statute expands state laws against stalking to cover “credible threats” not only against the “victim”, but also” family and household members and animals”.

Bullying is unfortunately rampant on the Internet. Lori Drew’s case became high profile because she allegedly harassed a child, and because of Megan’s suicide. The tragedy created widespread outrage. Internet users can dignify Megan’s memory by advocating for a more civil voice in cyberspace. Megan’s death, prompted worldwide calls for sites such as MySpace to crack down on cyberbullying.

Thomas O’Brien, an attorney in Los Angeles, where MySpace is based said, “Any adult who uses the internet or a social-gathering website to harass or bully another person, particularly a young girl, must realise their actions can have serious consequences.”

“We are in uncharted waters here,” Rebecca Lonergan, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said. “This is a very aggressive charging decision, and I’m not sure this statute technically covers the essence of the harm.”

There is only one complete interview with Lori Drew and I suggest you read it also to give you a feel about this case we have decided to follow via requests from Rose Speaks members.

This case could mark a change for the larger “social networking servers in California to crack down on Cyber-Bullying and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on other users”. Some of the sites that are based in California that this could apply to other than MySpace is TOPIX, Bloggspot and TMZ to name a few. Although this law could be used in any state it appears that those servers located in California could be the ones most severly cracked down on and unlike Civil Suits most servers will cooperate as MySpace has done in this case.

If the statute is to be used like this, is it only for “death”, or could, “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, come to mean harrassing of mothers/family members with soldiers in Iraq, religious beliefs that are twisted and made fun of on the above sites; losing and being able to prove that your business lost substantial money from the incitement of hate or being called porn:, having false reports made to other agencies (I. E. the IRS, SSA, FBI etc.); knowing someone is ill and going out of your way to harrass them when any “commonsensical person” would know you are exceberating a medical condition and could hasten that person’s demise. Using pictures for “Satire”, without having permission to use the pictures from those whose image are in the picture? You see where does the first Amendment leave off, and criminal actions begin?

You can pick up the newest filing today on USA vs. Lori Drew in our download section which is open to ALL, not just registered members. BE AWARE SOME OF THE INFORMATION IS VERY DISTURBING ESPECIALLY THE COMMENTS OF LORI DREW ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS TURNING INTO SEXUAL CONTENT.

Please also read ourTerms of Use and our Privacy Policy. As the site continues to grow, we felt it was imperative to have both a TOU and a Privacy Policy, so there is no mistake what Rose Speaks position is on either of these subjects.

©Rose Turner
May 17, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.