Judge To Reverse Conviction In MySpace Hoax

What the woman did was *** up, don't get me wrong. But if they make it a prosecutable offense, then that opens the door for a whole slew of ***like this.

I mean, why does the suicide of one of the parties need to be the defining factor of what makes it criminal? Why not simply "you hurt me feelings, anonymous person online! Prepare for a lawsuit!!"

If someone wants to call someone online a useless dickbasket, they should be free to do so without fear of legal problems. We have enough stupid *** in this country than to clog up the courts with this (which it would totally do, the internet is like the lowest common denominator of humanity lol)

Let's see, she committed suicide in 2006. Certainly the internet and online predators weren't around at that time. Surely parents had no reason to monitor their kids online activity before 2006. Let me pose a question to you and I want you to take it personally to understand it fully.

If you told someone today you wish they would go slit their wrists and die in a ditch somewhere because they annoy you to no end and they went and did it and died. What would you do if the police came to you saying they found a note on the person saying "Azulmagia" told me to slit my wrists and die in a ditch? Than what if they told you you're being arrested as an accomplice to suicide and you'll likely be going to prison. What if you said it was just a "figure of speech". But got the reply, we're sorry but under the new law this note and the statement on it without a doubt labels you an accessory to suicide.

You'd be fine with that is what you're saying, right? Because you certainly put the knife in the person's hands stood right there and watched the person slit his/her wrists and die.

I'm glad there are those who comprehend the weight of this situation.

The difference however is the lengths the defendant went through to carry this out. They were downright counting on this to happen.

I don't see why a different medium through which it was carried out justifies their actions. It's blatantly obvious they went above and beyond a simple insult that could easily be ignored or blocked.

Big difference here was: girl ended up dead, investigation ensued, "anonymous person online" turned out to be some immature mom and her daughter trying to get "revenge" on said girl. Stupid, pointless crap? Not worth a lawsuit, not at all. Death indirectly by a neighbour's actions? Yeah, I'd say something needs to happen there. Whether it be with the legal system or not, SOMETHING needs to happen.

Yeah, but don't you see what that opens up? Now, all of a sudden, anyone that says "Go Die in a Fire" to someone online, if said person commits suicide, they are now culpable? It's one thing to take a suicidal person and say, give them a firearm and say "go ahead and shoot yourself"...but to egg someone on online?

There would be lawsuits left and freaking right over this. And like I said...why does suicide need to be the cutoff? What if they're just sad about it? Can they still sue for damages?

Too many problems would be caused by legislation like this, and it's yet another instrument of placing blame on others...

Its true when you enter the court room

Common sense takes the left door out of here

People will SUE for anything

I mean...anything

I don't like what you said Thunderz!! It makes me wanna kill myself!!! I'm suing you for emotional damages!!!! 2.5 million will just about cover it!!!!!!!

See the problem?

I don't understand some stuff

Lets say you had a car accident and you kill this kid

then the family sue's you for 5million $

Well the right pay off would be:

The funeral, days you miss from work, lawyer expenses

so max 15k $ ?

Why 5million I mean seriously you greedy ***

Off topic:

All lawyers should be employed by the state.... since everyone is working together to prosecute the crime...not who has the Highest paid lawyer to give him the slip >.>;

I agree with this, as well...money spent on lawyers shouldn't be the deciding factor in a lawsuit (especially in criminal metters) but all too often it is.

The difference is what would be put on the table in court. There's a difference between targeting a mentally unstable person, getting their hopes up then harassing them with threatening messages telling them they're better off dead than someone who gets pissed off and sends a simple insult out of spur of the moment anger or flame.

I simply believe people should take personal responsibility for their actions especially when it's premeditated, targeted, and had malicious intent behind it the whole time.

It could be abused

I mean really abused lol

From the look of it you would have loop holes the size of texas on that >.<

It would be hard to prove (the guy creates multiple emails and says thats not him)

It can be used on a every day basis on something thats clearly not abuse but the guy took it way too srsly

TBH lets just put it this way. Next time a guy tells you to kill yourself...

tell him to f??? off and he could go die in hole too

Do you honestly believe that the people involved in the hoax thought she was literally going to kill herself? Do you really think their intention was to make a teenaged girl kill herself?

The problem with prosecuting this, is there is no way to differentiate between simple "*** with someone" and honest to God harassment with intent to cause mental anguish.

I'm sure there's a lot of crybaby *** out there that, upon hearing ONE negative word online, would go crying to some type of authority, whether it be the police or lawyers. Who determines what's ok and what's not ok? What words are allowed and which ones aren't?

It's all relative, and it's too much of a grey area to reasonably prosecute...if something like this WERE made a criminal matter, then you would see all SORTS of lawsuits brought like immediately. I mean, ***, say I take offense to what you just said...if I blow my brains out are you responsible? Who's to say whether that was a valid response from me or not? It's all in my (or hers, or whoever's) head.

What she did was despicable, don't get me wrong. But prosecuting people for that, especially online, would SEVERELY curtail our rights to free speech.

Just saying there's a great difference between throwing back an insult to someone who pisses you off online, and intentionally targeting someone and going through great lengths to cause harm to a person out of spite.

It wouldn't be too difficult to show this in court nor would it get a hearing if examples you're giving are shown up.

Note that freedom of speech is a privilege that is strictly subjected to time, place and manner. Whether it's on or offline shouldn't make a difference.

Meh.. If you walk up to someone and tell them the world would be better without them, they kill themselves, it's not murder. It's offensive, wrong, whatever you'd like to call them, and so the question here isn't what she did to anyone else, it's that she created this account.. But really, all she did was violated a ToS agreement..

That would be like SE calling for three years against any of you for using Windower, or for anything else you do to break the ToS..

Morally, is she reprehensible? Oh yeah. Legally? She definitely did something, but really can't be judged for 'being a bad person' as a reasoning to extend the damages for a misdemeanor.

And in the end.. If you kill yourself over a boy online, you might have had it coming. Sharp corners, flammable substances, and yummy looking cleaners abound.

the daughter of the woman was supposedly the girls best friend; that alone should be enough proof that there was no desire at all for the girl to actually end her life.

freedom of speech ends when it directly causes harm to someone. as sad as the situation is, it is an example of indirect harm only. direct hard would be situations of libel, slander, inciting a riot, inciting a hysteria, etc. words are only as powerful as people make them.

the bottom line is, the people cannot be held responsible for knowing that the girl was suicidal. the only reason this case is getting any publicity at all is because a girl died. at worst, the woman is guilty of harrassment. that doesn't deserve jail time, especially not three years.

as for 'cyber-bullying,' all i can really say is really? bullying as a punishable crime? i'm sorry, but just the idea of that is absurd.

edit: to the point of it happening online or offline not making a difference, i agree. if i wear a t-shirt that says 'kill yourself' and someone does it specifically because of my shirt, even with a note stating the shirt as the cause, would you hold me responsible for the actions of someone else? how about if if i say something along those lines to a person i have been intimate with and they leave a suicide note blaming me for their death?

words are simply that, words. they have no power other than what the listener gives them. at that point, even intent is not enough to consider someone guilty.

This,


This,


...and this.

The us was stupid enough to elect Obama; who is now driving the country to its knees and instituting "Obamunism". On the radio or tv find, Hannity, Mark levin, elrushbo (rush limbaugh), Glenn Beck, Listen to whats really going on in this country. Read Liberty and tyranny and see what the idiots in government have really done to this country.

And to add another concern to the situation, what kind of doctor prescribes citalopram to a 13 year old? Just something I find a little odd. I assumed it was common knowledge SSRI's and/or many anti-depressants increase suicidal tendencies among young peoples? Perhaps wasn't common knowledge in 2006?

Its common practice now adays to just grab a random drug and give it to someone instead of just fixing them.
If you get someone stuck on a drug you'll have to keep coming back to the doctor for a prescription so the doctor is guaranteed to keep making money off of yay o;

kind of sad that we gotta control people threw drugs now a days "your kid doesnt wanna sit down and do homework? ADHD! ADD! OCD! ODD! AUTISM!"

At the risk of derailing the thread, I applaud your efforts, but that may not be the best way to bring people into the loving arms of Conservatism. The pundits are nice (Beck I find particularly good) but if you really want to experience the dark side of Obama's economic recovery plan, I suggest you go out there and talk to people in the community, particularly small business owners.

The Truth is scary D=

Conservatives can suck a ***, Democrats can take one up the ***, and both parties can cry us a *** river.

I don't know why people expect Obama to be this God-sent shining light upon our ***-stained economy...

Truth is, things will get worse before getting better. The next president will take all the glory for what Obama does this time around.

Conservatives are really *** quick to say ***about Obama, quite frankly its simply because hes black. Give the man another year before you *** foam at the mouth with your political ***.

My two cents....

Our legal system is made of fail...for example....

Let's say I get a ticket, and it cost me $600, and I only make $1200 a month. Now with that said I have bills that leave me with $200 a month to live off. I go to court and explain my situation, the judge cares not. They are willing to let me pay $100 dollars of month, or do 3 days in jail.

So now I'm ***, I can't pay the $100, and can't do 3 days in jail as this will not allow time for work, and I will lose my job.

So does the court system make it easier for me......no.

Now they put penalties on the original $600, over $400 in penalties. And is this all they have in store for me.....no.

Now they susspend my licences, which if caught, they will impound my car, which will cost anywhere from $300-$500 to get out. Guess they expect me to take mass transit? I also get to sit in jail untill a court apperance, don't get popped on a Friday night, you will sit till Monday.

Point of this drabble, once you are in a hole, our "Justice" (I use the term loosely) system will only make it bigger, and if you are without the means to dig yourself out, they don't mind putting you in jail for something as retarted as a simple traffic ticket.

*** cops, I hate you all, seriously, every single one of you sad pathetic stupid ***, I wish nothing but hardship and hurt in your lives. =D

wow. just wow.

so much to say but geez that was a nice derail.

anyways! if there are laws written in the future that have some sort of reprimand for internet based crimes like this people will voice their opinions less because OMGZ THEY GONNA SUE MEH! i'm sure this girl had prior mental issues whether diagnosed or not, and her parents probably should have been keeping a better tab on her internet activities. that lady OBVIOUSLY is *** up in the head. honestly the internet is a dangerous place for kids and young adults. it's still to big and broad to regulate everything that could happen though as far as harassment. take a look at the old guys that con young girls into meeting them. they rape and murder them, and we still can't get a handle on that. look at all the kiddie porn everywhere. it's really an over burdened system and very difficult to enforce even if there were more laws involving the interwebs.

just my 2 cents.

I think the answer to this is...
"Who is michael steele"

very bad day

Rudy!