First of all, it seems that we don't have all the information. I have not does extensive reading on this case, but have read a number of articles. I would like to be able to see the content of the messages back and forth to see how bad the messages were to force suicide in and of themselves.

Second. It is fairly basic phsychology that a person is not driven to suicide over a single incident. Suicide almost invariably follows a long succession of burdensome/bad experiences (lost family member, moving, lost job, abuse, lack of affection, heavy debt, divorce, bullying, etc.) I doubt there is a case where a person was leading a perfectly normal life, everything in check and positive, and then they have one bad episode and they kill themselves. It is a culmination of many things. Saying this, and I don't know for sure, but I would suspect the child's home life was less than ideal. This is easily seen when we take a look at the break down of our society at large and the family unit. My heart cries for this child and I'm sorry for the loss of the parents. I'm not cold hearted. I just wanted to point out something about the suicide itself. Again, with assumptions.

Third. Many have already stated this, but if, as John Dozier points out, there is precedent law where people have been prosecuted for similar situations, then that is that. I noticed that the case law was based on the 9th Circuit Court, so it does not surprise me something so idiotic was ruled in favor of. If anything, the laws governing this type of thing should be better written if they are so broad that we could all be prosecuted should the opportunity arise. The average American is not going to be able to read and comprehend most of the End User License Agreements (EULA?s) for software or the Terms of Service found online. Just go to Yahoo.com and click on ?Sign Up?, scroll down to the bottom and click on the Terms of Service. Read that and do all the reference reading as well such as when it refers to some code section such-and-such. An average person would require a few days of good research just to ensure they understood the agreement entirely. If they are able to get a conviction on this, it will be a sad day for our country. Is that to say that I condone what the woman did online to provoke the child? Absolutely not. But this is along the same lines of outlawing guns because someone got shot. Americans have forgotten that in a ?free? society, there are inherent risks. If a person wants to live risk free, then they should be in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. I want to live free, personally, and so I accept the risk. I do not want the government looking out for my day-to-day well being?simply because they are incapable of it.

Finally, the above being said, there should be some common sense applied. What the woman, Lori Drew, did is absolutely horrible. It would be nice if there was a way to deal justice to her, but it should be in a way that does not further erode the few freedoms Americans have left. In my personal opinion, we are a country of laws?too many laws. Will any of this bring back the child? No. Will it console the parents? Probably not much. Will it set the stage for a lot of injustice and abuse for the foreseeable future? Absolutely. The other unfortunate aspect is that the prosecutor probably is trying to make a name for himself and we don?t have anyone in Congress with the leadership and courage to see this for what it is and to make appropriate change. I believe the woman will be convicted and this will go to the Supreme Court. This isn?t going to be solved overnight.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/11519/35159#35159