uh...

Thomas Lord

Sat May 17 16:43:21 -0700 2008

manage

The alleged details of this case (well documented, search around) are such that it is very apparent that this was not "minor violation." If those details are true they go to part of the heart of what terms of service are for.

Would a jury throw the book at someone for a "minor violation" -- some technical but silly transgression? I have my doubts. Will a jury want to throw the book in this case? I won't be surprised.

A larger Technocratic question, in my view, is why in in the name of everything good any sane engineer would feed fuel to the Web 2.0 garbage that potentiated this situation. It is socially irresponsible, technically goofy, get-rich-quick engineering that set up the stage for this particular drama.

-t

uh...

disco

Sat May 17 17:38:35 -0700 2008

manage

Web 2.0 is to blame for this girl's suicide, and by implication is a bad thing? Wow.

uh...

Thomas Lord

Sat May 17 18:04:33 -0700 2008

manage

The social networking sites have marketed very heavily to kids and quite successfully become a dominant part of the social scene for many teens. In the name of generating marketing data for advertisers, the sites market for and get young people to be far more personally revealing on these sites than they ought to be. The sites create ample opportunity for predatory behavior, as is alleged in this case.

There is no case for "but on balance, they're good" here. What good they do could easily have been achieved in far more responsible ways.

There is not technological advance in these sites: they are a (flawed by design) repackaging of decades old technologies. Their main economic contributions have been entirely marketing hacks that come at the cost for a rational prudence regarding the on-line presence (especially of youth).

They absolutely created, by design, the conditions in which the alleged abuse of the child took place. To be sure, if the alleged facts are true that would imply that the (by age) adult being charged is the proximate cause. Nevertheless, the form and function, and the marketing of the site itself constitute, in my opinion, an attractive nuisance.

And, in that view, absolutely "Web 2.0" is to blame -- for the site is a paradigm of Web 2.0.

-t

medium is not the message

justin

Sat May 17 21:39:20 -0700 2008

manage

I agree completely with your sentiments about the so-called "web 2.0"...complete agreement

I would not, however, go as far as you do when you say "absolutely 'web 2.0 is to blame".  The woman who manipulated the girl is to blame.  She was being irresponsible and unscrupulous and her behavior may very well have been illegal. 

The fact that this happened via Myspace is important, but we must remember it was only the channel for the harmful communication.  The woman could have done similar things via phone or snail mail in theory.  I think it is important to recognize that 'the internet' isn't the root cause of this bad behavior, and failing to do so causes misconceptions in the general public about 'the dangers of the internet'.

That said, the functionality and usage of Myspace was definitely a major FACILITATOR of the negative behavior the woman was engaging in.  In that context I can see where you are comming from.  For me the immaturity and ignorance of the woman who did this is the root problem, with the 'web 2.0' issues you discuss being a close second.

_justin

medium is not the message

ScootrRichards

Sun May 18 03:18:10 -0700 2008

manage

The problem isn't people speaking too freely, it's people listening too freely.  Inevitably, the internet opens many communication pathways that weren't there before - that's what it's for.  People have to learn to ignore noise in the channel and filter out the bad voices.  The only alternatve is to uninvent the internet.  It's simply not possible to muzzle all the bad speech out there.

Myspace was the "facilitator" only in the same way that roads "facilitate" bank robbery by allowing robbers to escape at high speed.  You might as well blame the ISPs, the power companies, etc.

attractive nuisance

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 08:50:11 -0700 2008

manage

Well, as we all know (c.f. Jesse James) bank robberies are mainly facilitated by the fact that that's where they keep all the money.

I think that there's a better analogy than roads facilitating bank robberies.

Do you know what "side shows" are? This is where teens gather with tricked out cars, have a (usually illegal) party, drag race, do donuts, stay up till all hours, etc. It's not all that unusual for violence to break out.

Suppose the owner of a large parking lot began tolerating side shows on his property. I don't mean getting permits, controlling the gate, etc. Just letting them happen while, incidentally, his vending machines on the property are raking in cash with each one. After some complaints he puts up a "No Side Shows" sign but that's all -- and he installs 2 more vending machines and fills in some potholes.

One night a knife fight breaks out and someone is killed.

-t

attractive nuisance

Charles E Hill

Sun May 18 09:44:13 -0700 2008

manage

What about all the other people who knew about it (like the one filing the complaint) that didn't call the police?  If it is a recurring event, why aren't the police patrolling that area on Friday & Saturday night?

Sorry.  It isn't his fault at all, vending machines or not.  People have to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others.

the police, etc.

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 11:11:27 -0700 2008

manage

The police are overstretched already. This guy with the parking lot could put up a fence, or hire security, or seek permits and do it right. But, instead, he's creating a harbor for the activity and taking a profit, attempting to paint it as staying within his existing permits.

-t

the police, etc.

Charles E Hill

Sun May 18 14:44:57 -0700 2008

manage

It depends on the primary use of the lot.  If those activites are what it was built for, then fine.

But, if you're saying they gather there just because he has an unused lot on weekends and it is a part of some store or flea market, and then suggesting the owner pay for a fence or security -- I don't agree.

If he's doing business -- and not just some vending machines there -- that is one thing and he needs to work within the permitting/license system for the municipality.  If the locals just picked that spot, and he is turning a blind eye so they have some place to gather, that is different.

As far as I'm concerned, "attractive nuisance" laws should apply to small children only.  There comes a time where people have to grow up and take responsibility for their own selves.  "But it was so pretty and shiny I couldn't help myself!" is NOT a valid argument.

uh...

disco

Sun May 18 12:53:55 -0700 2008

manage

As you mention, the technology involved with social networking is decades old. Myspace isn't much different from newsgroups, email, & IRC, just with some integration and the graphical easy-to-use UI of Web 1.0. Not much new here. This incident could have just as easily happened pre-Web 1.0, with just newsgroup postings and/or an IRC chat room. Why not put some blame on snail-mail as well? That whole pen-pal thing is ripe for abuse.

As pointed out by others, bullying and teen angst exists without social networking. I'd love to see some statistics about teen suicide, and how many have an online social networking aspect, compared with those that don't. Has teen suicide gone up since the social networking craze? Maybe it's even gone down, as now some teens have some interation with others that they might not have had otherwise. You may view these relationships as a "database table", but there is human on each end of the interactions, and it's better than no interaction at all. I think some suicide trend numbers would make your opinion look even more absurd than how I currently see it.

same but different

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 15:00:55 -0700 2008

manage

There is, I agree, a certain amount of similarity to newsgroups, UI, and IRC. Indeed, I wonder why the focus wasn't more on multi-media forms of those things.

The technology is very similar to those things but it's deliberately broken in various ways. Centralization and the marketing-oriented-surveillance aspects the most obvious ones.

Bullying and teen angst certainly does exist. Let's compare this to the junior high school lunchroom, though. In the school, adults posing as kids does happen, but far more rarely. There's no built-in anonymity. There's accountability all around. To be sure, kids always (it seems) have been and always (one would presume) will be sometimes rough and unfair to one another. And that seems to be part of how kids turn from kids into adults -- the spine of a functional society (mostly) gets past that by going through it from one side or the other and each generation works out their systems of negotiation and mutual recognition. This stuff is different, though. This is like the bad ol' days of AOL or Prodigy come around again. If it weren't for the fact that's it's carried out by the Officially Hip contingent of the open source industrial complex and web 2.0 political machine, it would meet with heavy resistance. Imagine if Microsoft had moved first in this space -- how would the pundits have treated it?

I don't know about the suicide stats and wouldn't want to casually limit the issue to suicide or abuse statistics one way or the other. There's no need, though. I think we can look at these operations just using adult common sense combined with a technological and business appreciation of what's going on.

Tricky business, that. It can go off track as in, say, the comic book scare. The facts of the case matter and deserve scrutiny, certainly.

Finally, regarding the debasement of words like "friend" and database tables: in literature (of all media types) you'll find ample evidence that friendship is not a singular thing. There is no "graph" in the human form. And while there may be humans on the end-points, what good does participation in this system offer? What alternatives were available but overlooked because they were harder to monetize? And please: what about the one's in the middle who are data-mining that database table? These sites are rubbish! Dangerous, manipulative, privacy-invading, cynical, rubbish.

-t

same but different

Uncle Entity

Sun May 18 16:04:56 -0700 2008

manage

A commonly held view, mostly by Japanese legislators;

• Japan has a high suicide rate
• Many in Japan get information from the internet prior to committing suicide
• The internet is the cause of the high rate of suicide in Japan

Now with this faulty conclusion you can make some assumptions behind the motivations of the providers of this information.

Well, they obviously don't care about the destructive potential of the information they provide because all they care about is advertising revenue. Even those who provide this info without it being their primary business, like maybe a social networking site, are equally liable because they don't filter the information for 'social worth' before presenting it to corruptable youth.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the social networking sites need to be held to a higher standard to prevent them from corrupting the youth for purely monetary gain.

Hmm... Where to start?

Maybe with the engineers who provide the tools that cause all these suicides? Or maybe a grassroots effort to stop the predatory websites from capturing another victim?

No matter how you look at it something has to be done to solve this suicide problem though...

casual equivocation & straw men

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 16:27:29 -0700 2008

manage

You are making casual equivocations and invoking straw men. You are obsessed with theory instead of the actual cases under consideration here.

-t

casual equivocation & straw men

Uncle Entity

Sun May 18 17:09:03 -0700 2008

manage

The actual cases?

That would be turning something that *at most* would be a civil matter into a 'crime against humanity'. Quite telling that the State couldn't find a way to prosecute under the criminal code.

I was only pointing out the basis of your 'web 2.0 is the debil' argument.

Casual equivocation & straw men? Sure but the underlying logical fallacy is accurate.

casual equivocation & straw men

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 17:14:53 -0700 2008

manage

I understand you to be comparing the business of provisioning IP service ("providing information") to what the social network companies do. That's a fine starting place. How do these even begin to compare once we get past Claude Shannon?

-t

casual equivocation & straw men

Uncle Entity

Sun May 18 17:47:25 -0700 2008

manage

I don't understand the question...

What I was doing is lumping you into the 'guns kill people' camp instead of the 'people kill people with guns' camp.

As others were saying, personal responsibility and all that.

As to the web 2.0 information marketing orgy — there's no such thing as a free lunch. Based on the current political environment in the States this basic fact is as far out of the collective knowledge pool as the concept of accepting responsibility for one's own actions...

casual equivocation & straw men

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 18:00:39 -0700 2008

manage

I'm in the 'people kill people with guns' camp but I also have absolutely zero tolerance for people selling guns under the table at the nearby flea market and even less tolerance for the guy who used to live overlooking our apartment who, the fire department discovered coming to dowse the flames, had a large cache of ammo and automatics in perfect position to take us out -- just next to the grow lamps for his pot form. (To be fair, twas arson not the grow operation that started the fire. And I'm pro-legalization for pot, btw.)

If you're going to sell something dangerous, buck up and show some responsibility rather than construct your business so as to invite abuse by crazies. And, again, who actually needed these social networks in the first place? Haven't those engineers and capitalists got anything better to do?

-t

casual equivocation & straw men

Uncle Entity

Sun May 18 19:32:46 -0700 2008

manage

Haven't those engineers and capitalists got anything better to do?

Reminds me of a story I was reading last night...

Sometime in the late '30s while the world was going to hell in a handbasket the auto engineers were busy working on the automatic transmission. People were asking how solving the trivial problem of people having to shift gears manually is important in the context of world events, weren't there more important matters to attend to?

Fast forward a few years and the Allies need something to give them an advantage with high altitude aircraft. The author of the book gets tapped by the war dept to work on the problem and comes up with the solution of the hydraulic clutch supercharger. Turns out the Germans tried and failed at this, as the military censors pointed out, but the proposal was put forth anyway.

Low and behold the automatic transmission that had been developed as a wasted effort provided to be invaluable in the application of hydraulic clutches to aircraft superchargers. The rest is, as they say, history.

Also have a story about how a researcher gave a lecture on Chinese inventions and a few days later a bomb of the same design from the presentation was mailed by none other than attendee Ted Kaczynski that applies to the 'something dangerous' argument.

casual equivocation & straw men

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 22:31:26 -0700 2008

manage

By analogy the open source industrial complex may (may?!?) very well be teamed up with the intel community industrial complex in a bogus swipe at "homeland security."

Now, some may have said the automatic transmission was a waste of effort (I'd love to see the cites) but... again, your equivocations here are, uh.... ok, now, "casual" is becoming generous.

A software engineering analogy to the automatic transmission is very hard to construct with any precision but, generally, reasonable analogies in software would be closer to the invention of quicksort then they would be to social networking businesses.

(It's a cool anecdote, though, and I'm intrigued. Cites?)

As for Ted K.: Yeah, interesting. You ever read "Future Shock?"

-t

casual equivocation & straw men

Uncle Entity

Mon May 19 00:17:05 -0700 2008

manage

I was going to post a link to the book but it's hosted on the site that certain bemused individuals have a problem with. Since you asked(pdf).

Not your typical an-cap fare, more of an old school liberal (before 'liberal' was redefined by the progressives) investigating the reasons behind the 'third attempt at human freedom' which we call the good ol' US of A. Page 246 or 244 by the pdf page numbering. The clock story is around there also. Looking it up I got a few details wrong here and there.

I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison between the automatic transmission and MySpace but a general point about the 'worth' of something being not immediately apparent. Who knows what the people who grew up around the social networking sites will do when they get an itch to try out something different.

And the Ted K. story came from an interview with the guy that wrote a biography(?) about the researcher giving the presentation who did extensive research on Chinese contributions to society. I tried to find the specific show and now fully expect a visit from the DHS because of the google search terms I used...

uh...

Alan

Sun May 18 02:24:15 -0700 2008

manage

Would a jury throw the book at someone for a "minor violation" -- some technical but silly transgression? I have my doubts. Will a jury want to throw the book in this case? I won't be surprised.

It would get appealed and I'm sure eventually reduced to a trivial penalty.

A larger Technocratic question, in my view, is why in in the name of everything good any sane engineer would feed fuel to the Web 2.0 garbage that potentiated this situation. It is socially irresponsible, technically goofy, get-rich-quick engineering that set up the stage for this particular drama.

I don't understand what you're complaining about. Every venue that encourages socialising will inevitably also facilitate predators and scumbags who exploit and harm vulnerable people. Whether it's a bar, a flower arranging club or an online forum. Are you saying the idea of MySpace is "socially irresponsible"? It's not my cup of tea, but I don't see anything wrong in principle.

form and function

Thomas Lord

Sun May 18 09:28:16 -0700 2008

manage

I'll elaborate a little bit about my complaints.

To start with a simple one, compare email and the social networks.

An email service provider who leaves an open relay or who hosts a lot of spammers gets in trouble. Contemporary standards research in email is doing a lot of work on authenticated sender email. The email reader I use has features that look for tell-tale signs of (many kinds of) forged email. I can use email without disclosing anything more than my email address. Up and down the line the engineers are working to make email a simple to understand communications tool with as few "surprises" for users as they can.

The social networks, in contrast, are adding bizarre features that only a marketer could love. They engage in what Weizenbaum observed is a "debasement of language." "Friendship" is redefined as database table. "Popularity" as a numeric score. "Identity" becomes a (soon to be portable!) data set. "Creativity" is a paint-by-numbers exercise in picking themes. Once upon a time, plenty of teens expressed themselves via the artistic expressions of others with posters on their bedroom walls and stickers inside their lockers but the social networks are built to drag this out and create billboards. "Privacy" is construed to mean "only the marketers (and back office staff) get to peak."

In the alleged facts of this case, an adult woman constructed a false profile that included a picture of a strapping teen boy yet the concept of imposing safeguards and checks -- adding accountability -- is anathema to the business models of these services.

And today's teens are growing up thinking all of that is somehow "normal."

Who needed this stuff? What what is supposed to accomplish?

You and I can probably guess about the process of invention that led to these sites. It must have started with a question like "What kind of tricked out web site will be easy to build using the LAMP stack? Something with enough bling to attract a lot of users because even if we have trouble getting revenues, investors are paying out for that."

-t

form and function

Charles E Hill

Sun May 18 09:53:57 -0700 2008

manage

Many people are shallow and unsophisticated, and always have been.  MySpace is no different from the tons of bars, clubs and raves that you can find in any town.  All those people who have the goal of just making it to Friday so they can spend their paycheck on getting plastered down at the local pub.

MySpace is just for a different generation.

The teasing, tormenting and other b.s. has been going around in schools for a very long time.  You're talking about taking things like cliques and hazing and expanding them online.  Remember all the hullaballoo about "cyber bullying" and bullying text messages?  Same behavior, different medium.

If that girl was clinically depressed then her parents should have been monitoring her activities much closer.

Either way, it was a tragic event -- but not criminal.  The accused has been and will most likely be ostracized and suffering a world of shit from all her neighbors.  That level of public scorn can send a powerful message.

The REAL crime

ScootrRichards

Sun May 18 03:11:03 -0700 2008

manage

Is that one person decieved another and harassed them to the point of suicide.  Yes, it is a miscarriage of justice to misapply laws unrelated to the actual bad act as a way punishing the guilty person.

No matter how badly that person deserves punishment, misapplying laws like this just make justice more arbitrary and less just.   I can't believe there isn't one single law anywhere that gets at the root cause negative behavior.

But in wider scope, one must consider this:  If the girl committed suicide after one login session where she just met the guilty, then the girl was probably on the edge anyway - why? what other bad acts should be investigated? 

OR, if she had many sessions with the guilty, and it took a build-up of harrassment over time, where were her parents during all of this?  Why weren't they checking up once or twice a week on her internet activities?  Why didn't they warn the girl about internet predators?  etc, etc....

Misapplication of the law in this case simply ignores what bad acts and by who actually caused the girl to suicide.

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sat May 17 19:17:02 -0700 2008

manage

The woman lied in order to make hurtful statements to a vulnerable child, leading to her death.

I agree there is room for this ruling to be misued in the future, but what do we do about this woman?  Personally, I wonder that there are not other statutes that can be used to go after her.  Were someone to lie, and that lead to a monitary loss, that seems like it would be very "prosecutable".    Why this is not "manslaughter" is not real clear to me.

Another thought, Al Capone was gotten off the street on Tax Evasion charges, because they could not pin any other wraps on him.  Was that good or bad?

When We Are All Felons

Thomas Lord

Sat May 17 19:29:42 -0700 2008

manage

You mean "allegedly" about the factual matters, afaict. I think that the facts in the case are not yet established in court. It is tedious in the discussion threads to tread so lightly. I think it is clear from context that we're accepting the versions that have been widely reported for the purpose of discussion of a general principle. Just thought I'd make that explicit here.

I don't mean to equivocate. The more authoritative accounts seem to leave little room to dispute the reported sequence of events. Just sayin', that's all.

(I agree about "manslaughter".)

-t

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sat May 17 19:32:35 -0700 2008

manage

Great point, yes, allegedly.

When We Are All Felons

Matt T

Sat May 17 20:44:22 -0700 2008

manage

"Is violating a Terms of Service Agreement a criminal offense, making it a argument between the State and a person, or a civil one to be argued between the provider and user?", that is the true question for this case. Everything else that we will hear about this over the next year or two will just be emotional noise, designed to gain votes, viewers, or readers. And that is all that this is about, votes.

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sat May 17 21:03:08 -0700 2008

manage

That is a good point.  How do they have standing to even open a case on this basis?

I cant see just leaving the issue ( the particular case, maybe, but not the greater issue ) that this womans alleged ( thanks, Thomas ) actions resulted in the death of a child, and those actions were  allegedly not accidental ( feeding a child something they were allergic too, accidental ). 

Something I just thought of, if I yelled "fire" in a theater, and that resulted in someone losing their life in the commotion, would I not be legally responsible for that death?  I am just suprised that there is not a more direct way to legaly proceed against her.

On the "this is all about votes", how so?  I agree it is an emotional case.

When We Are All Felons

Matt T

Sun May 18 20:23:46 -0700 2008

manage

I am probably being too cynical when stating this will be all about votes in the end. I just think that some politician will not be able to resist a $SaveTheChildren law, or that a politician is pressing a prosecutor to run this one as it is now, just for votes. There are times when we should just let wrongs go.

There is something definitely wrong about a forty-seven year old woman harassing a child in her early teens. That disagreement should have been adult to adult, then down to the children by the their respective adults. Clearly, the forty-seven year old has not left junior high school behind. I too want her punished for it, at the very least so that we do not have more similar acts in the future. But bullying has not stopped, despite regulations or laws against it, and the occasional murder-suicide committed by the victim against the bullies.

How would a law address this crime? Would it require verification of identity for online postings? Once we take away anonymity from internet postings, we lose the trolls and flamers (who we ignore, ban, or moderate away anyway) at the cost of not being able to write freely without being reviewed by an employer or any other party. Maybe the "2.0" socializing type sites will have their own special laws for identification, age separated forums, stuff like that, or maybe that would be the start of the "slippery slope". Thoughts?

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sun May 18 21:51:01 -0700 2008

manage

I am sure that there will be political posturing over this.

I am not sure what new law would be appropriate, excepting maybe "fraudulent death" ( lies ( not to address the terms of service stuff, but the lieing to the girl ) or other misleading statements/act that lead to a reasonably foreseeable death ), if such does not exist now.  But I am still wondering if existing manslaughter laws ought not do the trick.

Extra cyncal thought:  many corporations hate internet anonymity.  I am wondering if the push to prosecute this based on terms of service issues comes from a desire to eliminate anonymous comments against corporations?

When We Are All Felons

Jim Hill

Sun May 18 03:19:29 -0700 2008

manage

The thing I can't figure is why the ordinary homicide statutes don't apply.  "A person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act."  That's why we can and do outlaw "Fire!" in a theater and fighting words in a bar: you're presumed to have intended the consequences.

If elaborately befriending a depressed 13-year-old girl by pretending to be the boy of her dreams, spending weeks earning her trust and adoration, and then publicly humiliating her with the kiss-off line "the world would be better off without you" isn't an indicator of intent, then neither is pulling the trigger knowing which way the bullet's going to go.

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sun May 18 12:09:10 -0700 2008

manage

I agree with you, but in a court of law, there will be some slimely lawyer would will be able to stand there and say something like "my client could never have known this would happen" or "my client did not know the victim was clinically depressed, and could not know that this was a possible outcome".

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Sun May 18 16:51:30 -0700 2008

manage

If the woman had encountered the girl on a street corner or in a parking lot, and said some hurtful things, and the girl committed suicide, would you claim that the woman had committed a crime, and if so, what crime?  If not, why should an online forum be treated differently than a street corner or parking lot?

 

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sun May 18 19:51:38 -0700 2008

manage

If the woman disguised herself in order to gain the affections of the girl at the street corner or parking lot, built up a relattionship, then used the relationship in a cruel way leading to the girls death, yes, I would call that a crime.  I am not sure what I would call it, but the fact that I cant pin a name on it does not mean all is OK.

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Sun May 18 23:02:51 -0700 2008

manage

There are lots of things that are not OK, but are not crimes, and shouldn't be prosecuted as crimes.  It would be a terrible mistake either to legislate them all to be crimes, or to prosecute them under laws that aren't really applicable.  Bad things happen in the world, and the government cannot protect us from all of them nor should it try to do so.  A bad thing in the "I am not sure what I would call it" category is exactly the sort of thing that the government should steer clear of.

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sun May 18 23:13:53 -0700 2008

manage

I dont buy that.

There are two levels, Justice/Moraity/Ethics

And Law.

The first is just the idea that something wrong has occured.  I think we have that here.

So, on the lower, legal level, posit we dont have something that currently fits.  Say there were currently no laws against Murder.  Would the "bad things happen, Govt cannot protect us from everyrhing, nor should they try" rational work there, or would we add laws against murder?  Another tack, before email, there may not have been sufficient legislation to cover spam.  Or should we put up with that harm, and throw up our hands, not try because it is difficult to uncover spammers?

And the notion that I have become important enough to the legal system that my inability to name this wrong implies that this should be steered clear of seems untenable to me.

I know that laws are misused and ill constructed.  I would suggest that that is a symptom that our current goverment is not representing us well.  I would go furhter and add that until corporate money is removed from the equation, corporations and not voters will be what is represented.

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Mon May 19 00:57:27 -0700 2008

manage

"Say there were currently no laws against Murder. "

That doesn't support your argument, because there is broad consensus that murder is wrong and that government can, should, and does have legislation against it.

What you're claiming is that something happened here that is wrong, but that happens so rarely that there isn't even a name for it, and that you think it's perfectly fine then for Congress to pass some new law prohbiting it.  That is, unfortunately, exactly how Congress works, and it is my position that it should not work that way.  If one person does something to another that we find abhorrent, but that doesn't violate any law, that's unfortunate but we're better off living with it than rushing to enact some ill-conceived legislation, or prosecuting them under some largely irrelevant law using tortured logic (i.e., felony violation of a site's usage policy).

If this happened a thousand times a year, then I'd agree that it was appropriate for Congress to consider legislation.  I don't know where numerically I'd actually draw that line, but it's clearly at some point above once per year.

Anyhow, in this particular case, while what the woman did was mean, and violated the terms of the web site, I don't agree that she committed any form of homicide.  Even if the girl suffered from clinical depression, it is not the responsibility of random strangers to refrain from saying hurtful things to her.  If a person is not capable of dealing with society, which at times can be extremely unpleasant, it is the responsibility of that person's legal guardian to protect him or her from society.

 

 

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Mon May 19 01:41:10 -0700 2008

manage

"That doesn't support your argument, because there is broad consensus that murder is wrong and that government can, should, and does have legislation against it."

Are you claiming that there is not broad consensus that what she did was wrong?  If so, the claim that the politicians are going to be all over this in reaction mode does not fit.  I dont have a survey to back my claim, but I would expect to find consensus that what she allegedly did was quite wrong, and very punishable, and that if there is not legislation on the books, perhaps there ought to be.  And to be clear, I would rather this be prosecuted under exsting statutes.

"What you're claiming is that something happened here that is wrong, but that happens so rarely that there isn't even a name for it,"

I dont personally know of a name for it, excepting it is a stronger issue than accidental death, but not as strong as her pulling a gun and shooting.  If the allegations are correct, the womans actions lead to the girl's death.  Also, the rarity of the act, I am not sure that enters into it.  It's not like she stole gum from a store, a girl is dead, and that woman allegedly set up the situation.  She and others lead her into thnking she was bulding a relationship, then used that emotional state to hurt her.  If the allegeations are true, it is hard to imagine it was in fun,accidental or anything like that.  Quite purposefull.  And adults without clinical depression have been know to commit suicide over such issues, so the "...it is not the responsibileiy of random ( the woman was not a random stranger ) strangers to refrain..." part does not seem correct to me.

Also, this is the first case to get this kind of coverage.  We dont know that this hasnt been happening at a rate greater than one per year already, just not with the kind of coverage this is getting.

On the "she didnt commit any form of homicide" issue, the woman's alleged actions led to the death of the girl, and I think a reasonable expectation of this as a possible outcome implies to me that Homocide should be "on the table" here.  And there is no "bright line" on the "capable of dealing with society" issue, is there?  This girl didnt fall apart in everyday "wear and tear" up to that point, only after being suckered into a supposed ( and alleged ) relationship, then the emotions of that relationship ( real to her ) were used to hurt her.  Would you perform a trick like that on anyone?  If not, why not?  If you did, your intent could be inferred as malicious on the face of it, I would think, yes?   If people who can fall apart if manipulated emotionally should be protected, how are we going to do that, we are all suscepitble, if the right strings are pulled.  My ( soon to be ex ) wife has suffered from depression, what should I do with her?  I dont know too many ways to absolutely protect her from bad things short of having her institutionalized.  ( she might get an email form someone, and I do have to work sometime, sleep sometime, how do I enforce ths protection? ) And how would that go?  I'd probably get told to stop wasting the court's time, she is "functional enough".

There is a ( large ) place for that woman to have realized that her mean trick could have a very bad outcome.  I put the responsiblity on the ( alleged ) actor, not the victim here.

Also, isnt intent a part of the Homocide equation?  If person A used a gun and tried to kill person B, and failed because the implement chosen malfunctioned and did not carry out person A's intent, they would still be liable for Attempted Homocide, right?  So, in her case, she clearly intended to hurt the girl, and that intent led to the girls death.  If someone intended to hurt another with a gun, but killed that person instead, they would be liable for that death, yes?  Probably not full up "Murder", but a lesser Homocide charge.  Why not here?  Yes, the "instrument" is Rube Goldbergish, her intent may have been "less", but the result is still a dead girl as a result of an allegedly  malicious act.

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sun May 18 23:16:20 -0700 2008

manage

To clarify, I am pursuaded that prosecution under the "terms of service violation" is probably a further step down the garden path, and I would rather see a straight up Homicide type prosecution would be best.

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Sun May 18 23:54:31 -0700 2008

manage

Another thought struck me ( right rear, high, just behind the ear ).

What if I invent a machine that makes you 30 years older.  And I use it on someone, without their agreement.  There is no law that I know of that covers this.  Do I get off, scot free?

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Mon May 19 00:44:43 -0700 2008

manage

Sounds like assault to me.  You've caused physical harm to someone, which they can demonstrate via comparing photographs of appearance before and after, and expert testimony of a physician evaluating their physiological age.

If they can't show that you caused the aging, for instance if they can't produce evidence that you had the device capable of causing it, they probably can't get a conviction.  That's not a problem with the law, though.

 

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Mon May 19 00:56:38 -0700 2008

manage

Seems like a similar misalignment as in the case we are discussing, W.R.T straight up homicide type law.

I can stand up and say "I never touched him/her/it, and never caused them to be touched, etc".  Would aging someone 30 years in a night be that straightforward an assault case?

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Mon May 19 01:14:42 -0700 2008

manage

Obviously it would be an unusual case, but the point is that the law covers deliberately causing physical harm to another person, without regard to the actual mechanism.  If I harm or kill you by deliberately spraying a mist of polonium-210 on you as you walk by my window, and the DA proves that to the satisfaction of the jury, I'm going to be convicted without the need for any special law covering airborne radiation poisoning.  There's a direct causal relationship between my actions and your physical harm.

In the case under discussion, there is a serious problem with establishiing that the woman's actions could reasonably be expected to lead to any physical harm to anyone.  With the exception of some ill-considered hate-crime laws, it's still legal in the U.S. to say very unpleasant things to people, and that's how it should be.  There isn't any "right not to be offended" when you are in a public place.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H L Mencken

 

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Mon May 19 02:02:31 -0700 2008

manage

( everything hereafter is "alleged" )

"Obviously it would be an unusual case, but the point is that the law covers deliberately causing physical harm to another person, without regard to the actual mechanism."

But can you legally argue that taking 30 years is physical harm?

" There isn't any "right not to be offended" when you are in a public place."

OK, but it is not as simple as "she was offended".  She was manipulated, gamed into believgin somethig that was not true was true, that the person she was building a relationship with was someone vastly different ( age, sex, etc, etc ).  Then that situation was used to put her in a state of distress.  Does the fact that the "mechanism" used was emotional rather than physical mean that she did not make the actions?  And having made the actions, does she not bear responsiblity for their outcome?  I argue that that woman made a device to hurt that girl.  A mental device to be sure, but the intent is still there.

""The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H L Mencken"

That is great, but do we stop all lawmaking operations now because some might leak through and be "oppressive"?  We dont need a legislature if that is the case.  I certainly am not arguing that we should just throw any old legistation at this, and my prefernce would be that no new legislation be enacted over it.  I dont want oppresive legislation.  I want minimal legislation.  But I think it should be as complete as we know how to make it.

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Mon May 19 02:20:02 -0700 2008

manage

"But can you legally argue that taking 30 years is physical harm?"

I don't see why not.  At the very least, It's clear that a person with a physiological age of 70 has a significantly reduced expectation of years of life remaining than a person with a physiological age of 40.  Do you really think any reasonable person could believe that causing that as an instantaneous change was not a form of physical harm?

"but it is not as simple as "she was offended".  She was manipulated, gamed into believgin somethig that was not true was true, that the person she was building a relationship with was someone vastly different"

The fact that this happens all the time, to a very large number of people, and yet we only have one documented case where it may have led to a suicide suggests to me that no reasonable person would expect that doing it would cause someone to commit suicide.

"Does the fact that the "mechanism" used was emotional rather than physical mean that she did not make the actions?"

No, I dispute that lying to someone and otherwise being mean to them is a "mechanism" for causing suicide.  If it was done by a parent or legal guardian of a minor, it would be a clear case of child abuse, but that's not applicable in this case.

"That is great, but do we stop all lawmaking operations now because some might leak through and be 'oppressive'"

Actually I'd basically be OK with that.  We've got more than enough laws already.  Certainly I don't think that one bad thing happening once justifies a new law.  Since you obviously disagree, I'd be delighted to see you come up with proposed legislation that you think both reasonably covers this case AND isn't likely to cause more harm than it prevents.

"I want minimal legislation.  But I think it should be as complete as we know how to make it."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the "as complete as we know how to make it" part.  That doesn't just slightly conflict with "minimal", but is diametrically opposed.  Of the two, I prefer "minimal".

 

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Mon May 19 07:44:04 -0700 2008

manage

"I don't see why not.  At the very least, It's clear that a person with a physiological age of 70 has a significantly reduced expectation of years of life remaining than a person with a physiological age of 40.  Do you really think any reasonable person could believe that causing that as an instantaneous change was not a form of physical harm?"

OK, but I dont see why this alleged woman cannot be brought up on homocide type charges.

"The fact that this happens all the time, to a very large number of people, and yet we only have one documented case where it may have led to a suicide suggests to me that no reasonable person would expect that doing it would cause someone to commit suicide."

We have one case with a lot of visibility right now.  That does not mean that this is the only case.  I find it incredulous that you can argue that being emotionally manipulated could not lead to the person being manipulated commiting suicide.

"No, I dispute that lying to someone and otherwise being mean to them is a "mechanism" for causing suicide.  If it was done by a parent or legal guardian of a minor, it would be a clear case of child abuse, but that's not applicable in this case."

The woman in question wasnt just lying or being mean.  She didnt just say "you are ugly".  It sounds like you are saying that legally speaking "harm" can only mean physical harm, and not emotional.  The "and suffering" part of "pain and suffering" in awards suggest to me that that is not so.

"Actually I'd basically be OK with that.  We've got more than enough laws already." 

We have too many laws in some respects and areas.

"Certainly I don't think that one bad thing happening once justifies a new law."

For me, it depends on the "bad thing", and how likely it is that it will recurr in the future. 

"Since you obviously disagree, I'd be delighted to see you come up with proposed legislation that you think both reasonably covers this case AND isn't likely to cause more harm than it prevents.'

I'd be delighted also, but Law is not my field of expertise.

"I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with regard to the "as complete as we know how to make it" part.  That doesn't just slightly conflict with "minimal", but is diametrically opposed.  Of the two, I prefer "minimal"."

Diametrically opposed?  I dont buy it, but if you go down that path, dont you end up with no laws at all?  Since we dont know how to make a negative number of laws, "minimal" and non-negative lead you to zero.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

When We Are All Felons

brouhaha

Mon May 19 10:30:24 -0700 2008

manage

"It sounds like you are saying that legally speaking "harm" can only mean physical harm, and not emotional."

The problem is the burden of proof.  If I poke you with a sharp stick, and you lose your eye, it's not hard to connect the two.  If I use a web site to mislead you about my identity, encourage you to trust me, harrasss and torment you, and then you commit suicide, there is not any clearly established proof of a causal relationship.

Many people have been tormented online; I've seen it happen.  Generally those people don't commit suicide.  Once they figure out what's going on, they got on with their lives.  A person is generally responsible for their own mental state, and if one miscreant (or several acting as one) publicly call someone "fat" and a "slut", and that person commits suicide, their had to have been something seriously wrong with the person's mental state to begin with.  If I poke you with the sharp stick, but your eye was already lost before I came along, then I didn't cause you to lose the eye.

"I dont buy it, but if you go down that path, dont you end up with no laws at all?"

If we go down the path of adding a new law every time a bad thing happens to one person, we'll end up with a lot more laws than we have now.  That hardly seems consistent with "minimal".  If we accept that occasionally a bad thing can happen to one (or  a few) people without passing a new law, but do pass new laws when necessary to cover things that happen to many people, we'll still get some new laws, but that will be a lot closer to "minimal".

It's impossible for the law to protect us from everything bad that can happen to us, or provide justice for all those that do the bad things.  Since there are limited resources available, in terms of all three branches of government that need to be involved, legislative, executive, and judicial, those resources are much better devoted to dealing with problems that affect large numbers of people, not one or two here and there.

 

When We Are All Felons

duhavid

Mon May 19 10:46:59 -0700 2008

manage

"The problem is the burden of proof."

I dont recall saying otherwise.  It will be much harder for the prosecution to make this case, but I think the attempt should be made.

"A person is generally responsible for their own mental state, and if one miscreant (or several acting as one) publicly call someone "fat" and a "slut", and that person commits suicide, their had to have been something seriously wrong with the person's mental state to begin with."

There was more than just calling her "fat" and "slut" though.  Do you not see that?

"If I poke you with the sharp stick, but your eye was already lost before I came along, then I didn't cause you to lose the eye."

She was not dead before this woman came along.  If you are on a high beam, and having trouble with your balance, and I come along and give you the shove that pushes you over the edge to you death, was that OK for me to do?  I would argue no, and that I should be placed on trial.  My defence may well argue that I did not actually push, or that the push was inconsequential to your falling, but those are matters left to the legal system.

"If we go down the path of adding a new law every time a bad thing happens to one person, we'll end up with a lot more laws than we have now"

I am not calling for a new law *every* time a bad thing happens to one person.  What makes you think I did?  Something *very* bad happened here, and could happen again.  I think that things that lead to death should have a consideration made.

"If we accept that occasionally a bad thing can happen to one (or  a few) people without passing a new law, but do pass new laws when necessary to cover things that happen to many people, we'll still get some new laws, but that will be a lot closer to "minimal"."

I would put the priority on the severity of the issue, not the number of people affected.

"It's impossible for the law to protect us from everything bad that can happen to us, or provide justice for all those that do the bad things."

Very true.  But do you give up trying?  I dont think so, personally.

"those resources are much better devoted to dealing with problems that affect large numbers of people, not one or two here and there."

I think the scale of the offence has to come into play.  I would rather allow hundreds of fraud cases over one death case.  Billions of jaywalking cases over one death case.  Yeah, if the severity is the same, work the issue with the larger number of affected persons.

When We Are All Felons

Simon

Tue May 20 16:44:34 -0700 2008

manage

"If I poke you with the sharp stick, but your eye was already lost before I came along, then I didn't cause you to lose the eye."

I think you are basically right, but analogy is a dangerous game. If you poke me with a sharp stick with the INTENT of taking my non-existent eye out you are still liable under the law as far as I know.

 

When We Are All Felons

Jason

Sun May 18 01:37:44 -0700 2008

manage

Suicide is a choice.. Nobody can make you do it.. Making somebody die is called murder. The woman did not murder the girl.. Obviously, the woman was a jerk.. and harassed the girl.. I believe that harassment of a minor is serious.. and that the woman should be pursued for the harassment.. but, it is ridiculous to assert that harassment causes suicide.. It is a mockery of the law to pursue the case as a computer crime, rather than as a harassment crime.. I hope the judge throws it out and poopoos the prosecutor for being an idiot.. (yes.. this is a very simple, 1:30am opinion.. and I did not read all about the uninteresting case..  and I look forward to the strong response! :)

~Q

When We Are All Felons

gstovall

Sun May 18 06:13:06 -0700 2008

manage

I would suggest perhaps you don't understand clinical depression very well.  Yes, no one can make a normally functioning person commit suicide.  However, someone who is already having suicidal ideation due to a chemical imbalance in the brain needs very little provocation.  Frankly, I don't know the details of this case;  I just wanted to supply a couinterpoint to the "Suicide is a choice" meme.

When We Are All Felons

Charles E Hill

Sun May 18 09:40:50 -0700 2008

manage

You'd then have to demonstrate that not only was the victim in question suffering from clinical depression, but the accused had full knowledge of that.  In this particular case, that is.

When We Are All Felons

gstovall

Mon May 19 05:48:35 -0700 2008

manage

Yes, the clinical depression would have to be proven.  However, many states to do not judge intent, only outcome.  The individual stated that the world would be better off without her, and the girl committed suicide.  Whether we agree with the assignment of guilt or not, she'd have a tough time escaping prosecution for some offense in some jurisdictions.

When We Are All Felons

Jason

Sun May 18 01:43:15 -0700 2008

manage

And regarding fault in a suicide.. The fault rests with a society / culture that does not well-educate itself regarding being responsible for one's own experience of life and well-being.. and a society / culture that does a piss-poor job of looking out for, and responding to citizens who either have a mental illness or a serious problem managing their experience / well-being..

Blame? Forget blame anyway.. Do what works.. be an advocate for continuing to improve education around mental health and well being.. Hug your kids.. tell your neighbor buddy that you love em.. send thank you notes.. be kind. be loving.. and you will rapidly realize how kind and loving the world is.. and you will probably save a lot of lives in the process! ;)

~Q

When We Are All Felons

AB3A

Sun May 18 06:48:45 -0700 2008

manage

"In Heaven, there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the lamb.  In Hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be scrupulously observed."  (Professor Grant Gilmore, Yale Law School)

We live somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.  There will be single-minded people who will stop at nothing to get ahead.  Normally, our society figures out who these people are and finds ways of sidelining them.  They are usually ostracized.  But every now and then, someone gets a bug up his or her brain, and then we have incidents like this. 

The question remains whether it is truly worth anyone's effort to extend laws to such forums.  The Internet is essentially a world-wide forum.  A city's, state's, even a country's laws can only extend so far.  I have doubts in the efficacy of such an approach.  I agree with Duhavid's post earlier.  I don't understand why manslaughter charges don't apply here.