The innovative effort to find justice for Megan Meier by moving the case to California is causing dismey in legal circles. Today’s Los Angeles Times’ editorial page features a column decrying the lawsuit since it is based on a law intended to stop hackers, not misguided parents and supporters from tormenting children via the Internet. “Drew and the unnamed co-conspirators – reportedly, three girls who were 13 to 18 years old at the time – are accused of violating not Megan’s rights but MySpace’s terms of service. These included prohibitions against creating fictitious profiles, sending abusive messages and soliciting personal information from minors. By that logic, criminal charges also could be brought against people who adopt fake identities online for good reason – for example, to criticize their employers or hide themselves from abusive spouses.”
The highly regard Volokh Conspiracy blog (founded by my old high school classmate, noted legal scholar Eugene Volokh) features a similar reaction along with comments from other legal eagles.
One dissenting opinion that may allow the case to have some “legs” is that the law in question is intended to prevent unauthorized efforts to obtain “information” from the target. Did Lori Drew intend to get information from Megan Meier or was her intent to harass, torment and disturb the young girl? I seem to recall reading that the original intent of the fake MySpace account was to find out what Megan was saying about Drew’s daughter. That sounds like an effort to obtain “information”. This will be a very interesting case to watch, to see which issues get it dismissed or if the violation of “terms of service” are enough to cause the case to “stick”.
Original posting date: Monday, May 19, 2008 | 12:30 PM