Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Sorry Brad, but...

this may be the worst thing ever.

That feisty contrarian we call Megan asks, 'Should Lori Drew be prosecuted?'

For those who don't like links, Megan is wondering if a 47 year old woman (Lori Drew) who posed as a 16 year old boy on MySpace and courted and flirted with a 13 year old girl should be prosecuted with a crime. BEE TEE DUB, the 13 year old girl killed herself after the 47 year old qua 16 year old said nasty and hateful things to the child on the intertubes.

Megan then offers up this news:

After looking into the case, local and state law enforcement authorities could not find any criminal laws that Drew had broken. But last week Thomas P. O'Brien, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, brought four federal charges against her: one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce to obtain information to inflict emotional distress.

Then her expert legal advice: "But it seems to me that it isn't a legal crime." Her argument consists off.... oh wait, she just avers that Drew's actions were legal.

Now, I have no problem with a lawyer who offers his/her sober positive analysis of the case, and concludes that a crime was not committed. However, I think it is pretty fucking disgraceful to glibly assert that a crime wasn't committed, especially when the asserter lacks any legal expertise, or acute logical facilities. Glibly dismissing these legal charges as unfounded is even more disgraceful in world where Chris Hansen is ubiquitous and everyone knows that the laws regarding adult online contact with minors are pretty fucking stringent.


Here is a smart post arguing why, based on sound legal principles, the case against Drew is unfounded. Just cus we're fair and balanced here at FMM.


Comment time, from STC:
The essence of this is that if someone hurts your feelings - on the Internet no less - and you are so unbalanced as to go off and kill yourself, they are liable?

Yes, because thats what happened. In addition to fraud and establishing a romantic relationship with a minor. Later, STC opines that "This woman is a bit pathetic." Actually, Drew is the most pathetic thing ever, second only to her apologists.


Clever Pseudonym said...

Please tell me you are paraphrasing and that she didn't actually type the words "...it isn't a legal crime." WTF is a "legal crime"? It's one thing to say something isn't legally criminal, but jeez.

Is there any subject to which Megan has no clue that she won't write about? I'm considering cataloging them.

rickm said...

I copied and pasted.

spencer said...

She lacks legal expertise?

She lacks ALL types of expertise.

Though she does know her appletinis.

Anonymous said...

Don't hate.

Susan of Texas said...

It might be more useful if you skeddadled back to Megan's blog and told her that instead. Megan does enjoy telling the poor that they are being spoilt.

Of course, it's because of the tax laws, not because Megan doesn't care.

Clever Pseudonym said...

Oh, that comment in the update is beyond terrible. Even if there isn't a legal precedent for charging Drew with a crime, we are not talking about a grown adult who could reasonably be expected to have the coping mechanisms to not resort to suicide over something like this, but bloody hell. This is a young, barely adolescent girl we are talking about. Were these people born without compassion or did they shed it as they grew?