When one of us makes a big deal out of a relatively small matter,
the more reasonable among us are likely to ask that we “not make
a federal case of it.”
It would be insensitive to say the bullying and subsequent
suicide of
a 13-year-old Missouri girl is a small matter. Especially when
that story is for months badly reported and manipulated by the
national media. So federal prosecutors did what savvy,
career-minded professionals do: they decided to make a federal
case of it.
Whatever else it might have been, the MySpace suicide case was
good television, certainly better than the eerily similar Ryan
Patrick Halligan
story from 2003, which did not involve adult bullying. And
because it was good TV, it received lots of attention, and
because it received lots of attention — as good TV is wont to do
— viewers demanded prosecutors and legislators do something
about it. “There are two reasons why laws are made,”
said Demosthenes: “the first is to stop anyone committing any
unjust acts, and the second is for the rest of the community to
make those who transgress better by punishing them.” Had he lived
today, the Greek statesman might have argued for a third:
“Because they make good TV.”
Desperate to punish alleged cyberbully Lori Drew, 47, state
prosecutors scrambled to find an applicable cyberbullying law.
When they couldn’t find one, federal prosecutors sought to turn
what should have been a tort claim into a federal crime akin to
computer hacking. Legal scholar Jonathon Turley
expressed the perplexity of many legal professionals when he
noted that “this is a case that belongs in tort not criminal law.
Indeed, I remain confused why the family did not pursue Drew in
tort. Instead, the prosecutors are criminalizing the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is referenced
directly in the indictment.” Adding to the circus atmosphere of
the trial, the conspiracy theorists weighed in charging that the
trial was just another attempt by “The Feds” to use “broad and
badly drafted federal legislation” to criminalize everyday
behavior so that they are free to begin rounding up whomever they
want.
THE FEDS FAILED to make their case. A Los Angeles jury gave Drew
a slap on the wrist, finding her guilty of three counts of
gaining unauthorized access to MySpace for the purpose of
obtaining information, and not for harassing the teen. (Not
surprisingly, trial testimony showed that Drew, charged with
violating MySpace’s terms of service, hadn’t bothered to read the
policy. In a survey of 155
adults conducted in 2002 by the Privacy Council, only 22 percent
admitted to reading privacy policies. Among respondents aged 18
to 25 only 8 percent read the policy.) In the process, the jury
acquitted Drew of having anything to do with Megan Meier’s
suicide. Rather it turned out the hoax was the brainchild of the
prosecution’s star witness, Ashley Grills, then 18, who testified
after a grant of immunity. Grills also created the fake profile,
and sent the final message that allegedly drove the 13-year-old
Megan Meier to suicide.
Conservatives had mixed feelings at the outcome. As one
commentator noted: “I know it won’t go over real well with people
who have irrational bloodlust, but maybe the legal system should
not be viewed strictly as a results-oriented means of railroading
convictions against bad people without regard for the
consequences for the rest of the populace going forward.” Indeed,
at one time a woman like Lori Drew would have been tar and
feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Or placed in the
stocks. Today society is much too civilized for that. Instead
Drew received harassing phone calls and death threats. Signs
posted around the neighborhood called her a murderer. School
officials asked Drew’s daughter, Sarah, 14, to leave school after
they concluded they could not control the bullying she was
receiving from students. Eventually the family was forced to move
away.
Conservatives are uncomfortable with bullying laws. Most female
bullying is non-aggressive or “indirect bullying,” such as social
isolation (which includes gossip, criticism, ostracism). The
consequences of non-aggressive bullying can be just as
devastating to a young girl. But it would be impossible and
unwise to criminalize ostracism. Bringing this case to federal
court meant it was potentially a federal offense to criticize or
spread rumors about someone online, which is why the case should
be thrown out on appeal.
It behooves us to remember that life isn’t fair and no amount of
legislation is going to make it so.
