Alleged MySpace Hoaxer on Trial Today
The case could be a landmark in Internet law.
Nov. 19, 2008— -- Opening statements could begin as early as this afternoon in a potentially landmark trial of a suburban mother accused of organizing an online hoax that ended in the suicide of her teenage neighbor.
Prosecutors say Lori Drew, 49, along with her daughter and assistant, used the social networking Web site MySpace to trick and torment Megan Meier, an insecure 13-year-old girl who lived down the street in Dardenne Prairie, Mo.
Drew and others allegedly pretended to be a 16-year-old boy named Josh, who during several weeks, befriended, flirted with and ultimately rejected Megan.
After the story first appeared in a local paper, the case generated headlines around the world and led to threats against Drew and her family. But the trial, in federal court in Los Angeles, will focus not on whether Drew caused Megan to commit suicide, but on a seemingly more mundane issue: whether Drew violated MySpace's terms of service in order to inflict emotional distress on Megan.
Drew has been charged with conspiracy and three counts of unauthorized access to protected computers; each charge carries a maximum five-year prison term. She has pleaded not guilty and, if convicted, will likely face a lower sentence under federal guidelines.
The case is believed to be one of the first of its kind to use the statute barring unauthorized access to computers, which has previously been used to combat computer hacking, to address so-called cyberbullying. Drew's lawyers and outside legal experts have argued that the unusual prosecution, if successful, could broaden the scope of what's considered criminal conduct on the Internet.
"It seems this is advancing arguments that are a dangerous expansion of the law," said Paul Ohm, a former attorney with the Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section who now teaches at the University of Colorado. "When you think of computer hacking, you think of picking virtual locks. But when we're talking about violating the terms of service, we're no longer talking about breaking a lock, just about breaking a rule that you probably didn't know existed."