Update on the Megan Meier case

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I wouldn't consider it to terrible to allow an anonymous internet friendship if you are going to monitor those communications and make sure they stay within acceptable boundaries.

But when the "anonymous internet friendship" is based around a troubled 13 y/o's criteria of "he's hot", you're outside acceptable boundaries of any competent parenting AFAIC.

The mother (and her obvious effort to look like Heather Locklear circa Melrose Place) wasn't worth a damn in this case & is a really miserable p.o.s. in my eyes for trying to put the blame anywhere other than where it belongs: her own parenting failure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But I think a lot of parents would have done the same thing.

I won't disagree with you on that. There's no shortage of really crappy parents in the world.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But when the "anonymous internet friendship" is based around a troubled 13 y/o's criteria of "he's hot", you're outside acceptable boundaries of any competent parenting AFAIC.

If it was unsupervised, then I would agree with you. In a supervised setting though...not a problem. At that age, that is pretty much the only reason you would be interested in talking to a new person.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

At that age, that is pretty much the only reason you would be interested in talking to a new person.

And why the teen pregnancy rate is once again on the rise
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120501208.html

And why over 4% percent of girls under the age of 19 get pregnant each year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...irths_2006.pdf

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Mother probably just wanted her daughter to fit in, feel a bond to someone. Dealing with a child who has depression is so tough on a parent. In hindsight she may have made bad decisions, and I guarantee she beats herself up for it. But I think a lot of parents would have done the same thing.

i can assure you my future children will not be allowed to have any communication via the web with people who are not on a "pre-approved" list. kids/teens will do what they want if the means allow them (i can't pretend there won't be some new internet shit out there 10-15 years from now that make it harder to track what people do on the internet and i can't guarantee i'll always be hip to all the latest things that teens do to evade their parents online), but in my realm of control there will be no contact with strangers, no chat rooms, no social networking sites *at all*. my kids/teens will have school and sports for all of their social networking needs. my grip and control over my kids' access to internet strangers will border on totalitarianism. parents have little control what happens to their kids once they get dropped off at school, but at home - you bet the hair on your scrotum the access to anything not pre-approved will be nipped at the bud.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Grills has come out and said she created the account and sent the majority of the messages. She also said she was the one that sent the last message.

I understand people want to all assume this was some coniving plan by the other Mother, but I have to feel that an obese 17-year old girl was also doing this as a form of building their own self-esteem. I think the Grills girl gets off too easy as everyone has focused on the Mother because of the audacity of them being involved. She is just as responsible in my eyes and deserves a lot of blame.

This isn't to say the Drew lady is in the clear, just saying if they targeted the Mother, they should also have targeted those involved.

Again, from here.

hxxp://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/teen-fingers-lo.html

According to ABC News, a U.S. attorney has granted Grills immunity in exchange for testimony against Drew.

I think the reasoning is that this girl, an employee of Ms Drew, would have never done anything like this on her own. She and her bosses daughter, both minors, came up with a horrible idea and the only adult figure, in a double whammy since she also held influence as employer and adult, encouraged it and took part.

You may not agree that this makes Lori Drew responsible but as the only adult figure there, I sure do. Everyone can second guess everyone's responsibilities and parenting skills but the only absolute answer I would be able to give is that in Ms Drew's case, if I was asked if this was something we should do my answer every time would be NO. Then no one would be having this discussion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Then no one would be having this discussion.

I'm not at all sure I believe that can be safely assumed. Actually, as I typed that, I realized that I'm quite confident that it cannot be assumed.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not at all sure I believe that can be safely assumed. Actually, as I typed that, I realized that I'm quite confident that it cannot be assumed.

It's equally as safe as assuming that somehow Megan's mother can watch her 24/7 and insure she never gets on myspace. The girl had already had an account that her mother didn't know about remember.

I'd say you're really reaching if you think this random employee would have decided to do this against the wishes of the woman who signs her check against a girl she couldn't possibly know that well. Uh huh, she's just an evil 17 year old rogue who was the mastermind of the whole evil plan.

Lori was an angel who couldn't control the computer her underage daughter was on and is guilt free where of course, Megan's mom is some bad parent when her child the same age uses the computer with her mother's permission.

Any way you cut this thing you have two parents. One who is trying to do the right thing and one that clearly isn't. Neither can control their kids but of course, the one to blame is the victim's mother. Makes perfect sense to me.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And why the teen pregnancy rate is once again on the rise
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120501208.html

And why over 4% percent of girls under the age of 19 get pregnant each year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...irths_2006.pdf

If only we could find a way to get those darn teens to wear a condom when they talk to a new person...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'd say you're really reaching if you think this random employee would have decided to do this against the wishes of the woman who signs her check against a girl she couldn't possibly know that well. Uh huh, she's just an evil 17 year old rogue who was the mastermind of the whole evil plan.

Actually, I was thinking that the same scenario could have easily unfolded without the mother's participation. Remember, this all started with a falling out between two teenage girls. If anybody thinks a teenager couldn't have conjured this plan all by herself (not that she did, but that she could have) simply doesn't know enough teenagers. I don't know that the 19 y/o was really necessary either, depending upon the MySpace savvy of the other half of the original squabble.

One who is trying to do the right thing

And having your 13 y/o try to, umm, develop an online relationship with a 16 y/o online is "the right thing"? I'd laugh if that weren't such a pathetic statement. Good God, this country is so fucked up.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

...no social networking sites *at all*. my kids/teens will have school and sports for all of their social networking needs.

Good luck with that.

That ship has already sailed today (let along a generation from now). Kids today don't distinguish between social networking sites and any other form of communication, like the telephone. Like all teenagers (and especially girls), they have an instinctive need to keep in touch with their social circle at all costs. Online sites that make this easy are already as much a part of their lives as television and music. If you're answer is going to be to ban them completely, then like I said... best of luck.

That said, obviously there have to be controls and a "no strangers" policy is a good place to start. My wife and I have already agreed that our kids won't have computers in their rooms either (although by the time they're teenagers the idea of needing a computer to access the web will be long gone).

Maybe we'll just go Amish...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And having your 13 y/o try to, umm, develop an online relationship with a 16 y/o online is "the right thing"? I'd laugh if that weren't such a pathetic statement. Good God, this country is so fucked up.

You do not know that sometimes people communicate online for purposes other than cybersex, right?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

My wife and I have already agreed that our kids won't have computers in their rooms either (although by the time they're teenagers the idea of needing a computer to access the web will be long gone).

my children will not have PCs in their rooms. i have 2 PCs in my home office, one will be for my wife and i only (work and porn), the other will be turned into a "family PC", for school purposes and for a small allotment of internet usage, with all of these social networking sites being blocked and heavily monitored IM chat sessions. my children will also have to turn in their cell phones once they come home from school. one of my neices is one of those "talk/text on the cell phone while at the dinner table" types of teens, and i won't allow that.

this all may be for naught, as we plan on being very liberal with them being able to hang out with friends and you can't control/monitor what goes on in other people's houses, but what i can control will be controlled.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You do not know that sometimes people communicate online for purposes other than cybersex, right?

Dude, read what he's already written. He believes that the only reason any teenagers talk to teenagers of the opposite sex at all is for sex.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Dude, read what he's already written. He believes that the only reason any teenagers talk to teenagers of the opposite sex at all is for sex.

Prone to try to stir shit up much? Geez Ax, you're starting to sound like some of the other nutjobs around here.

That said however, how many other reasons to you know for a 16 y/o boy to be carrying on a lengthy conversation with a 13 y/o girl? Or vice versa? And most importantly, are any of them worth the risk that it isn't the obvious?

I'd say the answer is greatly weighted toward no. And if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I'd be disappointed and/or shocked that there seem to be so many who are either in denial about that fact or simply think it's okay to encourage sexual byplay between young teens.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm surprised by people who think that teenagers can't have friends of the opposite sex and that it is always about sex.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I'm surprised by people who think that teenagers can't have friends of the opposite sex and that it is always about sex.

Jeez, what would you know? It's not like you're some kind of expert on juvenile psychology or som

Oh wait...

[Neon_Chaos]

There is one absolute with teenage girls:

If they don't want to let you know... you will never know.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I'm surprised by people who think that teenagers can't have friends of the opposite sex and that it is always about sex.

"Can't" is a pretty tough standard to meet. I mean, Tampa leads the AL East, so almost anything is possible.

But does the benefit outweigh the risk? That's the question parents have to ask themselves, and the answer to that is usually pretty obvious.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Can't" is a pretty tough standard to meet. I mean, Tampa leads the AL East, so almost anything is possible.

But does the benefit outweigh the risk? That's the question parents have to ask themselves, and the answer to that is usually pretty obvious.

Another question parents have to ask themselves and the answer to that too is usually pretty obvious.

Should we fuck with the disturbed childs head for no good reason?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Should we fuck with the disturbed childs head for no good reason?

Yeah, since the path Mom took worked out so well this time

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, since the path Mom took worked out so well this time

Yes, because everyone should consider their neighbors who they share vacations and stuff insane psychopaths because there's so much of that going around these days.

What I think you're getting caught up in is the fact that it's a boy they used as bait but that's a red herring. Had he been a real boy and not a cruel joke none of this would have happened either. He wasn't cybersexing her or doing anything that an adult who was monitoring the conversations would throw up a red flag at.

Oh wait, he was a male and that's enough wrong with him to lock her in a dungeon because, yah know, it just had to be sexual.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Can't" is a pretty tough standard to meet. I mean, Tampa leads the AL East, so almost anything is possible.

But does the benefit outweigh the risk? That's the question parents have to ask themselves, and the answer to that is usually pretty obvious.

One of the major goals of adolescence is learning how to navigate the social world of adulthood. Parents definitely should be closely supervising and I agree with your point that I would NOT be allowing my 13 year old daughter to talk to a 16 year old stranger via the internet without extremely close supervision and likely not at all. However, the idea that teenage boys and girls can't be friends is what I was calling you on. Not all relationships are quasi-romantic, some are genuine friendships, just as in adulthood. Part of the teen years is learning to navigate those boundaries, hopefully with good parental supervision in which parents give space yet keep a watchful eye which of course can be difficult to balance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

What I think you're getting caught up in is the fact that it's a boy they used as bait but that's a red herring. Had he been a real boy and not a cruel joke none of this would have happened either.

How do you figure that? To the 13 y/o, he was "a real boy". And you don't think a real 16 y/o could have gone down the same ending path that the fake took? If not, you're underestimating them (although the specific language chosen does seem to be something more likely to have come from a teen female, a guy could easily have delivered the same basic message).

He wasn't cybersexing her or doing anything that an adult who was monitoring the conversations would throw up a red flag at.

Other than being a random 16 y/o boy who showed an interest in a random 13 y/o girl. If that doesn't qualify as a red flag (not a guarante of predatory behavior, but a cause for concern) I'm not sure what would.

C'mon Axxon, think back to being 16 for a minute ... how many 13 y/o's did you give the time of day unless there was some specific connection to them (i.e. annoying little sister of a friend, neighbor, someone you knew in some standard context)?

[chesapeake]

Teenagers are bundles of hormones still learning how to manage them. So whether it is a 16 y/o communicating with a 13 y/o or they are the same age or the ages are reversed, ultimately the urge to procreate underlies just about all intergender relationships among teenagers. So I agree fully with EF27, that part of adolescence is learning to deal with that.

So although I respect and fully empathize with JimGA's desire to throw up the full firewall, ultimately I think it will be counterproductive and very possibly a failure. Kids are clever.

And, although I agree with HA not allowing his kids to have PCs connected to the internet in their rooms -- I intend to do the same with my daughter -- again, I think playing too much hardball with the kids is only asking for trouble.

Look, if my daughter isn't smart and clever enough to hoodwink the old man from time to time, I've screwed up somewhere

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How do you figure that? To the 13 y/o, he was "a real boy". And you don't think a real 16 y/o could have gone down the same ending path that the fake took? If not, you're underestimating them (although the specific language chosen does seem to be something more likely to have come from a teen female, a guy could easily have delivered the same basic message).

Of course it could but that would be a different issue since it would not have been an adult planning to torment a child. In life, shit happens.

The problem with focusing on this one fact is that the cause could have been anything that set her off; it didn't have to be a boy and setting her off the way the adult did was wrong. Are you honestly saying you see nothing wrong in doing this to a 13 year old? If you see something wrong with it then I just can't get how you of all people excuse it ( remember here, we're not talking the legal case since we agree that's not called for. )

If the asshole adult had used some other ploy, other than a boy and turned the same screw, told her the world was better off without her and she killed herself. Would you then maybe think the adult was at fault or would the mother somehow had to be omniscient about every little incidental minutia in her child's life or she was a horrible parent?

I would ask if you're one of the people who blames Carrie's mother when she wigged out because they dropped pigs blood on her at the prom but actually, the answer to that is yes but anyway, assuming a normal family, was it the mothers fault because she didn't somehow anticipate what they did to her and prevent her from going to the prom or would you say the kids were assholes and responsible for the carnage? The situation isn't different.

Lets say a teacher told an impressionable and troubled kid that he could fly and the kid jumps off a roof. Parent's fault or asshole adult? Honestly, just how aware does a parent have to be to pass your test?

This is why I say you can't look at the device and say that the parent should have stopped it. When predators strike they don't necessarily go for the easy setup but you seem to be shifting the blame to someone else.

Other than being a random 16 y/o boy who showed an interest in a random 13 y/o girl. If that doesn't qualify as a red flag (not a guarante of predatory behavior, but a cause for concern) I'm not sure what would.

A boy who basically doesn't exist in the real world? He exists in the cyber world and the parent was monitoring all communications between the two. They hadn't even exchanged phone numbers.

Now, between you and me Jon, I'd prefer my daughter have a relationship like this that I can closely monitor and lend support to her emotionally and logically than to have her mixing it up with the boys in the hood after school but YMMV as they say.

C'mon Axxon, think back to being 16 for a minute ... how many 13 y/o's did you give the time of day unless there was some specific connection to them (i.e. annoying little sister of a friend, neighbor, someone you knew in some standard context)?

Well, Jon, now that you mention it I can't think of any but know what also Jon, I can't think of a 13yr old that at 16 I wanted to fuck either. Again, YMMV.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I can't think of a 13yr old that at 16 I wanted to fuck either. Again, YMMV.

Your school obviously didn't have one particular 13 y/o that immediately came to my mind when I read that sentence. What prevented issues with her to some extent was having a sister our age, meaning that at least most of us kind of put her in the "kid sister" file & left well enough alone.

(she went on to be an at least semi-successful actress so at least we had an eye for talent )

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Your school obviously didn't have one particular 13 y/o that immediately came to my mind when I read that sentence. What prevented issues with her to some extent was having a sister our age, meaning that at least most of us kind of put her in the "kid sister" file & left well enough alone.

(she went on to be an at least semi-successful actress so at least we had an eye for talent )

Well, by 16 I was already well versed in anatomy and the 13 year old form wasn't what I wanted to look at. I had a very good friend though who was also 16 and she was already modelling.

We had a great friendship and I even saw her a few times after high school and we were still friendly. Can't say I didn't want to get in her pants but that was discussed and ruled out early so I'd honestly say that I wasn't talking to her or pursuing her for sex. I liked her company and she was a smart, funny girl.

We had a friendship. One thing she liked to do was hook me up with her friends though and yeah, I'm pretty happy with that since she was a real good judge of character so these hookups usually were fun and well, her friends were hot too.

Oddly, I never knew her to have a boyfriend at all so either she played for the other team so to speak or she was doing older guys on the side.

[Maple Leafs]

So Jon, am I reading you right that your stance is basically that you wouldn't allow a teeenage daughter to talk to teenage boys you didn't know personally?

[gstelmack]

Guilty verdicts in case of MySpace user's suicide - CNN.com

Originally Posted by CNN

A Missouri woman was convicted of three misdemeanor counts in the case of a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide after she was criticized on the Web site MySpace.com.

But a jury declined to convict Lori Drew of the more serious conspiracy charge in a landmark case testing the limits of cyberbullying.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll be damned, a judge somewhere actually makes a ruling I agree with.

Judge reversing MySpace suicide conviction - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

LOS ANGELES - Federal judge tentatively acquitted a Missouri mother for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor girl who later killed herself.

In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Wu acquitted Lori Drew of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. Wu said his ruling will become final when he issues it in writing.

Drew was convicted in a trial, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
...
Judge Wu acknowledged in May he was concerned that sending Drew to prison for violating a Web site's service terms might set a dangerous precedent. Wu noted that millions of people either don't read service terms, as happened in Drew's case.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll be damned, a judge somewhere actually makes a ruling I agree with.

Judge reversing MySpace suicide conviction - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

LOS ANGELES - Federal judge tentatively acquitted a Missouri mother for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor girl who later killed herself.

In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Wu acquitted Lori Drew of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. Wu said his ruling will become final when he issues it in writing.

Drew was convicted in a trial, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
...
Judge Wu acknowledged in May he was concerned that sending Drew to prison for violating a Web site's service terms might set a dangerous precedent. Wu noted that millions of people either don't read service terms, as happened in Drew's case.

So you agree that if you don't read a law then it doesn't apply to you? I wouldn't think you'd take that position frankly.

[miked]

So if I break Facebook's service terms I'm breaking the law?

[BrianD]

Since when do websites get to create law with their terms of service? Oh that's right, they don't. Sounds like strictly a civil matter if you break their terms.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by miked

So if I break Facebook's service terms I'm breaking the law?

not according to this judge

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Axxon

So you agree that if you don't read a law then it doesn't apply to you? I wouldn't think you'd take that position frankly.

I think what he means is that if he breaks the terms of service that he didn't read for a website that he's just broken the sites TOS, not the law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I think what he means is that if he breaks the terms of service that he didn't read for a website that he's just broken the sites TOS, not the law.

Got it in one.

And more to the point, I believe that prosecuting the woman was asinine on it's face, that any grand jury that would indict was composed of people of questionable intelligence, and that any jury that would convict constituted the deprivation of 12 villages of the full services of their idiots for the duration of the trial.

This was a pure & simple nod to some vague notion of political correctness and an attempt to somehow excuse piss poor parenting on the other side.

[RainMaker]

The whole story sucks and is just sad all around. The lady probably didn't do anything illegal and this probably is the right decision. But I'm hoping Karma plays its course and that bitch gets hit with a truck.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by mckerney

I think what he means is that if he breaks the terms of service that he didn't read for a website that he's just broken the sites TOS, not the law.

I know but the judge doesn't actually rule on whether the law was valid but whether not reading the TOS rose to the level of violation which isn't what I'd think Jon was happy about.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Got it in one.

And more to the point, I believe that prosecuting the woman was asinine on it's face, that any grand jury that would indict was composed of people of questionable intelligence, and that any jury that would convict constituted the deprivation of 12 villages of the full services of their idiots for the duration of the trial.

This was a pure & simple nod to some vague notion of political correctness and an attempt to somehow excuse piss poor parenting on the other side.

Which is what I'm saying. They didn't rule that prosecuting her was asinine in and of itself. It uses the fact that she didn't read the TOS as the reason not to prosecute not that the prosecution shouldn't have happened.

I guess i got it in one too but didn't think that this would satisfy you since it wasn't judged for the reason you wanted it to be.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The whole story sucks and is just sad all around. The lady probably didn't do anything illegal and this probably is the right decision. But I'm hoping Karma plays its course and that bitch gets hit with a truck.

This is the best post in this entire fucking thread.