What is Digg?15 Comments
- nepawoods, on 11/18/2007, -0/+3There's a big difference between merely "using harsh words" and spending a lot of time and energy over the course of a month deliberately impersonating a child in order to emotionally manipulate and generally screw with another child.
- inactive, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Dard, you miss the central issue - this was done with the **INTENT** to cause emotional distress - and it sounds as if the target was *known* to have issues beyond those which are already common with 13 y.o. females. I'm guessing you are male and never had female siblings / children at that age. It doesn't take much to send even the most stable of them into a fit. Back to the point . . . "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is an actionable tort and in some instances it can become a criminal charge. Without knowing more details, I cannot make the latter call, but the civil action is a slam dunk: adult(s) try to hurt kid, succeeds, kid kills self. And how would you feel if it were your daughter / sister? This was an evil act. We cannot prevent everything evil in this world, but sometimes we can achieve justice for the victims. Again, the ones behind this INTENDED harm. Any time you intend harm, you are liable for the results, even if those are far beyond what you originally anticipated. Hell, this principle is often applied in simple negligence where a person made a bad decision or even no decision at all and had absolutely no intent or even a dream that an action / inaction could result in harm. Yeah, the perps here are in deep, deep, do-do - and rightfully so.
- nepawoods, on 11/18/2007, -0/+2Are you suggesting freedom of speech needs to be sacrificed in order to stop sick adults who would impersonate children to mentally screw with other children? It sounds that way.
"how many children have died to appease the evil lurking behind anonymous posts on the Internet" ... is m1cobra your REAL name? if not, how many children died to appease the evil lurking behind your post?
Everyone - parents and children alike - needs to know that people on the internet may not be real, that they may be and often are impostors. They need to be VERY aware of that. Computers and the internet are not the problem. - Willisiamo, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Well, I think you're all a little bit right and a little bit wrong. The adult woman who made the myspace account solely for the purpose of breaking a 13 year old child is absurdly evil. As a parent she must already know the value love and feelings of opposite sex attraction have in children at that age, just starting to hit puberty. Especially in a younger girl that has been emotionally traumatized for as long as she has. On the other hand, the girl should have been wary as to the amount of emotions she put into the "relationship". Although she is by far the innocent child that she should be seen as. Everyone needs a heartbreak in their life to teach them the lesson of loss. How much it hurts them and could hurt others. This teaches caution to them, and is always a very hard and painful lesson. So maybe, you could say that yes, it was coming to her eventually. If she couldn't handle heartbreak then it would have happened to her anyways. You're all just going from one extreme to the other. The fault doesn't lie solely on the adult woman who through deceit and false feelings tore the heart out of Megan, leaving her a distraught wreck who sought solace in the end of ends. Nor does it lie on the little girl who full of emotions unknown to her, had the light at the end of her tunnel turned off while stuck in what, as anyone knowledgeable in emotions knows, is one of the most important areas of development in adolescent stages. It's learning to love and be loved. Sure you could say responsibility and honesty. General happiness and maintaining self-esteem. All of those are extremely important. In which case, you should agree with me more, knowing that gaining love can make all of those more worthwhile. In losing love we can lose all sense of self. Happiness drowns in rage and sorrow. Self-esteem ripped asunder, and to hell with responsibility. There's no reasoning or justification for that woman to have caused that pain on that child. Upon reaching an adult age we're supposed to be able to take responsibility and accept the consequences of our actions and the punishments thereafter. This woman, a mother herself, should know the wrongs that she's committed. She probably does, and inside her head, deep in the subconscious sought the outcome that she's brought about. For that, I can't think of anything other than how disgusted I am in her actions. Like the family said, "If our daughter had used a gun to kill herself, they loaded it." So after reading this far, you might say something along the lines of "What about her parents? Where were they in all this? Aren't they at fault for letting their daughter socialize and get involved with this 'boy'?" My thoughts on that, are no. How could they possibly be at fault for letting their daughter seek happiness wherever she may have found it. If you saw the report, you know that they tried to validate the actual existence of the 'boy's' account. They did nothing wrong. Maybe the mother should have listened more, instead of becoming angry. Yet you see how the mother accepts that she wronged. How she admits that maybe it would have been different if she had have reacted in a more compassionate manner. She admits her possibly fault for the world to see. Yet what does the other woman do? Cower behind closed doors. That's the difference here that you seem to be missing. The only person who is hiding is the guilty here and it's a shame that the American Government can do nothing about it. Through that woman's ignorance and cowardice, an innocent girl has forever lost her chance at life. Usually, we call that criminal negligence.
- Willisiamo, on 11/19/2007, -0/+1Well, I think you're all a little bit right and a little bit wrong. The adult woman who made the myspace account solely for the purpose of breaking a 13 year old child is absurdly evil. As a parent she must already know the value love and feelings of opposite sex attraction have in children at that age, just starting to hit puberty. Especially in a younger girl that has been emotionally traumatized for as long as she has. On the other hand, the girl should have been wary as to the amount of emotions she put into the "relationship". Although she is by far the innocent child that she should be seen as. Everyone needs a heartbreak in their life to teach them the lesson of loss. How much it hurts them and could hurt others. This teaches caution to them, and is always a very hard and painful lesson. So maybe, you could say that yes, it was coming to her eventually. If she couldn't handle heartbreak then it would have happened to her anyways. You're all just going from one extreme to the other. The fault doesn't lie solely on the adult woman who through deceit and false feelings tore the heart out of Megan, leaving her a distraught wreck who sought solace in the end of ends. Nor does it lie on the little girl who full of emotions unknown to her, had the light at the end of her tunnel turned off while stuck in what, as anyone knowledgeable in emotions knows, is one of the most important areas of development in adolescent stages. It's learning to love and be loved. Sure you could say responsibility and honesty. General happiness and maintaining self-esteem. All of those are extremely important. In which case, you should agree with me more, knowing that gaining love can make all of those more worthwhile. In losing love we can lose all sense of self. Happiness drowns in rage and sorrow. Self-esteem ripped asunder, and to hell with responsibility. There's no reasoning or justification for that woman to have caused that pain on that child. Upon reaching an adult age we're supposed to be able to take responsibility and accept the consequences of our actions and the punishments thereafter. This woman, a mother herself, should know the wrongs that she's committed. She probably does, and inside her head, deep in the subconscious sought the outcome that she's brought about. For that, I can't think of anything other than how disgusted I am in her actions. Like the family said, "If our daughter had used a gun to kill herself, they loaded it." So after reading this far, you might say something along the lines of "What about her parents? Where were they in all this? Aren't they at fault for letting their daughter socialize and get involved with this 'boy'?" My thoughts on that, are no. How could they possibly be at fault for letting their daughter seek happiness wherever she may have found it. If you saw the report, you know that they tried to validate the actual existence of the 'boy's' account. They did nothing wrong. Maybe the mother should have listened more, instead of becoming angry. Yet you see how the mother accepts that she wronged. How she admits that maybe it would have been different if she had have reacted in a more compassionate manner. She admits her possibly fault for the world to see. Yet what does the other woman do? Cower behind closed doors. That's the difference here that you seem to be missing. The only person who is hiding is the guilty here and it's a shame that the American Government can do nothing about it. Through that woman's ignorance and cowardice, an innocent girl has forever lost her chance at life. Usually, we call that criminal negligence.
(I know, I posted it twice.) - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1Yeah, but how were they to know in advance this was an unhealthy relationship, much less a bogus one? If they didn't caution her about this stuff, then definitely they bear part of the responsibility. The family, especially the adults, who did this are real scum and I do hope it costs them financially in civil court if not some sort of penalty in criminal court.
- Willisiamo, on 11/20/2007, -0/+1See, you're taking the lawyer's approach. "Sure this woman was at fault. But there's nothing in the law that makes it criminal." This is an unusual circumstance, in which you have to think unusually to see the context. Everyone knows the girl killed herself. Which doesn't leave any room for anyone else to have committed the crime. I'm aware of that, you're aware of that, I get it. What I'm pointing out is that ALL of that woman's actions were intended to hurt that child, through that hurt, she killed herself. If I bought a gun, loaded it, and gave it to a teenager who shot a bunch of people, guess who's an accomplice to a multiple homicide? The woman did nothing physically to the girl, sure. But she did everything mentally and emotionally that she could to kill her. That's criminal in the true sense of the word, in my opinion.
- Dard001, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0No one can judge how suicidal anyone is. This lady was looking for information, not looking for someone to die. My guess is she didn't get what she wanted at first and decided to take a different approach. What this lady did was the equivalent to regular teasing a kid gets on the playground, not the equivalent of a loaded gun. There are far worse experiences in life than being called "fat" and "slut" or having a relationship with someone you never met fall through. Without professional help, anyone and anything could have tipped this girl over the edge. We don't live in a utopian world, there are mean people here, and we have to learn to be thick-skinned towards them. Common sense SHOULD have told this lady that what she is doing to socially wrong, and it sounds like she realized that, since you say she is cowering behind closed doors. I hope she is embarrased and full of shame, but do you really want our country to criminally punish anyone who is mean or just occasionally teases someone?
- LEL2007, on 11/17/2007, -0/+0Terribly sad. Megan's parents would have done better to destroy the computer.
- Dard001, on 11/20/2007, -1/+0I don't blame the parents, I blame the girl. That other lady clearly didn't help the situation by insulting her though, but I don't see this being criminal. That is all I'm trying to say. Freedom of speech means I can have and voice my opinions without criminal consequence. If I think the world would be a better place without you, thats my opinion. It may not be in good taste, but that doesn't matter, youre free to have the same opinion about me. If this lady said something like: "I think you should kill yourself", then I will agree that this was criminal, but she didn't. Is this woman disgusting? Yes. Is she a criminal? No.
- Dard001, on 11/19/2007, -1/+0Well, you guessed wrong. I did grow up with female siblings, and suicide has played its hand with my family as well.
Trust me, I see the central issue, and I didn't say that this wasn't a vile thing to do. However, your "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is a really long way, and poor way, of saying harassment. My point is that harassment is going to lead only to a restraining order, and until that order is violated, this lady isn't going to jail or paying any fines. Intent is extremely difficult to prove is cases with no witnesses. Especially when the only statement given by the defence is: "The woman who created the fake profile has not been charged with a crime. She allegedly told the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department she created Josh's profile because she wanted to gain Megan's confidence to know what Megan was saying about her own child online."
The only statement that will cause a problem for the defense is when the lady states that the world would be better off with out this girl. But you then have to prove that this lady was intentionally trying to convince this girl to commit suicide. That is easier said than done due to freedom of speech. This could merely be an opinion, which is never illegal. Prove to me without a shadow of a doubt and with no opinion that this woman intended to convince this girl to commit suicide. With the current evidence, that isn't possible. That is my point. - inactive, on 11/18/2007, -2/+1 This is happening every day to someones child. Because of our liberal views on freedom of speech, how many children have died to appease the evil lurking behind anonymous posts on the Internet.A GOOD RESPONSIBLE PARENT , WOULD IMMEDIATELY JERK OUT THE COMPUTER OR NEVER ALLOW ONE IN THE HOUSE. KIDS ARE STUPID, NAIVE, AND HAVE BEEN SO MANIPULATED AND LIED TO BY ADULTS, AND TAUGHT TO BE BACK STABBERS AND EVILLY CRUEL. EVERYTHING IS A MEAN CRUEL JOKE. AND PARENTS THINK CRUELTY IS FUNNY, MAKES YOU STRONG, THICK SKINNED, GROW UP, OR THEY WILL LEARN TO TAKE IT, OR BE LOSERS. PARENTS AREN'T MUCH OF ROLE MODEL NOWADAYS , MOST OF THEM TRY TO BE FRIENDS WITH THEIR KIDS, OR THEY ARE DRUGGIES, DRUNKS, OR ABUSERS. THEY ARE JUST CRIMINALLY SELFISH HUMANS, WHO SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BREED.
- Dard001, on 11/18/2007, -1/+0The answer is zero. Zero children have died to appease the evil lurking behind anonymous posts on the internet. Many people, not just children, have taken their lives due to untreated psychological issues and personal issues exacerbated by what they percieve to be traumatic events though. Whose fault is that? Definetly not the person who made the anonymous post on the internet.
Kids aren't stupid either, as far as measurments of intelligence and stupidity go, they are far more intelligent than adults. Naive, yes, children are naive, but life lessons will teach them. Sheltering them only impedes their ability to make reasonable decisions. This girl was already emotionally disturbed, these parents shouldn't be blaming others for their problem. If this girl took her own life over something as petty as a relationship gone sour with someone she never met, anything would have set her over the edge.
I do however agree that some people should not be allowed to breed. 300 million in the US, 1.3 billion people in china, etc. We don't need more people. - Dard001, on 11/18/2007, -2/+0so what do you propose, impersonation of someone other than yourself should be illegal? That rules out Halloween, costume parties, the entire movie industry, etc. The only way I could see this being turned into a criminal case is if this lady had intent to convince a minor to cause harm to themselves or others. We already have laws regarding that, and as far as I can see, there is no evidence to support that. Im not saying this lady is innocent, but with absence of evidence, she is not guilty.
- Dard001, on 11/18/2007, -3/+0for what? using harsh words?
harassment at most, resulting in a restraining order, but this is not criminal.
My sympathies for this family, but this world is a place full of inconsiderate people willing to take advantage of others. You just have to learn to deal with that and identify them before they find you.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is