Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007 edited
     (203.1)
    A few weeks ago the suicide of Megan Meier was brought to light. Long story short, young woman with a history of depression and one suicide attempt meets boy on MySpace. Girl and boy strike up a relationship, talk, send messages back and forth, whatever. Boy one day begins acting mean towards her, girl breaks and kills herself. It turns out that the boy was actually a fiction created by a former friend of Megan's, said friend's mother, and a teenage employee working for the mother.

    Lori Drew, the mom, says that the whole thing was supposed to be about finding out what Megan was saying about her daughter to other people but, as children can be, it went poorly and some accuse Lori of sending some of the cruel messages to Megan.

    AP News reports that the Drew family has had their property vandalized, received threats, and has been shunned by the rest of the neighborhood. According to the article there are sites up with pictures of their house and someone hacked their voicemail message.

    So what do you think of the situation? Is this just deserts, the internet community moving to punish a crime against one of their own in a way that the police can't , or is it purely vigilantism?

    -Ren
    • CommentAuthormig
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
     (203.2)
    Call it whatever you want, this woman hasn't even tasted an iota of the pain and misery she has caused those parents.
  1.  (203.3)
    Is this just deserts, the internet community moving to punish a crime against one of their own in a way that the police can't , or is it purely vigilantism?


    Aren't they the same thing?

    Thats a horrible and sad story. Megan clearly had problems and needed help. It sounds like the one thing she trusted turned on her and that... it's just terrible. But no-one outside either Megan or the Drew's can really know what was going on, can they? The Drew's probably thought they were getting justice for the bad things Megan might have been saying, right? Whilst the 'internet-ers' (for want of a better word) believe they are getting justice for what has happened to Megan. Only some diembodied entity who watched both of sides play out could ever know who was more guilty.

    So, who gets to decide?

    Long ago it was decided that certain people (the filth/rozzers/pigs) should be given this power. However, over the years this power has been abused, corrupted and tied up by it's own inner-workings. Yet, if we build a society on a vigilantist model (law enforcement without regulation) TODAY, right here and now, we would have anarchy. Not the good kind either. People would abuse this system even more, society would be governed by the strongest (that means fascism). Eventually every house would be at war with every other over petty differences. Families would become armies. It'd be gang warfare 24-7. Like walking down Chatham on a Friday night EVERY NIGHT. I have to have hob-nailed boots, a plank of wood with a nail through it and mean expression just to get to the pub as it is.

    Everyone has a good and bad side (the Drew's must have some good points and Megan must have some bad points) and everyone has a perspective (the Drew's probably thought they wronged in all this) but sadly the law wasn't set up to bring justice it was set up to arbitrate as fairly as possible (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahah...ah...haha... oh dear *wipes away a tear*).
  2.  (203.4)
    I am about to sound insane by internet standards I suspect.

    But I am lawyer after all.

    Common sense never is, people are insane, and it is things like this in our society as to why the word litigious should not be such a bad word (see disclaimer about who I am). Justice is a dicey concept based on power relations. Vigilante activity is never right, never good. And some places proud of how few lawyers they have are places where the small guy or gal has no voice. The most we can ask for is fairness - and while the law often fails - at least it can try.

    The right revenge is for the family to sue. The rest of the people are dog pilling. They do not care about truth or fairness, they do care about justice of course, and I use that word as a pejorative, and thus they care about the chance to have a modern stoning.

    So, yeah lawsuit.

    Again crazy by internet standards, but its not just about money (even if thats who we have to measure hurt for a standard) - its about a tool subject to the rule of law for having it out. Discovery bares things to the world and a judge is as close to that disembodied entity as I think we really get.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJay Kay
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2007
     (203.5)
    I agree suing would be a stronger ass-kicking for this family, but if some people have disowned them from the community for their horrible actions, I really don't give a crap. Perhaps they should have thought about that before driving some insecure girl to her suicide.
  3.  (203.6)
    Thats my thing, suing might be stronger yes or maybe not - but it has a greater chance of ensuring legitimacy.

    We don't know the real story - and the net loonies do not either. We know what has been filtered too us, and based on that sort of knowledge we have a digital stoning. And thats a world none of us want, because maybe they deserve it, but if we allow it then we better hope the madness of crowds suddenly has good judgment.

    We cannot trust anger and rage built upon rumors and supposition to be the rule of the day no matter what we think may have happened.

    Its funny, I really do like super hero comics....
    •  
      CommentAuthorJaredRules
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2007
     (203.7)
    society would be governed by the strongest (that means fascism).


    That's not exactly "fascism."
  4.  (203.8)
    Sorry, I meant it quite loosely. :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2007
     (203.9)
    society would be governed by the strongest (that means fascism).

    your definition sounds more like a meritocracy.
  5.  (203.10)
    That sounds about right (having scoured the internet to find out what in Loki's barstool it meant) if it is social darwinism. I used fascism because of it's, generally, forceful implementations of it's creed.

    But, I retract it.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.