Lori Drew indicted in California
Lori Drew, who lives in Missouri, used a fictitious myspace account in Missouri along with other "co-conspirators" in Missouri to harass a girl, Megan, who lived next door to her in MIssouri. The girl committed suicide. A federal grand jury in California, nearly 2000 miles away, has now indicted Drew for fraudulently gaining access to a computer (myspace's?) and conspiracy. Four counts, each carrying up to a five year sentence.
The charges in the indictment are not based on harassment, or homicide. As Orin Kerr at Volokh summarizes it, "the government's theory in this case is that Drew criminally trespassed onto MySpace's server by using MySpace in a way that violated MySpace's Terms of Service (TOS)." Kerr's post gives a decent legal analysis of why the charges should be dismissed.
This case should never have been brought in the first place. The media took this story and ran with it. Megan's mother has been calling for prosecution of Drew. No-one likes what Drew did, it was despicable, and it makes people angry. But, Missouri authorities did not file charges because no laws were broken.
Drew and her "co-conspirator's" myspace antics were mean and cruel, but they did not kill Megan. The family has acknowledged that Megan was suffering from attention deficit disorder, depression, a weight problem, and was on medication. I have no doubt that Drew's conduct is actionable as a tort, and that Megan's family has a civil remedy. Since Megan's suicide, her mother has been trying to get authorities to arrest Drew, speaking to the FBI and local law enforcement. On the Today show, she said that Lori Drew should get a life sentence. Apparently the mother organized a march that ended up in front of Drew's house with a PA and microphones. She destroyed a foosball table that she had been storing for Drew, dumped it on Drew's driveway, and tried to get Drew to move away.
I am not defending Lori Drew's actions by any means. But this indictment is a ridiculous stretch of the law that serves no purpose other than to satisfy an urge to punish a person we do not like. The Assistant United States Attorney here is saying that, no matter where you live, jurisdiction is proper where ever the company's server is located. Consider the ramifications if we allow the feds to begin indicting cases such as this. If I, in South Carolina, falsify information on an online dating service with servers in California, the AUSA in California can then indict me in California and have me brought there for trial on federal charges? What if the server is located in Alaska? China?
Are the criminal courts going to get into the business of enforcing the use agreements of online companies?
