Judge Wu has tentatively granted the Rule-29 (finding of innocence) motion filed by the defence, meaning that the remaining three misdemeanor convictions have been thrown out.

This is a victory for the rule of law over the ideals of common decency, and we should be proud to have judges of the caliber of Wu.

A little detail, to supplement the vagueness: <link>

I agree with the judge's decision, but hopefully prosecutors will find a proper use for existing law here, or else recommend new law to the legislature. In the meantime, there's always the possibility of a civil suit against the cyberbully, and of course she could sell a movie of the week, if it hasn't already been turned into a Law & Order or CSI episode by now.

A fair ruling, albeit in favor of a bad person...

Yes, that is how our legal system should function. I'm okay with that.

She should have been sued in the first place.

I have severe concerns about cyberbullying laws and I am not entirely sure one could criminalize the specific facts in the Drew case without running amok with the First Amendment. I think that cyberbullying COULD be made illegal from the point where the victim tries to cut off contact, but that didn't happen here.

Imo what she did was child abuse...psychological sometimes worse than physical. Hope they nail her in civil.

Well, there are a couple of problems, but I think she AND Ms Grills should be sued in civil court.

The big problem is that Ms Grills, who was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony, testified at the trial that she (and not Drew) sent the messages that were particularly cruel. For example, "The world would be better off without you" to which Megan replied "You are the kind of boy a girl would kill herself over." Grills was 18 at the time and so an adult.

However, the key issue in the push for cyberbullying laws is how they impact free speech. We allow a lower level of protections in civil court in most Constitutional protections (for example, IIED suits can go forward, but I cannot imagine the courts upholding a criminal counterpart to such a law, which cyberbullying laws more or less amount to). These get even stronger where felony charges are contemplated.

I do support anti-cyberbullying criminal legislation (civil legislation is unneeded because it is just a form of IIED) provided that:

1) Criminal behavior is defined as harrassment that occurs only AFTER the individual makes a clear attempt to break off the contact through an unambiguous means.

2) The behavior which has a legitimate purpose is exempt from such criminalization.

But let's take this another way. Suppose instead of sending hurtful messages, Drew's daughter made a public announcement as to the nature of the hoax in front of everyone at school and the humiliation lead to suicide of Megan. That wouldn't make the whole scheme any less hurtful, and if Lori masterminded it, that wouldn't make her any less culpable in civil court, but wouldn't the first amendment prohibit criminal prosecution since the nature of the speech does not fall into any specific, currently defined first amendment exception (iirc. limited to obscenity, libel, child pornography, and true threats)?

Gotcha...thx. They both should be sued in civil court.

(Off topic...grrrrrrrr...the past tense of lead is "led") " lead to suicide "

you and I agree, Ein.

Ms. Drew's behaviour may be reprehensible and un-forgiveable but I do not think it constitutes an actual crime.

Although I think the family of the victim in this case should do quite well in the civil suit. That is if Ms. Drew has any assets left after being railroaded by an over-zealous prosecutor. Which adds a special kind of Irony to the case.

...that "common decency" loses this one, but I agree that it was LEGALLY correct and prevents further and furture dangers for users of the Net.

This woman is evil, though, and they need to find charges against her which will stick, if possible.

How about a very simple fix:

Change bankrupcy law so that judgements from law suits which involve causing malicious harm to others are not subject to bankrupcy protection.

I don't think one could send someone to jail for inflicting emotional harm on someone else through pure speech though, just becuse someone was harmed by it. That seems well outside the established parameters for first amendment exceptions.

This is a case which should have gone through civil court. If it is necessary to make changes to make civil judgements stick, then we should do that.

However, it is worth noting that (athough the burden of proof is different in criminal cases), that the jury ACCQUITTED Drew of seeking to intentionally harm Megan (the felony charges were the same as the misdemeanor charges but had the element of intentional infliction of emotional distress) due to testimony by a prosecution witness that Drew did not send the messages which were particulary hurtful. I think that Drew AND Grills should have been sued at first.

I don't think there should be any rewards in civil court either. I really believe that Megan's parents did not monitor her computer usage properly in the first place and to have kept Megan from the possibility of being exposed to outside influences. Megan's parents shouldn't get shit for being lousy parents.

Generally agreed. Also what I would find to be an acceptable anti-cyber-bullying law wouldn't cover the facts in this case anyway.....

On the civil side, intentional infliction of emotional distress is where this should have been from the beginning. This seems a close case in this case, given the developed evidentiary record, and I don't think the Meiers would be certain to win by any means. Furthermore I think that if they did win a settlement it would be somewhat smallish, though juries are somewhat unpredictable.

The key issue is that it was Ms Grills who sent the particularly hurtful messages. And it is not clear that she was acting as Drew's agent in doing this. And the age difference between Grills and Meier is sufficiently small I don't think the court would buy the "adults know better" argument.