Steven Hodson at The Inquisitr published an interesting piece yesterday on the Lori Drew case and the legal implications it may eventually have for anonymity on the web.

Lori Drew's trial began today.

Hodson (along with Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins over at Mashable) wants you to think that the Lori Drew case could make us all criminals if we don't use our real, full names at MySpace or Twitter, or when we comment on someone else's blog or at a political forum. Of course, that's nowhere near the reality.

If you're not familiar with the case, Megan Meier was a 13 y.o. seventh grader in Missouri. She had a MySpace account. She friended someone she thought was a 16 y.o. boy named Josh Evans; in fact the person pretending to be Josh Evans was (allegedly) Lori Drew, a parent in the neighborhood. Drew's daughter and Megan had been friends, but had experienced a falling out.


Photo courtesy of iStockphoto, Jarek Szymanski




According to a 2007 article in a St. Louis newspaper, a suspect in the case (presumably Drew) told the police that the "Josh Evans" MySpace account was aimed at gaining Megan's confidence and finding out what Megan felt about her daughter and other people. But there seems to have been more than one adult with access to the account at times.

After wooing Megan on the MySpace account, whoever was behind the account eventually began bullying her to get information. Megan also argued with her mother about the account. On October 17, 2006 Megan committed suicide. On May 15, 2008 a federal grand jury indicted Lori Drew.

Over at the Inquisitr, Hodson reckons that the Lori Drew case could herald the end of anonymity on the web:

Well consider that the only thing Lori Drew did was to set up an account on MySpace under an alias it would make anyone who has done the same thing potentially guilty of the same charge as the one facing Ms. Drew. The same could apply to all those alias account set up on Twitter, Facebook etc etc - they would all be breaking the law and subject to criminal charges.

The problem is, setting up a MySpace account in a false name isn't the only thing Lori Drew (allegedly) did...

According to MSNBC, Drew has been charged with "three counts of accessing protected computers without authorization to obtain information to inflict emotional distress, and one count of criminal conspiracy." Drew has denied creating the account or sending messages to Megan.

While the case does have implications for anonymity, Hodson seems to miss the point. Anonymity provides a variety of ethical dilemmas. But there are a number of factors that probably mean the case will have limited implications.

• First, if Drew is found guilty it will be of a crime involving the knowing manipulation of a minor with a mental illness (a history of depression). The implications for situations where everyone is at least presumed to be an adult will be limited, perhaps non-existent If Megan had been an adult, the "without authorization" part of this indictment would probably go away, since she accepted the friendship request.


• Second, it's not simply having an account with an alias that is being prosecuted in this case. The key is the "to obtain information to inflict emotional distress" component. The prosecution is asserting that Drew had a goal (to obtain information and to use it to hurt Megan) and she being prosecuted because she (or someone else) seems to have succeeded so mightily in that goal.

Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins back in May said this at Mashable:

Just when you thought the saga of Megan Meier was over with and the villain was going to get off free and clear, the culprit Lori Drew has been indicted on charges that could lead her to as much as 20 years imprisonment. Certainly no one can disagree that what Ms. Drew did was evil, at worst, and downright scummy at best.

He's right, and he goes on to talk about problems the prosecutions is going to have with winning the case.

Mark published another post earlier this month at WinExtra. The post was about Digg founder Kevin Rose setting up a Twitter account for his cold.

It isn't realistic to expect that everyone who sets up a joke profile as Kevin did can expect prosecution for it. But just as Kevin could theoretically be held liable, so then could Fake Steve Jobs and Drama 2.0. They've both created fake personas online at social networks and social media sites - the very action being termed "computer hacking.

Liability is a civil law concept that usually comes into play when you're being sued. The prosecutor wants a court to find Drew culpable. That's a different idea. And it's not about anonymity. It's about malice, and about Drew's impact on other people. Our behavior has consequences - even online. Anonymity may not be the issue, but neither does it change the consequences.

Hopkins, Hodson and many other people in the blogosphere are exaggerating the issue. And no one has the resources to prosecute everyone out there whose gmail account or Twitter profile says they're GKC912, or VolunteerFan11b, or HotBabe23fromCleveland. But when such people take malicious actions that contribute to the death of a minor, perhaps we should try...