FREE TAPATALK APP

bignickel · 1st December 2008, 08:35 AM

How's that for a title?

Well, it looks like she got convicted of the criminal charges of, well, basically creating sock puppet accounts on a web site. Punishable by up to 1 year in prison, and a huge monetary fine ($20K? $30K? $50K? don't remember)

Now, I'm all for punishing someone as despicable as her for what she did...

...but not at the expense of sending people to prison creating fake myspace pages. Or equating myspace postings with 'yelling fire in a crowded moviehouse' to oversensative teenagers. Is this really where we want to go with the Internet? If minors need to be 'protected' to this degree, then the Internet is clearly not the place for them.

I'm reminded of "A Man For All Seasons" here:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

EeneyMinnieMoe · 1st December 2008, 11:37 AM

My take on this:

Is the woman morally responsible for what happened to that child and to her family? Yes. The girl might have been fragile and she might have been cruelly bullied previously by others but it's not a stretch; an adult preying on a 13-year-old was directly responsible for her suicide.

Is she legally responsible? I don't know about that.

A better solution would have been if she was convicted of stalking and harrassment and sent to prison for that.

Nick Bogaerts · 1st December 2008, 01:58 PM

Groklaw covered the ruling in details.

It's quite disturbing:

Quote:

I think when you read it, it will turn your hair white. It did me. In fact, I don't think it's overstating it a bit to say that unless this case is overturned, it is time to get off the Internet completely, because it will have become too risky to use a computer. At a minimum, I'd feel I'd need to avoid signing up for membership at any website, particularly MySpace.
[...]
For example, Groklaw has terms of use. I ask you not to post comments about politics and not to troll or spam or personally attack anyone. If you violate those terms, should I apply the CFAA to you and send you to jail? One year for each misdemeanor and a $100,000 fine, because you violate something I made up to suit myself? On what basis should I be given such power? Have we lost our minds? I surely don't want any such powers.

Oh yes, and nice quote.

TragicMonkey · 1st December 2008, 02:34 PM

I don't understand why they prosecuted her but not the woman who actually sent the messages, including the final one? She got immunity for testifying against the other one! How on earth is that just?

BirdStrike · 1st December 2008, 02:53 PM

Maybe I take too many crazy pills but I think this whole Generation Me Myspace Facebook thing is way out of control. It seems so many people have this inflated sense of self-importance which screams "I need a Myspace/Facebook page to document my greatness to the world!" "Look at me! LOOK AT ME!"

I just don't get it. I don't wanna see your stupid out-of-focus pictures from another night face down drunk, I don't care how many virtual friends you have in your multi-page orgy of self-promotion! AAAARGGGHHHH!

Ok man... cool down BirdStrike... deep breaths...

Sefarst · 1st December 2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by BirdStrike

Maybe I take too many crazy pills but I think this whole Generation Me Myspace Facebook thing is way out of control. It seems so many people have this inflated sense of self-importance which screams "I need a Myspace/Facebook page to document my greatness to the world!" "Look at me! LOOK AT ME!"

I just don't get it. I don't wanna see your stupid out-of-focus pictures from another night face down drunk,

Then don't look at people's Myspaces.

In the case of the girl who committed suicide, she was clearly someone who DIDN'T have an inflated sense of self-importance as her self-esteem was obviously very fragile.

This case is frightening, though. Essentially this was a matter of mob rule--enough public outrage and it seems you can make the courts do anything.

BirdStrike · 1st December 2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Sefarst

Then don't look at people's Myspaces..

Trust me. I don't. It's creepy how involved people are updating "how they feel right now" or "what they like to eat" or "here's what I'm listening to."

I hate to break it to them but I don't care what your stupid Simpsons or Sex in the City character looks like. It's nuts how self-involved these MySpace/FaceBook addicts are.

PhantomWolf · 1st December 2008, 03:31 PM

Wow. Not that I condone what she did, but this ruling means that anyone here that has a warning for breaching their membership agreement (me included) is a potential felon.

gumboot · 1st December 2008, 05:05 PM

This is utterly ridiculous...

gumboot · 1st December 2008, 05:07 PM

Makes me think of this...

Quote:

You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God... and where can you go from there?

-The Devil's Advocate

PhantomWolf · 1st December 2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

and where can you go from there?

You claim that calling someone an idiot on an internet forum is a felony because you breached the TOS and therefore were in breach of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.

Darth Rotor · 2nd December 2008, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by bignickel

How's that for a title?

Well, it looks like she got convicted of the criminal charges of, well, basically creating sock puppet accounts on a web site. Punishable by up to 1 year in prison, and a huge monetary fine ($20K? $30K? $50K? don't remember)

P'doh is in deep financial trouble, given his sock puppet escapades on JREF. Six figures worth of trouble.

Rebecca Watson is in for a five figure fine.

Welcome to the brave new world of morons in court rooms. The old and misused adage of the Bard's (The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers) might need a revisit or a revision. At least the cheap beer isn't an idea all bad . . .

Quote:

CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--

ALL
God save your majesty!

CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.

A rich man uses a lawyer the way a two bit felon uses a gun.

DR

JamesDillon · 3rd December 2008, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.... A rich man uses a lawyer the way a two bit felon uses a gun.

Except, of course, for the inconvenient facts that the prosecutor here isn't acting on behalf of any private party, rich or otherwise, but purportedly on behalf of the government; that the majority of the legal community opposes the prosecution's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 1030; and that at least one well-known law professor (Orin Kerr) has been working on Drew's behalf on a pro bono basis based on his opposition to the prosecution's overreaching; and that even with the occasional miscarriage of justice as happens in this case, the legal system strives to implement rationality and justice and spares us all the alternative of resolving our disputes with violence. (Something tells me Lori Drew would have fared worse in the state of nature than she did in the state of California.) But, yeah, let's get them damn lawyers.

Darth Rotor · 3rd December 2008, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Except, of course, for the inconvenient facts that the prosecutor here isn't acting on behalf of any private party, rich or otherwise, but purportedly on behalf of the government; that the majority of the legal community opposes the prosecution's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 1030; and that at least one well-known law professor (Orin Kerr) has been working on Drew's behalf on a pro bono basis based on his opposition to the prosecution's overreaching; and that even with the occasional miscarriage of justice as happens in this case, the legal system strives to implement rationality and justice and spares us all the alternative of resolving our disputes with violence. (Something tells me Lori Drew would have fared worse in the state of nature than she did in the state of California.) But, yeah, let's get them damn lawyers.

It is gratifying to note that morons in courtrooms are being challenged, thanks for the update James.

Your misuse of quotes and context appears a rather lawyerly trick. You make a case I didn't make for me, curiously enough.

Go back and read how I wrote that again. The last sentence is true enough, and I am not big on gun control, any more than I am on lawyer control. Thence the contextual presentation of the old Shakespearian line so frequently provided devoid of context.

However, to follow up on your derail regarding the virtues in using violence versus wordsmithing to resolve disputes, your idealized condition is unequal in application, for all of its merits. You will find that unlike the Colt of legend, a lawyer is not able to act as The Great Equalizer, as commonly one cannot afford one, unlike the more egalitarian availability of the legendary Colt. I appreciate that lawyers gotta eat too -- they can't do all of their work pro bono.

DR

JamesDillon · 3rd December 2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

However, to follow up on your derail regarding the virtues in using violence versus wordsmithing to resolve disputes, your idealized condition is unequal in application, for all of its merits. You will find that unlike the Colt of legend, a lawyer is not able to act as The Great Equalizer, as commonly one cannot afford one, unlike the more egalitarian availability of the legendary Colt. I appreciate that lawyers gotta eat too -- they can't do all of their work pro bono.

DR

I'm not sure how my comment is a derail at least as it responds to the issue of the social value of lawyers generally (which I don't think I raised), but it's undeniably true that access to justice isn't the same for everyone and the poor often do suffer from lack of able legal assistance. Two responses, though: first, a lot of lawyers and law school clinics do put a lot of time into pro bono work. I can't think of any other profession that donates as much of its time to working uncompensated for the public good (though I concededly haven't undertaken an empirical study of the question). Second, there's no better alternative: access to physical force is also unevenly distributed and seems a much less fair way to settle disputes than the current system. I suppose we might conceivably subsidize a public advocate to handle matrimonial and civil claims for indigent litigants-- when funded properly, organizations like the Federal Defenders are quite effective-- but it would cost a ton of money and there's certainly no political will to support such an undertaking at the moment. However, there are quite a lot of nonprofit groups that do quite a lot of work either representing indigent litigants on their own or funnelling their cases to private practitioners willing to work pro bono.

fuelair · 3rd December 2008, 07:32 PM

I freely admit that I don't really care what it takes to get that slime - and I do not see any difference between what it did and what a person who, knowing another person is likely to have a heart attack and die if they are presented with sufficient shock, presents that shock and the other person indeed dies. I am under the impression that under law that constitutes murder. I am unsure why that was not used against the piece of crap that did this.

truethat · 3rd December 2008, 07:43 PM

I think the only reason this case is as bad as it seems is that she lived right down from the girl. We don't really know who we're talking about on the internet and who knows what happens we that person logs off. But in her case she did. So she shouldn't have been so cavelier.

PhantomWolf · 3rd December 2008, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

I freely admit that I don't really care what it takes to get that slime - and I do not see any difference between what it did and what a person who, knowing another person is likely to have a heart attack and die if they are presented with sufficient shock, presents that shock and the other person indeed dies. I am under the impression that under law that constitutes murder. I am unsure why that was not used against the piece of crap that did this.

The problem is that it sets a precedent in the law. If the decision is allowed to stand then any prosecutor in the US can have anyone that breaches a TOS or MA on the net with a felony, and potentially have foreigners extradited to the US on the same charges.

Do you really want that?

EeneyMinnieMoe · 4th December 2008, 10:02 PM

What astonishes me is that a grown woman of that age (and several other adults!) could act so stupidly and childishly, not to mention cruelly, recklessly and irresponsibly.

Your daughter is having a she said/she said tiff with her former friend? Lady, they are 13!

It's a childish fight that will probably be over next month.

You know what you do when you think another girl is being mean to your kid? And it actually isn't nonsense you can stay out of?

You have a few words with her parents or teachers. Maybe with her, with her parents' permission. And make sure you get the full story from both the girls cause your daughter probably isn't telling you the whole truth (and might even have been the one actually doing the bullying).

That's it.

Inventing a fake boyfriend with another adult so that you can trap her into saying something about your daughter? Are you insane? You're behaving more immaturely than the two 13-year-olds!

1st December 2008, 08:35 AM	#1
bignickel Mad Mod Poet God Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,729	Trial of MySpace suicide neighbor mom How's that for a title? Well, it looks like she got convicted of the criminal charges of, well, basically creating sock puppet accounts on a web site. Punishable by up to 1 year in prison, and a huge monetary fine ($20K? $30K? $50K? don't remember) Now, I'm all for punishing someone as despicable as her for what she did... ...but not at the expense of sending people to prison creating fake myspace pages. Or equating myspace postings with 'yelling fire in a crowded moviehouse' to oversensative teenagers. Is this really where we want to go with the Internet? If minors need to be 'protected' to this degree, then the Internet is clearly not the place for them. I'm reminded of "A Man For All Seasons" here: William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
	__________________ "You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that." - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

1st December 2008, 11:37 AM	#2
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,660	My take on this: Is the woman morally responsible for what happened to that child and to her family? Yes. The girl might have been fragile and she might have been cruelly bullied previously by others but it's not a stretch; an adult preying on a 13-year-old was directly responsible for her suicide. Is she legally responsible? I don't know about that. A better solution would have been if she was convicted of stalking and harrassment and sent to prison for that.
	__________________ Help Robert out- please visit (Stop) Sylvia Browne ! StopJohnofGod.blogspot.com

1st December 2008, 01:58 PM	#3
Nick Bogaerts Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Didcot, Oxfordshire Posts: 617	Groklaw covered the ruling in details. It's quite disturbing: Quote: I think when you read it, it will turn your hair white. It did me. In fact, I don't think it's overstating it a bit to say that unless this case is overturned, it is time to get off the Internet completely, because it will have become too risky to use a computer. At a minimum, I'd feel I'd need to avoid signing up for membership at any website, particularly MySpace. [...] For example, Groklaw has terms of use. I ask you not to post comments about politics and not to troll or spam or personally attack anyone. If you violate those terms, should I apply the CFAA to you and send you to jail? One year for each misdemeanor and a $100,000 fine, because you violate something I made up to suit myself? On what basis should I be given such power? Have we lost our minds? I surely don't want any such powers. Oh yes, and nice quote.
	__________________ Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake. —Robert Bolt, A Man For All Seasons

1st December 2008, 02:34 PM	#4
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,291	I don't understand why they prosecuted her but not the woman who actually sent the messages, including the final one? She got immunity for testifying against the other one! How on earth is that just?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

1st December 2008, 03:07 PM	#6
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238	Originally Posted by BirdStrike Maybe I take too many crazy pills but I think this whole Generation Me Myspace Facebook thing is way out of control. It seems so many people have this inflated sense of self-importance which screams "I need a Myspace/Facebook page to document my greatness to the world!" "Look at me! LOOK AT ME!" I just don't get it. I don't wanna see your stupid out-of-focus pictures from another night face down drunk, Then don't look at people's Myspaces. In the case of the girl who committed suicide, she was clearly someone who DIDN'T have an inflated sense of self-importance as her self-esteem was obviously very fragile. This case is frightening, though. Essentially this was a matter of mob rule--enough public outrage and it seems you can make the courts do anything.
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238

1st December 2008, 02:53 PM	#5
BirdStrike Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 448	Maybe I take too many crazy pills but I think this whole Generation Me Myspace Facebook thing is way out of control. It seems so many people have this inflated sense of self-importance which screams "I need a Myspace/Facebook page to document my greatness to the world!" "Look at me! LOOK AT ME!" I just don't get it. I don't wanna see your stupid out-of-focus pictures from another night face down drunk, I don't care how many virtual friends you have in your multi-page orgy of self-promotion! AAAARGGGHHHH! Ok man... cool down BirdStrike... deep breaths...

1st December 2008, 03:18 PM	#7
BirdStrike Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 448	Originally Posted by Sefarst Then don't look at people's Myspaces.. Trust me. I don't. It's creepy how involved people are updating "how they feel right now" or "what they like to eat" or "here's what I'm listening to." I hate to break it to them but I don't care what your stupid Simpsons or Sex in the City character looks like. It's nuts how self-involved these MySpace/FaceBook addicts are.

1st December 2008, 03:31 PM	#8
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 10,004	Wow. Not that I condone what she did, but this ruling means that anyone here that has a warning for breaching their membership agreement (me included) is a potential felon.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

1st December 2008, 05:05 PM	#9
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,189	This is utterly ridiculous...
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

1st December 2008, 05:07 PM	#10
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,189	Makes me think of this... Quote: You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God... and where can you go from there? -The Devil's Advocate
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

1st December 2008, 05:13 PM	#11
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 10,004	Quote: and where can you go from there? You claim that calling someone an idiot on an internet forum is a felony because you breached the TOS and therefore were in breach of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

2nd December 2008, 11:46 AM	#12
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by bignickel How's that for a title? Well, it looks like she got convicted of the criminal charges of, well, basically creating sock puppet accounts on a web site. Punishable by up to 1 year in prison, and a huge monetary fine ($20K? $30K? $50K? don't remember) P'doh is in deep financial trouble, given his sock puppet escapades on JREF. Six figures worth of trouble. Rebecca Watson is in for a five figure fine. Welcome to the brave new world of morons in court rooms. The old and misused adage of the Bard's (The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers) might need a revisit or a revision. At least the cheap beer isn't an idea all bad . . . Quote: CADE Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,-- ALL God save your majesty! CADE I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord. DICK The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. CADE Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. A rich man uses a lawyer the way a two bit felon uses a gun. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 2nd December 2008 at 11:55 AM.

3rd December 2008, 12:22 PM	#13
JamesDillon Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 2,631	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.... A rich man uses a lawyer the way a two bit felon uses a gun. Except, of course, for the inconvenient facts that the prosecutor here isn't acting on behalf of any private party, rich or otherwise, but purportedly on behalf of the government; that the majority of the legal community opposes the prosecution's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 1030; and that at least one well-known law professor (Orin Kerr) has been working on Drew's behalf on a pro bono basis based on his opposition to the prosecution's overreaching; and that even with the occasional miscarriage of justice as happens in this case, the legal system strives to implement rationality and justice and spares us all the alternative of resolving our disputes with violence. (Something tells me Lori Drew would have fared worse in the state of nature than she did in the state of California.) But, yeah, let's get them damn lawyers.
	__________________ "To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason Last edited by JamesDillon; 3rd December 2008 at 12:24 PM.

3rd December 2008, 01:14 PM	#14
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by JamesDillon Except, of course, for the inconvenient facts that the prosecutor here isn't acting on behalf of any private party, rich or otherwise, but purportedly on behalf of the government; that the majority of the legal community opposes the prosecution's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 1030; and that at least one well-known law professor (Orin Kerr) has been working on Drew's behalf on a pro bono basis based on his opposition to the prosecution's overreaching; and that even with the occasional miscarriage of justice as happens in this case, the legal system strives to implement rationality and justice and spares us all the alternative of resolving our disputes with violence. (Something tells me Lori Drew would have fared worse in the state of nature than she did in the state of California.) But, yeah, let's get them damn lawyers. It is gratifying to note that morons in courtrooms are being challenged, thanks for the update James. Your misuse of quotes and context appears a rather lawyerly trick. You make a case I didn't make for me, curiously enough. Go back and read how I wrote that again. The last sentence is true enough, and I am not big on gun control, any more than I am on lawyer control. Thence the contextual presentation of the old Shakespearian line so frequently provided devoid of context. However, to follow up on your derail regarding the virtues in using violence versus wordsmithing to resolve disputes, your idealized condition is unequal in application, for all of its merits. You will find that unlike the Colt of legend, a lawyer is not able to act as The Great Equalizer, as commonly one cannot afford one, unlike the more egalitarian availability of the legendary Colt. I appreciate that lawyers gotta eat too -- they can't do all of their work pro bono. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

3rd December 2008, 01:28 PM	#15
JamesDillon Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 2,631	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor However, to follow up on your derail regarding the virtues in using violence versus wordsmithing to resolve disputes, your idealized condition is unequal in application, for all of its merits. You will find that unlike the Colt of legend, a lawyer is not able to act as The Great Equalizer, as commonly one cannot afford one, unlike the more egalitarian availability of the legendary Colt. I appreciate that lawyers gotta eat too -- they can't do all of their work pro bono. DR I'm not sure how my comment is a derail at least as it responds to the issue of the social value of lawyers generally (which I don't think I raised), but it's undeniably true that access to justice isn't the same for everyone and the poor often do suffer from lack of able legal assistance. Two responses, though: first, a lot of lawyers and law school clinics do put a lot of time into pro bono work. I can't think of any other profession that donates as much of its time to working uncompensated for the public good (though I concededly haven't undertaken an empirical study of the question). Second, there's no better alternative: access to physical force is also unevenly distributed and seems a much less fair way to settle disputes than the current system. I suppose we might conceivably subsidize a public advocate to handle matrimonial and civil claims for indigent litigants-- when funded properly, organizations like the Federal Defenders are quite effective-- but it would cost a ton of money and there's certainly no political will to support such an undertaking at the moment. However, there are quite a lot of nonprofit groups that do quite a lot of work either representing indigent litigants on their own or funnelling their cases to private practitioners willing to work pro bono.
	__________________ "To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man." --Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

3rd December 2008, 07:32 PM	#16
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	I freely admit that I don't really care what it takes to get that slime - and I do not see any difference between what it did and what a person who, knowing another person is likely to have a heart attack and die if they are presented with sufficient shock, presents that shock and the other person indeed dies. I am under the impression that under law that constitutes murder. I am unsure why that was not used against the piece of crap that did this.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

3rd December 2008, 07:43 PM	#17
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	I think the only reason this case is as bad as it seems is that she lived right down from the girl. We don't really know who we're talking about on the internet and who knows what happens we that person logs off. But in her case she did. So she shouldn't have been so cavelier.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

3rd December 2008, 10:18 PM	#18
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 10,004	Originally Posted by fuelair I freely admit that I don't really care what it takes to get that slime - and I do not see any difference between what it did and what a person who, knowing another person is likely to have a heart attack and die if they are presented with sufficient shock, presents that shock and the other person indeed dies. I am under the impression that under law that constitutes murder. I am unsure why that was not used against the piece of crap that did this. The problem is that it sets a precedent in the law. If the decision is allowed to stand then any prosecutor in the US can have anyone that breaches a TOS or MA on the net with a felony, and potentially have foreigners extradited to the US on the same charges. Do you really want that?
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

4th December 2008, 10:02 PM	#19
EeneyMinnieMoe Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,660	What astonishes me is that a grown woman of that age (and several other adults!) could act so stupidly and childishly, not to mention cruelly, recklessly and irresponsibly. Your daughter is having a she said/she said tiff with her former friend? Lady, they are 13! It's a childish fight that will probably be over next month. You know what you do when you think another girl is being mean to your kid? And it actually isn't nonsense you can stay out of? You have a few words with her parents or teachers. Maybe with her, with her parents' permission. And make sure you get the full story from both the girls cause your daughter probably isn't telling you the whole truth (and might even have been the one actually doing the bullying). That's it. Inventing a fake boyfriend with another adult so that you can trap her into saying something about your daughter? Are you insane? You're behaving more immaturely than the two 13-year-olds!
	__________________ Help Robert out- please visit (Stop) Sylvia Browne ! StopJohnofGod.blogspot.com