Ex-Fed joins Drew Defense

Comments

2 responses to “Ex-Fed joins Drew Defense”

1. 

   October 23, 2008

   Anon

   On the one hand, I want to see Lori Drew suffer horribly for her reprehensible actions. On the other hand, there doesn’t seem to be a law forbidding her actions. To me, this isn’t about morality it’s about legality. In our system, if a person does something that society believes is wrong, then we punish them under existing law. If there is no existing law, then Congress writes up a new one, and the courts throw the book at the next person who performs the newly illegal action or actions. You don’t twist an existing law until it fits a type of act it wasn’t meant to address, as that is both unethical and damaging to the integrity of the profession, and, to a lesser extent, the whole of government. Generally, laws are not retroactive, and the original wrongdoer gets off, unless he or she committed other actions that were already in the books as crimes. As it stands, it would seem that the most appropriate remedy is vigilante justice, which leads to the desired outcome but without tainting our processes and institutions. Legal justice and moral justice are not the same in these circumstances, and, sadly, the best course of action seems to be to favor the former over the latter, so that the former may more closely match the latter in the future.

   I don’t think that the government will begin going after ToS violations, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to give them the power to do so in the first place.

   Reply
2. 

   July 5, 2009

   Sassy Lou

   Anyone who thinks of “clamping down” on speech should really think of the big picture first…and if you cannot see the big picture than a trip to China or North Korea is in order. the ultimate Nanny Societies.

   The Harassment fine is appropriate. It represents “behavior modification”. We give fines for people who do inappropriate hurtful behavior to others. If we put people in prison for fines..we would have 90% of American society behind bars!!! What if someone didn’t like you and “made up” a case of harassment..but didn’t do it and you went to prison?

   The only person responsible in a suicide is the person committing the act. We are entering dangerous territory if we imprison someone for writing text. How we interpret the text is our own damn fault. Should we backtrack and imprison the writers of movie and novel “horror flicks” because someone decided to go out and mimic the murder?

   The Internet is not a baby sitter. You would not let your child or teenager run around in it just like you would not let them run around the streets of NYC at night.

   The internet is a tool. good and bad. More good than bad. Like any tool..you must teach young impressionable minds to understand how the tool works and respect it and take care of it..and some of these tools may have minds of their own that want to control, manipulate or take your money. Just like in THE REAL WORLD. The faster AND younger they learn this the better!!! Sheltering your kids from knowledge about bad people in the world is the WORST thing you can do. You are limiting their chances of survival of the fittest!

   Self-control the ego is another tool to be taught at a young age. Her ego was destroyed..and she was weak about herself…probably from “too much sheltering” and thus the ego, which has such a strong hold, will “eliminate itself” along with the body to protect it or win (It doesn’t care about hypocrisy)! This results in either murdering others for a idealist concept and/or suicide. (e.g. Dr. Tiller murder)

   Reply