Our questions about the Missouri teen who committed suicide after a MySpace friend she assumed to be a cute boy, turned on her…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,22783456-5014108,00.html?from=mostpop
…are- was Megan under the impression “Josh” lived near her? If so, had they arranged to meet (“he” was three years older than she)?
http://www.southasiabiz.com/2007/11/myspace_teen_suicide_what_we_c.html
According to reports yes she was under the impression that he lived somewhere in her vicinity. They had made arrangements to meet at her upcoming birthday party. Although there was an age difference, her parents monitored her internet activity closely knew about him and were aware of the plans.
Thanks am:
We realized the parents monitored her correspondence with the teen who proved to be fictitious, but hadn’t heard if the poor girl believed he lived locally. We asked because most 13-year olds, even w/o weight and self-esteem issues, would eventually be curious to meet a cute older boy who liked them- even platonically (and we wondered how her parents felt regarding his “age”).
BCB
Despite the amount of reporting on this story, I have only come across one article that briefly mentioned the parents concerns regarding the boy. It didn’t really touch on his age, but stated they had some concerms regarding his legitimacy,, and contacted myspace for confirmation but were unable to confirm or deny it.
I wish I could find the article but am coming up empty here. The impession the article left me with,was that their concern wasn’t driven by any “suspician” this was happening, it was more a precautionary measure. Although they were unsuccessful in verifying him they intented to continue with their plans.
am:
Thanks for looking. Again- our curiousity is more whether the girl asked to meet him than if the parents were concered about the age gap. If the town is not huge, it would only have one high school, and one would think she would ask, “Do you go to…?” (she was a middle schooler, but people are linked by few degrees of separation).
Don’t be a stranger a.m.
BCB
On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.
Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?
The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan’s death.
Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.
This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn’t tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.
Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.
Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan’s death.
City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?
There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Thanks DV- we hope what we here at PC call “Megan’s Law” becomes a legal precedent.
BCB