It is a terrible shame when any form of life is taken away. However, it is an even greater shame if that life is that of a 13-year-old girl who died at the hands of an Internet prank.
Thirteen year old Megan Meier was, as most teenage girls would be, thrilled to see a friend request from an attractive boy of a few years older [1]. After receiving her mother Tina’s permission to accept 16 year old Josh Evans as a friend, Megan began exchanging messages with this mysterious boy.
I could write an endless amount of blogs concerning the dangers of MySpace and websites of the like. We are all aware that nothing posted on the Internet is private and even the slightest bit of information can bring about a whirlwind of trouble. An individual must only be 14 years old to create a MySpace, but there is no way to enforce this age limit. Over Thanksgiving break I was shocked to see that my 11-year-old neighbor had created a very thorough MySpace page. There is a great deal of naivety at that age and after prompting him to at least make it private if he wouldn’t remove it, he responded, “Gezz Jen, you’re like so overreacting, nothing bad is going to happen.” Well, Megan Meier and her family believed the same idea.
Suddenly this conversation between Megan and Josh gave Megan things to smile about and feel confident about [1]. Their interaction even led others to notice that Megan “Was the happiest she had ever been in her life," remembers her father, Ron [1].
I’m all for Free Speech, there’s no doubt about that. And even after all of this blogging, I’m still struggling between identifying myself as a Libertarian or a Neoliberal. I think, that at least for now, this conflict will continue. The Internet is an extraordinary thing that offers a free flow of information with more anonymity than Catholic Confession.
One day, on October 16, 2006, that all changed. Josh’s messages suddenly began to become unfriendly. He had shared their prior conversations with others and Megan was being bombarded by others calling her ‘fat’ and a ‘slut’ [1]. Defensively, Megan used to vulgar language to respond to them. However, when her mother was finally able to intervene, Tina was shocked at Megan’s retorts. Feeling abused and alone, Megan fled upstairs in hysterics. She met her father at the top of the stairs. He tried to calm her, but Megan flew past him. Ron proceeded downstairs to cook dinner with his wife and discuss what was bothering Megan. Suddenly, Tina could not concentrate on her and her husband’s conversation, "I had this God-awful feeling and I ran up into her room and she had hung herself in the closet [1]." Megan died in the hospital the next day. Ron checked Megan’s MySpace to find the last message between his daughter and Josh Evans. “According to Ron's best recollection, it said, ‘Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you [1].’" Hours later, Josh Evan’s MySpace had been deleted.
I can’t say that I want Internet Watchdogs perusing every site at every hour, but there really must be more protection. Megan’s death is a tragedy that should never have happened. Its success came from the ability to act and speak anonymously. Many preach parental monitoring of such forums like the Internet, but that didn’t help Megan. Her mother was the only individual that had Megan’s password. Tina’s watchful eye never allowed Megan to get into trouble, or so she thought [1].
Six weeks after Megan’s death, a lady from down the street contacted the Meiers. She said that Josh Evans never existed - he was created by the mother of one of Megan’s former friends, a family that also lived down the street. The mother created Josh to gain Megan’s trust and to understand why Megan had ended the friendship between her and this mother’s daughter [1].
I understand that the risky part of Internet protection laws is that it is quite easy to step on First Amendment rights. However, there is no First Amendment protection for those that use harassment and true threats. My blog from last week touched on a similar topic, but these two situations are yet so different.
As for the Meiers, there is little sun in their lives. Ron and Tina have divorced under the pressure of their guilt. Tina continues to blame herself and Ron cannot keep himself together. There have not been any charges filed because, according to Lt. Craig McGuire, "We did not have a charge to fit it. I don't know that anybody can sit down and say, 'This is why this young girl took her life [1].'" However, the Meiers “want the law changed, state or federal, so that what happened to Megan - at the hands of an adult - is a crime [1].”Well, the day the Meiers have been wanting has finally arrived. “City officials in this eastern Missouri community unanimously passed a measure last week making online harassment a crime, just days after learning that a 13-year-old resident killed herself last year after receiving cruel messages on the Internet [2].” On November 21, 2007 the board “made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail [2].”
“According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 states now have some form of cyberstalking or computer-harassment law on the books [2].” These policies often mention that this form of coverage can easily intrude of First Amendment rights. Dave Sobel, the general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center agrees that, “'The Internet shouldn’t be a safe haven for activities that should otherwise be prohibited [2].’” President Bush had passed a bill in 2005 declaring that any perpetrator using the Internet to annoy other individuals must not be anonymous [4]. However, ‘Josh Evans’ did not annoy Megan, he greatly harmed her. Therefore, this cyber-harassment bill was not used to protect Megan.
I find myself wracking my head against a wall. How could one individual do such a terrible thing to another. There is no excuse for this type of activity. And fortunately, some justice has been served. 'Josh Evans' is truly an abuse of the First Amendment.
[1] http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt
[2] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19361
[3] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=cyberstalking
[4] http://www.news.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-go-to-jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.htm
3 comments:
Hey Jen, fantastic last blog. The subject is entirely riveting and engaged me to the last. Interestingly enough, I was able to comment on a blog utilizing the same subject last night! Ha- what a coincidence. Well here it goes.
I couldn't agree more when it comes to noting the guilt of the woman posing as “Josh” to this poor thirteen year old girl. What possibly could have possessed an adult to act in such a childish and spiteful manner- at least in some way causing a girl to take her own life- is beyond my comprehension. Her actions, however, and as you stated in your blog, have gone unpunished. In some ways, I wonder if this is the case because there is no legal classification for what has been perpetrated, or if one could definitely correlate Megan Meier's death with the hateful words “Josh” said to her- enough to hold the mother behind “Josh” legally accountable for it. As you say, there were other factors that could have contributed to Megan's self destructive actions. Megan did “...[have] attention deficit disorder and battled depression” (1). I also wonder, if “Josh” were a real sixteen year old boy, would he be punishable under the law.
As it is now, the internet plays host to a myriad of, well, quite messed up web sites, some of which even condone death and suicide. “...police [are] probing the deaths of two university students in Kangnung, South Korea, who committed suicide... after visiting an Internet site encouraging suicide...” (2). In the European world even, there have been instances of the internet being the medium to aid in conducting self destructive actions or deaths. “Girls planned their deaths on the internet...” (3). In France, two girls went through a “...psychological cycle that was heavy, fully thought out and difficult to explain” (3) before killing themselves. Now, obviously, there was no one person causing the exigency for the suicides mentioned above. However, these people did die because of planning and influence that came over the internet- specifically the case of an internet site endorsing suicide. Should that site be held accountable for the deaths of those two university students? I'm not sure.
When it comes down to it, I feel that we must always remember the safety valve mechanism of the First Amendment. Some people may say speech that they do not truly wish to act upon, simply to say it- to help them blow off some steam. Is it important enough, because of those few that will act upon negative speech over the internet, or anywhere else for that matter, for us to constrict that ability to say what you like simply to get something off your chest? Furthermore, I wonder if the intent of the mother posing as “Josh” that you spoke of in your blog was to drive a thirteen year old girl to suicide. Although intent does not matter in cases of harassment, it could matter when the speaker is possibly letting off stress through speech.
In no way do I condone the actions of “Josh” and the mother behind him- I just wonder if there truly is an argument for legal punishment for this act over the internet, especially with all of these other online sources that could have influenced Megan to take her life.
Sources
(1)http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt
(2)http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68022642.html
(3)http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article507886.ece?token=null&offset=0
I loved your blog, I found about this story over break, and it saddened me a great deal. Being a 13 year old girl is hard enough, and I can't even imagine being the at the end of such a cruel prank.
I can see where Mark is coming from by mentioning the safety valve, but I don't know if I would agree that it is applicable in this situation. Sure, people need an outlet for their thoughts, but when did it become ethical to sacrifice someone's (ESPECIALLY a 13 year old girl, not exactly in the prime of development) dignity, causing them to take their life? If this woman wanted to take out whatever aggression she had against this poor girl, she could have written a blog, such as these we are writing here. Admittedly, I know that a middle-aged woman writing a hate blog against a pre-teen girl is just as infantile, but the difference between that option and harassing her is just that: she wasn't exercising her free speech, she was HARASSING the girl.
This is why the First Amendment is so odd to me. I gives us the right to post these thorough opinions, but when a girl ends up dead from one of those opinions, nothing is done. I can't say that I'm particularly of this right we have in this situation.
I would like to have though that simple, human decency would be enough to prevent anyone from such a bizarre and horrible action, but apparently that is not the case. Even if these actions didn't lead to Megan's death, I can't understand why any adult would feel the need to play some type of backwards prank on a 13 year old girl. I also believe, however, that any type of internet harassment law would far to vague to be constitutional. What constitutes harassment? If "Josh" was a real person would he be held accountable for breaking off a friendship online albeit in a hateful manner? This is a very unfortunate incident, but I doubt that the mother involved wanted Megan to kill herself. She may not be legally held to account, but she is still morally responsible for her foolish actions.
Post a Comment