http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/28hoax.html?em&ex=1196398800&en=b1408a7356b77eef&ei=5087%0A


Horrible News :(

That sucks. I would hate to have to walk around with that much bad karma hanging on my shoulders. At least she gets to walk around though.

:devil

While the story is sad, and the guy that perpetuated the hoax is an a-hole, how is "Internet Harassment" defined?

Also, why did her parents allow this "boy" to become so important to their daughter, that she would commit suicide because of his "rejection"?

I defenitely wouldn't have allowed my 13 year old daughter to remain on the phone for an hour "trading insults" with him.

I feel for the parents and can not believe that an adult would do this to child. I think that the family that caused this should be brought up on charges hell even listed as a child predator. I mean if i pose a 17 year old boy and get a 16 year old girl to come over and have wild monkey sex then i would go to jail. Same thing should apply here.

Actually it was the Wife that created the Hoax not the Husband.... So MS. Drews Not Mr.

I saw these parents on I think it was the Morning Today Show, detailing what their daughter was put through. While there was no law broken, the woman who did this needs to pay for her actions. From my impressions of the mother of the dead girl, I am sure the sick-o will be harassed any time she sets foot in public, as long as she remains in that town.

Dardenne Prarie is literally about 5 minutes from where I live in Saint Louis.

It's a very sad story. I know people who were protesting outside the house of the people who were harassing this girl. That said, I really do not like where this is heading.

First, no one is asking WHERE THE FUCK were this girls parents? If you're thirteen your old commits suicide you have FAILED as a parent. 13 year olds aren't going to be able to hide such volitale emotions for any extended duration of time. I'm sure these people had to work a lot (This area isn't exactly affluent), but that is no excuse. Not only did they not act in a reactive matter, but they failed to raise their daughter in a way where she knew that things like this weren't the end of the world. All I've see from these people are photo ops and lobbying that would befit Cindy Sheehan.

Second, this 'internet harassment' legislation they've pushed through their city council (Which really is a couple of middle-aged mothers) is frightening. First, the head of the city council is on the record saying they want to try to pin retroactive penalties on these other people (After she hugged the mother of the deceased and began crying, again, a touching photo op). Also, the resolutions they've passed all offer max 90 days in jail for harassment, which is also very loosely defined. What parent would say this is adequate for the loss of their child? They've created a political movement out of this. What is scary is that the media attention being given to this case is giving them the power to establish precedent, which is ridiculous given the nature of their 'legislative body' (Zero qualifications, a popularity contest in a community of thousands).

I understand anger is part of the grieving process, but when things like this happen it truly is sad. If these parents were aware of what their child was going through, why did they not do anything? Running the television circuits over and over just makes them look exploitative.

I agree fully with you on the parent's responsibility, and I also see the talk show circuit as being exploitive.

But, I am still adamant that the woman who perpetrated this is no better or different than any other predator on the internet, with the sole exception that there was no attempt to solicit sex from the 13 yeear old. The intent was to victimize, which was sadly accomplished.

From what I've read, the perpetrators have become pariahs since their names were leaked. It's not justice, but it's something.

This is the sort of case that provokes knee-jerk legislation; as much as the event itself sucks, this is the sort of thing to be guarded against. Sometimes free speech sucks, feelings get hurt, and bad things happen -- that's not a problem with free speech. We don't need to get to a point where we have rulings like this (http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/Warman_Court_Decision.pdf)*.

I don't think parents want to believe that their kids might commit suicide, or that they're possibly in as bad a mental shape as they are. Hopefully this case spreads awareness of the fact that kids who are depressed are at risk -- it's not always just a passing phase. Shitty situation all around.

*Using another writer's summary for the sake of expediency: The case is Warman v Fromm. Warman is Richard Warman, an attorney who worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission who routinely brought "hate speech" cases against individuals and organizations under Canada's already existing speech laws. Fromm is Paul Fromm, the head of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and an opponent of those hate speech laws. Fromm is a staunch critic of Warman, calling him an "enemy of free speech." And just to prove him right, Warman sued Fromm for defamation over such speech and the Ontario court ruled in Warman's favor.

I'm not sure what to add here that hasn't been said, but this story had an impact on me, maybe just because I spend every day around emotional teenagers.

Who pulls a hoax like that anyway? What 47 year old actually thinks that's a healty/good idea?

Its also stories like this that make me stock up on condoms. It seems that being a parent gets scarier and scarier every day. My sister is gaga over the thought of having a baby, but I think I could survive never having a kid and never have to worry about them feeling their life sucks so much its not worth living and me never knowing. That guilt must be life shattering in its own right.

If you're thirteen your old commits suicide you have FAILED as a parent.

This. The parents failed at some point, and failed terribly. If someone kills themselves over a myspace boyfriend, then that person had major, major problems.