Just an update...

In a previous post, I discussed the suicide of Megan Meier who killed herself after an ex-friend's mother, under the pretenses of "Josh," posted and sent cruel messages over MySpace.



Today, according to CNN, there will not be criminal charges filed against the person behind the fake MySpace page not because there is no fault involved, but because there is no way to prove any wrongdoing, as well as no charge to fit the crime.

A Missouri prosecutor said Monday no charges would be sought in the
case of a teen who hanged herself last year after chatting on MySpace, although
he said adults should have prevented the tragedy.
[...]
"There is no way that anybody could know that talking to someone or saying
that you're mean to your friends on the Internet would create a substantial
risk," Banas said. "It certainly created a potential risk and, unfortunately for
the Meiers, that potential became reality. But under the law we just couldn't
show that."
But Banas said that conclusion doesn't mean no one is to blame.
"Regardless of what we can charge or what we can't charge, there is no question
the adults should have said something to stop this," he said.
[...]
Missouri's harassment statute says nothing about the Internet, and the
stalking statute requires repeated conversations, so neither would apply in this
case, Banas said.
The purpose of the neighbor who arranged for the "Josh"
character "was never to cause her emotional harassment that we can prove," Banas
said. Any case would be based on "what we can prove and what a jury would
believe."

Tragic. Hopefully this has drawn enough attention to Internet crimes that we will soon have laws offering even a little bit of protection against this sort of an incident.

Shield laws don't always protect

Santa Barbara Independent's staff reporter is found in contempt of court after refusing to turn over pictures he took following the death of a 15-year-old. A 14-year-old is on trial for his murder.

Even though California has shield laws designed to protect the media from this same scenario, this does not meet the four criteria necessary for absolute protection.

The judge ruling in the case stated the following:

"Any one of these photographs might cause the defense to rethink the way they
were preparing (their case),” he said, such as who they might call to the stand
or who they might impeach.

True enough, I suppose. However, he'll have to fight the attorney for the Independent.

The Independent's attorney, Michael Cooney, said this case was important not
only for the Indy, but for all media organizations. He said if Wellman is
forced
to hand over the photos, it could open the door to more serious
subpoenas in the
future asking for reporters’ or photographers’ testimony
regarding what they may
have seen or who they might have talked to. “We’re
on a slippery slope,” he
said.

Judge Hill said he understood the media's interests, but cited the 1990
Delaney case which concluded that in some circumstances, the defendant’s
federal
Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial preempts state shield law.

[...]

Wellman commented that he was "relieved to hear that Judge Hill understood
that this could set a precedent for us to hand over all our photographs for any
investigation. If you hand over unpublished photos you stop being part of the
media and you start being an arm of the government. If I went onto a scene," he
explained, "and I said, 'This is off the record,' or 'I'm not going to show your
face,' or 'I'm not going to disclose the location,' it's going to be hard to
sell that to someone if they feel I'm going to turn over photos every time I get
subpoenaed."

Well stated Attorney Wellman. Well stated.

Keep watching this case - it could be more important than it seems.