I sense a meeting of the minds.
The EOPC-a group who targets online cyberpaths-recently found their views a target of ridicule by litigation entertainers, Mike and Julie of The Morning Show, broadcast by our friends at FOX.
(Private sidebar: As the Frog has a huge chip on her shoulder regarding such Nancy Grace copycats, no link will be provided to increase the hit count on their website...researching this creepy little twosome is up to you, Dear Reader).
The name calling ensued. The EOPC was branded as the "....pathological" or sick ones for our efforts to get the laws changed via internet pressure" and cited as "just as bad as the predators" for linking to Lori Drew's personal information."
(Private sidebar #2: But it's okay for Jessie's Riders to use the wham-bam combination of internet pressure and strong-arm vigilantism. Hmmmm...).
It's a given that hate rules this country, but let's chat about what's really going on here.
Lori Drew was not criminally charged with the online abuse of Megan Meier. Law enforcement claims no law exists on the books to warrant a charge.
The Meier family seeks to effect change in the law, so what happened to their daughter never happens again.
Living in a state that lists prisons as a natural resource, the Frog found the "no law on the books" excuse hard to believe, so I did what my mom always advised when faced with my youthful incessant questioning.
Look it up, honey.
I did just that.
The Meiers should demand law enforcement explain their tap dance around the Missouri stalking law (Crime of Stalking state statute section 565-225)...just for starters.
My point. A law is on the books. So, what the Frog?
Lori Drew did what law enforcement does every single day. She assumed an identity--with full premeditated intent--to seek out, establish a relationship and lure an unsuspecting person--a vulnerable person--through an open door of trickery.
How very To Catch a Predator. In reverse.
The filthy law enforcement tool called the computer sting was quite effectively used by Drew against her 13-year-old victim.
Add hate crime to that--a subject our federal lawmakers don't like too address because they might have to A. admit they caved to pressure by the Far Right and B. admit their hand in setting up thousands of citizens as potential crime victims at the hands of vigilante style justice through the use of said filthy law enforcement tool--the computer sting--in turn, heavyweighted by the prison bed filler known as the Adam Walsh Act, a crafty piece of legal manure that can make anyone a sex offender, with the exception of Mark Foley.
I'm no attorney, but I'll go ahead and throw out my best legal summation.
Should law enforcement charge Lori Drew, her resulting conviction could set a precedent with the clout to overturn countless convictions for persons charged with online solicitation--many who have never physically touched anyone--lured by law enforcement pretending to be someone else.
The victim advocate groups are learning a valuable lesson through the Meier case.It's never been about the victim.
It's about the business of victimization--the predatorial, premeditated intent by elected officials and law enforcement to create the cottage sex offender industry, bankrolled by federal funding that in turn, reaps profits for many with their own agenda, i.e. TrackerPal Senator Orrin Hatch and Xavier Von Erck's perverted pay day.
Drew has turned the tables on the industry, through use of their own ploy.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
6 comments:
WoW. That was brilliant. "What the Frog?" This selective enforcement of jurisprudense should be a political issue.
Reckon this case could make the case to compare it to say:
Lyndsay or Paris?
THey never hurt anyone yet the legal system - had to hold a chorus singing "Every Law is Precious, every Law is Good"
And here they are helpless?
"It's never about the victim"
Exactly. It's more about personal gain, how can I use whatever to advance myself...there's nothing politically advantageous in the Drew-Meier circumstance...or this situation would have been front and center long ago.
Sometimes, I think about how much easier it would be to be a sheep or better yet, an ostrich with my head in the sand.
These last couple of years--I've learned how my country really operates--and I am so over it.
The naming of Lori Drew has sparked quite a debate indeed. Some major news outlets have chosen to name the perpetrator(s) behind this story such as the New York Times. Some have chosen not to. The mainstream media however has concluded that the blogging community should shoulder the responsibility of first naming the perpetrator behind this story.
The first question I have in this debate is simple. What is new here? Since before the French Revolution, the media has been used to 'out' individuals who's actions seem to bear public relevancy in some way.
Although Lori Drew has not yet been charged in the case of Megan Meier, the media has never required formal charges to be made before running a story. In the case of some journalist like Dan Rather, some media outlets run with stories before even confirming that they're true.
In this particular case, media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew's identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members.
I'm wondering if by doing this, the media plans to always withhold the names of interesting persons who outrage the community, if those persons have children. This would certainly be quite a ground-breaking event
Right at this moment, there is a story of a cop who is under investigation in the strange death of one wife and the disappearance of another. The cop in the story has a family, yet the media huddles outside his home relentlessly.
I could go back and list thousands of stories where the media wasted no time in delivering the names and occupations of individuals that were later cleared of any wrong-doing. I've never heard of another instance where the media apologized for naming names.
Don Henley's 'Dirty Laundry' certainly applies well to conduct of most major news outlets.
Lori Drew is a primary subject of the story, she is not a rape victim, and is not a minor. Identifying her breaks no new ground, nor does it deviate from what news outlets do on a daily basis.
I also remind readers that her name and her role in the Megan Meier tragedy were documented as public record. A public record that Lori filed on her own accord. This is a critically important fact in this debate.
News outlets, bloggers and the general public were handed Lori's name and Lori's own self admissions when she herself filed that police report and sought to elevate the entire situation into the public domain.
Had Lori Drew simply acknowledged what she did was wrong, and apologized - the police report that identified her may have never been filed, and the entire situation may have well been kept at the lowest profile.
Will we see the media write about this? Not likely.
Danny Vice
comments invited
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
"...media outlets that have chosen to withhold Lori Drew's identity have done so in consideration of other Drew family members."
I would absolutely love to know the real reason behind this. Today's media has no problem with the collateral damage that effects families when the choice is made to plaster a loved one's face across the front page of the print and the online edition, which is usually way more Enquirer-esque.
Actually, Yahoo ran a story today regarding online cyber bullying. The Meier incident was mentioned, but not by name.
It's also an interesting trend that the media is leaving it up to the bloggers to name names--what sort of weird protocol is that?
Thanks for stopping by, Danny.
Thank you Sunny =)
While the Megan Meier case seems outrageous and unique, it isn’t unique. Hundreds of cases of egregious and heinous acts go on every day with the same excuses out of our lawmakers.
One such other case....The case of Nikki Catsouras, is a classic example of disgusting, hateful activity against innocent victims, while our lawmakers excuse themselves from enacting laws to prevent this.
The excuse lawmakers use to let themselves off the hook stem from the growth of the Internet and how fast it's changing. This is a sham.
Chat rooms, message boards, instant messengers and email have been in existence for far over a decade now. While the software used to transmit messages changes slightly, the basic essence of using the Internet to send a message is largely the same. Is a decade or two long enough to establish some basic decency laws in regards to Internet usage?
I’ve posted the Nikki Catsouras story along with many details about the Megan Meier case so the inactivity out of our lawmakers towards these types of cases can be clearly seen.
Those who are interested in learning about cases like Megan’s and Nikki’s case are encouraged to drop by and comment on them if you like. I have a couple of polls set up as well. Danny Vice would like to hear your point of view.
Public awareness of the problem and discussions about possible solutions are the best way to pressure elected officials into action instead of excuse making.
I invite you to come by and share your opinion.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Lawmakers have no business regulating the Internet. Every attempt by themselves to do so is to profit for themselves--politically and financially--and has resulted in the ruination of many families in this country...in the case of Megan, these fools have not charged the bully because that is indeed what they do every single day--pretend to be someone else to entrap the unsuspecting.
Parents keep kids safe. And still--throughout time--these horrible incidents happen.
Post a Comment