Myspace Hoax Responses

“The case was about a lady who created a fake profile on MySpace to check if a girl was saying things about her daughter. The lady and other people that helped her create the profile about a sixteen year old boy flirted with the girl that was suffering from attention deficit disorder, depression and a weight problem for a few months. On October 15 2006 he sent her a message saying that he didn’t want to be her friend anymore because he had heard that she did not treat her friends well. She also got a message saying that the world would be better without her and saw posts that said many defamatory things about her. “A defamatory statement usually holds a person up to hatred, ridicule, or concept; or cause a person’s esteem, respect or social position to be diminished” Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo-Bonnice pg 45. The girl was found dead in her bedroom the next day.” – JUS Productions.

The interesting thing about the case is the resulting death of the young girl because of statements made under false identification. Defamation is a perfect example of what occurred, as there was reasonable intent on behalf of the offenders to generate comments of hatred and ridicule. Considering the nature of the phrase ‘the world would be better off without you’, it is not an illogical notation; it’s actually a well-fitting charge – and I offer kudos for identifying it.

On a general note, the case is far more complex than simple defamation. Additional offenses, such as harassment, could be connected, as the messages were ongoing, not stationary or isolated to a single event. There are also policy violations with the website itself – which are the only things the offenders were really charged with – which can be described as something of a breach of contract. Conspiracy is defined as an agreement of two or more persons to commit an illegal act. As illegal acts were committed by a multi-member party, conspiracy is also a potential charge for the case.


“As I analyzed it, I came to this thought; how would they have known that Megan would go to the extreme of committing suicide? Also, who’s to say that this is the cause of the attempt? As said in reports she was already depressed. The true answer lies with Megan. Despite all these possibilities, I think what these three women did is still wrong.” – Theopod.

I can understand where this sort of a statement may come up. From a logical standpoint, they cannot be charged with murder; hence the reason they have not been charged with murder, and have only faced charges such as cyber-bullying and policy violation. However, taking into consideration the fact that an adult was involved in the harassment of a minor which inevitably resulted in death, one could wager verbal abuse, as well as negligence or something of the equivalent. Murder is not an accurate legal term, but manslaughter may actually be appropriate. Manslaughter is a charge often associated, at least to my memory, with deaths resulting from negligent acts in which the intent may not have been to kill someone, but did result in death – such as leaving a child in a locked car on a hot day, driving drunk and crashing, hitting pedestrians (which only becomes murder if you flee the scene, otherwise it’s manslaughter). There was no ‘malicious intent to kill’, hence no murder, but there most definitely is responsibility for the indirect occurrence of the girl’s death. However, this is only applicable with visible proof pointing that the girl’s suicide was related to the actions of the offenders. Considering the profile of the case, it’s possible that a note was left behind or other tid-bits that could trace cause and effect. If it were a general suicide, it likely would not have made news – if there was no association between the incidents of harassment and the suicide, why, then, would investigation have been warranted?

“What’s even troublesome to me is that fact that Megan’s parents gave her the permission to have an online romance with a sixteen year old boy in the first place. The girl was only thirteen years old.” – Flip Beats Productions.

I am not a parent, but I am an older sibling. Ironically, my little sister is thirteen years old and dating a fifteen year old boy, though not online. From general experience, I’m not sure that the relationship may have been evident to the parents. I know that my little sister began dating her boyfriend long before anyone within the family ever knew – and in the case of online relationships, the potential for obscurity is there. Still, I think the article had mentioned that Megan spoke to her mother about the issues, which sort of obliterates that whole thought. I simply felt the urge to make the notation of how parental permission or responsibility is not always … For a lack of better words, possible – though, as a parent, you likely know this and have experienced many of the crazy antics of young kids.

Prior to that statement, you had said this: “It just amazes me first of all how the parents involved allowed their daughter, Megan, to create a Myspace profile in the first place.” I do understand this part of the whole scenario. The internet is the in thing. It’s huge. When I was a kid, it was starting to boom and grow, this being the 90s. As the result, it was mostly and adult thing. I wasn’t even allowed to sit at the computer without someone watching me, and usually I’d play games on floppy disks. However, in today’s society, certain aspects of technology are quite literally expected of youth. Myspace profiles are almost as essential as cell phones to some teenagers, and they’re a means of communication, especially with old friends who may be spread out. According to the article, the parents behaved as mine did when I was little and using the computer for my floppy disk games. They monitored her when she was on the computer, which I believe was a responsible arrangement for allowing her to at least have a Myspace profile. Even so, it isn’t all that surprising, and it’s actually very common for young preteens, sometimes even young kids, to have Myspace profiles and be using the internet rampantly. It’s sort of just a shift in culture. Can the parents be held accountable for the mess? I’m not sure that they can, especially when they had enacted reasonable measures of a reasonable person. The alternative would have been ‘no profile’ – but kids, right? If there’s a will, there’s a way, and I’m sure they had taken that into consideration before deciding it was better to know what their daughter was doing and where than to tell her ‘no’ and never really be sure if she listened or not.

“The misdemeanor the mother was found guilty was only in part because she failed to adhere to the Terms of Service of Myspace.com, which you much agree to when you sign up for the site, and are expected to follow, even if you choose not to actually read it. This might start bringing about more pushes for more regulation and laws for the internet. Though I’m against heavy regulation of content, perhaps some form or protection when it comes to defamation might be for the better.” – ShrimpGirl Productions.

I’m against regulation of the internet and its content for the most part, though I agree entirely about protection against defamation and harassment, or other such cyber-crimes. Actually, that’s exactly what they’re called: cyber-crimes. Laws and regulations are already enacted within modern times, some even stemming from this particular case (anti-bullying legislation is especially noted!). The complication with regulating the internet, however, stems from the fact that the internet is composed of multiple parties of multiple cultures and multiple laws or regulatory standards. The free exchange of ideas and communications are ideal, but it’s virtually impossible to regulate on an international scale, therefore some protections are limited. We can only hope for international law to cover the tracks and further protection against anti-bullying and cyber-crimes. This actually raises an interesting question involving another suicide. There was one recently where a teenager committed suicide on his webcam with a crowd of hundreds, possibly thousands, watching and egging him on. In reality, bystanders would have been held by law to intervene if there was not already an intervention – I believe the immediate threat of suicide is actually considered the same way an auto accident is. You have to stay on the scene and act. You can’t just ignore. However, the bystanders were not held accountable for egging on the boy, or attempting to intervene or, er, do anything whatsoever? So there’s an interesting question: where in the law do certain things on the internet belong – such as harassment, or good Samaritan laws, as I believe they’re called?