If everyone who ever lied (or even stretched the truth) in an online profile could be convicted of a misdemeanor, the lawsuits would never end. And bullying with harsh words and body language is rarely a criminal activity; as this Wired article notes, “Bullying with no physical contact” is usually a matter handled by schools and parents, not the courts, and the fact that the bullying took place online doesn’t change the nature of the offense.

Drew will probably face a civil suit, and she’s already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. But there was no reasonable way to send her to jail for this case without creating a means for selective prosecution of others who don’t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they’re online.

Craigslist: You’ve probably heard of the case of the alleged Craigslist Killer, Philip Markoff, who prosecutors say met women from the online classified ad site and robbed them, eventually killing one. His case is currently in the courts. But now, there’s a new story about Craigslist that has a similarly creepy vibe as the Myspace story above: A woman allegedly placed a sexually suggestive ad on Craigslist inviting interested men to email and then call a phone number. That number, as it turned out, belonged to a 9-year-old girl who was evidently the woman’s daughter’s “rival,” and she was setting up the little girl out of revenge because of a dispute between the two girls.

Roughly 40 men called the number, including 22 in a single day, looking for the “cute blonde” mentioned in the ad, the targeted girl’s mom said. The woman who allegedly placed the ad, Long Island social worker Margery Tannenbaum, now faces charges of aggravated harassment and endangering the welfare of a minor. This is quite a bit more complicated than the Myspace case above… Tannenbaum allegedly gave out the little girl’s home phone number to dozens of men who were looking for sexual activity on Craigslist. That could have placed the child in real jeopardy.

Tannenbaum pleaded not guilty, and she’s due back in court July 16. Her case is a clear example of why giving out a phone number isn’t always “harmless” or “in good fun.” If she is proven to have placed the ad, then she didn’t just pretend to be someone else and bully a teenage girl; she handed over a young girl’s personal contact information to every strange man, well-intentioned or not, who replied to the ad. This, clearly, is just one reason why privacy matters.

Want to do what you can to protect your own privacy? Sign up for the Privacy Council! The list removal service takes your name off of major marketing lists (so you get less junk mail), adds you to the government Do Not Call list, and helps you fight back against SPAM emails. Sign up today and reduce your chances of identity theft!

Lori Drew, the 49-year-old Missouri resident who allegedly posed as a teenage boy on MySpace in order to harass 13-year-old Megan Meier, pled not guilty on Monday to charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers without authorization to get information used to inflict emotional distress. The case is before the federal court in California, where MySpace is based.

The case has drawn attention to the possible liabilities for social networking sites, as well as how actions conducted online can be prosecuted under existing laws. What are the legal ramifications of this case, and what fault, if any, lies with MySpace for maintaining the website on which the crime occurred? How this case unfolds could determine how future laws regarding internet crime are written and interpreted, and how online privacy could be threatened.

The details of the case are chilling: Lori Drew allegedly created a fake MySpace account to find out what Meier was saying about Drew’s daughter. The prosecution charges that she posed as a teenage boy, gained Meier’s trust, chatted with her, then became cruel and sent messages suggesting that the world would be better off without Meier. Meier hanged herself in October 2006. Drew denies making the MySpace account and sending the messages.

Legally, Drew cannot be charged with any form of murder, since Meier took her own life. As one attorney put it on CNN.com, “You can’t start imposing liability on people for being cruel.” Meier reportedly suffered from attention deficit disorder and clinical depression that had been diagnosed before this incident occurred. Though Drew’s alleged behavior is immature, offensive and morally reprehensible, the laws that are currently in place make it difficult to prosecute her for a crime. In fact, Missouri prosecutors didn’t find any law under which they could charge Drew when the case first came to light in December 2007. Pressure from the public and general outrage about the incident, though, pushed the case forward under federal law.

The prosecution has its work cut out for it as the case goes to trial. The law that they are citing in this case, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, was written in 1986 as a means to punish internet hackers for illegally accessing account information and government data. It addresses the removal of information from a computer, not sending out harassing messages. This is the first time that the law has been used in a social networking case.

Many experts agree that this law was not meant to be interpreted in this fashion, and that such interpretation sets a dangerous precedent for internet law as a whole. Essentially, the prosecution is arguing that it is a federal offense to violate the terms of service agreement on a social networking site. MySpace’s terms of service, which all new users must click-to-agree when they sign up, require users to provide factual information about themselves and refrain from soliciting personal information from minors or using information on the site to harass other members.

Lori Drew’s alleged behavior was a clear violation of MySpace’s terms of service, but is it a federal offense? MySpace supports the lawsuit and derides all forms of cyberbullying, but they would be foolish not to support the pursuit of this case, since the bullying happened on their site. If the prosecution succeeds in proving that Lori Drew committed a crime under federal law, then any violation of any term of service on any website could be grounds to pursue another federal case. The ramifications could be huge; on some sites, even a single disparaging comment might be interpreted as a violation of the terms of service. Internet privacy would take a major hit, as would the social networking sites themselves if more and more such cases were filed. The ability to use and enjoy sites like MySpace, Facebook and others would be severely compromised by the looming threat of a lawsuit.

MySpace was subpoenaed in January of 2008 but is not currently facing any charges for being the host site for this incident. MySpace currently boasts a membership of more than 100 million, and it is widely understood that the site administrators can’t police every profile and every message sent through the system. MySpace, like other social networking sites, relies on the terms of service agreement and reports from other users to maintain a safe environment. That isn’t always possible, obviously, nor is it always possible in other public venues, such as schools and parks. MySpace cannot be held responsible for this tragedy as long as the administrators show a measure of diligence in protecting its users from bullying and other cyber-crimes. Parents and guardians are also expected to aid in the protection of their children by monitoring what their children access online, with whom they chat, etc. It is a multi-pronged effort to keep kids safe online without compromising the rights and privacy of other users, and unfortunately, this case illustrates that the system is not perfect.

The public has demanded retribution in this tragic incident, and Lori Drew is the clear villain. But prosecuting her under a law that was written for a different purpose does not seem to solve the problem; rather, it exacerbates it. As it stands now, most experts doubt that Drew will be convicted, but the case has stimulated debate about the future of internet legislation, with many people clamoring for tighter restrictions and more clearly-defined laws. Defining laws makes sense, but adhering to them as they are written is necessary, as well. Privacy should not be compromised for the sake of perceived safety, and users should not be absolved of the responsibility to keep themselves and their children safe in what is clearly an uncertain environment. The potential for a lawsuit every time one teenager types something disparaging about another is enough to raise the caution flag on the idea of sweeping legislation.

The sad lessons learned from this case are clear: social networking websites should diligently educate users about the terms of service and handle reports of abuse promptly and fairly, as MySpace has done; parents should educate and monitor their children regarding safe internet use, because the websites can’t keep track of every message exchanged; and lawmakers should use caution in writing or interpreting laws that punish bad behavior on the internet. The anonymity of websites can elevate the potential for mean or thoughtless behavior, but in the end, we cannot rely on a law to protect children, especially children with existing emotional or mental issues, from harsh comments online. As one parent on a news website put it, “Parents should always keep tabs on what their kids are doing online, but they most certainly need to take a good inventory of their child’s self-esteem and emotional well being before allow them to participate on social networking sites in the first place” (thenewsleak.com).

There is no question that Lori Drew’s alleged behavior is sick and twisted, and that it is deserving of condemnation. Megan Meier’s parents will doubtless pursue a civil case against her, as they should. As sad as this case is, though, Megan Meier should not be held up as a poster child for a loss of internet privacy; rather, her case should serve as a reminder to all concerned that what you (and your children) see on the internet isn’t always what you get.

Sources: CNN.com, blog.wired.com, usdoj.gov, thenewsleak.com