Myspace Hoax Week 2

Have you ever gone to a URL linking in any site and seen crude or threatening behavior? Have you ever gone to a site and wondered why it was still operating and the government hadn’t simply come in and shut it down? The U.S. government has no authority over the public and free domain of the internet. It has been this way since conception and although there are plans in action to attain some sort of balance of power from the site surfing, trojan implanting, spyware inducing misguided sleuth and the powers that form and maintain our way of society so we can at least attain some sort of control over certain sites. The Myspace Hoax in November of 2007 involved a parent helping her 13 year old daughter create fictitious account to bait another 14 year old girl into a relationship with no true person, following it up by defaulting on the relationship and telling her that the world was better off without her. Even though it was known by the mother helping her daughter that the other girl had several serious mental issues, she followed through and was an accomplice throughout the entire forming, hooking, relationship and break-up. Thereafter the subsequent actions resulted in the 14 year old girl committing suicide by hanging. Should the mother be prosecuted? Should she be let free? Without a true grasp on certain sites like Myspace or Facebook she was only help with fraudulent character in falsifying someone who wasn’t real and breaking the user terms of service agreement. This case is extremely relevant to the 1981 movie Absence of Malice, wherein a reporter uses illegally obtained information to post a discrediting news article about an upstanding citizen who is under federal investigation without previous knowledge. This movie well states that in a time before internet and the free realm illegally and hidden information could be used (if proper precautions were taken) in a discrediting way simply to sell newspapers. Simply trying to contact and receive indignation of the information and not being able to contact the subject would abstain you from libel, therefore allowing you to print anything of any nature about said subject on said topic. Was the informant giving the information at wrong? Was the newspaper company wrong by not properly trying to attain truth from the subject? Where do we draw a line and give case by case exceptions to libel, slander and discrediting information or intent and put the foot down? When do we say, “You intentionally aided in causing more mental distress on an otherwise extremely mentally distressed person leading to their suicide. You are hereby charged for 1 count of manslaughter”. Or when do say, “You purposefully printed information that would ruin this mans life without trying to get the story from his point of view. You are hereby charged with 1 count of libel”. The sad truth is that our court system is to hung up on petty details to try and correctly prosecute each case because it’s held up by its our stipulations.