Violating Terms of Services and Cyberbullying

July 3, 2009 9:02 AM

"We call it cyber-bullying and we don't have a law to address it." In the matter of the United States v. Drew (pdf), the misdemeanor charges against Lori Drew have been overturned. Judge George Wu noted that violations of the Terms and Services of a website cannot be considered a crime. A Congresswoman has drafted a bill (pdf) to fill in the gaps, allowing for future cyber-bullying convictions. Previously: (1, 2, 3, 4)

Cyber-bullying may affect as many as 1 in 10 students, and is considered a serious problem. The proposed bill seeks to address the issue, but does it really?

Judge Wu's written ruling will be filed next week.

posted by jabberjaw (55 comments total)

Cyber bullying as sexual harassment. One of the more interesting takes on the problem, different than the Sanchez legislation.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:12 AM on July 3 [2 favorites has favorites]

Thought about posting this myself: bad news; murderer goes free, but good news: if you break a website's Terms of Service, you're no longer committing a crime.

As much as it bothers me to see her skate, that's the right outcome.
posted by Malor at 9:13 AM on July 3 [11 favorites has favorites]

I'm somewhat relieved that this didn't turn into Let's Make Another Misguided Computer Law, or an opportunity to do something really dumb with the First Amendment. "Did it with a computer" is turning into the new special sauce for added penalties, and legally, we're gettin' stupid about it.

A teenage girl is dead, and as far as I can tell, for nothing but yucks and giggles. Maybe as a way to put punctuation at the end of a ruse to, and I have to pause at the triviality of this every time, find out if someone was spreading rumors about Drew's daughter. An atrocious act, but not a crime. Yet, anyway. The Gaslighting Act of 2014 will be too late. Short of a conviction, Drew isn't very far off from me.

Maybe I'll just stand a few doors down from her with a belt around my neck, staring.
posted by adipocere at 9:17 AM on July 3 [5 favorites has favorites]

There is an old legal adage: bad facts make bad law.
posted by jabberjaw at 9:21 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

It's the right outcome for the charges that she was given, but I don't understand how she couldn't be charged for child harassment.

Maybe people's thinking is messed up because it happened on the Internet. What if this kind of emotional harassment of an adult against a young woman happened in person. Why is it less of a crime because it happens on the Internet? Imagine if it was an adult man pretending he was a young man wooing this girl. How fast would he be in jail? What this woman did was worse because it ended up with a suicide. Yes she wasn't going for sex, but the point is not what the perpetrator is going for, it is the emotional damage that's being intentionally caused in the victim.

I'd be willing to bet that there are some simple laws on the books that could be used against this woman, but no one realizes it, because it happened 'on the Internet', and so the intentional emotional harassment of a young emotionally disturbed girl by an adult somehow becomes immune from the law.
posted by eye of newt at 9:35 AM on July 3

This is not bullying. This is an adult who deceived and manipulated a child into committing suicide. We don't call it bullying when an adult murders a child, so why now when the assault is psychological?
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 9:40 AM on July 3 [6 favorites has favorites]

Damn, it's been a long time since my intellect and instinct were in such opposition. Of course she shouldn't have been convicted for breaching a TOS. That would be a reckless precedent to set with potentially disastrous consequences. And of course this horrible reptile of a woman deserves all the pain in Nine Hells for what she did to that innocent little girl.

My head knows that convicting Drew would have endangered us all. My belly knows that Drew free was already a fatal danger to Megan Meier and that she belonged in a cell, if not the gallows, with her name disgraced and her accounts drained. Maybe this is the one case where the fake fucking remorse the defense tells the press about is genuine, but I can't bring myself to buy it - someone with the proper capacity for guilt would never have done such a thing.

So I hate that I'm glad she's going free. I can only hope that she's walking into a life of permanent exile. I hope her home town and any town she tries moving to despises her for the rest of her worthless life. If there was anyone in this case who the world would be a better place without, it sure as hell wasn't Meier - the world would be no poorer if this cruel, thoughtless Lori Drew were cut out of it forever. But a bad conviction is a bad conviction, so my rage isn't really relevant.

All the same, I hope freedom is nothing but pitchforks, torches and misery for her. It's better than she deserves.
posted by EatTheWeak at 9:44 AM on July 3 [10 favorites has favorites]

I never understood why Drew couldn't have been charged with some form of stalking. That is exactly what she did. Her actions were really no different than the pedos that get routinely trotted-out before us in various media-driven stings. I guess if you're A) a woman, and B) not doing it for sexual jollies, it's all good. Someone dies? No foul.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:46 AM on July 3 [2 favorites has favorites]

Unfortunately, my understanding of the laws under which this woman could be tried/found guilty is nil. (feel free to disregard, then, what I say from here)

Without this woman's bizarre/obsessive assault on a teenage girl ( who seemed to have little impact on the older woman's life) said girl would likely still be alive. She didn't shoot a gun, she didn't administer poison, but yet she certainly contributed to the death of a minor, one that was naive/damaged/gullible enough to kill themselves as a result of her (again, bizarre) obsession with destroying a teenage girl.

"It's not right" isn't strong enough. Going off half-cocked and creating poorly drafted laws isn't the answer, as others have said. But what about sitting down, thinking it over, and drafting sensible, well conceived laws that would take from she as many years as she took from the girl who killed herself as a result of the hoax?
posted by Ghidorah at 9:49 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

Do we have laws against regular bullying? Bullying qua bullying that is, not harassment.
posted by Nelson at 9:57 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

MOAR LAWZ
posted by Scoo at 10:05 AM on July 3

Going off half-cocked and creating poorly drafted laws isn't the answer, as others have said. But what about sitting down, thinking it over, and drafting sensible, well conceived laws that would take from she as many years as she took from the girl who killed herself as a result of the hoax?

It doesn't matter how well conceived it is, its not going to be retrospective.
posted by biffa at 10:07 AM on July 3

Do we have laws against regular bullying? Bullying qua bullying that is, not harassment.

Not really. But this is the Internets! So we need special laws to think about the children.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 AM on July 3 [3 favorites has favorites]

"[Drew’s attorney, Steward] said that Drew and her family have since moved out of Missouri, due to the harassment they received, noting that she’s been “an internet punching bag for almost three years” having been “tried, convicted and lynched by bloggers” and others who didn’t know all the facts of the case."

Seriously everyone - stop bullying her on the internet.




k?
posted by sloe at 10:11 AM on July 3 [5 favorites has favorites]

It doesn't matter how well conceived it is, its not going to be retrospective.

Actually, it may be retrospective, but it will definitely not be retroactive.
posted by orange swan at 10:11 AM on July 3 [2 favorites has favorites]

Thorzdad - that's my question, too.

I know stalking is a pain in the ass, legally (and hey, thanks to all the worthless twats who like to cry "Stalker!" to their daddy and his lawyers even while the very same twats are constantly texting and even meeting with the alleged stalker) but still, there are some laws out there and I'd think that even if you didn't have a strong hope of conviction, you would would want to set a tone.

My fear is that someone thought they could set a cool cyber precedent and go on the TV to talk about it....

EatTheWeak - We can hope. What evidence do we have the loud-mouth bullies, the BS type who go all weepy the second they get caught, are punished in this life? There are people in this world who think Sarah Palin is a valid presidential candidate.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 10:14 AM on July 3

maybe our schools should be required to educate kids about the hazards and problems that happen on the internet - maybe if megan had been told that people lie, troll and pretend to be people they're not on the net she would have approached the situation differently

maybe not, but it seems like there's a real gap here between the world our kids are living in and the world the schools are preparing them for
posted by pyramid termite at 10:16 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

(and hey, thanks to all the worthless twats who like to cry "Stalker!" to their daddy and his lawyers even while the very same twats are constantly texting and even meeting with the alleged stalker)

Care to explain this?
posted by kathrineg at 10:26 AM on July 3 [3 favorites has favorites]

Some people make false allegations? That's what I took from it.
posted by ODiV at 10:34 AM on July 3

"I'd be willing to bet that there are some simple laws on the books that could be used against this woman, but no one realizes it, because it happened 'on the Internet', and so the intentional emotional harassment of a young emotionally disturbed girl by an adult somehow becomes immune from the law."

Somehow, I don't think we're catching something that all the lawyers involved missed.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:39 AM on July 3

posted by Lesser Shrew thanks to all the worthless twats who like to cry "Stalker!" to their daddy and his lawyers even while the very same twats are constantly texting

So, thanks to the twats who tweeted on Twitter!
posted by mattdidthat at 10:39 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

I remember this story, and remember crying about it (because I'm sensitive and because that was fucking heinous), and honestly, any questions in my mind at the time about us supposedly being made in "God's image", I threw out the window.

My faith crashed and burned a few years ago because of people like this.

Some people are monsters walking around in human clothing.

sloe, while I agree with you completely about people not turning around and stalking Drew (irony at it's worst, considering that poor girl and her family), there is a poetic justice there, if no where else in this story.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 10:41 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

"We call it cyber-bullying and we don't have a law to address it."

No, but I have duct tape, a bike chain, and the patience to wait for nightfall.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:48 AM on July 3 [3 favorites has favorites]

Without this woman's bizarre/obsessive assault on a teenage girl ( who seemed to have little impact on the older woman's life) said girl would likely still be alive.

Let's be clear: the word "assault" has a definite legal meaning. Basically, attempted murder is to murder as assault is to battery. To assault someone is to try to do physical violence to them. I don't think there's any way the law can call what Drew did assault.

It's the right outcome for the charges that she was given, but I don't understand how she couldn't be charged for child harassment.

I don't know if any jurisdictions in the US have a crime called "child harassment". Harassment can be either a tort or a crime. Generally, in order for harassment to be criminal, it needs to include some element of threat. This is also generally true for stalking laws (which represent a kind of subclass of criminal harassment): there needs to be some reasonable perception of a threat. Drew in no way threatened her victim.

We don't call it bullying when an adult murders a child, so why now when the assault is psychological?

Again, this was in no way murder or assault. Legally, there's no such thing as psychological assault.

Do we have laws against regular bullying?

Regular bullying often entails assault and battery. In this case, yes we do. In cases of sustained mockery, bullying would more likely be a tort rather than a crime.

I'm not a lawyer, and this is all only to the best of my understanding.

I think the best angle for a conviction of Drew would have been based on the sexual elements of pretending to be Meier's boyfriend. Her actual speech that led to the suicide ("the world would be a better place without you"), while cruel, is not and should not be criminal. It's just not compatible with the first amendment to criminalize cruel speech, even from an adult to a minor.

I'm delighted that the judge has set aside the conviction. The prosecution's theory in this case was insane and terrifying.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:52 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

Also, I see no reason why Lori Drew and her daughter both cannot be sued for millions in civil court for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other things.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:54 AM on July 3

Also, I see no reason why Lori Drew and her daughter both cannot be sued for millions in civil court...

Oh, no doubt. I'm sure the family just wanted to wait until criminal proceedings had finished up.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:57 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

It's just not compatible with the first amendment to criminalize cruel speech, even from an adult to a minor.

Cruel speech is not criminalized, per se, but as I noted above, it is actionable. She can't be imprisoned by the state, but she can be punished by the dead girl's estate.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:58 AM on July 3

Sorry, mr. roboto, I should have previewed.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:58 AM on July 3

As a web developer, I'm most interested in the part of this ruling that states that violating websites' terms of service can't be considered a crime. That's very good news for anyone doing any sort of automated data scraping -- does anyone know if that part of the ruling stands a chance of becoming accepted law?
posted by jacobian at 11:02 AM on July 3

maybe our schools should be required to educate kids about the hazards and problems that happen on the internet - maybe if megan had been told that people lie, troll and pretend to be people they're not on the net she would have approached the situation differently

Maybe. Maybe not.

Some programs like these already exist, but I personally have no clue if they are mandatory in any state or country. Not to mention, not all of them include what they could.

In my 6th grade computer class, we had a whole day or two of just "the dangers of the internet". What this actually entailed was "Everyone on the internet that you don't know in real life wants to kill you or rape you", and then a 'scary' PSA of a young girl being chased by a 'predator' in an empty school. It's the wrong lesson to teach, almost akin to DARE's failure in some regions. Simply making the uniform statement "drugs are bad" isn't very effective. I could go on for paragraphs; the uselessness of abstinence pledges for the average teenager, etc. This was years ago- the times have changed, obviously. The internet is a fast moving place. But nowadays there are a lot more risks involved in an organized, largely anonymous world like the internet. It's not just "a guy on AIM will want you to come to his house and then he'll molest you". That's probably the worst case scenario, a "shark attack". In fact, I believe in this digital age most people would know not to just visit some stranger's house.

There are all kinds of other little risks nowadays, and most programs probably cover them by now. Don't give away your personal information left and right, take advantage of privacy settings, know the warning signs of a phishing scam, the obvious stuff. But then there is cyberbullying. Is there really a way to counteract it? I'm not sure, because I haven't seen a way to counteract real life bullying (to the point where kids are smart enough to avoid it and know how to handle it).*

It's Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckward Theory in action: normal person + anonymity + audience = total fuckwad, or in this case nasty, horrible comments that lead to the death of a person in real life.

People seem to forget that the internet is in fact, real life. Maybe that's one thing I actually learned from that 6th grade program: if you can't say what you're going to say to a person's face, don't say it to them on the internet.

*Please: correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a college major. I haven't researched the topic for months and months. I just know the general picture and some details here and there.
posted by Askiba at 11:20 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Legally, there's no such thing as psychological assault."

At least in Minnesota there is (emphasis mine):

Criminal harassment is defined as "engag(ing) in intentional conduct which the actor [harasser] knows or has reason to know would cause the victim, under the circumstances, to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and causes this reaction on the part of the victim. (M.S. § 609.749, Subd. I). (cite)

If causing physical harm is physical assault, I'd argue that causing psychological harm is psychological assault, semantics of legal terminology aside.
posted by elfgirl at 11:34 AM on July 3

At least in Minnesota there is (emphasis mine):

That's criminal harassment.

I'd argue that causing psychological harm is psychological assault, semantics of legal terminology aside.

But in a discussion of what crime Drew could have be charged with, the actual names of the crimes are helpful, no? I mean, I could call criminal harassment meangirlism, you could call it psychological assault, someone else could call it psuedostalking, and we'd just have a confusing conversation. Why don't we just use the existing terminology?

would cause the victim...to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated

And this is why I don't think Drew could be charged with criminal harassment. She didn't try to make Meier feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, or intimidated, and Meier did not seem to feel any of these things. Drew deceived Meier into thinking Drew was a boy who was interested in a relationship with Meier. She then terminated that fraudulent relationship. That's a lot of horrible things, but it's not criminal harassment.

I don't think it's fraud, either, not without money involved.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:42 AM on July 3

Isn't "child abuse" a plausible charge here?
posted by Pronoiac at 11:43 AM on July 3

Oh, and physical assualt is not "causing physical harm". It's acting in a manner that would reasonable be interpreted as intending to cause physical harm. Raising your fists, or shaking a baseball bat, or chasing someone.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:44 AM on July 3

The case was always absurd. What she did was terrible, but it wasn't illegal at the time. You can't just make up laws (or insane new interpretations) because you don't like a person.
posted by delmoi at 11:53 AM on July 3

By the way, do we know if Drew was the actual one who said that the girl should kill herself? My understanding was that Drew participated, along with several teenager girls, in chatting with this teenager. Drew might not have been the one who "pulled the trigger" and actually had the final chat with the girl.

It seems like people are making it out that Drew was the only one who was chatting with her, which is incorrect.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 AM on July 3 [1 favorite has favorites]

As much as I agree a horrible thing was done here, I don't believe the situation is all that one-sided. The girl took things way too far in taking her life. This girl was a little too emotionally vulnerable to be on the net without adequate warning or supervision. And as much as I think Lori Drew is sick for targeting a teenage girl like she did, I'm doubtful that the usual knee-jerk well-we'll-make-a-law-to-fix-it response will result in anything but a bunch more lawsuits from every sue-happy internet user who feels insulted by something someone wrote. How about teaching people to let go and not take everyone's opinion so seriously?

Next up: Drafting a bill to fight rude looks on the playground.
posted by Avelwood at 12:02 PM on July 3

LuLz KillZ.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 12:03 PM on July 3

"As a web developer, I'm most interested in the part of this ruling that states that violating websites' terms of service can't be considered a crime. That's very good news for anyone doing any sort of automated data scraping -- does anyone know if that part of the ruling stands a chance of becoming accepted law?"

Creating a TOS doesn't constitute creating legislation (lord help us if it did), and no court needs to rule to establish that the sky isn't yellow and the sun isn't blue. I can write down all the laws and rules I want, but it doesn't mean that is "the law." It has no effect on criminal code. Violating TOS may be considered violating a contract, but that's not very well established, and in any case that's civil law, not criminal law.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:07 PM on July 3

Um, krinklyfig, you might want to read the links before you respond. That's exactly what Lori Drew was tried on - for violating the Myspace TOS in a criminal proceeding. So your whole comment is, well, wrong.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:11 PM on July 3

"In my 6th grade computer class, we had a whole day or two of just 'the dangers of the internet'. What this actually entailed was 'Everyone on the internet that you don't know in real life wants to kill you or rape you', and then a "scary" PSA of a young girl being chased by a "predator" in an empty school. It's the wrong lesson to teach, almost akin to DARE's failure in some regions"

Yeah, I agree, but then I remember that the original Grimm's Fairy Tales was pretty gruesome. It was partly meant to scare children, because the world can be needlessly cruel, and it's better to ensure kids aren't unaware of potential danger. But it's also wrong to teach children they should be scared of everyone outside their family and known acquaintances. If anything, the danger of sexual assault comes mostly from within the family, not from random strangers, but there is no need to lead kids to believe that everyone has their best interests at heart.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:16 PM on July 3

Well, I'm all in agreement with the prevailing sentiment that this is a good legal decision, with bad real-world results.

But can someone enlighten me as to why she wasn't simply charged with:

568.045. 1. A person commits the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree if:

(1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old...
posted by tyllwin at 12:18 PM on July 3

"Um, krinklyfig, you might want to read the links before you respond. That's exactly what Lori Drew was tried on - for violating the Myspace TOS in a criminal proceeding. So your whole comment is, well, wrong."

No:

"Prosecutors here invoked a criminal statute more commonly used to prosecute hackers or defendants who have improperly accessed computers for financial gain, to charge Drew for her part in setting up a MySpace account in the name of a fictitious 16-year-old boy."

They charged her under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The idea was that violating the TOS would have constituted a violation of this crime. The end result was that the court ruled it didn't. It's not accurate to say that writing a TOS would have constituted writing law, and indeed the court didn't even agree that violating a TOS would constitute violations of a different law involving improper access.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:23 PM on July 3

tyllwin - She was charged in federal court, by a grandstanding US Attorney in California. There are a number of state laws with which she could have been charged, but she wasn't. My understanding is that she was well-connected and instead got local authorities to take actions against the Meier family.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:24 PM on July 3

" (1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old..."

Where is the proof that the defendant knowingly acted in this manner? Was the result (the suicide) the actual goal of the defendant, or was it unintentional?
posted by krinklyfig at 12:24 PM on July 3

krinklyfig - Until this ruling, one could conceivably be convicted in a criminal court for violating a TOS. Indeed, Drew had been originally convicted of violating the CFAA when she violated Myspace's TOS. You can understand why people who write TOS would be very interested in this outcome. Were the CFAA to be consistently interpreted this way, TOS authors would be put in a difficult position. While they may want to limit authorized uses of their systems, they probably do not want to criminalize a whole set of "off-label" usages. You can claim that this is like calling the sky blue and to many it was an unacceptable stretch and misapplication of the law. Yet until yesterday, it was a chilling precedent. Whether or not yesterday's ruling is more likely to prevail next time around, rather than the original ruling, is not for anyone to say. We all may prefer one interpretation, but so long as there are federal prosecutors willing to test this in court, you can't rule it out.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:29 PM on July 3

" (1) The person knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to the life, body, or health of a child less than seventeen years old..."

Where is the proof that the defendant knowingly acted in this manner? Was the result (the suicide) the actual goal of the defendant, or was it unintentional?

The last message to Megan was "you should kill yourself" or something like that, so the intent can be inferred. But I think that the conviction on that law fails on other grounds.
posted by jabberjaw at 12:37 PM on July 3

Ah, thank you, Allen. I'd misundestood. I thoughts the feds had steped in because the state couldn't figure out a charge, not because they didn't want to figure out charge(s).

krinklyfig: "Knowingly," and "substantial," are questions of fact for a jury, I think. I'd just like to seen them put to a jury.
posted by tyllwin at 12:47 PM on July 3

She didn't try to make Meier feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, or intimidated, and Meier did not seem to feel any of these things. Drew deceived Meier into thinking Drew was a boy who was interested in a relationship with Meier. She then terminated that fraudulent relationship.

"Someone using Josh's account was sending cruel messages and Megan called her mother, saying electronic bulletins were being posted about her, saying things like, "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat," according to the Associated Press.

The cyber exchange devastated Megan, who was unable to understand how and why her friendship unraveled. The stress and frustration was too much for Megan, who had a history of depression." [*]

"According to Meier's father Ronald Meier, and a neighbor who had discussed the hoax with Drew, the last message sent by the Evans account read: "Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.""[*]

I think your impressions of what it takes to feel persecuted and threatened are different than mine.
posted by elfgirl at 1:48 PM on July 3 [4 favorites has favorites]

Depending on what form it took, I might be able to support a law against impersonating real people, including fictitious "real" people who had false photos and information to make them look more real. I respect anonymity and honest pseudonymity, where the person is upfront about being pseudonymous. But what happened here could not have happened if Megan had not thought she was dealing with a real person.
posted by shetterly at 6:54 PM on July 3

The crime they charged her with was bullshit, and as much as I'd like to see this woman fry, we should all be happy that it was overturned.
posted by empath at 9:07 PM on July 3

In all seriousness, if this had been upheld, we'd be looking at the internet turning into a police state nightmare.
posted by empath at 9:08 PM on July 3

Legally, there's no such thing as psychological assault

In some jurisdictions, grievous bodily harm would probably cover this.
posted by flabdablet at 8:25 AM on July 4

kathrineg and others - If you want to accuse someone of stalking you, you'll very likely be dealing with law enforcement who have seen a lot of people crying wolf and they may not be very quick to believe you are serious.

It's complicated. When I volunteered at a shelter, we had women who were no kidding abused and they had their counseling and legal advice and filed all the paper work and did all the things they were supposed to do for a legal case, and then went outside the gates and called the abuser on the cell phone. This would make cops unhappy and it's not hard to understand why. You call them, ask for their help, and then basically take actions that will entirely invalidate any case that might have been made. On the other side of the tracks, law enforcement also have stories about dippy bimbos who figure they own the police because their dad pays taxes and they have a lawyer. If you file a restraining order, there are some responsibilities on your side. Even after decades of sensitivity training and whathaveyou, the cops I know want nothing to do with stalking/harassment if they can help it because they have had to much hassle with people who made frivolous complaints or were unable to follow-through.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 5:02 PM on July 4 [1 favorite has favorites]

murderer goes free, but good news

being rude to an unstable, clinically depressed teenager is not the same thing as murder.
posted by Bizurke at 6:22 PM on July 4