I had earlier posted my thoughts on the identification of the woman who set up a fake identity in the Megan Meiers case, here and here. I supported the St. Charles' Journal's decision not to identify the woman.
But Danny Vice disagreed in a comment on my posting. It's worth reading, so I've pulled it up to a posting.
I understand your point of view, but the issue goes further than Drew and her daughter.
Child predators who use the same techniques don't enjoy anonymity...and for good reason. When a child is manipulated for an adults greedy, sexual or self serving purposes, the predator is outted for the public's safety.
The Perp played directly on the sensitivities she knew would cause maximum damage to the Megan. Ms. Drew lured Megan in a way she knew would be most devastating to the child.
This wicked MOA Drew used is the exact methodology that a child predator employs to bait, lure and reel a child victim into doing their will. Child grooming was utilized over weeks and weeks to gain the child's trust... and once trust was obtained, she exploited it into a relationship. (Another Child Predator Hallmark).
When this woman saw her bullets were hitting it's mark, she turned up the heat. She invited others to partake in the sick, twisted mental assault on this child, keeping the pressure up. Even her business employee joined in the game.
She then delivered the final blow that many depressed 13 year old girls would crumble under.
She mentally raped the child and left her for dead. Better said, encouraged her for dead.
The woman who enacted this whole thing still remains smug and defiant about her actions - even seeks to attack this grieving family while their beloved daughter's memory is fresh in their mind.
Also, as the word is already out...the public has the information it needs to steer clear of this adult and watch the bonds their children has with her.
The Adult brought this upon her child...not the public
Meantime, Mo. City Outlaws Internet Harassment
and
This is why I worry about the Internet mob mentality:
Cyberbullying Suicide Stokes the Internet Fury Machine
....Experts say the firestorm that followed illustrates what happens when the social imperative to punish those in a community who violate social norms plays out over the internet. The impulse is human nature, say experts, and few can imagine an offense more egregious than a trusted adult preying on the emotions of a vulnerable child. Shunning wrongdoers, especially in the absence of legal redress, helps maintain order and preserve a community's moral sense of right -- think church excommunications and the Amish tradition of Meidung.
But the drive for social shaming -- to right a wrong and restore social balance -- can run amok and create paradoxical consequences, especially on the internet where people instigate mobs in ways they wouldn't do offline. ...
Methinks there's more than one kind of online harassment and more people who think they've jumped to this poor family's defense could be in trouble. Earlier. At any rate, here's the latest on this tragedy.
Town may criminalize online harassment
By Greg Toppo
USA TODAY
Wed Nov 21
The tragedy of Megan Meier will take another twist Wednesday night when officials in her home town vote on whether to make online harassment a local crime.
Meier is the 13-year-old suburban St. Louis girl who met a cute 16-year-old named Josh Evans last year on the social networking site MySpace. They became close, but suddenly he turned on her, calling her names, saying she was "a bad person and everybody hates you." Others joined the harassment - the barrage culminated in Megan's Oct. 16, 2006, suicide, just short of her 14th birthday.
Weeks later, Megan's grieving parents learned that the boy didn't exist - he'd been fabricated by a neighbor, the mother of one of Megan's former friends. The girls had had a falling out, police say, and she wanted to know what Megan was saying about her daughter.
Local police and the FBI investigated, but more than a year later, no criminal charges have been filed. Tonight, the Dardenne Prairie Board of Aldermen will vote on whether to make Internet harassment a crime in its jurisdiction.
But since a local newspaper columnist broke the story of Megan's death last week, the case has grabbed the attention of the blogosphere: The paper didn't identify the neighbor, and police say she committed no crime, but bloggers who see it differently have outed and humiliated the family online.
The St. Charles Journal decided not to identify the neighbor in the absence of criminal charges or a civil complaint - even though her name is in a police report on a related incident. Columnis Steve Pokin said he wanted to protect her daughter. "Kids don't get to choose their parents," he said.
To follow up on
this gutwrenching story:
Yesterday, Poynter posted a letter and links to forums that are criticizing the paper for failing to identify the adults deemed responsible for this young girl's suicide.
The short version: Megan Meier killed herself after being mocked online, viciously, by a boy named Josh. He turned out to be a fake. A parent in the neighborhood, who knew that the girl suffered from depression, had created the fake persona to see if Megan was saying awful things about the woman's daughter.
I'm with the paper on this one. And I think the paper was courageous in reporting out a complex, difficult story without going overboard.
There are no legal charges to be brought against the adults. This is a heartbreaking story of a young, apparently troubled, girl who fell victim to amazingly immature and vicious grownups who should have known better. It's not a victim-crime-arrest story. Once the newspaper names people, they have to start calling on the lawyers--the named and their own--and it changes the story. I find the approach the paper took to be the best. It keeps the focus on the girl's tragedy rather than the perpetrators.
Some bloggers--a category of people who are often near and dear to my heart--have decided they know who the guilty party is. They've had a field day, searching real estate records and maps and have posted the presumed perps' names, urging others to send them letters,excoriating them for their behavior.
A couple of people claiming to be reporters have posted, decrying the decision not to name them and, in at least one case, saying they've never heard of a decision not to identify parents to protect children. Well, I have. Cases where children have been sexually abused by parents or other relatives are often reported without those relatives' names so that the kids won't inadvertently be identified.
Because we can provide information doesn't mean we have to or that it's a good idea to. The worst thing that could happen now is for the apparent guilty ones to become victims themselves.
Someone else wrote in and said that the woman being blamed in this case was just trying to protect her own child, and that's equally dumb. Your right, your duty, to protect your own child doesn't include deliberately misleading, harming or terrorizing another person's child.
Sometimes on the Web there's such a tone of self-righteousness, revenge and determination to impose justice, to act against someone perceived to be wrong, that it's a little scary. I found myself wondering what my response to this behavior would be if my child were harmed, and where that led me wasn't pretty. But that would be a personal matter, not one requiring the summoning of a mob with pitchforks.
It seems to be that there's a meanness in our culture these days, something that seems to have worsened, coarsened in the last few years. There seems to be no self-restraint anywhere. If you're perceived to have crossed a line, you are verbally assaulted, investigated, publicly demeaned and ridiculed, threatened with a loss of job or standing. Can we not be better than this?
I welcome other opinions.
Previously mentioned here.
