Lori Drew: I will see you in Hell


A couple of weeks ago, Steve Pokin brought us the appalling story of a young girl’s suicide, a tragedy brought on by a MySpace conspiracy intended to hurt her feelings. The last known inbound transmission, the one that pushed her over the edge, 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.

What a horrible thing for children to do to one another. They do not know the power of their words, cannot grasp the depth of what they wish upon one another.

Oh, wait. Wrong sermon.

This harassment campaign was coordinated by a 47 year-old woman, the mother of one of the dead girl’s friends. Her name is Lori Drew, she will not be charged with any crime, despite enlisting a neighborhood girl in the campaign and, in the wake of Megan Meier’s suicide, ordering the girl to remain silent. In response to the incident, a local law has made internet harassment a misdemeanor worth 90 days and a $500 fine.

Ms. Drew, pray the atheists are right.  Otherwise, I will so be seeing you in Hell.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Lori Drew: I will see you in Hell

  1. “I’ll be seeing you in hell.”

    I always find this a strange statement. It’s an admission that the pot is calling the kettle black and the pot knows that it is black. It’s the only way I can make sense of it.

    Why is a person who believes they are worthy of hell moralizing about someone else who is worthy of hell?

    I don’t plan to see either of you or Lori Drew in hell, but I hope you wake-up someday and see that the monster out there is really you.

  2. Thanks for your thoughts, Mike. I would ask you to consider that one need not be a monster to wind up in Hell. There are plenty of perfectly decent, caring, wonderful people who will end up in Hell because they don’t believe in the right version of God. Some people are, in fact, comfortable with the idea that various gods would condemn us to Hell. Additionally, many believers argue over whether or not there is a Hell, so even among the faithful the phrase can be something of a figure of speech.

    See, the thing is that I used to think I knew how to cuss. And then I read Steve Pokin’s article, and realized that I had no words foul enough to express my sentiments. Christopher Maag’s piece yesterday only reminded me of this profane indignity. So this suffices. After all, if, as many Christians would hold, folks like Ghandi or Emma Goldman, or as some would have it, Mother Teresa should be condemned to Hell, then the rest of us can take comfort that, no matter what we think of our own predicaments, some truly disgusting people will be there with us.

    Ms. Drew’s behavior is one of many examples—for instance, the Bush administration—that make belief in God a tempting notion, if only to convince ourselves that there will, someday, be some measure of justice for those violated by such ridiculous cruelty. My own condemnation for refusing to believe would, in my opinion, be a fair price to pay if it means there will be justice.

    I know. Monstrous, isn’t it?

  3. On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.

    Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?

    The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan’s death.

    Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.

    This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn’t tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.

    Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.

    Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan’s death.

    City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?

    There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.

    Danny Vice
    http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

  4. While the Megan Meier case seems outrageous and unique, it isn’t unique. Hundreds of cases of egregious and heinous acts go on every day with the same excuses out of our lawmakers.

    One such other case….The case of Nikki Catsouras, is a classic example of disgusting, hateful activity against innocent victims, while our lawmakers excuse themselves from enacting laws to prevent this.

    The excuse lawmakers use to let themselves off the hook stem from the growth of the Internet and how fast it’s changing. This is a sham.

    Chat rooms, message boards, instant messengers and email have been in existence for far over a decade now. While the software used to transmit messages changes slightly, the basic essence of using the Internet to send a message is largely the same. Is a decade or two long enough to establish some basic decency laws in regards to Internet usage?

    I’ve posted the Nikki Catsouras story along with many details about the Megan Meier case so the inactivity out of our lawmakers towards these types of cases can be clearly seen.

    Those who are interested in learning about cases like Megan’s and Nikki’s case are encouraged to drop by and comment on them if you like. I have a couple of polls set up as well. Danny Vice would like to hear your point of view.

    Public awareness of the problem and discussions about possible solutions are the best way to pressure elected officials into action instead of excuse making.

    I invite you to come by and share your opinion.

    Danny Vice
    http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s