Wu also doubted that MySpace provided sufficient notice to members to hold them responsible. If a user didn’t read the terms of service, the judge asked prosecutor Krause, could they still be charged with violating them?
Krause struggled to respond to Wu’s questions, emphasizing that not every terms-of-service violation would be prosecuted as a crime. In Drew’s case, he said, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that she knew what she was doing was wrong.
But Wu disputed this, pointing out that the government’s star witness — Ashley Grills — had testified that she never read the terms of service before clicking on a button agreeing to them.
(Emphasis mine.)
Since when is ignorance of the rules or law a get out of jail free card? It isn't (and shouldn't be) in any aspect of law. While some are lauding the case because of the concerns that "Terms of Service" should not constitute a crime if violated, dimissing that one is compelled (at least as a civil matter) to comply with contracts signed, even if unread, is a long established principle.
Ashley Grills admitted that she clicked the button, which is the virtual equivalent of signing a contract. It is Ashley Grills's bad luck if she chose not to read the contract she was executing.
It is absurd that MySpace should have to provide any additional "sufficient notice to members to hold them responsible" besides an "I agree" button below the contract (or a link to it). These are the types of nanny-style protections of the stupid and immoral that those of us on the conservative side of the aisle loathe so much. They coddle people and attempt to excuse them of responsibility for their actions and never attempt to deny liberties to those who demonstrate they can't handle them responsibly.
There is a huge difference between being unable to understand a law (or the language in a contract) and that violations of it are wrong (the legal definition of insanity or mental deficiency) and ignorance of the law, especially when the executor refuses to read the rules when it is passed under their nose.
The only defense for Ashley Grill is that she is mentally deficient or insane. In either case, she should be denied access to computers (and perhaps her freedom) if she is so mentally daft that she cannot understand that she is agreeing to a Terms of Service, read or not.
Regarding the morally vacuous parent, Lori Drew, who participated in this ghastly deceit, I can only blame the prosecutors for their failure to recognize a fraud case when they see one. Falsity with malicious intent is a crime, and always has been. The criminality of the action is not limited to money. The defendant in this case admitted that they were intent on getting private and personal information from Megan Meier, and that is just as much a theft as any other type.
Posts
