On October 17^th, 2006, Megan Meier committed suicide after falling victim to cyberbullying.  She developed what she thought was a friendship with a boy named “Josh” on MySpace. That October, Megan’s online friendship with “Josh” started to go sour as he started bullying her instead. It is reported that in one the last interactions between “Josh” and Megan, “Josh” said, “You are a bad person and everybody hates you…The world would be a better place without you.”  Later that day, Megan’s mother found her after she hanged herself in her closet. 

During the investigation, it came out that the MySpace account was fake and “Josh” did not actually exist.  Allegedly, Megan had spread some rumors about one of her neighbors, so that girls mother, Lori Drew, created the fake MySpace account and planned using whatever information she gained to embarrass Megan.  “Police, Prosecutors and the FBI said they could find no law had been broken” so in his article regarding the tragic event, Steve Pokin did not release the neighbors name.

When looking at the situation from Pokin’s point of view, we must first remember the most important fact in this case: “there were no arrests, no charges filed, no civil suit, the daughter was a juvenile suspect and it was not clear who actually sent the messages.”

Using Kant’s perspective, which runs off the principle that an individual should act as if the choices he makes could become universal law, I can understand why Pokin did not release the neighbors name.  Even if what Drew did was morally wrong, she did not break any laws and there is nothing that could be brought against her.  Many believe that tere was a direct correlation between Megan’s suicide and the cyberbullying, however, nothing can be proven without doubt. So technically, even though it was immature and mean spirited, Drew did nothing wrong and to release her information would cause her harm.   

There were several anti-bullying lessons that come out of a situation like this but it does not require that Drew’s name be involved.  Any of these lessons case can be taught while allowing her to keep her privacy and her anonymity.  Most people would agree that what she did was wrong, but if I were Pokin, I would have to put myself in Drew’s shoes.  If I were Drew, then I would not want my name released.    The judgment to reveal this or not crosses the line between ethics and morals.

Now, on the other hand, The St. Louis Post-Dispastch decided to identify the neighbor.  I believe that there are a few reasons that they choose to do this including that it prevents a witch-hunt situation. Also, by identifying the neighbor, it provides an opportunity for a balanced story where they can assure that no false information is given.  By looking at the situation through a Communitarianism perspective, I understand why they identified Drew. “Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions analyzed in light of their potential to impact society.” With this perspective, you put the safety and cares of the community first.  While, it might not benefit Drew, it keeps everyone else informed.  If I lived in that neighborhood, I would want to know who was behind it.  If not, I feel like I would always live in fear and not trust anyone around me.  It would be especially hard if I had young children because I would want to know whom I trusted them to be around.  I believe that this situation could be described as similar to how sex offenders must register.  Who is to say that she doesn’t do it again?  By releasing her information, you keep the community safe.  

I believe that each paper had valid reasons for their judgment calls.  They both considered several ethical issues such as privacy, harm, community, and justice, however I agree with the Posts decision to release her information.  When it comes down to it, I believe that you have to look past what yourself, or an individual, and concentrate on how your actions will affect the whole.  While the Journal tried to prevent harm on to Drew, they also put the community at stake and caused possible harm to them. Before you do something, you should be willing to accept the consequences. 

The problem with some social networking sites is that people are able to say whatever they want without any consequences.  It enables people to say whatever they want because they are able to hide behind a mask. At the same time, I do not believe that social networks should be responsible to monitoring every single thing that is said on their sites.  As I have stated before, people need to think about a situation before acting on it. The ENTIRE situation and all outcomes it might have.  How are networking sites to interpret what it is getting out of hand?  Is saying that you don’t like someone’s sweater, offensive?  How do they know if you are joking around or if that one comment could that push them over the edge?  People that use these sites should instead apply the same rules that we are discussing in class. Be respectful of others.  Consider who might be harmed by what you say.  Be honest and fair.  Consider the outcome of the community.  Own up when you are wrong.  Respect peoples privacy. Simply put be ethical.