Sorry saga continues

It seems authorities are finally going to try and find out who’s responsible for the dreadful Megan Had It Coming site, which was mentioned in a previous post

According to The Age:

Authorities are investigating whether an inflammatory blog purporting to be the work of a mother blamed for driving a neighbour’s teenage daughter to suicide is just another hoax in a sorry saga of hoaxes or the real thing.

The blog is hosted on the free Google Blogger site and comprises just three posts. The last one, dated December 3, is headlined I’m Lori Drew.

It is unlikely Lori Drew is to blame for the site. In any instance, why has Google allowed the site to stay uncensored? Google has the ability to identify when blogs contain objectionable content, so it is surprising this has not happened to Megan Had It Coming.  Surely Megan is entitled to be protected from cyberbullying (especially since she was not when she was alive), and given the ridiculous mob-like response to the sorry saga by some bloggers so do the Drew family. There is a lot of junk on the Internet, but this site deserves to be censored.   

Advertisements
Posted in blogosphere
7 comments on “Sorry saga continues
  1. Ken Lovell says:

    While I sympathise with the sentiments I would be disappointed if any blog host began to censor content on any grounds other than breaches of the law.

    People have always had to deal with vindictiveness and gossip and more sinister behaviour on the part of people who want to do them harm. The net is simply a new medium in which that can occur – and a comparatively benign one. I’d prefer to have someone slander me online if it releases their hostility than slash my tyres or burn down my house.

    Once we tell employees of a blog host they should start deleting stuff they don’t approve of, the consequences are unknowable but almost certainly undesirable.

  2. Paul Burns says:

    Ken,
    I truly abhor this new phenomenon of cyber-vindictiveness. Nevertheless, I agree with your observations absolutely.

  3. Darlene says:

    I would generally agree, except I think in a case like this, a child’s memory deserves to be protected. I think Google have identified content a lot less objectionable than this site.

  4. wbb says:

    Google can choose to refuse to host the content. I would. Very different thing to legal censorship. Let this “content provider” host their material on their own website.

    The reality is that the time involved in editing/refusing content is not going to appeal to the bean-counters at Google Inc, but.

  5. Darlene says:

    What a “content provider” they are.

    You’re no doubt correct about bean-counters and time and all that.

  6. Helen says:

    I agree. Refusing to host a site is not “censorship”. and maintaining hate material under the guise of “free speech” is the same old tactic.

    I don’t believe the Megan Had it Coming site is Lori Drew’s, but I think the slimebucket who wrote it should be identified and prosecuted. yeah, in my dreams.

    Do I feel sorry for Lori Drew for any of the blowback which has resulted from her mind-bogglingly cruel and stupid actions? No, no and no. “Unfair” has no real meaning here. Suck it up, sister.

  7. Darlene says:

    “I don’t believe the Megan Had it Coming site is Lori Drew’s, but I think the slimebucket who wrote it should be identified and prosecuted. yeah, in my dreams.”

    Alas, it won’t happen.

    Well, I think the problem mostly rest with the rest of the Drews. The whole story is so f**king awful….

Comments are closed.

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: