There's actually been a discussion about this on an American friend of mine's wall today, and he makes some really interesting points:
Essentially, I think I agree with him (Scott, that is, not the kid this thread centres around!!). This guy's a complete 'douche' (useful word...), and deserves an awful lot of flack to go his way, but does he deserve this life-long stigma that he will now have, thanks to the viral nature of the internet?
It's much like what's happening with Chessington right now. Chances are they are 100% to blame for what happened to that girl, but as of yet we don't know, yet still a lynch-mob attacks with pitchforks raised, instead of calm discussion.
This is the curse of social media - it takes nothing
for things to flare up and go very big, very quickly. This guy, right now, at 14, is a complete douche, but is it fair that at, say, 22, when his views may have changed, when he may have radically matured, that a quick Google will reveal that at 14 he was a douche? Weren't we all, even if to much lesser degrees?
He needs to be severely dealt with locally, not internationally, IMO.