I can understand that some people have trouble grasping just how immediate, intense, global and overwhelming the internet can be to a child, but this is ignorance. Your inability to grasp that neither this child nor her parents were in control is just that -- ignorance.
Any adult who seeks children on the net and then abuses that child to suicide is a murderer, plain as if they had shot that kid to death. The law needs to adapt to modern technology and treat the internet as the weapon it can be.
She might have very well been failed to some degree, but in the end what she did with her life she is solely held responsible for.By making this claim, you are directly implying that NO ONE else is responsible for said action.....even if the action was performed by a child. A child's "social" actions are most often a direct result of the level socialization which the child as attained. If NO ONE else should be held responsible for the child's actions, then we must preclude that NO ONE else should be held accountable for their socialization or "up-bringing" either.
If you claim that someone is "solely responsible" for committing a murder.....are you not blaming them for the murder and thereby "passing judgement"?
Your argument here is simply ripe with flawed logic.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan