Forum Moderators: open
A 14-year-old Travis County girl who said she was sexually assaulted by a Buda man she met on MySpace.com sued the popular social networking site Monday for $30 million, claiming that it fails to protect minors from adult sexual predators......Attorneys general from five states, including Texas, have asked MySpace.com to provide more security, the lawsuit said. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to the MySpace.com chief executive officer May 22, asking him to require users to verify their age and identity with a credit card or verified e-mail account...
...Lauren Gelman, associate director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, said she does not think MySpace is legally responsible for what happens away from its site.
Damn! Watch this one. May have huge implications for user generated content sites.
[edited by: engine at 4:32 pm (utc) on June 20, 2006]
[edit reason] Added quote to link [/edit]
not the girls fault,
not her parents fault,
not the fault of MySpace,
not the guys fault (sooner or later someone is bound to argue that),
it must have been the fault of the infamous "they".
There's plenty of blame to go around, I wonder if any of the involved parties are decent enough to accept their share of it.
As far as other people sharing the blame: Actions or inactions have consequences. If myspace is to blame, then I'd say that parents and the girl deserve at least 99% of the blame.
This must be one of the nastiest, and incosiderate (I could go on) things I have ever read at WebmasterWorld.Step back and imagine if she were your daughter.
Well that’s a bit harsh. I don't consider myself "older" I'm pretty young and I know a lot about even younger people for example my 14 year old brother. I know that there are warnings everywhere including TV and the papers and online about the dangers of meeting people from online.
I know that my little brother is a rule breaker typical 14 year old pain and I know he knows all about the dangers of being online. My mother doesn't take a large interest of what he's doing online but she knows the dangers as well and has told him all about it etc etc.
The point im trying to make here is that even although myspace has a duty of protecting its users by giving advice (at which it does well) I still believe it’s the fault of the 14 year old girl. I’m sorry if it annoys you, and makes you think im naïve, but that’s what I believe and even if it was my 14 year old brother that met someone online I would call him a stupid, stupid boy and he should know better as its everywhere that’s it.
I also know that my brother and many other younger people lie about they’re age. They lie that they are really older, for example my little brothers friend's myspace profile I know he’s really 15 but his profile says he’s 17 from looking at his pictures he could pass as 17 – so that’s just some more food for thought.
That aside lets not forget about the pervert – we should shoot all perverts, rapists, murderers and all evil. Live in a place of equality and harmony.
Until I hear stories of actual harm to the girl, I am saying no one is at fault.
Who was hurt here? A 14 year old girl who chased after a boy and ended up in the backseat of a car?
How many guys reading this thread were 18-21 year old kids and dated younger girls? How many dated younger girls that turned out to be younger than they said? 14 is a bit young, but knowing teenage girls - she probably told him she was older to begin with.
I think there is a whole lot more here to this story...
Brett,
I am taking the article at face value and assuming that she was sexually assaulted, as in rape, and not consensual sex (even though legally she cannot consent).
If they had sex with her as a willing participant, and now she, or her parents, are playing victims, I say screw them. Sure 14 is young by today's standards, but she knew what she was doing. If they guy has to be punished, she must not be rewarded for her actions.
Think I am offbase about NBC? Here is one of their classic scripts. Is is another one of their anti internet formula peices:
[msnbc.msn.com...]Actually I don't see this as being anti-internet at all. Anti MySpace? Perhaps. Anti chat rooms? Perhaps
So many people in this thread have been going on about educating the parents. Isn't that exactly what this is helping to do? Remember that this was done by the Connecticut police as part of an exercise to gauge how easy it was to do this stuff. Or am I missing something?
If myspace is to blame, then I'd say that parents and the girl deserve at least 99% of the blame.Something wrong with your logic I think ;o¦
but knowing teenage girls - she probably told him she was older to begin with.It is dangerous to make this assumption. We cannot base an argument in a case like on assumption.
but knowing teenage girls - she probably told him she was older to begin with.
It is dangerous to make this assumption. We cannot base an argument in a case like on assumption.
If I take a look at the "average" 14 year old girl and/or boy here in Southern California, I'd have to come to the same assumptions as above.
Teenagers today are much different than they were back in the 60s/70s/80s. There's a whole new breed of "aliens" waiting to take over the world. ;)
They have been running these stories over-n-over for the last year. They also did the same thing in the late 90's. It is clear to me, that NBC has a clear plan of attack on the internet (eg: the biggest competitor they have ever had)
Isn’t this like putting a price on rape?
If the boy is joining the lawsuit, then can any body please tell how exactly MySpace is at fault here? I mean person who has raped a kid is not at fault, but a service he “abused” is?
I find this appalling that some would rather blame the system then trying any thing to prevent this!
I think it's fascinating, but I don't want to speculate much about the case because there's a lot that we don't know yet. Did she clearly state her age as 14, both on the site and in person? Or did she try to deceive him into thinking she was older? What did he tell her about his own age? The one fact that neither party disputes is that the sex was consensual ... the rest of the facts have yet to be discovered. He's clearly in trouble for having sex with a minor - whether or not he knew she was 14. Mistake of fact is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, right? But based on what we know right now, I don't think the boy, at this point, deserves to be labeled "rapist" or "sex offender."
As for MySpace - they've got a site where a LOT of underage kids hang out. So they've got an obligation to offer some sort of protection to those kids. The question I wonder about is whether or not the warnings and whatnot they already had up are enough, or will they be forced to do more as a result of this lawsuit?
I do think the burden needs to be on parents to regulate their kids' activities. Ignorance of the technology isn't an excuse - if it's something their kids are into, then it is their duty as a parent to learn about it in order to be able to talk to their kids about it and police it, if necessary.
* You have to understand what is like being the parent of a teenager before blaming the parents.
* You have to understand that more than a few parents have no interest in computers, don't have one, don't want one and don't even know that this problem exists. That is their choice and it is not necessarily a real failure on their part. That is why the burden of responsibility must be with the provider, just like the bar owner in Hanna's example
* You have to understand that very few people are like us who spend a large part of our lives immersed in IT and the Internet.
* You have to understand that kids need some freedom to allow them to grow up.
* You have to understand that most teenagers are convinced that they know better than their parents.
* You have to understand that is a teenager's duty to disobey the rules. That is why people like the Rolling Stones, Marilyn Manson, Eminem et al were/are so popular.
* You have to understand that that is why you disobeyed your parents as a teenager. (Well, didn't you?)
What an excuse filled approach to parenting.
Of course it is hard, of course they will be interested in things we don't care or have an interest in, of course they will rebel, lie to us, ignore us, be secretive about the things they do, want room to grow, like music we hate, disobey and on and on and on.
None of this matters, if you don't try just because of the above things what are you teaching? Why have kids?
If it gets tough, seems like a waste of time or appears like a lost effort we should just give up and write off their behavior as "typical tennagers"?
Can parents know and "police" every aspect of their teenagers lives? Of course not but is that an excuse not to try to be as involved as possible no matter how much they may say they hate you, how lame you are, how much work and effort are required on your part or how unintersting their interests may be?
My parents to this day ask me about what I do for a living, even though they really don't understand. My Dad has even done a little bit of online marketing himself.
It's not their passion but its my passion so they take an interest. They ask questions. They listen to my answers even if it bores them to tears or sounds like a bunch of nonsense.
A 14 year old that doesn't know that meeting up with strangers is risky has parent's that have failed on some level and "teenage rebellion" is a very old and very tired excuse.
[edited by: jkwilson78 at 3:21 pm (utc) on June 22, 2006]
A store or a nightclub can be sued if someone who was drinking in their establishment drives home and kills someone on the way. A nightclub/bar can be sued if they allow behavior that leads to death or injury. MySpace has done just that.
The bar analogy in incorrect. That is not what Myspace did.
I understand that if a bar serves an obviously inebriated person and a car accident results, the bar can be held liable.
But the 19 year old was not obviously a rapist.
A better analogy is that a liquor store knows that some people will drink the liquor and drive a car. If a sober person walks into the store and buys a fifth and then drinks, drives and wrecks, is the store liable? They did not make him prove he wasn't some one who might do that.
Ignorance of the technology isn't an excuse - if it's something their kids are into, then it is their duty as a parent to learn about it in order to be able to talk to their kids about it and police it, if necessary.
Even if they are not aware of it and the kids do it at school/in the library/at their friend's house/at an Internet cafe, etc?
Do you think that it is reasonable to ask parents to quiz their kids about absolutely everything they have done while out of the house? Be honest, what would you think if a kid told you her/his parents insisted that she/he report back on their every move while not at home? Do you honestly think that this would be considered reasonable behaviour?
The fact is that if parents told their kids not to use chat rooms many of them would still do it, just like they drink beer/smoke tobacco/take drugs/have sex/get pregnant. Most reasonable parents tell them not do these things too.
As I said earlier, if the parents are to be held responsible then why don't the chat rooms insist that they have to provide active consent for their kids to join? This is not exactly unusual. It happens in many other spheres but I'll tell you why it doesn't happen on the Internet in one word. MONEY.
But something bad happens...
It's their fault....MySpace enabled bad things to happen to me...
Kinda like...
Google is great, I've got great rankings, I'm making money...
Then rankings change..
Google sucks, they are so out to get the little guy, it's a conspiracy, it's not fair...how can they make algorithm changes..it hurts my business.
I love fast food, it tastes good.
Gain a few pounds.
Fast food is horrible. they intentionally sold me fattening food so I would gain weight and get out of shape. I'm going to sue.
Everyone's fault but your own...blame shifting and shirking personal responsibility.
You shouldn't let kids have full access to a website that is been bombereded with a lot of adult content.
And assuming that we all accept that it is not unknown for teenagers to disobey their parents how would you stop them?
The one fact that neither party disputes is that the sex was consensual
Mistake of fact is not an excuse in the eyes of the law, right? But based on what we know right now, I don't think the boy, at this point, deserves to be labeled "rapist" or "sex offender."
So why not sue MSN messanger? My son could easly type in our home address to someone. Someone can contact him without him knowing them. If MSN doesn't make it so you can't type addresses in then maybe we should sue them.
And what about email? Can't someone contact my son through email? That should be regulated. I don't want to have to explain to my son what is allowed and what isn't and actually try to enforce those things. I should just be able to rely on hotmail to do the right things and make sure my son doesn't send an email with contact information.
If we can just get everyone else to make sure my kid is safe and doing the right thing then I can get back to Bingo and my soaps, not like it is my job to raise him... is it?
Don't blame the teen, don't blame the parent, blame the guy who made a website, or even more to the point, blame the guy with deep pockets, because without money in the equation... no laywer will sue.
If the child had all the right information about what you do and don't do online... And was told that you can't meet strangers from the Internet... and then she went ahead and did it anyway then chalk it up as a learning experience for her. A tough lesson learned... yes ... but it is not upto Myspace to put these controls in place. And it is certainly not their fault. Would they have sent Myspace a wedding invite if this guy turned out to be "the one"?
If I tell my son to not jump off a bridge into shallow water and then he does it I am not going to sue the bridge manufacture because they failed to put the safe guards in place. If he wanted to jump he was going to jump and that is that.
[edited by: Demaestro at 4:17 pm (utc) on June 22, 2006]
legally speaking you're right, no one is disputing that, but we all know that it's just a technicality. She may have not "consented," but apparently she agreed, and wanted to have to have sex with the football player.
As far as being a "sex offender" read this: "He grabbed girl's arm -- now he's a sex offender" (from Chicago Sun Times)
[findarticles.com...] . This may be an an extreme case, but you will get an idea about how laws can be unfair, or plain stupid.
>> If that act didn’t get you labeled a sex offender, 2/3 of the sex offenders would be removed from the database.
is there a quota to meet? Or are we trying to register as many people as possible, even if they are not likely to be a bigger threat than most?
You stated that companies/individuals must put safety controls in place, but follow that through to it's logical end. Where do the controls stop? Where to we as people get to use things that were made as we want to?
I mean you could argue shoe laces are dangerous, yes I warned my son to tie his shoes, yes he knows to tie his shoes but it is still possible for them to come undone and him trip. Should they forsee this? In your eyes yes, and they should do something about it, or else they should pay via a lawsuit.
We are humans living in a free world, we have free will and we shouldn't take that away to ensure that nothing bad ever happens. Cars are made and people die in them. Bridges are built and people jump off them. Websites are made and people meet on them.
So what?!?!
We as people have to learn what is right and wrong and act accordingly, there is no guarentee in life that everything will work out ok, and when things go bad we have to learn from them and adjust our behavior to prevent repeats of those things.
What is the girl being taught when her parents say....
"Well dear, you broke the rules, you knew better, it is all over the news and is the topic of many shows of how you shouldn't meet strangers on the Internet.... but this isn't your fault because someone else made available to you an avenue to break the rules so how could you have possibly done the right thing?"
BeeDeeDubbleU, your last post could just as easily be used to remove all responsiblity a parent could possibly have for their children's actions.
Not quite, but if a 14 year old girl on her way home from school is picked up on the street by a plausible adult and sexually abused is this the parent's fault? I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that it is.
Now if a 14 year old girl in chatroom is picked up by a plausible adult and sexually abused is this the parent's fault? I am afraid that I don't see much difference.
If the parents are to be held responsible for what their kids do on chat lines then the chat lines must ask the parents for permission to allow the kids to join. Simple isn't it?
As far as being a "sex offender" read this: "He grabbed girl's arm -- now he's a sex offender" (from Chicago Sun Times)
[findarticles.com...] . This may be an an extreme case, but you will get an idea about how laws can be unfair, or plain stupid.
is there a quota to meet? Or are we trying to register as many people as possible, even if they are not likely to be a bigger threat than most?
He’s the one who chose to have sex with a 14-year old. He deserves to be labeled what he is, a sex offender.
why don't the chat rooms insist that they have to provide active consent for their kids to join? This is not exactly unusual. It happens in many other spheres
Show how us how to do that over the internet.
Boy do I remember my teenage years, and I could see me wanting to meet a 19 year old boy and possibly skipping school and meeting him for consental sex. But I can guarantee if my mom would have found out she would have kicked my butt, grounded me for years and would have put the blame on me and the boy, not the phone, school, roller rink etc where I would have met the boy. I was raised with a high sense of personal responsbility and so are my girls.
I have clearly taught them that meeting strangers is deadly, doing drugs, smoking and drinking, stealing etc is wrong. If they choose to do something they have been taught is wrong they know they will be appropriately punished. If they thought I would blame the online service and sue for millions of dollars instead of punishing them, would they think twice - heck yes.
I can only protect them from so much. If something would happen to them, as a mom I would feel it was my fault, but by giving them the tools and personal responsibility they will be able to function well past 18 and into adulthood.
How can a child who has been monitored 24x7 for 18 years cope when all monitoring stops when they go to college? If they don't know right and wrong and have been given the chance to make their own decisions what is to stop them from meeting that pervert when they are 18 and you are not sitting over their shoulder to stop them. They need the tools to stop themselves.
Now if a 14 year old girl in chatroom is picked up by a plausible adult and sexually abused is this the parent's fault?
I would assume it is not the parent's fault, because I assume they preached to the girl not to get into the car with strangers, but she did it anyway.
I assume it was not the parents' fault, but I KNOW it was not the chat room owner's fault.
if a 14 year old girl on her way home from school is picked up on the street by a plausible adult and sexually abused is this the parent's fault? I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that it is.
It isn't the parents fault... of course not... but it it the city's fault? I mean she was on a sidewalk that they built. They should have put precautions in place right? Of course not.
Now if a 14 year old girl in chatroom is picked up by a plausible adult and sexually abused is this the parent's fault? I am afraid that I don't see much difference.
The difference in the real world someone can grab you and FORCE you into a car or whatever. On a website when someone asks you to meet them you can close the window/exit the chat room/call your parent and ask/walk away. Alot easier to take ones self out of the situtation don't you think.... That is a major difference.....Again the parents fault?... not if they have taught her better... the websites fault.... NO!... The kids fault? Ding ding we have a winner.
If this girl had killed someone she would be tried as an adult and sent to prison as an adult and the argument would be that she is old enough to know right from wrong. Why is her responsibilty diminished just becuase she was the victem?
If the parents are to be held responsible for what their kids do on chat lines then the chat lines must ask the parents for permission to allow the kids to join. Simple isn't it?
I hope you are joking when you say it is a simple thing.... How you know the age of the visitor to your site? How you know who is giving permission? How you validate the permission slip? How you know who can give permission to who? How you know who requires permission? And on and on and on.....
You know what is simple, teaching your kids right from wrong, being there for them when they make mistakes and helping them to learn from them. Again what are the parents of this child teaching her when she does all the wrong things and they point the finger somewhere else?
It is not reasonable to expect the Internet to raise your kids or to have all the safe guards in place. Let me ask you a question Bumble... If Myspace put in all the controls you can think of... Would you then call that site "safe" and never moniter your child's activity on it? Would you just assume that since they have "safeguards" in place that nothing bad could ever happen and that you could stop worrying? If so that is dangerous. It is like saying the schools are safe cuase they have a metal detector at the front doors, so you don't have to teach them how to remove themselves from a bad situation.
