Journal AppleButter's Journal: MySpace Not Guilty in Child Assault Case 228
The Washington Post reports that a Texas judge dismissed a $30 million case against MySpace for their role in a child assault case. 19-year old Peter Solis lied about his age on MySpace to gain the confidence the confidence of a 13-year old girl. The judge ruled, "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."
What do you think? Good call? (Score:3, Funny)
Texas Judges (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame, isn't it. I felt he should have at least gotten a good neutering! Granted, some of the responsibility lies with girl's parents, but that doesn't lessen the crime at all.
Frivolous suits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Frivolous suits (Score:4, Interesting)
If MySpace was a carrier - you'd have a point. But MySpace has nothing in common with the phone company (while the ISP providing acess to MySpace does). Don't confuse levels.
I if built a building - and allowed kids to come in and hang out, decorate, dance, whatever... Under the law I'd sure as hell be liable if a adult or older child was preying on younger children in my building - but the transport system they used to get there wouldn't be. (Check out the legal concepts of in loco parentis and attractive nusiance.) Why should MySpace be any different?
On the contrary - a verdict for the plaintiff would have been a wonderful precedent. Why? Because it would establish that the owner of a space is responsible for what happens there of he can reasonably prevent it. Whether that space is physical *or* virtual. It's the same as the pool in my backyard - if I don't take adequate measures to limit acess to it, then I am liable if a child drowns himself in it. (Hence, my backyard is fenced and has a locked gate as per code.) I don't see whay virtual spaces should be exempt from the same kind of regulation.
On the contrary - reasonable regulation and openess and freedom are not mutually exclusionary. Consider the Federal highway system - anyone can acess it and go anywhere it goes as and when they will. But they may not drive on in such a fashion as to endanger the life and health of others. I can use the telephone system for a variety of purposes, entertainment or business - but I may not use telemarketing except under a fairly strict set of circumstances.
And if you want the internet to open and free - then that applies to spammers and sites that open a dozen pornographic popups when you visit it as much as it does to MySpace. You can't have it both ways.
And I find it bitterly amusing that the same Slashdot community who wants to put the blame on the parents in this case - raises a huge outcry whenever someone floats the idea of logging software as limiting the rights of the child. You can't have it both ways folks - either the parent is reponsible for the behavior (and thus has the authority to limit those rights), or they aren't and don't. Responsobilitiy and authority are twin sides of the same coin.
Re:Frivolous suits (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, I don't know of anyone here who disputes that parents have the right to do those things should they choose to do so.
And the internet is held to a vastly different standard of proof from a physical building...In the case of a physical building you can quite easily require identification from every person before they gain entrance. On the internet, there is no way to make sure that the information which you collected accurately represents the person who is using your service. No way. To hold MySpace accountable for user created content when they have no possible way of accurately identifying their userbase is absurd.
To hold them accountable would literally kill the internet in this country, because every site could be held liable for every post, and, even more frightening, all real world actions that occur because of that post.
Excellent ruling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's fine in some fantasy fuzzy world where being your child's best friend is 100% percent certain to work. But it doesn't. Sometimes a parent needs to be a parent.
Re:Frivolous suits (Score:5, Insightful)
And, even better, you want the government to have the authority to do witch hunts through ISP subscriber lists trying to find illegal material, and you don't see anything at all wrong with that? Very nice.
There are certainly a lot of privacy advocates here, and I'm generally considered a bit fringe because I don't believe in a right to privacy anywhere outside of your personal property/personal space.By comparison, you're not even on the same planet with the rest of us. Take your distopian nanny state and go move to china or n. korea if you don't like it here.
Re:Frivolous suits (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know it's the same person? There have been more than a few password hacking scams; how do you know that the user today is the same as the user yesterday?
I'm not sure how you can call MySpace and YouTube monopolies...Both companies are leaders in a crowded field, with a very low barrier to entry. MySpace is cool now, but "cool" is ephemeral, and I'll wager that they are as well, to be replaced by the next big thing with the kiddies. YouTube has the potential to survive, but it's so mainstream it leaves plenty of room for niche competitors.
I'm tired of everyone blaming their children's behavior on everyone but themselves. It is not MySpace's job to be your babysitter. It is your job to monitor your child's behavior, and if your child meets a guy online, travels three states away and then gets raped, my question is, "WTF were you doing that whole time?"
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that MySpace should not be the same as your pool in your backyard. You don't see why virtual spaces should be exempt from the same kind of regulation? How about because the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I find it bitterly amusing that the same Slashdot community who wants to put the blame on the parents in this case - raises a huge outcry whenever someone floats the idea of logging software as limiting the rights of the child.
We don't raise outcry when parents log their kids' behaviour. Hell there have been a good bunch of threads where slashdotters discussed keylogging spouses/[boy|girl]friends. What we tend to object to tends to be more of the following:
1) Porn blocking software that blocks legite
Re: (Score:2)
First day on Slashdot or first day off of mind altering substances? Because that outcry is raised every time such software is touted. Every time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to fit the definition of a mall. Kids go there to hang out, and the girls and boys get dressed up to show off for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Texas Judges (Score:5, Informative)
Take my parents for example. When we got the internet in my home for the first time, my computer was moved to the family room. My parents didn't stand over me watching what I did, but they at least were in the same room when I was online. In addition, they would check the history to see where I had been.
As time went on, they began trusting my judgement more and more. My mom even had one of her friends start talking to me without telling me who she really was in an attempt to see if I would give out sensitive personal information. When she was satisfied that I wouldn't, the computer was moved back into my room and I was allowed to have privacy online (yes, that means they also stopped looking at where I was going.) Every now and then, either she or my step-dad would pose as a random person in an attempt to make sure I was still being safe with my conversations (I was a chat room fanatic for a while).
Exactly 1 year after we got the net (8 months of which the computer was in the family room) and for my 12th birthday, they bought me a brand spankin' new computer and VERY rarely checked on me again...I think the last time they did was when I was 14 (I'm 23 now, for reference.)
So you see? Parents can ensure their kids are safe without being imposing. When we first got the 'net, they sat me down and explained what is ok (first name, age, state, etc.) and not ok (last name, full address, phone number, social, birthdate, etc.) to tell people online.
It worked splendidly.
While I don't agree... (Score:3, Interesting)
That your other post should have been modded troll, you are still incorrect. This line of thinking does not give itself over to slipper-slope thinking, because societies, including ours, have the legal capability to decide where certain responsibilities shift from parent to child. Before that line, it is the parents' responsibility for the child's behavior. After, it is the child's. Charles Manson, for you example, was an adult when he committed his crimes, and so was legally responsible for them, and his
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas for stealing bubblegum, it's a lot easier for "Society" to say to little Johnny: "Bad boy, don't do it again!", and then tell the parents "Hey, you're supposed to stop little Johnny from stealing stuff!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, some governments agree --- hence, juveniles may be tried as an adult if they are guilty of offenses like homicide. Do you see any inconsistency here?
No kidding.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas Judges (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm [state.tx.us]
Compare that to the race statistics for murders nationwide that *should* be available here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_cr
I say should be because I can't currently view the page...my office's content filter doesn't like it. It should show that roughly half the murders committed in the US were committed by blacks, the other half by whites. Hispanic is not considered a race by the FBI, and are grouped in with whites--you'll need to account for that when viewing the table in the first link.
It would appear that the death row in Texas fairly accurately reflects national murder trends, with blacks grossly overrepresenting themselves by commission of the crime.
Tangent: There are roughly six times as many whites in the US as there are blacks. According to the FBI statistics, they split the murder statistics equally...making a black person six times more likely to commit murder than a white person. Of course, some 85+% of their victims are black; as a white man, I'm six times more likely to be killed by a white person.
Right now some people who know me by a different name from a different web forum just figured out who I am
But... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The facts are that the types of crimes blacks tend to commit that lend themselves t the death penalty by far out number the same for whites. This isn't neccesarily racist either. Living conditions tend to dictate the types of crimes people are invovled in. Poor people commit different styles of robery then rich people do and
Re:Texas Judges (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh huh. So basically five out of six black convicts were framed for crimes committed by whites? Gotcha.
For proof, look at any confirmed serial killer, they are always white. Now ask yourself why that isn't the case in normal murders. Does it make sense? No.
Hyperbole, and grossly inaccurate. It's hard to get good statistics on serial killers, but I'll agree that whites dominate the category. Of course, serial killers are a specific kind of murderer with radically different motives than an armed robber or jilted lover. The profile for a serial killer generally indicates a measure of wealth...it seems that poverty produces few serial killers. Last I heard, blacks were three times more likely to be poor, so of course their serial killer rates are low.
Like with Hurricane Katrina, it takes disasters like this to show how rasist society really is. When a cop is looking for a murderer, he's 10x more like to detain a black person than a white person. Now ask yourself why do all the convicted "murderers" are black.
Proof? Proof? Proof? (/Ben Stein)
I suspect if you could administer a 100% accurate lie detector test, the black populations would be cut by 80% in prisons and the white population would skyrocket.
And I suspect if you actually put any stock in what you were saying, you wouldn't be posting AC. I also strongly suspect that all your statistics are hand-delivered by a proctologist...they were too deep for you to find without help.
Here's my typical rant on this topic:
There is a culture in America that appeals to the poor urban population, a population that is steadily becoming black in most of the country. It's a culture that glorifies violence, demonizes education, and preaches that success can only be had through conflict or physical prowess. It, like a lot of cultures born out of poverty, keeps those born into it uneducated and poor. The difference between this and other poverty cultures is that violence is a major part of daily life, and that is carried by those who rise out poverty--just look at professional athletes and rap stars. Because this culture maintains ignorance and preaches oppression, no outside influence is going to undo it. It's up to the millions of blacks in America who want the same things the rest of us want to put a stop to the cycle of poverty, ignorance, and violence that is plaguing them as a people.
Re:Texas Judges/culture (Score:5, Insightful)
The very important super extra critical idea everyone needs to get somehow, is that you are free to join any culture you want.. Want to be an up-tight protestant disciplinarian but your skin is really dark? That's ok! Want to be cyberpunk?.. well that demographic is already open to anybody, though some ghetto people might not realize it because they are functionally illiterate. Etc..
Then, we can go one step further and criticize cultures for their failings, perhaps even combine the best aspects of different cultures. How about combining the work ethic, systematic approach of anglo-american culture with the care for your wife and family from mexican culture.. lose the isolation and lack of solidarity from anglo culture, lose machoism and the pressure for total conformity from mexican culture, compromise and just have 2 kids.. what do you get? A better outcome for all. I'd bet on it.
Multiculturalism is a dead-end street because it commits you to absurd ideas, for example you'd have to say that the ghetto gang culture of macho violence is as hunky-dory as anything else, because it's right for them, within their own culture, and follows the rules which the majority of their subgroup has effectively agreed to. Hey if you think that right and wrong are totally relative, and you think it's just fine and dandy if someone gets shot, or lives in fear of getting shot, then this view makes sense. To me, it's pretty nutty.
It also had an inherent contradiction. Everyone's culture is equally as good, so everyone is as likely to be successful. But, at the same time, multiculti advocates want to say that everyone's culture's way of life is just as healthy as anyone else's. So a culture that does not think it is important to read to or otherwise educate your kids (especially girls) is somehow as likely to produce a successful citizen and also can't be criticized for not reading to their kids? Am I missing something here? Or is the key that multiculti argues ultimately that a sub-literate person who lives on nothing but second-hand folk knowledge and knows little about anything outside their subgroup is just as good as anybody else? So in other words, an anti-social gangsta from the ghetto who looks after his peeps and is fairly likely to bust a cap in your ass for complaining about his nightclub-class radio playing 12 hours a day is someone you're just as happy living with as someone who has been training from day 1 to be quiet, thoughtful, and kind? Does that make any kind of sense?
No..... and it's the culture at fault. It's time to take culture off the holy dais where it sits, untouchable. Let's get religion down while we're at it and kick both balls around. We're not going good places otherwise.
-p
Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Although the courts have certainly produced their fair share of WTFs, I believe the judicial system is the last bastion of hope for the American people. (And the Canadian people too, in about a decade.)
Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think? Good call?
Is the phone company responsible for verifying the age of people talking so a 19 year old can't lie to a 13 year old and then commit a crime? How about newspaper personal ads, are the newspaper's responsible? What ISPs who provide e-mail accounts? You know those companies that create voice boxes for people with throat cancer? Are they responsible for verifying the age of the person using them so they cannot be misused for this same purpose?
Blaming the medium or the tools is just plain stupid. This was, of course, a correct decision
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think? Good call?
Is the phone company responsible for verifying the age of people talking so a 19 year old can't lie to a 13 year old and then commit a crime? How about newspaper personal ads, are the newspaper's responsible? What ISPs who provide e-mail accounts? You know those companies that create voice boxes for people with throat cancer? Are they responsible for verifying the age of the person using them so they cannot be misused for this same purpose?
Blaming the medium or the tools is just plain stupid. This was, of course, a correct decision
I thought that the courts had piled up enough decisions thus far to render further decisions unnecessary. At what point do public websites obtain "common carrier" status? Can anyone think of a reason what we wouldn't want this to happen?
--
http://www.thestevensons.org/ [thestevensons.org]
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
As long as websites aren't advancing claims regarding user authenticity, then I think they should have common carrier status. But the entire web shouldn't automatically receive it, it depends on the context. Caveat Emptor for any site that's not making specific claims regarding the authenticity of their content. For sites making claims, it would be taken on a case-by-case basis, and there may well be reasonable grounds for complaints and lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got an even better comparison. Do we sue the city when someone is raped or molested in public? The technology exists to prevent it - just cover the streets with cops! Of course it would be horribly expensive, but the fact remains that we have the ability to stop if if we make some hard decisions, that will utterly cripple our city, drain the coffers, and make life basically unlivable. But we can stop public rape!
But of course that would be utterly ridiculous, and the only reason that a lawsuit like this can even proceed is that it's computer-related, and most people have no clue about computers, so they are afraid of them, and that fear can be used. Kind of sounds like something else going on in our (American) society right now...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with everything in your point. I just think that limiting this to the "medium or tools" is one step towards making internet laws and physical laws seperate. What this man did is illegal. It does not matter if he did it over the internet or at the local mall. Anyone that did not have a legal resposibility to prevent this should not be held liable. If it occured at a local club tha
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed... but, read closer:
The problem is that the judge did not say "The plaintiffs are teh asshats for even bringing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oblivious (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, if only someone put together a list of phone numbers and published them... let's say in a big thick book. Then they could sell ad space and make millions!
Re: (Score:2)
They could even advertise their book on TV! Imagine if they got someone like, maybe, um...David Carradine as a spokesperson! Infinite information!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a significant difference. THe phone company doesnt list your age and gender....
Suppose I list a business number as Paul's Adult Entertainment, but I'm only 13 and my real name in Cindy? Should the phone company check to see if I'm an adult male? Do they have to?
The phone company does peer-to-peer networking as much as MySpace does.
My only dismay at this judgement is that that the reason is interferring with MySpaces business, rather than assert use
Re: (Score:2)
placing blame (Score:2, Interesting)
It's really amazing what's passed off as someone else's fault when the blame should have been placed on the people passing it. Congrats to the judge for making a great call and boohiss to the parents for trying to close down our beloved myspace...
home of over a million unread emo thoughts.
What?!? No one's reading emo thoughts? (Score:2, Funny)
Yep, the only call (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a ridiculous and frivolous suit. MySpace has no obligation to verify the truth of any information any random person posts. They aren't bondsmen.
The ramifications if this were taken seriously would be huge. Every web forum, including slashdot, would have to perform thorough background checks with 3 forms of government ID, before accepting members.
Re:Yep, the only call (Score:5, Funny)
I should file a 30 million dollar suit against slashdot, because someone put up a link that said it was an article about the SCO/IBM lawsuit, but was really a picture of a mans grotesquely distended asshole.
Same thing, really.
I TRUSTED YOU SLASHDOT how could you let this happen.
Re:Yep, the only call (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Link please.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears that your sig is correct; you do in fact need no instructions to know how to rock.
Thumbs up (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the parent's responsibility to keep an eye on their kid, including their internet activity (even if that is inconvenient or time-consuming for the parent).
Suing Myspace is like suing the phone company - they're only the medium, ma'am.
yes, good call (Score:3, Funny)
Bad reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Although the judge's conclusion was correct, the reasoning he applied was flawed: it's not that MySpace shouldn't be liable because its business model depends on it, it's that MySpace shouldn't be liable because it's the parents' responsibility to care for their kids, and MySpace isn't anybody's parent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And so what? If that were the legal requirement, then the only proper course of action would be to enforce it even if it did result in MySpace having to shut down. Lucky for us and MySpace, DOPA (or "son of DOPA") isn't law so it wasn't a requirement (and therefore wasn't enforced).
But the point is this: any kind of concern for "business models" is entirely irrelevant regardless, because it's the court's job to enforce the law, not give corporate handouts!
About time ... (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to finally accept that it's just not possible to correctly validate the information that everyone gives you online.
For the same reason they won't be able to identify when people claim to be younger, they won't be able to stop kids from saying they're old enough to be there.
Depending on the level of court making this decision (and wether or not this establishes precedent) this might make it more difficult to sa, for example, that porn vendors are responsible for confirming that all applicants aren't kids or registered sex offenders. It's simply not possible to do it.
Cheers
Good riddance. (Score:2)
you know (Score:5, Insightful)
I can attest that at 19, he wasn't quite at her level then. At 28, he still isn't now, but thats another story
But I digress... and far. This is an issue of assault more than age. Who cares how old he was? What he did was wrong at any age where the person can tell right from wrong. I really don't see how age verification will help. 13 year olds arn't that hard to talk into doing things that their authority figures don't approve of, hell he might have had an easier time with his real age... 13 year olds think 19 year olds are cool and mature.
The reason I say I want to know more about it, was I saw those dateline shows where they caught and outed a bunch of guys who did this stuff and interviewed them. It was sobering. Sobering that it was happening, and sobering to see these guys interviewd.
They seemed.... mostly normal. The only thing really different about them seemed to be that they seemed rather socially undeveloped. I really got the feeling they were going after young easily influenced girls because, they seemed to lack the social skills to get a girl their own age. As a slashdot geek, I am pretty familiar with some of the behavious.
I guess what bugs me, is I saw myself at different points in my life in their stories and thought, that with a slightly different values, and influences in my life, could I have been one of these guys showing up at a 13 year olds house with a six pack of cheap malt beverages?
While its easy to deamonize people who try to do, or do bad things, and we have to deal with this from a criminal justice standpoint when it happens. However, shouldn't we be looking at our society and how we can help to not create people who are in the situation where a 13 year old starts to look like a viable option?
It seems to me like these guys needed something. It wasn't a 13 year old girl they really needed, but it wasn't anything that time in jail was going to fix either. Most of them had even seen the show in the past, so the threat of incarceration certainly wasn't stopping them.
I think it behooves us to understand these issues at a deeper level, and try to solve them from their source rather than their symptoms.
-Steve
Article details are wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Admittedly I was ignoring the fact that "sexual assault" includes "consensual" sex if the law says one of the parties "couldn't consent". The difference between everyday and technical legal use of terms can be head spinning.
There
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One episode, however, had them posing as a 15 year old girl. Just under the legal age of 16 - I remember them distinctly saying that, in the chat, something like "i'll be 16 in a month". They engaged in lots of explicit chat, and "come on over and visit me" type stuff with an 18 year old guy, some kid who'
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where that took place, but in California we have a three year law. It doesn't make
Re: (Score:2)
Thats a 7 year age difference. The relationship lasted all of 2 years.... but if you went backwards that same amount of time, it would have been illegal (maybe, there is some debate over the actual law in MA... some say 18, others 16, and I am aware of no age difference law... just an age of consent). is 24/17 really so different from 26/19 ?
Hell, in that case, *I* was the one carrying the financial burden. Paying most of the rent and letting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys are "wired normal". A Paedophile is someone attracted to pre-pubecent people.
13 is pubecent... a guy attracted to a 13 year old is a male animal attracted to a fertile female animnal.... he is doing exaclty what millions of years of evolution taught him to do and society tried to unteach.... and on some level... failed.
I think thats my real problem. There is grass on the field. a 13 year old girl will often have a strong sex drive. The few women who I know tha
In Loco Parentis (Score:5, Insightful)
I am in my son's WOW guild so I know them, I play Halo on occasion (it sucks getting my ass kicked so much) with him and his other friends. They are welcome in my house as long as they follow the rules.
I know my daughter likes manga, anime, country music, who her friends are, know their names and individual interests etc. etc.etc. Quality time is total b#$$s%^&, you have to spend time with them and know what is going on in their lives.
Wonder if her parents ever looked at her MySpace to see what she thinks, likes or is worried about...
MySpace it not at fault here, something is/was going on in that girl's life that put her in a position to want to go off and meet someone without telling her parents or at least without escort. The ball was not in MySpace's court.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a lack of respect for her parents.
I can't speak for her but I learned to disrespect my mother when she lied to me. In some cases she made up answers to things that I later looked up and found out she was full of shit. In some cases she told me things she knew to be fa
He Lied, She Lied (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Bad Job, Judge! (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're telling me that you had a chance to finally get rid of the atrocity that is MySpace and you DIDN'T???
Re: (Score:2)
Reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, MySpace's business model would collapse if we rule against them. Therefore, it must be OK.
Right decision, wrong reason.
Re: (Score:2)
That's complete BS. They specifically call out that verification of age and resulting liability would prevent them from doing business.
I applaud them for realizing that fact. Businesses are not in business to police their customers.
Ruling seems to be lacking something (Score:5, Insightful)
I *do* think that the outcome is correct - but the wrong reasons were given. The correct reason would have been more directly related to the notion of personal responsibility. Not this "MySpace can't be responsible, because, oh gosh, they'd lose money if they were" crap.
Common sense my arse. The outcome matches common sense, but not the rationale. I just hope it's not used as a precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overlooking the last bit where the judge said that if it was anyone's responsibility to protect her, it was her parents'. I think that's where his ruling originated from. They're not just asking that MySpace be burdened with a responsibility that'd put them out of business, they're asking that MySpace be forced to take on that responsibility so that they won't have to take on any responsibility of their own. No, under those circumstances MySpace shouldn't be burdened with that responsibility,
It's a negligence question, so it makes sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When a previous employer of mine was battling a lawsuit with a former client, we thought we might be involved with some ground-breaking decisions. When we asked our lawyer if this might set a precedent, he explained that there are very few precedents that come from the circuit court level. Most of them come from appellate or supreme courts.
Thus, if I understood correctly, (and bear in mind that even if I did, I may not be remembering it
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Modern parenting needs fixing! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, this call was a necessary one. Although social networking sites should do what they can to help protect its users, they can't be held responsible for lousy parenting!
In today's society, everyone is always trying to blame someone else, or sue someone else. No one takes the bl
Hell yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It may have been a money grab in this case, but as someone who studies modern lawsuits, I have to say that a lot of them work quite well in that huge financial burdens are more punitive toward the company than criminal charges. For example, whom would go to jail if MySpace was found criminally liable? The CEO? The programmers? Whomever went, it wouldn't punish the company as much as 30 million dollars would.
Just something to think about -- it probably was a money grab by the paren
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a little harsh... (Score:2)
Would you let your kids.. (Score:2)
I for one wouldn't do that, and I don't let them wander the net without being supervised.
Would you sue the city if your kid got kidnapped? Probably not.
Would you expect your city to take reasonable measures to try and make it as safe as possible? Of course.
MySpace shouldn't be sued for this. However they probably could implement more in the
IANAL. Neither is the headline author, apparently. (Score:2)
"case dismissed" != "not guilty".
Re: (Score:2)
Negligence != fault. It was the pedophiles fault. My single parent mother worked two jobs to support her two boys. There was no way she could monitor our every move. (it's amazing we survived!)
Funny how when something happens, everyone claims it was the parent's fault. Yet when something that would help the parents do their job, like trac
Re:great parents (Score:5, Insightful)
A parent doesn't have to monitor a child's every move to protect them. All they have to do is be honest and open with them and give them the information they need to protect themselves.
I can't speak for any other kids, but I stopped listening to MY parents because they were hypocritical, and otherwise generally full of shit. My dad would tell me not to smoke, but he would smoke in the car when he was taking me places and not stop when I asked him to, and as a child I was actually allergic to cigarette smoke. My mom would make up answers to questions to which she did not know the answer, maybe she thought it was fun or her insecurity would not allow her to not know the answer. Regardless, I rapidly stopped giving a shit about my parents' opinions and formed my own decisions. I am lucky enough to have been a pretty bright kid and to have been very into reading, and to have read a lot of books with very positive messages, and this served me a whole lot better than it could have.
If a parent treats a child with respect, the child will respond with respect. Unfortunately, most parents (including mine) didn't really get that. They were only concerned with me respecting them. They didn't really put effort into going the other direction until I was already an adult. But then, I moved out of the house when I was fifteen and moved in with my (considerably older) girlfriend. So they kind of had to wake up and accept that I was not their little boy any more, and in fact had not been for many years.
That's funny, because your comment very much makes it seem like you ARE endorsing these things, because you see the denial of these things as denying parents tools that would help them do their job, and you began the sentence with "Yet" as if you were denying that standpoint.
Incidentally, tracking devices exist now and if you can get your kid to wear it and not pass it off to another kid, that's cool, but they will eventually figure out a way to get the thing off. It's a big ugly watch-thing that locks onto their wrist. Better hope it doesn't get caught in anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Because she was a teenager? It's pretty damn common - in fact, in my limited experience, it's more common than not. I had (and still have) great parents; I couldn't confide in them as a teenager either. That wasn't their fault, it was mine - I was a moody, angst-ridden bundle of hyperactive hormones.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, parents shouldn't be expected to monitor their kids 24/7.
oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, parenting shouldn't be about keeping the kids on lockdown and watching their every move so they don't get hurt or in trouble. That just fosters resentment and results in kids who grow up unable to think for themselves as adults. It certainly doesn't prepare the kids for life in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deja Vu (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)