Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the litigious-society dept.

America Online 851

Amy's Robot writes "According to the AP, an Internet chat room monitor hired by AOL to keep children safe from sexual predators seduced a California girl online and was about to meet her for sex when he was found out by a co-worker, a lawsuit charges. The incident happened 2 years ago, but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19. She accuses AOL of failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children. Who's watching the watchers?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can of worms? (5, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265600)

This might not be the only case, we might see a lot of me-toos lawsuits soon.

And to watch the watchers, the outcome may have already suggested a solution - some sort of peer reviews, his co-worker did find out his activity right?

Re:Can of worms? (5, Insightful)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265733)

If you are 15 and stupid enough to meet someone from the net to have're an idiot. She has no right to file this lawsuit. When will people be responsible and stop trying to freeload?

Clarifying the numbers (5, Informative)

serutan (259622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265602)

It started when she was 15, they were going to meet when she turned 17, that was 2 years ago, now she's 19. So that clears that up.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (5, Funny)

jerw134 (409531) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265613)

Thank you for clarifying those numbers. I was about to start complaining, since I haven't RTFA yet.

Obligatory Digital Fortress Quote (2)

M0riarty (850969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265818)

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies? In this case, apparently no one.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (1)

Krakerz (832652) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265628)

I'm pretty sure it was going on while she was 15, 16 and to her 17th birthday. 2 years later now she's 19.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (5, Funny)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265660)

Posting anonymous for obvious reasons.

I think at some point in this country we are going to have an honest debate about age of consent. In most european countries it varies from 14-17.

We like to maintain this fantasy that our kids are NOT having sex -- but, Ive been in the back rooms, and the level of detachment young people have from sex took me until my late 20's to develop.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (5, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265689)

Posting anonymous for obvious reasons.

Whoops. Whatever your reasons were, they're irrelevant now.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (4, Funny)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265700)

Yea ... im a capital bonehead :)

Re:Clarifying the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265691)

good job, you missed the post anonymously button.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (4, Interesting)

lakeland (218447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265738)

The most effective approach I've seen to this is to define the ability to consent in terms of the age (and therefore 'power') difference. That is, a fourteen year old can consent to having sex with a fifteen year old, but not with an eighteen year old.

However, this approach makes particularly liberal people uncomfortable since they don't like the idea that you can legally have sex with some people but not with others (where the others can legally have sex with some people). It also makes particularly conservative people uncomfortable since they don't like the idea that their fourteen year old daughter can legally have sex.

Since it isn't getting picked up by either the liberals or the conservatives, I can't see the US adopting it. But that's politics for you...

Re:Clarifying the numbers (4, Informative)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265838)

Actually, thats how many states' AOC laws work now.
In Florida, for example, there's a two-year "safe zone" (a 14 year old can legally consent with a 16 yo, etc...)

Re:Clarifying the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265831)

In Washington, I believe the age of consent is 16, but if you are in a supervisory position you are limited to 18 and older. Perhaps someone from Cali can share with us their laws on the subject.

It looks like to me the whole reason this girl is traumatized is not so much some 23/yo wanted to shag her when she was 17, but because the law, AOL, and the parents entered into the picture and put her intimacy with someone else under a microscope. Right or wrong all of us know of one case where a highschooler dated someone with a car who was a good 5 to 6 years older. When you're young you think it's kinda cool, but when you grow up more often than not you think what a pevert.

Re:Clarifying the numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265842)

You sir, are a moron

Re:Clarifying the numbers (5, Insightful)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265697)

The way I see it: the girl strings along the guy for two years, promises to meet, changes her mind and two years later slaps the guy with this!

Could someone clarify who the aggressor is again?

Was this girl chained to the computer and forced to make herself available for chat and respond?

Re:Clarifying the numbers (2, Insightful)

CSMastermind (847625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265787)

No nobody forced her to chat with the man but it is possible that she was lured into chatting with him. I don't know that exact contents of the messages that were sent back and forth but I think it's safe to say that those are what will determin who was at fault here.

If she was 15 when they started talking and he brought up sex to her, at that age, and knowing how old she was than it's her fault. But maybe they were just chat pals for 2 years or so and at 17 she mentioned having sex, her parents find out and they want this guy in trouble, because of his job it's headline news. Everything depends on the context.

First Post? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265604)

Wouldn't that make her 17? Hey, if there's grass on the field, play ball!

Re:First Post? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265860)

And if there is no grass in the field, turn her over and play in the mud!

YAY (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265605)

die aol die

numbers dont add up (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265607)

so she was 15 when this happened 2 years ago and now she's 19. brilliant.

Re:numbers dont add up (1, Troll)

JeffDaMan (847913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265644)

RTFA - god you idiots.

Re:numbers dont add up (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265726)

You must be new around here.

slash-math (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265608)

19 now, happened 2 years ago...sure, must've been 15!

(pretty sad when even the article can get her age right)

um... the math doesn't add up (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265609)

15 year old, now 19, happened 2 years ago... wtf?

Abstinence... (-1, Offtopic)

Donjo (797935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265610) the safest sex. Pay attention in health class kids!

Re:Abstinence... (0, Offtopic)

x_codingmonkey_x (839141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265641)

Yes that's what all slashdotters would like to believe ;)

Re:Abstinence... (0)

mangus_angus (873781) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265668)

Most /.'ers don't every have to worry about breaking that rule!

Hmm... (5, Funny)

pwnage (856708) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265611)

Original poster: A/S/L?

That's some weird maths (0, Redundant)

Nemba (805178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265612)

The girl was 15 when it happened, but now, two years later, she's 19? Something's wrong there...

Re:That's some weird maths (3, Informative)

technix4beos (471838) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265648)

The alleged affair lasted until her 17th birthday, at which time a co-worked became suspicious.

She is filing now when she is 19, for her own reasons, obviously.

Re:That's some weird maths (1)

Nemba (805178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265743)

Ah. Makes much more sense. So basically, she strings the guy along for 2 years, says she will meet him, doesn't, and then sues. Not particularly nice, though I cannot side with the guy in this case either.

She's suing whom? (5, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265614)

In other news, people who arrive at the stark realization that they're going to be losers on welfare and in debt for the rest of their lives are suing corporations with deep pockets instead of getting real jobs.

Re:She's suing whom? (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265772)

Good question - who liable when an employee while doing there job breaks company policies reguarding interaction with the public?

Re:She's suing whom? (4, Informative)

Macadamizer (194404) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265832)

The general rule is that the employer is liable for the actions of its employees, and even for intentional torts of its employees when said employee is acting within the scope of his employement.

In this case, if the AOL employee was, say, a tech support person or something cruising the chatrooms during his breaks or after hours, then it is unlikely that AOL would be on the hook for his intentional conduct. However, this guy's JOB was to cruise chatrooms -- is more likely that a court would find that his behavior, even though intentional, illegal and not within company policies, to be behavior "within the scope of his emplyment" and therefore AOL will likely be on the hook. So will the guy -- but AOL will end up paying up, and will have to go after the guy for reimbursement, if he has anything.

This is standard agency stuff -- employers carry a lot of responsibility for the actions of their employees. As another poster noted, the reason for this policy is to keep a company from intentionally hiring pervs to cruise chatrooms, or hiring drunks to lead AA meetingds, or whatever -- if you are hiring someone, you have to make sure that they are not a bad seed for the job, and you have to keep your eye on them to make sure they don't change...

nice troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265791)

In other words, AOL should be allowed to hire whoever they want to be put in a position of responsibility over susceptible minors. So if the local church brings in a Jack Daniels spokesman to chair local AA meetings, the church shouldn't be held responsible?

Re:She's suing whom? (0, Flamebait)

deblau (68023) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265815)

So you're saying that someone who realizes they will be on welfare for the rest of their lives shouldn't be protected from interstate underage rape? Or are you saying that if you are raped (which wasn't the case here, luckily), that you shouldn't be allowed to get any sort of compensation?

Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money.... (0, Offtopic)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265617)

I do support the right of people to sue big corporations, however.

Just for the money!

Only Human? (5, Funny)

tesseract5d (871694) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265618)

I guess that means they need to move to AI bot monitors instead of those silly humans? I mean, if they can make bots in UT2004 that are that good....

Re:Only Human? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265822)

Haha, who was that idiot that modded this interesting!

Re:Only Human? (1)

Telemann (71939) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265840)

Now THERE is a computer geek wet dream. Can't pick up chicks? Just write an IRC script and they will start agreeing to meet you when they are 17...

lmao (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265620)

one would think he knew better

Parents (4, Interesting)

tankenator (803647) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265621)

Yet another case of the parents not watching what their children are doing. But, if this means AOL gets hammered in the courts, I suppose I'm for it, as a loyal slashdotter.......... All jokes aside, parents should be supervising thier children's wherabouts and doings, rather than the big brotherish leanings that this implies should be implemented--it is evident that not even the watchers can be trusted. Who do you trust with your children, yourself or some stranger that is hired by AOL or other isp for close to min wage to watch for this shit?

Re:Parents (5, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265717)

Sure, parents should be responsible.

But if AOL specifically went out of their way to make chat rooms that were SAFE for young children, by actively having people monitor them and keep them acceptable, tha'ts a selling feature to parents.

It's like if you sent your kid to daycare, and he was mistrated.. would you say to that parent "You should have been there, how dare you trust your kid to some daycare?"

At some point, AOL WAS responsible for this.

Re:Parents (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265821)

And a parent who never, ever let's their kid out of their sight, especially when they are 14/15/16, is even more abusive. Kids have to be allowed some freedom. Within ever increasing limits, of course.

The AOL kid chat rooms were specifically advertised as being monitored and safe. This one was not.

As a parent, you cannot, indeed should not, be by your teenagers side 24/7.

hmm (0, Redundant)

stuffedmonkey (733020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265622)

I's ok baby, I have the protection of AOL!

perfect job for pedofiles (5, Interesting)

sfcat (872532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265627)

AOL monitor. Seriously, don't they do background checks for this type of job. I understand not doing them for most jobs, but this type of job, you would think it would be par for the course. But I guess if he doesn't have a record and she was only 17 at the time and if he was like 21-24 its not that bad (illegal, but not like he was 45). But what is really sad is that she is the one sueing. She made the decision to meet someone from a chat room and now is sueing because she was allowed to meet the guy. Sounds like sueing for dollars more than anything. Isn't America great...

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (3, Informative)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265638)

From the friendly article:

Graham said AOL puts its chat room monitors through "rigorous screening and training procedures," including a criminal background check.


The man, who was 23 when he met the girl online, has not been charged with a crime.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (1)

sfcat (872532) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265665)

Okay, so she was 17 (or 15, its not really clear) and he was 23. Illegal but not that bad. Case closed, this law suit is frivolous

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (2, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265742)

I agree. His behavior was not exactly proper, but since no actual crime took place, I don't see how her lawsuit will go anywhere. The fact that this took place over a long period of time and that she waited just as long to sue will make it very easy to question her real intentions. Of course, AOL executives should see this as a wake up call to what could have been a much worse situation and do what they can to make sure it is not likely to happen again.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265771)

23 & 15 is not that bad? Get away from my daughter, you fucking freak.

he didnt break any laws (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265698)

All the guy did was talk. The morality of hitting on underage girls is certainly debatable, but theres nothing illegal about it.

Clearly AOL didn't want things to end up this way, and in fact another AOL worker ratted him out. I just don't see where they have any legal standing to sue AOL for being negligent.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265722)

Just because they're a pedophile doesn't mean they have a background to check up on...

17 y-o ? 24 ? 45 ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265764)

I always found out moraly debatable anyway to allow sex between a 17 and , say , a 15 , but not allowing the same 17 to have sex wuith a 18. And please no "you can't stop them". Minor sex is a crime , be it a minor or a a grown up starting it. What is the difference ? Mind you, Once you start down this road, what is the difference between 17 and 20 ? 25 ? 45 ? Frankly some girl I have known were not yet "grown up" in their mind at 34 y-o, and some I ve met were more advanced mentally at 15 than I have ever been... Arbitrary age limit might be the easiest to put in law, but are far from the reality.

In all case This 18 sex stuff started to be a moral landmine only in this last 60-80 years. I can remmember people getting married far sooner than 16 "abitrary limit" around here.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (5, Insightful)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265820)

First of all she was 17, in many, many, countries this is exceeding the age of consent so its either saying that american girls are typically more innocent then the rest of the world, or the people running the show in your country are a bunch of prudes.

Secondly the guy isn't a pedophile because she isn't exactly prepubescent. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to girls who have gone through puberty no matter what their age, its a biological thing.

Regardless the best job for a pedophile would be in the clergy or as a scout master or something, many more people are wary to meet someone off the internet these days, and besides why put in all the effort when you could just have the parents bring their kids to you.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265868)

omg u pedophile-phobe. you need to be more tolerant of people with different life choices.

I doubt she was 'seduced'... (5, Insightful)

Ninwa (583633) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265631)

She was fifteen, she'd had the talk about the birds and the bees. I find it hard to believe that people are seduced into sex, and this was only considered seducing after he had been talking to her for two years. Most teenagers don't know eachother for two days and they get it on like jack rabbits. If anything I applaud his patience.

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'... (4, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265725)

It is more likely that they got close together, were good friend, or even some online relationship. Something bad happened after two years and now the girl is just trying to take advantage of AOL in this way.

I'm pretty disgusted by what she's doing, it's not that a 17y old girl needs to be protected from a guy she knew for 2 years and wanted to have sex with herself.

In most european countries according to my vague knowledge, the legal age to start having sex varies between 14-16.

15-17y old kids are having one night stands these days, so it's not they are into some weird thing.

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'... (5, Funny)

krumms (613921) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265858)

wanted to have sex with herself

mod me up if you too like out of context quotes!

The Timeline (1)

goneutt (694223) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265645)

Four years ago the AOL guy first chats with the then 15 yo
Two years later (and two years ago) they plan to hook up on her 17th b-day, when an AOL co-worker catches on
Two more years go by and the AOL stock values are back up, and its time to file the lawsuits.

I really have no idea what the AOL stock values have done in the past four years, but she claims she waited because it's been "a very confusing and painful time for her," according to her lawyer Olivier Taillieu (FTA)

AOL Chat (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265646)

You've got sex!

No, I didn't RTFA (1, Insightful)

Bistronaut (267467) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265652)

So - AOL successfully thwarted a potential sexual predator... what's the lawsuit about?

Its about American obsession with absolutes (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265714)

The lawsuit charges AOL and its parent company, Time Warner Inc. (TWX), with failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children. It also charges the monitor with inflicting emotional distress.

America has become a place where if you can't absolutely guarantee 100% of the time that whatever you are providing is 100% safe, you are bad, bad, bad. Watch out Microsoft, you'll get sued soon as well, because someone will be pissed off that while they were using Windows XP, they saw something on a web site that offended their sensibilities, rendering them emotionally distressed to the tune of several million dollars.

Re:Its about American obsession with absolutes (1)

Surazal (729) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265751)

I would guess this has already happened. ;)

I am guessing, by the way. However, I'd be surprised if I wasn't right.

AOL (as a company) didn't do anything... (2, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265802)

It's about people realizing they need to take responsability for keeping themselves and their children safe from online predators, instad of expecting someone to be a parent for them.

It's also about a corporation making promises it really can't deliver on, even with background checks.

The potential predator was only caught because a co-worker got nosy. Let's not read this as some kind of peer review buddy system that is designed to have employees self-regulate their department, which is what AOL will be spinning this into.

Age of Consent (3, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265653)

What's the age of consent in California? In Pennsylvania, if they had sex after she turned 16, they'd be in the clear, if I understand my age of consent laws correctly (85% sure).

Re:Age of Consent (2, Informative)

Princess Tarja (876619) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265671)

iirc in calif it's still 18, I never thought about that though, I just went with it when the time felt right.

Re:Age of Consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265798)

Prinsessa Tarja kaliforniasta. No jopas.

Re:Age of Consent (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265754)

The age of consent is 18 in California [] .

Re:Age of Consent (1)

Baorc (794142) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265770)

Ok I'm not sure of this stuff either, but in Canada it's 14, BUT if the other person is over 18 and is in a position of authority, (implied that the "victim" is still under 18) then it's still illegal.

So aka, cop, teachers, and so on, can't really screw anyone under 18 without them being screwed afterwards by a lawsuit.

Re:Age of Consent (2, Interesting)

eric76 (679787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265837)

In Texas, if she (or he) is a student in a public school, it is illegal for any employee of the school to have sex with the student regardless of the student's age.

So you could conceivably see a 22 year old teacher going to prison for having concensual sex with a 20 year old.

teen sexuality (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265661)

It's hard to find a halfway attractive girl, under 18, not living in a third world country, who doesn't have a picture like this on a website somewhere : 15 Year Olds [] Don't be surprised to see more of this.

Who's watching the watchers? (5, Funny)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265669)

Who's watching the watchers?

Sounds like they are watching each other.

MSN (3, Informative)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265680)

Thats why MSN Chat is no longer available.

A shame that a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us. MSN Chat was a great way to meet everyday people instead of the geeky IRC chat.

Should you really.... (3, Funny)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265823)

Should you really be talking up a Microsoft app/service and putting down IRC *on Slashdot*? :)

Re:MSN (1)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265843)

No its because MSN chat sucked an no one used it. They just shut it down saying it was to stop pedophiles for good PR value.

Whos Watching? (2, Funny)

CarlinWithers (861335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265681)

Whos watching the people watching the watchers? What about watchers for those people?

Re:Whos Watching? (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265869)

I dunno, Coast Guard?

AIM Rate-A-Buddy (1)

JeffDaMan (847913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265682)

Must have been one of those ugly rate-a-buddy girls...

Why is she complaining? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265695)

So she agrees to meet an adult for sex, it gets stopped before she can carry out her desire, and then she sues AOL for not keeping things safe for children? Safe from what? Girls who want to have sex with adults are complaining when they get stopped?

What is the crime? (5, Informative)

shamir_k (222154) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265706)

According to the story, they met online when she was 15, and he was in his early 20s. Two years later, when she was 17, they arranged to meet for sex. As far as I know, the age of consent is 16, meaning that a 17 year old can legally agree to have sex with an older person. I don't see how the monitor committed a crime, unless he propositioned her before she turned 16, and that might be difficult to prove in court.
As for AOL being liable, that's a stretch too. They probably disclaim all liability in their terms of use, and unless she can prove some fraud or negligence on the part of the employee, I don't see how they can be held liable.
This whole story smacks of a frivolous lawsuit by somebody who just realised that she might be able to embarass a big company into settling rather than face publicity.

AOL can be held liable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265783)

It's called vicarious liability [] . This trial will be a jury trial, which means it basically comes down to litigation. If she's got a good enough lawyer, she has a chance. That's the beauty of a jury of your peers.

Re:What is the crime? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265796)

The age of consent, though it varies state to state, is 18 in California.

Re:What is the crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265829)

In the UK, the age of consent is 16, and it is illegal to "groom" someone under that age for sex. That's makes for an interesting legal case if some school kid starts an E-mail relationship with a girl who is just under 16, but later gets serious once she's over 16

Last line in the summary (1)

boeman (700507) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265708)

I thought Slashdot was "news for nerds"? So how did the submitter not ask, "Who watches the Watchmen?"

So what? (-1, Troll)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265709)

Who cares!? 15 is plenty old enough for sexual consent; why when I was 15 I had already done just about everything one can do with a girl (and a couple of the things one can do with two girls!). Most of it I had talked with her about it online first. Treating teenagers like babies turns them into subservient immature adults. Lets lower or eliminate the age of consent.

Re:So what? (1)

Boccaccio (762644) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265808)

Meanwhile, back in the real world... ;o)

Re:So what? (2, Funny)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265857)

You're a slashdot reader and you expect us to believe you've had not one but TWO girls at once...

I don't know about the article numbers but I think yours don't add up!

In Canada that's legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265720)

Whores are Whores and in Canada if she is 14 or older she's fair game.

On a related note: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265721)

10:09pm [] : Popular weblog provider Xanga's "featured content" is a front-page link to psychologically disturbed [] anorexic scumbags.

Good to know information providers have their users' best interests at heart.

Crappy monitor (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265752)

Any monitor with a 2-year response time is going to be crappy for gaming.

Isn' t that funny? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265761)

Until the 50s, it was absolutely normal to marry (and then fsck) underage girls - even if you were three times older. Today, underage girls are so pure they cant be seduced anymore. So bizarre.

We must know the truth! (1)

brlancer (666140) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265797)

AOL must list all documents relating to these chat room monitors. Have there been other reports? Have they been shuffling them from department to department and avoiding culpability for these horrendous actions? Any resistance on the part of AOL should be seen as evidence of guilt! They're trying to hide things! We must know the truth!

the Plato reference (1)

ubiquitin (28396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265800)

Qui Custodes Custodiat? is probably better translated as "who guards the guardians" than "who watches the watchers"?

Close, though.

From the article... (4, Funny)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265803)

>> Their conversations online and by phone became increasingly explicit, the lawsuit says. They were preparing to meet on the girl's 17th birthday when one of the monitor's co-workers became suspicious and prevented the encounter.

OMFG what a cockblock that was.

While she's at it... (1, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265806)

While I certainly don't condone sexual preditors, if she is going to sue AOL for not monitoring their workers, she needs to also sue her own parents for negligence for not keeping an eye on their child. I'm getting tired of all of this "its the fault of the bad old internet" bullshit. Its the duty of the parents to keep watch too.

Uuummm... (1)

buchan (740941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265819)

19 - 15 = 2?

Yes. (1)

pyth (87680) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265828)

For large values of 2.

Wish They All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12265833)

Wouldn't be California girls!

A different view? (1)

teslatug (543527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12265864)

Sounds like the girl might have lured the AOL employee for some money. At 15 she should have known better.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?