Beta
×

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!

MySpace Not Guilty in Child Assault Case

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the sanity-in-the-courtroom dept.

Privacy 228

An anonymous reader writes "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 of a 13-year old girl. The judge ruled, 'To impose a duty under these circumstances for MySpace to confirm or determine the age of each applicant, with liability resulting from negligence in performing or not performing duty, would of course stop MySpace's business in its tracks and close this avenue of communication.'" What do you think? Good call?

cancel ×

228 comments

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

What do you think? Good call? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029452)

Yep.

First prost! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029464)

Yayayayayayay!

Texas Judges (4, Funny)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029474)

Good for MySpace, I'm just surprised he didn't get the death penalty!

Re:Texas Judges (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029534)

I'm just surprised he didn't get the death penalty!

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.

Re:Texas Judges (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029548)

he would have got the death penality if I was on the jury

Re:Texas Judges (1, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029704)

It's because he isn't black.

Seriously, I'm actually for the death penalty, but Texas' justice system is horribly racist, at least at that level.

Re:Texas Judges (5, Informative)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030052)

Race statistics on current Texas death row inmates:

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_cri me/murder_homicide.html [fbi.gov]

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 :D

Re:Texas Judges (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030824)

Black people get blamed for a lot they didn't do and can't afford fancy overpriced lawyers the whites can. Is it any wonder we blame them for murders they didn't commit to ease our own burden?

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.

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.

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.

Frivolous suits (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029742)

Myspace is not liable for this any more than the phone company is liable for the prank and threatening phone calls. I don't know about the rest of the /. community, but I am dead tired of the continuous attempts to impose liability on the carrier for the content. This goes to the very core of undermining the openness and freedom of the internet, as a neutral medium for communication and sharing of information. Verdict for the plaintiff would have been a horrible precedent.

Re:Texas Judges (3, Informative)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029796)

Excellent choice. Parents need to take responsibility for their poor parenting instead of trying to blame it on external sources.

Re:Texas Judges (1, Troll)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029900)

Yep. Stupid parents forgot to give their kid her daily dose of mind control serum. Children should never be expected to think for themselves, but blindly follow the commands and advice of their parents, church, school officials, and government leaders ---- even when they contradict each other.

Re:Texas Judges (1)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029982)

Yes.

Re:Texas Judges (4, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030066)

You do realize that a parent can take steps to keep their child safe without actually harming their progress, yes?

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.

Re:Texas Judges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030432)

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.)

Underage b&...er, wait

(nevermind)

Re:Texas Judges (0)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030088)

Since my first reply was modded troll, I'll try again. Here's where your line of thinking leads: Charles Manson isn't responsible for his actions, his parents were. But whose fault was it that they were bad parents? Their parents, of course! The buck never stops.

How about this --- maybe, just maybe children are capable of independent thought, and at some point decide what they are going to do regardless of how they were raised.

No kidding.. (5, Insightful)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029808)

I'm glad a judge had common sense on MySpace's behalf. People want to shift blame to the medium used for the meeting, not the people in the real world who are at fault. The only people to blame in this case are the parents and the guy who committed the crime. It was the parent's job to know what their child was doing and to prevent her from meeting people like this. The world is full of bad people, but it's the parent's jobs to protect their children. Of course, this in no way removes responsibility for the crime from the guy. All I'm saying is that HE is responsible for committing the crime and the parents are responsible for not preventing their child from falling victim to him.

The appropriate response... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029500)

...is to point and laugh. "No payday for you."

Moo (5, Insightful)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029502)

So, now that we have seen "common sense" used in a court case, can we use this as precedent for all future rulings?

Re:Moo (3, Funny)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029584)

Common sense in a courtroom? Now thats an oxymoron.

Re:Moo (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029832)

If you were unaware common sense left the American legal system many many decades ago. For a good description you should check out the book "The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America" by Philip K Howard. Quite intersting, relatively short, and easy to read.

Who Submitted this? (1)

MutantHamster (816782) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029524)

The goose from Charlotte's Web?

"Peter Solis lied about his age on MySpace to gain the confidence the confidence of a 13-year old girl."

Re:Who Submitted this? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029636)

I am proud that I have never read Charlotte's Web. I moved midway through third grade - just before the class I was in started reading it, and just after my new class had finished.

We did, however, read the Jacob Two-Two books, so I'm going to read your comment as "Who Submitted This? Jacob Two-Two?"

Re:Who Submitted this? (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029690)

I would also have accepted Newton from the old Hercules cartoons.

Deja Vu (1)

dereference (875531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030782)

It's usually a glitch; it happens when they change something.

Obvious (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029538)

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:Obvious (2, Informative)

orpheum (1064692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029644)

Absolutely it was a good call. Personally I'm sick and tired of parents assuming that organizations are going to take care of them and protect them from every single little thing that might hurt them or their family members, children included. If you can't teach your own children common sense on how to use a communication medium as volatiles as a website, then perhaps you shouldn't have an Internet connection in the first place. Even if you have anti-virus, anti-spam, anti-spyware, anti-phising and pop-up blockers installed on your computer doesn't give you the right to click on that link that says "Anna Kournikova naked! Click here!" or to assume that anyone you meet on a site like MySpace.com is legit. You seriously wanna go ahead and meet someone in person? Do it in a public place and only after you've spoken to them for several months on end.

Re:Obvious (1)

jxs2151 (554138) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029664)

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 (3, Informative)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030084)

It can not be as general as "all websites have common carrier status," like all phone companies and all package carriers receive, because there are plenty of legitimate web business models that work on the opposite presumption. For example, this is more or less the case with true.com [true.com] . Their whole thing is that they are trying to check people's identities to prevent jerking around with fake identities on dating sites. Now, I"m not saying they should be liable, but suppose that at some point the problem on myspace grows and becomes more serious, and some startup comes along with the business plan that they'll attract business, particularly from minors who's parents point them there, by guaranteeing the authenticity of their account holders. The whole point is that they check all of this for the safety of users who cant or won't take appropriate precautions and watch out for themselves, making it a safe, or at least safer, community. You can't let them be automatically exempted from responsibility for user verification too just because they're a website, if they're selling user verification as a product. Common carrier status for all websites would amount to legalizing breach of contract, or at least false advertising, for this kind of company, basically making their potentially useful business model worthless because it would be unenforceable.

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:Obvious (1)

Anthony Baby (1015379) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030202)

I'll take a stab. Websites are not common carriers in the sense that ISPs are. Someone might argue that an ISP or RBOC cannot effectively or efficiently monitor the usage of its network by customers without incurring significant cost, impeding on the legitimate activities of third-party businesses, and fracturing consumer trust by invading customer privacy. A website can take minimal steps that won't cost much in order to keep its users safe. For example, a website admin can write a python script that will filter out threatening words in your social net's private messaging system. A telco or ISP can't accomplish this without the aforementioned consequences. Hopefully that makes some sense.

I am probably incorrect and confused, but aren't there additional factors that influence whether a site can have common carrier status, such as whether or not the site promised member safety or actively attempts to provide it? I vaguely remember this issue coming up years ago in the BBS world where a BBS claimed common carrier status when its members were uploaded either pornography or pirated software. It seemed that, if you want to be a common carrier, it hurts you if you were actively involved in policing the site for the material you want to safeguarded from. The idea being, if you can't know these acts are being committed, you can't be held liable; but if you can know, then you will be liable if you didn't do anything about it.

Re:Obvious (1)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029724)

There is a significant difference. THe phone company doesnt list your age and gender, nor does it do peer to peer networking. (In the literal sense.) To innitiate a phone call you have to exchange phone numbers. You might make the argument for the phone book companies.

My only dismay at this judgement is that that the reason is interferring with MySpaces business, rather than assert user responsibility. The 13 year holds some responsibility and that should be noted.

Re:Obvious (3, Insightful)

gergoge (1000510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029886)

There isn't a difference. Any information provided is user-submitted. If I find your home phone number, call it, and tell you I'm really a sexy 17 year old blonde girl looking for some good lovin', and you buy into it, everything at fault here is due to my lying to you, not the telco.

Re:Oblivious (1)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030102)

There isnt any difference???? Exactly how do you pick a phone and call 13 year old girls if you dont have their number already?

Re:Oblivious (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030628)

if you dont have their number already?

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:Obvious (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030158)

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?

...nor does it do peer to peer networking.

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 user responsibility.

Responsibility lies with the creep that molested people.

The 13 year holds some responsibility and that should be noted.

Ethically, perhaps, but legally this is not so. 13 year olds have no legal rights, thus have no legal responsibilities. Until they are granted the right to free speech, and the right to sleep with anyone they want, and the right to go wherever they want, you can't hold them legally responsible for saying the wrong thing, going somewhere they should not, or having sex.

As for the ethics, I'm of the opinion that it is all of society's responsibility to protect and teach children until such a time as they can take responsibility for themselves. The responsibility in this case is with the parents of this child, who are supposed to be responsible for them and with the molester.

Re:Obvious (2)

Orig_Club_Soda (983823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030428)

Do you have any idea what it takes to get a phone number, let a listing?

I said peer to peer networking - literally. As in person to person net working... "Peer" originally meant a person.

Sheesh.

Re:Obvious (1)

GiovanniZero (1006365) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029740)

Myspace doesn't molest people, people molest people!

Well..I guess creepy adults molest stupid kids.

Re:Obvious (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029802)

There is only so much anyone can do. Running full credit and background checks for all myspace Users is Impractical, and Scary. I know there are people who go around waving think of the children flag. But any one company or tool can't and shouldn't expect to be a baby sitter for minors. They may ask their age as way to categorize them and also try to cut abuse a bit. But expecting anything to be fool proof is Stupid. Parents need to realize their Kids are Dumb, Gullible and they only think they are smart. When I was a kid I was Dumb and Gullible. I am sure In many ways I still am, but at least I am less Dumb and Gullible when I was 13. Parents like to look at their kids with blinders on imagining them doing great things treat them like adults and all that other stuff. But in reality they are Kids should be treated like kids if they complain and they will complain remind them they are still kids, even if they think else wise.

Re:Obvious (1)

sulfur_lad (964486) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029902)

Yeah, this is a case of "do you sue the auto manufacturer for damages becuase the dolt behind me decided to not brake on an icy streen and rear-end me" sort of thing. For one, parents these days seem to expect the system to raise their children for them. That's a pretty sad state of affairs. My parents were nosey, but within reason. And they certainly didnt' sue the school when I dug a hole in my leg falling off the playground. And guess what? The leg still works 20-odd years later.

Re:Obvious (1)

Anakron (899671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030790)

You fell off the playground?
Into what?

Re:Obvious (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029946)

Blaming the medium or the tools is just plain stupid. This was, of course, a correct decision

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:Obvious (1)

Alchemar (720449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030956)

What about a coffee shop where two people might meat. What about a city park, then it would be the goverments fault.

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 that advertised that they take steps to allow only minors, then they could be held liable. If a website advertises that they verify access to chat rooms to limit it to minors only, they can be held liable. There is no reason to make an acception for "medium".

great parents (1)

mhokie (988228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029540)

Instead of taking the blame for not taking care of their child, they chose to have a judge tell them what everyone else had been saying, "It's your f&*$ing fault!"

Re:great parents (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029764)

Instead of taking the blame for not taking care of their child, they chose to have a judge tell them what everyone else had been saying, "It's your f&*$ing fault!"

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 tracking devices, XXX domain names or age limits for video games, people here scream LIBERTY and talk about what a bad idea it is.

*Note, I am not endorsing tracking devices, XXX domain names or video game ratings. That's another discussion.

Re:great parents (1)

tiberus (258517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029904)

It's no more that parents fault than rape is the victim's fault. At worst the parents were negligent. Sadly there is not a lot of info on the story, so it is hard to make that call. The parents might be only clueless.

Seems the only thing we can be certain of is that the girl felt the need to meet and trust someone she had never met rather than a parent, friend or mentor.

Re:great parents (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030258)

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!)

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.

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 tracking devices, XXX domain names or age limits for video games, people here scream LIBERTY and talk about what a bad idea it is. *Note, I am not endorsing tracking devices, XXX domain names or video game ratings. That's another discussion.

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:great parents (1)

mhokie (988228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030302)

Huh? I sure hope you're not suggesting that the pederast set up the computer at the family's home. And then ordered and paid for the internet connection. I guess the pederast made the myspace account depicting the girl's age incorrectly too? As far as leaving the house as a 14 year old and meeting with/eating with/watching a movie with an older man, this was also entirely the pederast's fault.

In this case, negligence == fault. This girl's misguided path into the hands of a pedophile can be DIRECTLY traced back to the parent's inability. Why did this girl feel as though she couldn't talk to her parents? Why did she NEED to connect with this older male? Could it be possible that this aspect is missing in her life?

Re:great parents (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030284)

You're right... meanwhile both parents work 8 to 5, and the kid gets off school at 3. I'm so sure the parents can monitor their kids during that 2 hour window where the parents are still working...

Seriously though, parents shouldn't be expected to monitor their kids 24/7.

oh really? (3, Insightful)

mhokie (988228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030348)

then who should?

Re:great parents (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030556)

It's their responsibility to do so. If they cannot, then they need to arrange for alternate supervision. I'm not sure where the whole idea came from that some magical "other" should be responsible for your kids *at home* when you're not around.

placing blame (2, Interesting)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029546)

In the end, according to the judge, "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."

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? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030318)

That makes me so sad for all the little emo boys and girls. I think I'll go cry and maybe, you know, cut myself a little.

Yep, the only call (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029568)

This is like suing blockbuster because my membership card says "Gulliver" (which isn't my name - but they didn't check!), and somebody were to accept my (written in ink) blockbuster card as some form of ID. Say the bank were to loan a hundered thousand dollars to "Gulliver McMadeUpName", and then sue Blockbuster when I defaulted.

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 (5, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029772)

Actually, I had a thought.

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 (5, Funny)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030000)

oh, sorry about that, that was actually an artist's rendering of the security in window's vista.

Re:Yep, the only call (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18031000)

Because you liked it?!

Bullshit Detector Alert! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030560)

Blockbuster Video won't let you sign up for a membership without a valid credit card on file. Valid credit cards have - you guessed it - your name on them! So either you signed up for a Blockbuster Membership with a fradulent/stolen credit card or you're full of shit. Only on Slashdot would a remark like yours be moderated to +5.

hades is a frozen wasteland (1)

thexdane (148152) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029580)

the world must be coming to an end, not only are the police reunited and touring, there's a judge with some common sense and he's presiding in texas of all places. now if this would only catch on more

Thumbs up (2, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029586)

It's a good call.
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 (2, Funny)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029594)

I don't see how it's a company's job to keep people from lying on the internet. If it was, AOL's chat rooms would be in a lot of trouble...

Responsibility (1)

An Army of 1 in 10 (1064480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029608)

It's good to see that the right person is being held responsible and that Myspace (even if it is craptastic) isn't going to be the scapegoat. If a person is going to lie about his age, there's not much anyone can do about it. The judge had it right when he said, "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."

It's a shame this view isn't more prevalent, however.

Bad reasoning (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029612)

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:Bad reasoning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18029938)

Uh, the judge is in Texas...

Re:Bad reasoning (1)

J.Dev.06 (1025842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030664)

Yes! More parents need to own up to the responsibilities they took on when they took on a child. Mothers especially! All these mothers are rising up and blaming all of their child's problems, as well as problems they're having raising their child, on anything and everything else. I was reading yesterday that some mother is barking about the new Nintendo now. It gets her kid active sure, but when he goes out and plays real tennis then loses, it's suddenly Nintendo's fault since the Wii gave her child a false sense of competition and he lost self confidence because of it. There shouldn't be laws made to clamp down on privacy on the internet. There's plenty of ways to remain private on the net if you take the actions to do this yourself. What needs to be done is a proper educational set of videos talking about privacy concerns, monitoring internet usage, and all this common sense crap. Because really, we've got whole generations of people who have never used "the internets" much before, and no one is speaking about all these privacy issues to them. At least not loudly enough anyways. When I was growing up, there were T.V commercials all the time directed at parents, telling them to monitor what I was watching. It had to be done back then, why not today ? Its even more demanding to get this done since now the new medium is interactive! Education is the key. Not restrictions

About time ... (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029626)

This ruling, hopefully, will stop all of those propositions the government keep trying to make to ensure that everyone will somehow be responsible for ensuring that children don't get onto their site.

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. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029650)

I mean, not being perfect (or representing yourself as being so) at detecting the deceit of a lying user does not mean you have a "role in the assault" on a child. This should have been tossed out before it wasted as much court time as it did. Shame about the situation, but the girl's parents are entirely to blame, here. Don't know about your 13 year old daughter's social life and face-time meetings with strangers? Easier to sue, obviously.

Gasp! (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029682)

My faith in the justice system has been restored!

It shall fall again to the standard low expectations at the beep.

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep...

you know (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029720)

I really want to know more about the psychology of this and how it comes about. I mean... who wants to be with a 13 yo anyway? Though, 19 meh... I have known 19 year olds who have dated 13 year olds, its usually a case of an overly marture 13 year old and an immature 19 year old. Hell, one of my best friends today was 19 and dated my sister when she was 14 and going on 15.

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 (5, Interesting)

Hentai (165906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029818)

Actually, the guy didn't lie about his age - the *GIRL* did. She was 13, but claimed on MySpace - and presumably, in person - that she was 18. Kinda puts his actions in a different light, doesn't it?

Re:Article details are wrong (2, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030592)

Thats pretty obnoxious. Actually this stuff tends to be shakey anyway since the definition of "assault" isn't what one expects it to be. I mean, most people, even in terms of non-sexual assault, don't really understand the difference between say "assault" and "assault and battery".

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 was a case not too long back where an underage girl got into a bar with a fake id, was picked up by a major league baseball player (ok this was maybe 6-8 years ago... doesn't seem that long ago).

Even though it was in a bar, and even though she had used fake id to get in, he was still convicted. Don't know if he appealed or the conviction got overturned, but I do remember being rather incensed that such a moronic verdict was handed down.

-Steve

Re:Article details are wrong (2)

Hentai (165906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030818)

You CAN'T get that overturned - it's called "Strict Liability", and it means that even if there is NO WAY YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN that she was underage, you're STILL a filthy pedo who deserves to get butt-raped by Bubba.

Re:you know (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029896)

One episode of that show bothered me a lot, usually I actually "enjoy" it, in the sense that I see predators get what they deserve. Sick dudes showing up naked, expecting to meet an 8 year old boy, etc.

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'd just joined the army.

They grilled the guy forever, and portrayed him as some kind of sick monster, but I sat there watching this going "hey, the guy talked to someone only 3 years younger, every bit his peer, who actually enticed him over". At 18, I might have done the same thing. In fact, at 18, I did do the same thing (hit on 15/16 year olds). I hope that kid got a good lawyer, and I hope that lawyer successfully argued entrapment.

In reality, he was probably never even charged - lost aren't, the "evidence" they gather is usually pretty shakey heresay type stuff.

It just took the whole question of "child predators" out of the world of black and white, and slapped a nice thick coat of grey paint on it. Ever since then, I view that show (and programs like it) as witch hunts.

Re:you know (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030314)

They grilled the guy forever, and portrayed him as some kind of sick monster, but I sat there watching this going "hey, the guy talked to someone only 3 years younger, every bit his peer, who actually enticed him over". At 18, I might have done the same thing. In fact, at 18, I did do the same thing (hit on 15/16 year olds). I hope that kid got a good lawyer, and I hope that lawyer successfully argued entrapment.

I don't know where that took place, but in California we have a three year law. It doesn't make it not a crime, but it does reduce it to a misdemeanor or something.

I think the hard age limits are stupid anyway. When I was 15 I actually moved out of my house and in with a woman who was 20. Was I being taken advantage of? She paid the bills, all I did was buy food, and not even all of it :D

Re:you know (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030702)

When I was 19 I moved in with my first girlfriend, a 26 year old.

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 her just handle bills. Age really means little. My sister has regularly dated guys 10 years her senior, and I seem to be going for girls about 5 years my junior (which at 28 is legal for me)

People mature in different ways and at different rates.... I don't think any legislation will ever really be adequet in this area.

-Steve

correct call (1)

rolyatknarf (973068) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029732)

The judge correctly ruled that MySpace is protected by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It seems there are some (or at least one) in the judicial system who understand the law. This is refreshing news.

See for a few more details.

It should be apparent (0)

Recovering Hater (833107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029760)

That the name of the site in question is MySpace, not MyParents, or MyGaurdian! I mean, it's called MySpace for a reason and that reason is to let you know how dangerous it is. Duh. When I go to Space I understand that dangerous stuff happens and it is not the responsibility of space to protect me. It isn't the job of the junk flying around in space to watch out for me. I have to protect myself. It's obvious isn't it?

Re:It should be apparent (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030766)

Actually, I think you'll find it's called "MySpace" because a group of smartly-dressed marketing consultants were paid a hideous amount of money to come up with a catchy, "kewl", teen-grabbing name.

In Loco Parentis (5, Insightful)

tiberus (258517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029766)

This is a sick thing that happened and I think the guy should be jailed for life or worse but, what were the parents doing?!? I have to teenagers and while I won't delude myself in thinking I know everything that goes on in their lives, I have a fair idea about most of it (I hope).

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:In Loco Parentis (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029974)

I do the same thing. I watch my kid's actions on WoW (though I just dont enjoy playing), I know who he plays with online - mostly his clique from school. I monitor my daughters myspace page constantly, and (I hope) have adequately drilled into both kids heads the mantra of "NEVER GIVE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION". They both know to make something up every time.

The internet is full of assholes and sickos, because the world is full of assholes and sickos. I know this, so do people with common sense. So do this girls parents, but it's the lawyers and the american dream of the big paycheck from the courts that keep this sort of junk in the courts.

Re:In Loco Parentis (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030116)

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.

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 false in an attempt to modify my behavior. When I found out she was lying to me, I stopped caring about anything she told me and made my own decisions.

In general this worked out pretty well, but that's because I was a precocious little bastard. I read a lot, and I had some idea of what evil lurks in the hearts of men etc. In most cases it will not work as well.

I just want to share this quote; the rest of the song isn't quite applicable and I don't know where this part came from, it's a sample AFAIK.

Adults create the world, children live it. Juvenile delinquency is always rooted in adult delinquency. And in this process, parents play the key role when children grow up among adults who refuse to recognize anything that is fine and good, or worthy of respect."

I think that's a slight misquote. But I could be wrong, and anyway it doesn't change the meaning substantially. When parents act like asshats, children learn to disrespect them. Every time I encounter a parent who says "I don't know why little Jimmy (or whoever) disrepects me!" I just want to fucking SLAP THE TASTE OUT OF THEIR MOUTH. I don't do that, because I know that violence begets violence, but I sure as hell want to. There is ALWAYS a reason and it ALWAYS begins with the parents. Parents are supposed to be RESPONSIBLE for their child's upbringing but frankly we do not hold them accountable and that is why the masses do such a shit job of it. Instead of trying 15 year old Johnny as an adult because he shot some kid at his school, we should try him as a minor, and try his parents as accessories. It's their fucking responsibility to teach him how to live in our society. And it's one at which the majority of parents are falling on their ass.

He Lied, She Lied (1)

iridium_ionizer (790600) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029846)

Other news sites mention that the 19 year old male lied saying that he was a senior in high school (probably saying he was 18). However, the girl lied too saying that she was 18 when she was really only 13. I really doubt that the guy still thought she was 18 by the time he met up with her. He's a total creep, but who dropped the ball on the girl's side of this. They met up in the parking lot of a park. Real, safe public-meeting spot. Why didn't the girls parents teach her about strangers on the internet? And if so, are today's teenagers really that gullible?

It should be noted that MySpace doesn't let you register unless you at least say that you are 14 or older. But really if every website with comunications features had to verify the ages of all users (with credit checks, drivers licenses, social security numbers, what?) then very few modern style websites would be permitted to operate.

Re:He Lied, She Lied (2, Funny)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030164)

you mean two ugly, desperate people will go on the internet and lie to each other in a desperate attempt to get sex? now, you've got to be pulling my chain.

Bad Job, Judge! (2, Insightful)

Se7enLC (714730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029888)

The judge ruled, 'To impose a duty under these circumstances for MySpace to confirm or determine the age of each applicant, with liability resulting from negligence in performing or not performing duty, would of course stop MySpace's business in its tracks and close this avenue of communication.'"

So you're telling me that you had a chance to finally get rid of the atrocity that is MySpace and you DIDN'T???

Reasoning (2, Insightful)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18029934)

To impose a duty under these circumstances for MySpace to confirm or determine the age of each applicant, with liability resulting from negligence in performing or not performing duty, would of course stop MySpace's business in its tracks and close this avenue of communication.

Hmm, MySpace's business model would collapse if we rule against them. Therefore, it must be OK.

Right decision, wrong reason.

Re:Reasoning (1)

Khanstant (1049112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030224)

I agree, that seems like silly reasoning. Scary reasoning actually. If rulings are made only to keep our capitalist running then I'm even more worried than before.

Re:Reasoning (1)

Servo (9177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030498)

Hmm, MySpace's business model would collapse if we rule against them. Therefore, it must be OK.

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.

WTG Texas Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030006)

Again, what were the parents doing at said time? I bet tehy weren'y observing the behavior, or better yet, appaerntly not very good role models in the first place. Its not Myspace that is the problem!!!

OK, now to play devil's advocate (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030034)

I know we all, on the face, think this suit was ludicrous..

But, the Boy Scouts have been sued for allowing pedophiles as leaders, with no background checks, and the Church has come under a lot of fire for that.

Of course, both those (real world) organizations put these people in direct contact with children, whereas myspace is just a place for emos to "publish" their shitty poetry.

Ruling seems to be lacking something (4, Insightful)

harves (122617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030082)

It's odd to say it, but I don't think this ruling is "right". Particularly not the precedent that it sets. The judge expressed concern for MySpace's business future and for the other users of the service. Seriously, this is not "common sense", this is "big business rules".

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:Ruling seems to be lacking something (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030464)

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, and the judge said as much.

It's a negligence question, so it makes sense (1)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030548)

Okay, Myspace is a business, which operates under different rules than a non-business entity, largely because of what the assumption are. If I walk into a store front, either corporately owned or not, there is an expectation of safety, non-discrimination, etc., and other things that govern businesses open to the public. If I walk into a private club (whether it is a tree house or a rented building), there is less of an expectation that they are operating like a business would. Negligence and contributory issues depend on reasonable actions.

It is REASONABLE for me to assume that Wal-Mart's bathrooms are reasonably clean, and if they aren't and that causes problems, they are arguably negligent. It is NOT reasonable for me to knock on your door, ask to use the bathroom, and assume that your bathroom is up to health code.

It's not a matter of "they'd lose money," it's a matter of, is it reasonable to assume that they do, and if not, is it reasonable for them to do so?

It is reasonable to expect an open-to-the-public business to properly illuminate their building for safety reasons. It isn't reasonable to expect every citizen to always have sufficient lighting (bulb/fixture burns out, etc.). It is reasonable to expect a bank for verify identity, it isn't reasonable to expect a small website to do so. If I am running an adult book store or liquor store, it is reasonable to expect me to ID possible children at the door, it isn't reasonable for a corner book store to be expected to do so.

Myspace.com's business depends upon users being able to easily create accounts anonymously, therefore it isn't reasonable to expect them to verify identity, because it would compromise their business. If they needed to verify accounts for OTHER reasons, so it wouldn't be a burden upon their business, then it WOULD be reasonable to verify identities. Likewise, if it was a private club, the expectations of reasonable behavior are even lower. It isn't reasonable for me to expect the private club to be up to "open to the public" businesses if I knock on the door and ask to use the bathroom, OTOH, it is reasonable for me to expect that the bathroom isn't booby trapped or mined... if it was an ACTUAL death trap, they would be liable for letting me use it, while if it wasn't up to my standards, they shouldn't be liable, make sense?

Distinctions? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030120)

IANAL, so, what IS the difference between aquitting MySpace versus just dismissing the case here? Does dismissal mean that there STILL isn't any legal precedence made regarding claims that service provider XYZ made possible victim UVW to get TRS'd in the IJK?

Intra-Article Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030366)

to gain the confidence the confidence of a 13-year old girl
Emphasis added.
Wow, duping has moved up to the level of doing it within a single article. Impressive.

thi5 is goatsex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030382)

I HAVE A LIfE TO OS. Now BSDI is

Communication sites (2, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030418)

Communication sites like myspace (though not myspace in particular) are too important to the human race to damage over the abuse of one person. People are abused day in, day out, around the world. Closing or damaging myspace's ability to permit free communications will not solve this issue.

We must move forward as a species - not backwards. Our future lies in free exchange of ideas and communications, and anything that works contrary to this should be opposed.

We're a planet of billions. Keep things in perspective.

What I think (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030456)

I think Zonk's cock tastes like shit.

Correct call, wrong reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18030748)

Once again a supposedly legal decision is made on economic grounds. The only law in America is the law that says businesses must be allowed to make as much money as possible, and you fucking citizens had better not get in the way of that.

Modern parenting needs fixing! (3, Insightful)

marquinhocb (949713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030760)

So, this court case wasn't so much for MySpace, but for all online communities. I myself am not a MySpace fan, as I think they do nothing to help protect its users (See my journal about their lack of ingenuity and innovation).

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 blame for what they've done and the mistakes they've made to cause badness. And who pays the price? Well, sadly, one of the people who pays the price is kids. What happened to the day when parents' top priority was their kids? Nowadays, parents are more concerned with money and the "easy way out", than taking care of their kid.

Why on earth was a 13 year old girl able to talk to some stranger online, meet with him, without her parents ever knowing? Yes, the guy is a scoundrel. Yes, she was just a little girl. But why weren't her parents there to protect her? Why weren't they there to know exactly what she's doing online, talk to her, find out why she feels the need to meet people online (probably lonely, not many friends at school, not many boys interested in her at school, etc.). And not just confronting her and telling her "you're grounded, no more internet". They need to find out the cause of her feeling she needs to do this, and try to help.

Lastly, not every guy online is a scoundrel. Maybe this Pete Solis was, but if the girl's parents had been there to talk to her, and maybe even offer to go meet this guy with her - what kind of guy who's looking to assault a 13 year old would agree to that? He would bail out in a second, while on the other hand any guy who has a shred of decency would accept. That's the other problem with parents these days - they automatically assume the worst, and of course teenagers know this. So the teenager has no way of trusting their parent, because they know that just bringing this up with them will mean "no more internet".

So, the real issue here is, why are parents allowing their young girls to get conned online, and what are we doing to resolve this issue?

Cool call? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18030998)

I'm sure that the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe doesn't believe so.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?