Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
America Online Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex 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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@geekaz ... minus physicist> on Sunday April 17, 2005 @09:55PM (#12265602) Homepage
    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.
  • by fembots ( 753724 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:01PM (#12265638) Homepage
    From the friendly article:

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

    and

    The man, who was 23 when he met the girl online, has not been charged with a crime.
  • by technix4beos ( 471838 ) * <cshaiku@gmail.com> on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:03PM (#12265648) Homepage Journal
    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:Age of Consent (Score:2, Informative)

    by Princess Tarja ( 876619 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:07PM (#12265671)
    iirc in calif it's still 18, I never thought about that though, I just went with it when the time felt right.
  • MSN (Score:4, Informative)

    by nighty5 ( 615965 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:09PM (#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.

  • What is the crime? (Score:5, Informative)

    by shamir_k ( 222154 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:11PM (#12265706) Homepage
    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.
  • Re:Age of Consent (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:18PM (#12265754)
    The age of consent is 18 in California [ageofconsent.com].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:24PM (#12265796)
    The age of consent, though it varies state to state, is 18 in California.
  • Re:She's suing whom? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Macadamizer ( 194404 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:30PM (#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...
  • by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:30PM (#12265838) Journal
    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:Can of worms? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @10:42PM (#12265923)
    Hah! She was 17, it's even worse!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @11:02PM (#12266036)
    First of all she was 17, in many, many, countries this is exceeding the age of consent

    In quite a few US states, as well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17, 2005 @11:31PM (#12266196)
    ...age of consent in every country and state

    http://www.ageofconsent.com/ [ageofconsent.com]
  • by Magic Thread ( 692357 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @11:40PM (#12266251) Homepage Journal
  • by 404notfound ( 467950 ) on Sunday April 17, 2005 @11:57PM (#12266341)
    There's actually a subdivision of pedophilia known as ephebophilia. Ephebophilia refers to an adult's sexual attraction to adolescents, whereas pedophilia, strictly, refers only to attraction to prepubescents.

    Don't ask why I know.
  • by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @12:37AM (#12266540)
    Evolution didn't really make average 12 year olds able to concieve. Before modern dietary and medical improvements, typical age of menses was about 14-15. Sure some females started at 12, or even earlier, but it was far from average, and it didn't used to be very easy at all for a (typical) 12 year old to become "pregnate'.
    Up until the 19th century, the average age for settling down and getting hitched or makeing some kind of arrangments to assure the kids would be taken care of seems to have run consistently only about 18 months past onset of fertility.
    Now, average age of first menses is actually under 12 in most of the industrialized world. Kids are expected to wait until at least age 18, often 22-24 to start having kids of their own. That 18 month gap has become 10 years or more! Plus, the kids are younger, and therefore less experienced, when they have to face the decision! No wonder it's a bigger problem - but it has little or nothing to do with people rallying against nature (and did you mean "railing"?). This is an impact of something artificial.
    Some reasonably well educated and credentialed people even think there are other, less benign technologies than just better medical care and neutrition involved, and cite trace hormones found in beef and poultry from modern industry farm techniques as pushing the average age down still further.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 18, 2005 @12:37AM (#12266543)
    This does beg the question...

    No it doesn't. It raises the question.

    http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html
  • Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @01:15AM (#12266746)
    If you are 15 and stupid enough to meet someone from the net to have sex...you're an idiot.

    More importantly, she never met him at all, and it didn't come to almost meeting him till she was 17. The slashdot headline and even summary is, as usual, bullshit.

  • by xiphoris ( 839465 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @01:29AM (#12266803) Homepage
    http://www.ageofconsent.com/ [ageofconsent.com]
  • Re:OH NO, NOT SEX (Score:3, Informative)

    by kliment ( 627259 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @02:29AM (#12267045)
    Oh well, the first time I was in Amsterdam, I came across a group of middle-aged russian tourists. They were walking through the red light district with their guide, clearly fascinated yet trying to look offended. Then one lady said to another (in russian) "Where we live, there is no sex!".
  • by Spl0it ( 541008 ) <spl0it@msn.com> on Monday April 18, 2005 @08:29AM (#12268099) Homepage
    I'm offering this insight for people who are not aware of how other countries have 'tackled' this issue. In canada the age of official, un-ruled concent is 18. (The same as the USA).. However as soon as an individual reaches the age of 14, they are legally able to have sex with anyone under the age of 18, and anyone over the age of 18 who is not in a position of power. (Hence this operator, or a boss at the local 7-11, or whatever). The fact that this moderator was abusing his title and used it to build a relationship with this girl is un-ethical. That said, there is nothing wrong with a 23year old man and a 17 year old woman having a sexual relationship. Providing the woman or the man (whomever is younger) is not in a position where the person may be in an athoritative position and apply pressure on said individual. Oh and to that individual that said the "US" agrees that 15 year old's shouldn't be having sex, is speaking for him or herself only. I'm sure there are many different views, and I would bet that isn't necessarily the most popular one either.
  • Re:Can of worms? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @11:54AM (#12270125) Journal
    In most of the states (in US), the consent age is 16. As in, if I am 50, 16 is good to go for me.
    • Better
    • check the laws [ageofconsent.com] before you try that. Many states have an age limiter, so that for a few more years after the age of consent unless you're within 2-3 years of the younger partner it's still considered statutory rape. IIRC, AgeOfConsent.com lists the actual age where it's legal to have sex with anyone of any age. I can't quite check though as work blocks the site.
  • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @11:57AM (#12270153) Journal
    I'm technically supposed to be a reserve sergeant. I.e., in case of a war I'd actually get a squad or maybe a platoon of people, and I'd be supposed to lead them to their deaths. Now it doesn't mean I'm an expert in military matters or anything, but I like to think it does at least give me _some_ idea about it. You know, means at least I've seen some of it up close.

    And there's a helluva lot of difference between _maybe_ 1 in 10,000 soldiers doing something stupid in the army, and 9 in 10 students doing stupid stuff in college. You know, as in: several orders of magnitude of a difference.

    The vast majority of people _are_ responsible in the army. The vast majority of people are dangerously irresponsible in college. And here's the fun part: it's the same people in any country with conscription.
  • by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Monday April 18, 2005 @01:27PM (#12271229) Homepage Journal
    I'm sorry, but your fiance's ethics are quite suspect.

    You see, laws like this exist to prevent women like you from being taken advantage of. It's not wrong that your fiance is 5 years older than you, but 14 year old girls, on average, can not distinguish what love is. How many other men have you dated? You'd be suprised how what you once thought was love can be reproduced by a good portion of the population. Moreover, young people are weak willed and easily manipulated.

    So, by dating a 14 year old he's effectively rejecting our culture's rules. Because he couldn't wait for you to grow up, he's adding clout to any man who want to seduce a young girl because 'it might work out'. Yea, that's healthy. Morals are grey enough as it is, the least we can do is try to let people experience life for as long as possible before they have to make hard decisions. I mean hell, I've met tons of 19 year olds who don't have the maturity to have a serious relationship, and every relationship I know of that started before college and has been going on for years is creepy, trite, and uncomfortable because they weren't ready for it.

    Your fiance *is* a pedophile by definition, as he was attracted to you while you where a child. You could have easily been a victim, and incredibly selfish to say that because you're in love with your fiance that 14 girls who get hit on by older men are not victims.

    I ain't a conservative nor do I have the best ethical record either, so I rarely preach values, but it's just disgusting, wrong and stupid. It shows a complete lack of responsibility as a member of a society.

    If he really had respected you, he would have waited, and if you had respected yourself, you would have waited.
  • by dygital ( 591967 ) <dygital@NOSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday April 19, 2005 @03:32PM (#12285058) Homepage
    I posted this in my blog. So not sure of you are aware, but Slashdot is running a posting stating the headline that AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex which is false in context if you read the article. Also I have some insight on how these "AOL Monitors" work; since people have very minimal perspective them besides faulty articles and rumors. First, to summarize the article: Some [woman] online is suing AOL because when she was 15 she was conversing with an AOL "Monitor" (Community Leader - CL), and she was considering meeting that fellow around the age of 17, but never did. Now she is 19 and suing for psychological damages somewhere around $250,000. The Community Leader was/is (not clearly disclosed, 23 years old, male). First, AOL has this program for tenured AOL members call Community Leaders so they can empower the service and its members on how to use the service, and to moderate chats, message boards and other "public" areas on AOL. The requirement is that they commit to about 3 hrs a week to this "community work" of talking with other members abnd also creat lively good discussions. As a reward; they get a free unlimited usage AOL account ($23.90 value). Most people who do this are usually either Retired people, or Stay-At-Home types who like the internet. Some of the featured areas are Kids Only (KO), and Teens (RED) where moderators regulate chats. They do a FINE job of protecting the community and KO chats. I see a number of accounts with these CL's scrambling passwords and leaving notes that 'this SN said their full name' or like 'this SN said their address'. Its not a bad thing, but helps parents talk to their kids about online safety. These CL's like what they do since it helps everyone have a safe, more rewarding online experience. The abuse comes in when there is a line of trust with these accounts. AOL does its best job of screening applicants for a CL position. They must have an AOL acct for a minimum of 1 year, with NO terms of service violations, and must pass a criminal background check. A majority of applicants are refused for various reasons and only the outstanding few are accepted. They have an online training session, and a lot of legal guidelines and disclosures to adhere to, and then they begin. Their moderations are reviewed, but mainly to ensure no misuse of moderation powers (gagging, deleting posts, etc). Since AOL does not log its members for what they type; AOL does not have the ability of logging CL's unless it is reported via the 'Notify AOL' feature. AOL is very strict with those accounts and if you misbehave you are gone from the program. AOL does not pay the Community Leaders. They are compensated in the form of 1 free AOL account. So they are not AOL employees. However, AOL employees (paid) do oversee the program of AOL Community Inc., and they do their jobs well and this story doesn't (or atleast, shouldn't) reflect on their level of quality and professionalism on the service. As a result, AOL did fire that CL, and will be legally pursuing the issue. I hope that clears some things up on that article. Feel free to comment. :)

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...