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?"
Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
She's suing whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt she was 'seduced'... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I didn't RTFA (Score:1, Insightful)
Age of Consent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
he didnt break any laws (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I doubt she was 'seduced'... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:3, Insightful)
17 y-o ? 24 ? 45 ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Clarifying the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
AOL (as a company) didn't do anything... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
While she's at it... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:While she's at it... (Score:3, Insightful)
This does beg the question as to what level of safe is truly safe. Should a parent be over the childs shoulder 24/7 until they are 18? Does the safety claims of AOL absolve third parties (ie, the parents, schools) of responsibility? What about software like Net Nanny?
If paying for these services gains you no real protection and no real safety doesn't that make them useless and potentially fraudulent?
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is the crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:numbers dont add up [Offtopic] (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I will tell you why (Score:5, Insightful)
Math? (Score:3, Insightful)
Headline "15 year-old..."
Uh...15...plus 2..."girl now 19"....uh...
Re:I will tell you why (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll tell you why not. It's because of the level of mental maturity and the level of personal responsibility they are able to handle at such a young age.
If That's your reasoning, then why are
21 or 25 year olds allowed to have sex?
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that the guy's behavior was improper, given that he had a professional relationship with the young woman. On the other hand, I think the term "paedophile" should be reserved for those who are sexually attracted to people who are below the age of sexual maturity, not merely below the age of consent in a particular locale.
Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it is, and the question becomes if evolution has made 12 yearolds sexual beings at the age of 12, why is the age of concent 18?
Perhaps instead of rallying against nature people should accept the obvisous: children are sexual beings and to deny reality leads to sexually repressed future adults, or current adults being jailed among other problems.
This doesn't add up... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight:
She meets this guy online.
She chats with the guy online.
She gives the guy her phone number.
She talks to the guy on the phone.
They have increasingly explicit conversations.
She claims emotional distress.
Distress from what exactly? Her escapades with this dufus, or the fact that her parents divorced and she has trouble making friends (as stated in the article)?
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a girl age 15 - 17 doesn't know what she's doing -- especially when she is old enough to drive and obviously smart enough to sue a company like AOL 2 years later.
And where are the parents in all this? Didn't they teach their kid responsibility and give her the power to say "no?" Why was it even possible for this girl to virtually hang out and chat with this guy for two years and plan a get-together without them being involved or in the know? Did they themselves coerce her into suing AOL?
This doesn't add up.
AOL's parent controls are not a substitute for proper parenting.
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the sort of guy who takes advantage of a professional relationship to seduce somebody who is (at least initially) underage, inexperienced, and in emotional turmoil. And it would not surprise me if, with a little time to reflect upon what happened, the young woman felt that his behavior toward her was unethical. Regardless of whether it would have been legal or illegal for him to have sex with her in that state, it seems like AOL has an obligation to supervise the activities of its chat room monitors and make sure that they are in accord with company policies and the representations that AOL has made to customers.
Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'... (Score:2, Insightful)
The mere existence of a "legal age to start having sex" is something bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not into free love and would never cheat on my girlfriend.
But I do think people are free to do as they please, at least in this matter.
BTW, 16 is still a more or less high age, you'd be amazed about what a 15 year old kid knows. And if that kid decides to have sex with her 16 and a half years old boyfriend, I don't think there's any reason for the boyfriend going to jail except some angry parents who want to think their daughter is more naive than what she really is.
Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at why that argument makes no sense:
If evolution has made humans capable of killing each other, why are there laws against killing?
If evolution has made humans liars at any age, why are there laws against lying in some situations?
I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature. I forget the philosopher who said it, but laws are only for criminals. If we could trust everyone to behave in mutually altruistic was (assuming somehow that everyone agreed on what that meant), we wouldn't need laws. Laws exist to exert normative force on those who would otherwise transgress.
What this comes down to is that we have laws restricting the age of consent so as to prevent the abuse of children by adults. The state has a valid interest in preventing emotionally immature children from being taken-advantage-of by malicious adults.
Re:What is the crime? (Score:2, Insightful)
Predator is often used for pedophile. A pedophile is someone who has sex with someone who is under the age of consent. The fact that this isn't a criminal matter suggests that she was in fact over the age of consent. How was AOL's promise broken by this case?
Or is ANYONE who has sex (or wants to have sex) with a consenting partner that is over the age of consent a predator?
The only part of the lawsuit I saw that had any credence was the "for causing emotional distress" part. So guess what guys. Anytime you enter into a relationship with a woman, if you break-up it better be on good terms, because otherwise you'll case emotional distress and have to pay for it.
The fact that a rape victim is 16 does not automatically mean that the victim in fact consented, or that a possible lapse in promised security did not in fact provide the means for the rape.
Why bring up rape? It's got nothing to do with the article.
Re:Parents (Score:3, Insightful)
And they did exactly that. They chose an ISP that has what is specifically advertised as 'kid safe' chat rooms. Monitored by supposedly responsible adults, hired for the express purpose of preventing the precise condition that happened.
Or are you advocating that the parents should sit in the chair next to her evry minute she is online?
Re:While she's at it... (Score:3, Insightful)
There comes a time when parents SHOULDNT be constantly watching and that girl was the right age. Either she knew exactly what she was doing (maybe she wanted it or maybe she was just playing...they never actually did it) or she needed to learn a few things about life before leaving the house.
Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then sexuality is defacto criminal? I think that is an assumption, and one I do not happen to share with you at this point in time.
"Laws exist to exert normative force on those who would otherwise transgress. "
This is a discussion about norms, thus you conclude with your assumption when you say that this is wrong because it is not normal. The point is I argue it (sexuality) is normal, and to deny so is harmful.
Re:Abstinence... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sex should not = pregnancy (not with the amount of birthcontrol available), and the reason why children are more prone to this is that they are kept ignorant.
Then perhaps instead of denying these 12 yearolds sex education where they can learn about birthcontrol we tell them; then they can be aware of their sexuality, how do intelligently deal with people who want to have a sexual relationship, and how to intelligently engage in sex should they choose to do so knowing the rewards and risks in such behaviour.
As my roommate would say.. (Score:2, Insightful)
old enough to breed.
Re:Parents (Score:3, Insightful)
Well parents want it both ways I guess. They want their kids to have freedom and not have to mind them 24/7. However, they do not want to give their children the knowledge (e.g. sex education) and wherewithall to engage their environment and other human beings intelligently.
Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is, then where do you want to draw the line? If a guy first has contact with a girl when she's 15 then she consents to having sex with him when she's 19 does that then still count as wrong? How about if she consents to having sex when she's 21? 30? 40? Are you just going to pick an arbitrary number?
The girl was below the age of consent at 15. If the guy had asked her to have sex with him then then that would have been wrong. But for a 17 year-old to agree to do something of her own free will - when the law recognises that she's free to do it - and then raise a hue and cry about it is plainly ridiculous.
If I were a judge and this came to my court I'd ask the girl one simple question: "when he first asked you to have sex with him or made any sexual overtures towards you, how old were you and did he know your true age at that time?". If the girl said she was past the age of consent (especially if she was a year or more past it) then I'd throw her case out in a heartbeat.
Girls meet older guys all the time. When they first meet is irrelevant. It's when they get down to business that matters. And, in this case, that didn't even happen, did it?
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then you have R.Kelly's in the mix then (although she was 14, and likely not prepubescent, but is a close example to my point).
The dangerous people* are adults who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children as they have no other release for their sexual energy.
*This assumes an adult having sex with a person under the age of concent is dangerous. Few places exist to intelligently discuss that topic, and fewer people still would advocate that it is not. I guess untill people can intelligently discuss this issue openly this problem, such as it is, will continue to exist in (post anicent Greek) Western societies
Re:AOL (as a company) didn't do anything... (Score:2, Insightful)
This IS that sort of case. The older party is a chat monitor, and it's his job to make sure that nothing sexual takes place. Among the chat room environment, there really isn't any higher authority.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This doesn't add up... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like an someone selling you a waterproof watch which breaks the moment you step into water, and then the seller saying "you are stupid to swim with your watch on" as an excuse.
Re:Women are always presupposed as innocent (Score:3, Insightful)
Why yes it does, but an adult "tangoing" with a 15 year old is illegal in the US, even if the 15 year old wanted it. Besides, one would expect that a person who's job it is to keep children safe from predators by monitoring chat rooms would have the sense and willpower to not succumb to the wiles of a kid.
Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a case of AOL failing to provide an advertised service.
Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think I'm bad, one of the managers of the bioinformatics department hasn't paid his taxes, ever. He decided he didn't believe in debt, and as a result has a credit score that's about as low as it gets (do they go below zero?). And, he's a manager and a great programmer.
If you put someone in a bubble world such as school, where everything is fake, most of the asignments are nothing more than busywork, and nothing really matters, at least not for another life time (which is what 12 years seems like when you are that age), then you get the expected behavior of not really caring. On the other hand, I think that if you put people that 12 and beyond in an environment where they are exposed to the consequences of their actions, and these actions matter, then they suddenly start acting like adults.
Whether this change in behavior is a function of age or a function of environment is up to the reader. I believe that it's due to the former.
That being said, I couldn't see myself dating someone under the age of 18, mainly because most of them haven't experienced enough, they just don't have enough repoirte. But I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that they incapable of the least amount of responsibility. They are still a member of the same species, and being 12 doesn't make you mentally retarded.
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this term refers only to those exclusively attracted to adolescents. The way you state it would classify pretty much the entire adult population of Earth as mentally ill, which is (While I personally am prepared to accept it) pretty much a contradiction in terms.
Re:Doesn't sound very preditorial to me, really.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And now she's suing for the surprisingly small sum of 25k. Not 25 million, 25 thousand. Which is still a lot of money, but in the realm of litigenous bastards it's pretty modest.
Of course, I do think the guy should be fired, there is no question of that. But the question is was this "safe for children?" Can someone below the age of consent consent to meeting for sex after they'll be above the age of consent? Is it preying on someone if they've had a relationship for 2 years? Is this a lawsuit about false advertising, or will the courts be forced to quantify the damages that one year of a virtual relationship can do to someone one year under the age of consent?
It's a big, grey splotch, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in court.
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me... a friend of mine (with a degree in biology) is fond of pointing out that there are excellent evolutionary reasons to be attracted to the youngest post-puberty potential mates...
Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"America Online spokesman Nicholas Graham said the company fired the monitor and contacted authorities after learning of the situation in April 2003. The man, who was 23 when he met the girl online, has not been charged with a crime."
This is not a criminal case, it's a lawsuit.
Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent's can't do everything. (Score:4, Insightful)
One way for the parents to act would be only allowing the children to access only "safe" sites wouldn't it? Like that AOL service claimed to be. It'slike if a parent bought a game for children and it contained harsh violence and strong sex references. Would that be the parents fault?
It seems the Slashdot crowd is very fast on judging parents, but have you really thought this through? Maybe you should try to imagine how it would be to have a child n your own? Would you be that perfect parent that you expect everyone else to be?
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:3, Insightful)
No, we don't all agree. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Do try to remember that.
I'm asking, on behalf of the United States, for the same of respect for our laws in this regards.
My, you certainly have delusions of grandeur. You might want to see a therapist about your problem....
Max
Re: Keyword: Normative (Score:2, Insightful)
Its simply a cultural belief forced on to others in the minority. It has no basis; its tradition.
It was not all that long ago the line between Adult and Child was lower than 18.
I've seen "adults" being taken advantage of...they are not much better than kids... Its not like magically at 18 a person becomes an adult.
"Abuse of children" is bad, but its not so clear cut what is abuse and what is a child. We have simply picked #s for the acts. If we live by the letter of the law, we may as well plan to have computers replace judges in the not so distant future.
WHERE is common sense? (supposedly in our legal system...)
Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws exist to provide justification for intrusion by the state into a particular aspect of life of the community on which it resides. When the state takes on the role of protector of your child you no longer have a claim to him or her. Laws exist to carry out political agendas, to create policy. To keep the powerful in power and keep the weak out. It is true that people don't act in mutually beneficial ways, but the greatest concentration of self-centered people is in the government. Less laws is the solution. To stop violence, the greatest source of violence in society must be delegitimized.
Your view of the law is just something that people started telling themselves during the enlightenment so they could go to sleep at night without feeling like a total bitch.
translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Read: "a male coworker, pissed off that he wasn't getting any 17-year-old action (or any at all, probably; he DOES work for AOL), decided to ruin things for everyone on the theory that 'if I'm not having sex, he doesn't get to have it either'".
Max
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
The same goes for most of my friends:
Teenage years: petty crime, drinking, and a little driving recklessly.
College years: alcohol poisoning, joining cults, getting stoned, stealing radar detectors from cars, exploring "alternative" sexual behavior, losing thousands of dollars playing blackjack, acquiring psycho-stalker ex-girlfriends, getting pregnant, getting arrested for providing beer to minors, starting fires... and the list goes on.
Maybe it really shouldn't be legal to do much of anything until you're 29 or so.
And don't give me that "old enough to fight for your country is old enough to drink or vote" bullshit. 18-year olds can be very good at killing people, but that doesn't mean they can hold their liquor or stay awake through a whole episode of "Frontline."
Re:Watching the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a day care centre did not perform adequate checks on their employees, and then employed a known pedophile who then attempted to molest children at the centre, the centre would rightly be sued for negligence - precisely because they've advertised the service as safe for children. AOL's case is no different; they've advertised the service as safe for kids.
Of course, whether AOL have or have not failed in this duty is for the courts to decide.
Re:Watching the watchers? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all very well to say the parents should be responsible, but how? How can I protect them, aside from banning net use altogether?
Re:Watching the watchers? (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is the issue: AOL internet chat rooms are only available to AOL subscribers, and AOL subscribers pay money to AOL precisely because they've been told the potential danger of non-AOL chat rooms and have been assured that this danger can be eliminated by paying AOL money.
Similarly with you chainsaw juggling class for under-5s. If your chainsaw instructor identified the common concern with most chainsaw juggling lesson providers ("live chainsaws will chop off various body parts") but provided a solution to this problem ("we're only actually juggling inflatable chainsaws that couldn't cut paper if it tried"), but then provided live chainsaws instead of inflatable chainsaws - then you'd have a case when your kiddie comes home less two arms and a foot: because you'd been assured that your kid would only be using safe inflatable chainsaws.
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea is that if they're old enough to make a choice that can result in getting killed for their country that they should be able to make choices regarding their own bodies.
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you decide the child is responsible enough to be allowed access to the world on their own, then your argument is with them if they decide to investigate the red light district.
[...] Like that AOL service claimed to be.
If I set up a club for children claiming I was a nice guy, honest, would you let your kids join without finding out anything more about it? And you have no reason to believe I have an ulterior motive, whereas you know that AOL is just trying to squeeze money out of you, so will be running the cheapest possible service with minimum possible regulation and supervision, hireing people for peanuts and so potentially attracting people who get more than the wage packet out of the job.
if a parent bought a game for children and it contained harsh violence and strong sex references. Would that be the parents fault?
Yes.
Well, not if they just bought it, but if they gave it to the kid without checking whether it was actually what they thought it to be.
Would you be that perfect parent that you expect everyone else to be?
The question is not whether parents can be perfect, but whether they should be able to not try and then blame the rest of the world for the resulting problems.
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt everyone but religous prudes believe that these laws stop people having sex. It perhaps makes them regret it later when their girlfriends crazy parents come along and press charges but it doesn't stop shit.
I can tell you right now that as soon as children start going through puberty they are going to be interested in sex. The reason girls used to get married so young (ie. 12) not 50 years ago is because before birth control they got pregnant and it was the socialy accepted norm that she was to be married. These days teenagers are having sex at the same age as they always did, its just that with propper birthcontrol use they don't have to worry as much about kids.
Don't even get me started about contributing members of society, as soon as you start paying taxes (15 in your country IIRC) you should have the right to get a leg up.
To summerize, those laws do nothing to stop people from having sex and those who believe they do are fooling themselves. If anything they would stop girls telling their mothers that the condom broke and they need a morning after pill.
Re:Watching the watchers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aparently the parents didn't feel she was worth protecting. Otherwise we'd have heard about them dragging AOL and the pervert through the courts 4 years ago, rather than the girl doing it now.
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't allow, let alone pay, someone I didn't know anything about to supervise my kids.
Re:What is the crime? (Score:1, Insightful)
No, but they are certainly entitled to claim the service cannot be reasonably expected to be perfect. If AOL was consistently and routinely screwing up this promise, and kids were being targeted all the damn time, maybe you'd have a case. But all signs point to this being a very rare accident which AOL took all reasonable precautions to avoid.
Human nature being what it is, no service is absolutely 100% perfect, however hard the provider tries. On occasion, your doctor is going to miss something. Your lawyer is going to blow it a bit in Court. Your tax accountant is going to miss a deduction and cost you a few bucks. Your software is going to have a bug.
And, sure, they should make reasonable amends. It sounds like AOL is doing that here. They fired the guy, they'll probably do more careful checking. They probably offered to return all their money, maybe pay a little extra dough because, oh dear it turns out the 15-year-old girl was actually talking about sex, not homework or cute animals online. (I know, I'm shocked too. What is the younger generation coming to? Why I didn't talk about sex until I was...um....well, never mind.)
But if anyone thinks products and services provided by human beings are going to be absolutely perfect, and throw a huge fit and sue for millions when they're not -- well, they're either parasites who should be fumigated or whiny adolescents not ready to join the real world.
Re:Can of worms? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no 'Can of Worms"
It's f**king inappropriate for an adult to attempt a meeting like this with a minor, even if SHE thought it was a good idea. She may think it's exciting and want to meet an older man but it is legally wrong, for reasons we can all speculate on, like say, it may prove to be dangerous, she could become psychologically damaged in a situation like this, she could come home in a box (wait, that's the military, sorry) etc, etc, etc.
The burdon here is on the ADULT, and he should get charged to the extent of the laws in the state he is in. Not only did he attempt the meeting, but he was in an extremely lucrative position at AOL to do EXACTLY what he was there to protect people from. This is not a typical 'internet danger story' because of that very thing - he may have told her this was a way to stop things like this, come to this meeting, blah blah blah...
Kids will eat candy instead of food all day long, but an attentive adult won't let that happen. As an adult, it was his responsibility to say 'No,' as the teen may not have the experience and knowledge to realize the long-term consequences. Man, I was all up on some high-school shennanigans in my time, but it was with my own age group... This guy knew better and I hope he gets charged as a deviant and a danger to minors...
You Slashdot lunks saying she gets what she asks for really need to get outside more, untuck your shirts, stop wearing your phone on your belt (that's you, dork) and understand the difference between a 17 year-old and a clever adult male - it's pretty drastic, and can be a lot more than the one year 'til she's 18. She may not even be a responsible adult then, at this rate.
So yeah clowns, I'll rate myself muthf***kin' INSIGHTFUL
She's just after easy money (Score:3, Insightful)
So one day, she just woke up and realized "hey! I was unprotected!"? I can't get behind that liklihood. As one female poster had stated, she had a great deal of contact with males of a wide range of ages originating online. This indicates to me that young girls (or boys?) don't care about any age of consent rules or laws in general. (A significant point for anyone who would act as a monitor -- you're putting yourself at needless risk!)
Meanwhile the suit is against AOL and its 'failure' to fulfill its obligations. That's a tough one since I am not aware of their actual 'promise' (TOS, some other contract) and who it is with?
I can't get away from believing this is just a young woman, living in California (around tax time!) thinking she can get some money from AOL. And given the high taxes and price of gasoline today, I can't blame her for desperation.
This whole thing is bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying because you have no self control and act like a four year old, no one is capable of being an adult until they're "29 or so"? Don't tar me with the same brush as you and your college buddies thanks. Some of us have brains.
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a thought:
You could try teaching them some common sense[1], so they don't go off to have sex with strangers they know nothing about.
Just a thought...
[1] Ideally, this should be done before they are 15.
the only thing wrong here... (Score:3, Insightful)
At that age, wanting sex is perfectly normal, indeed at that age, among females, close to 2/3rds have had sex already. (males are a bit later because quite often couples consist of a younger girl and older boy)
It's quite stupid to have laws against behaviour that is voluntarily, has no outsiders harmed and is so common that practiced by the majority.
Personally I first had sex with my girlfriend when I was 16 and she was 15. We both wanted it. Perfectly legal, nothing wrong about it.
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
In Italy, both approaches are active. Consenting heterosexual sex is allowed from the age of 14, with a partner no older than 16, and the 2 years difference is maintained through to 18 years. At 18, anything goes of course.
Religiously enough, though, homosexual practices are only allowed at 18.
The rule seems to be in accordance with the average age of a girl first having sex, which according to surveys is 14.something years.
Of course this doesn't change parents' mentality and denial at all. As a doctor, when taking a patient's history, I need to ask parents out of the room in order to ask an underage girl if she's taking contraceptives. This isn't actually in complete accordance with the law, but you can't expect a true answer if you don't do this.
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty much to be expected given that the vast, vast, vast majority of Slashdotters are either under-age (and thus jumping at an opportunity to subtly pass judgement on their own parents), or single. The "where's the parents???" line has reappeared in hundreds of threads on Slashdot, and every time it gets moderated up as insightful.
It isn't insightful - it's tired, repetitive, idealistic bullshit, often in direct logical opposition to the story that they're bitching about. A parents group spending their time and effort to try to have age-limits applied on video games? WHERE'S THE PARENTS! Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content? WHERE'S THE PARENTS! It's so illogical it really defies comment, but every time these moronic comments get modded Score 5: Insightful (but dumb).
Parents can't watch their children 24/7 and create healthy children, especially in the mid teens, and there has to be some reliance upon the behaviour of others in this giant village that we all live in - It DOES take a village to raise a child, unless you're raising a bush-person.
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. So your kids have never had a babysitter, a coach, or a teacher? What amazing home schooled, super-parented children you must have.
Or more likely you don't have children, and this just provides the opportunity to imagine that if you did you'd be the uber-parent. Right....
It's NOT about "good enough at killing" (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing, however, is about responsibility and making the right judgment call.
E.g., when you stand guard for _hours_ with an assault rifle and live ammo, you're trusted to be responsible enough to _not_ start shooting at cars on the nearby highway because you're bored. E.g., when you're taught how to lob a grenade, and yes at some point you'll get to use live ones, you're trusted to be responsible enough to not lob it at your platoon mates or shove it down your own pants. Etc.
But you know why that works, while college is an exercise in proving you're more stupid than the others? Consequences.
Sorry, 18-19 year olds are _not_ brain-dead. They _are_ perfectly capable of cause-effect judgment.
However, like all humans at all ages, they choose the course of action that offers the best (short time) effect.
In the army you _know_ that you'll be up shit creek without a paddle if you do something stupid.
In college it's exactly the other way around: the way to gain prestige and peer recognition is to do all those sorts of stupid things. Think of it as the RL equivalent of karma whoring on
So it's not that you're more stupid at 19 than you are at 29. In both cases you just pick the course of action that promises the most rewards, and the least perceived short-term risks. It's just that at 19 and in college the whole rewards and negative consequences scale is turned on its head. So the perfectly logical course of action to take in that situation, seems bloody stupid when viewed from another context.
Overspecialized culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, welcome to adolescence, kid. And that feeling will come back again and again if you're one of the lucky ones. And you'll keep getting over it if you're paying attention and not just trying to suppress it. The choice is yours. (But of course the "culture" in America for the most part merely instructs us as to who can get away with what against whom....)
My prediction: This case will - at the most - end up with a minor injunction against AOL, and maybe some reparations to the parents, but I doubt it. The parents should be the ones suing, actually, and the case could very well be thrown out on that technicality.
What I want to know is, if this guy was some kind of predator then where are the dozens of other young girls he solicited? Oh, there weren't any? Hmm... Frankly, he sounds like a normal, healthy young man who reasonably considered his job at AOL to be a drag and decided that since his job was a soul-killing, stultifying dead end he felt compelled to transcend it and engage himself in a more natural mode. Namely, conversation and flirtation.
So you might fault him for being unprofessional, but frankly even that's a stretch in this here organic reality. A person in his early twenties is still learning and exploring and should not be expected to manifest the standards of corporate perfection at all times. A person at that age needs experience, challenge, adventure, interpersonal interaction, and is not constituted to spend endless hours in an internet chat-room.
Maybe someday we'll all evolve to adhere to a corporate model of conduct, but somehow I doubt it. The days of overspecialization are numbered.
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point that was so eloquently made was that 15 is an age where you can be as adult or as stupid as when you're 25. Yes, there are somethings you don't have experience of but fundamentally you can't just sit there letting the state and others pay for someone else's stupidity until an arbitrary cut-off where you say "Well we've taught you all we can. Any gross stupidity from now on is your own look out."
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the kid was going to spend an extended period of time being supervised by one person alone, then rather than just being in a class, then I would think you'd want to know that teacher a little better than `oh some guy I never even heard of at AOL is supervisng her today'.
Re:Can of worms? (Score:3, Insightful)
And their friends aren't smart enough to realize that there are permenant consequences for some actions.
Now I'm not saying that this is the case here, but online it is impossible to really know someones age. I could tell you that I was 15 and if you were 15 you probably would not be equipped to know if I was telling the truth or not.
Sure, there are some people who are very Internet savvy who know better. Most of them are not 15 (or even 17)
2 things should have happened here. 1) Her parents should have known more about what she was doing, though that doesn't always stop a 15/17 year old from doing it anyway. 2) AOL should have caught the activity, which they did, and fired the offender (not sure if they did).
Re:Watching the watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I leave a child at a day-care centre, I have every reason to believe that my child will not come to physical harm because day-care centres are not normally staffed by child-molestors or chainsaw juggling instructors. A better analogy, perhaps, is a playground.
If a parent takes a child to a playground, and then leave them unsupervised at the playground, then the parent is being negligent and has no good reason to sue the local council. If, on the other hand, the parent takes the child to a playground and pays someone to babysit - ie. supervise - their child, and that supervisor - either through negligence or through willful misconduct - allows the child to come to harm then it is the supervisor who is at fault and not the parent, as the parent has had a guarantee from the supervisor that they as a responsible adult will not allow the child to come to harm.
This extends further: if, instead of employing a supervisor directly, the parent takes their child to a supervised playground where the playground owner specifies that by paying an entrance fee the playground will ensure that the children are properly supervised, the parent has acted properly and has ensured that their child will not be tempted to go to the back of the car of some pervert offering the kids sweets.
And this is the point: AOL are not offering chainsaw juggling lessons: they're offering a supervised playground. An unsupervised internet chat room is no more directly dangerous to a child's health than an unsupervised playground. It's only when the pervert in the car is allowed to approach the kids that the playground becomes a dangerous place; and it's only when the chat room is improperly supervised - EITHER by the parent OR by the delegated supervisor - that they become dangerous.
In this instance, allegedly, it went further than the trusted playground supervisor failing to prevent a child approaching the car offering sweets, it was the supervisor himself who offered the sweets from the back of a car.
And the same applies with baby-sitters.
A parent does not always have to be present for them to reasonably believe that their children are being properly supervised.
Re:It's NOT about "good enough at killing" (Score:1, Insightful)
Nice false dichotomy. Of course they're not brain dead, but they're very often not capable of long-term cause-effect analysis. That's the nature of the beast that is youth
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are all boys.
so why is it someone elses fault when she decides to sleep with someone she met over the net?
This was a girl.
This is the part of the feminist hypocrisy: "Let me do what I want, but if I screw up, I get to sue you."
Re:Can of worms? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was wondering how 15 + 2 = 19
Re:Can of worms? (Score:3, Insightful)
* As much as you can qualify the death of all higher brain functions due to liquification of the cerebral cortex as life.
And your second suggestion is just ignorant. Having an abortion is a traumatic experience both physically and emotionally, women don't often choose to repeat it.
Re:Can of worms? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The parent's can't do everything. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Can of worms? (Score:2, Insightful)