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?
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Can of worms? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was wondering how 15 + 2 = 19
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:Can of worms? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh yes, delay adulthood to almost fsking age *30.* That'll be a real boon to society. Hows about we just put it off until 40 or 50 to make absolutly sure the little buggers are mature enough? Jesus, this sounds like Logan's Run in reverse.
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: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."
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.
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
Re:Can of worms? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course in most place in the world you'd be allowed to have sex if you were 15.
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)
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: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: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:Watching the watchers? (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: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: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: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.
Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Digital Fortress Quote (Score:5, Funny)
(failed Latin)
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Funny)
I think at some point in this country we are going to have an honest debate about age of consent. In most european countries it varies from 14-17.
We like to maintain this fantasy that our kids are NOT having sex -- but, Ive been in the back rooms, and the level of detachment young people have from sex took me until my late 20's to develop.
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Whoops. Whatever your reasons were, they're irrelevant now.
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to break it to you, but those Japanese schoolgirls aren't kiddies.
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
However, this approach makes particularly liberal people uncomfortable since they don't like the idea that you can legally have sex with some people but not with others (where the others can legally have sex with some people). It also makes particularly conservative people uncomfortable since they don't like the idea that their fourteen year old daughter can legally have sex.
Since it isn't getting picked up by either the liberals or the conservatives, I can't see the US adopting it. But that's politics for you...
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Informative)
In Florida, for example, there's a two-year "safe zone" (a 14 year old can legally consent with a 16 yo, etc...)
Yes, in Virginia too. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I will tell you why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I will tell you why (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't have sex until I was 18 because it was Illegal in my state...
*sobs*
Ok, OK! It's really because I was a loser in high school and couldn't get laid if my life depended on it...
Re:I will tell you why (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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: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
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:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with a lot of you say, it is a very good post.
"Well that and a.) Shit happens, b.) No birth control is 100% effective, c.) There's no reliable way to ensure that everybody participates."
And the solution is to pretend children are not sexual and will not engage in sex for 5-8 years after puberty? Let's do better.
"Problem two is that if I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody arbitrarily making these decisions without me."
How about allowing the children to make the decisions for themselves. Allow for laws that permit children to ask for birth control from their doctor without parental consent.
= Additional Thoughts =
The sodomy laws were just repealed in 2003 (in the United States), so Puritanism is still out there but it seems to be on the decline. But in rejecting Puritanism society seems to be going towards some sort of cheap commercial view of sex. This is also probably wrong.
Indeed, a lot of the problem has to do with societal attitudes, especially with respect to society to the victims as well. What if the so called victim thought the relationship was rewarding? His or her choice is to either believe they were victimized and are damaged goods or say they enjoyed the relationship and turn the pity of society into disgust and persecution, or be brainwashed into thinking it was evil [libchrist.com].
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but times have moved forward a couple of thousand years since B.C. Who cares what the age of consent was back then? I want to know what it is now.
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?
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 o
Re:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Clarifying the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
That is, I've dated older men online (years and years ago) when I was around that age. Indeed, I met my fiance when I was around 14 and he was about 19. He is probably the oldest person I've ever been involved with, but it was extremely awkward when we were dating for the first few years, especially when he turned 20 and I was still under the AOC in my state (and still in high school, though not for long).
It's unfair to call the younger one in this relationship a "victim" and especially unfair to call the older one a "pedophile" or even a sexual predator when all signs seem to point to the opposite; a consenting and apparently rather close relationship.
That said, AOL still dropped the ball here. At the very least, this will hopefully force them to tighten their belts a bit to prevent something truly tragic from taking place (if it hasn't already).
Doesn't sound very preditorial to me, really.. (Score:3, Interesting)
So if I meet a girl online, then find out that she's 15 years old, and say "Hey, maybe in a couple years we could meet each other" - I'm suddenly a potential rapist? This guy was only 23 when he met her, it's not like he was a 40 year old guy. I've known of plenty of guys in their mid 20's going out with girls at
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
She's suing whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She's suing whom? (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Only Human? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only Human? (Score:3, Funny)
W00T!!! Which UT2004 bot allows you to pick up chicks???
gg
Parents (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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: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.
perfect job for pedofiles (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:3, 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:perfect job for pedofiles (Score:3, Funny)
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: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: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.
I doubt she was 'seduced'... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I doubt she was 'seduced'... (Score:5, Funny)
mod me up if you too like out of context quotes!
Age of Consent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Age of Consent (Score:3, Interesting)
So you could conceivably see a 22 year old teacher going to prison for having concensual sex with a 20 year old.
Who's watching the watchers? (Score:5, Funny)
Who's watching the watchers?
Sounds like they are watching each other.
MSN (Score:4, Informative)
A shame that a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us. MSN Chat was a great way to meet everyday people instead of the geeky IRC chat.
Should you really.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:MSN (Score:3, Interesting)
MSN chat is still around. You have to subscribe to a Microsoft service in order to gain access to MSN chat, or join up one of the free channels if they are still around. I seem to remember CA, usually Canada or Centra Australia depending on the hour, was free. If you pay for hotmail, have an dialup/dsl account, or use webtv (if that's even still supported), you could access MSN chat. Prior subscribers, and those who created a @MSN.com hotmail account also see
Re:MSN (Score:3, Interesting)
I seem to remember a 60 Minutes episode on how a young girl, not sure how young, was convienced to leave home, and caught a flight from America to Greece. Most notable hearing the MSN chat / messenger sounds in the background which made me wonder if this did happen on MSN chat or if they just used that as a generic example. You could be correct that this was a PR move, as well as
What is the crime? (Score:5, Informative)
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:What is the crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
The age of consent has nothing to do with it. The expectation based on AOL advertising was that minors would be protected from predators. 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.
And they absolutely can be liable. If a firm offers a service, they cannot then state the service does not in fact exist, or is of no value. That is bait and switch. I cannot, for instance, open a store, say that a product is available, and then not have the product available. Even the cheapest of stores guarantees product availability for at least on day. Under your logic, I can claim to provide DSL speed, but only offer analog telephone modem lines. All I have to do is send a note with the shipped package saying that all service is analog modem. The standards of product offers and prices have been set for quite a while. If a firm is going to offer something, they better provide it. Even an disclaimer is often not enough.
Re:What is the crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article... (Score:5, Funny)
OMFG what a cockblock that was.
Re:From the article... (Score:5, Funny)
If he's not careful, he's going to need a whole lot of cockblocking very shortly.
Math? (Score:3, Insightful)
Headline "15 year-old..."
Uh...15...plus 2..."girl now 19"....uh...
possible solution (Score:3, Funny)
Then no one will whine anymore about kids being predatored online.
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: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.
19 years old? (Score:3, Funny)
In all seriousness - What's best about this story is that she's actually a 40 year old man, much to the disappointment of the AOL employee.
Been waiting for years to post this site (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ [ageofconsent.com]
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
sorry yall... I couldn't resist
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
Missing the bigger story here (Score:5, Funny)
The incident happened 2 years ago
but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19
It isn't the seduction, or that it was an AOL monitor that did it. Nope, the biggest story is how she could go from 15 years old to 19 years old in only two years.
Spooky.
Now I need to figure out what she's doing, and do the exact opposite.
Re:That's some weird maths (Score:4, Informative)
She is filing now when she is 19, for her own reasons, obviously.
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 sp
About baldness (Score:3, Funny)
If there's no grass than just play in the mud.
Man1: Hey I pulled a turtle last night.
Man2:How so?
Man1:I beat the hair.
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: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:numbers dont add up [Offtopic] (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the Plato reference (Score:5, Funny)
I was thinking more along the lines of "Who cleans the janitors?"