Judges Rule Raped Woman Can Sue 'Enabling' Web Site (vice.com) 383
Web sites that matched models to photographers also led dozens of women to a pair of rapists in 2011, according to Vice. "Civil court documents show that the owners of Model Mayhem knew about the first wave of rapes but failed to issue a warning to users," Vice reported last summer. Facebook, Craigslist, and Tumblr filed briefs in support of the "Model Mayhem" site, arguing that allowing women to sue them could create a new "failure to warn" liability for other web sites.
But now AmiMoJo writes:In a decision that one day could have reverberations across the internet, a three-judge panel in California decided she can sue the Model Mayhem site that the pair used to lure their victims. "Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the Internet," Judge Richard Clifton wrote in the panel's decision.
The CDA traditionally exempts web sites from liability for anything their users post. Do Slashdot readers think there should ever be any exceptions?
Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had specific knowledge that crimes had been committed, and who committed them, then they may have been aiding the criminal activity. If someone had suggested to them that something like that might have been going on, but gave no specifics whatsoever, then not so much. Either way, a court and probably a jury will have to decide.
Re:Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:5, Informative)
No. That is not the standard. This [west.net] is:
DUTY OF CARE OF PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS
The proprietor of a business establishment owes a duty of care to customers when they come upon the business premises at the proprietor's express or implied invitation. This duty of care requires the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover whether accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons are occurring or are likely to occur on the business premises. If a proprietor knows, or should know that such acts are occurring or are likely to occur, the proprietor has the further duty to either give the customer a warning adequate to enable the visitor to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect the visitor against such harm.
This has nothing to do with aiding the criminal activity. This has very little to do with whether they had specific knowledge of crimes. This has to do with whether they invested reasonable effort into determining whether a risk was likely to be present, and warned their customers of the risk. If someone suggest that something like that might have been going on, then for various values of might (with a threshold between more likely than not and lottery odds), they very well could be liable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims. I'm not saying that in this case the claims were false or not because I didn't read the article but it would be easy for a model who had a disagreement with a photographer to bring up a false charge to the site in order to hurt the photographers business.
There is something that used to matter and that is the presumption of innocence.
Re: (Score:3)
And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims.
I would argue yes. However, to determine the credulity of the allegations would require some form of due diligence in looking into said claims.
Did Model Mayhem do such? I don't know, but that to me is the question that potentially opens up Model Mayhem to liability.
If they did no such due diligence, then regardless of which position you take, they failed in their duty.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be raped on a website. The only responsibility would be a warning that anyone you meet online might not be who they represent themselves to be, and that meeting them in person must take place at your own risk. This could be buried in the terms and conditions, because the users all confirmed that they read them cover to cover when they signed on -- although nobody did, of course.
Dear Users; are you an adult? (Score:2)
If you aren't GO AWAY
If you are an adult, we assume you are capable of intelligence and realise that it is YOUR responsibility to worry about who you may meet via this website.
The fact that we have to include this clause is evidence that our society deserves its status as a bad joke in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
A website isn't a premises. When I browse a website, I am not literally going to the destinations location. This law means the proprietor of a business has a duty of care to people visiting a physical location he owns and controls.
Re:Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:4, Interesting)
The standard is not a statute. The standard comes from English (and then American) common law. A key aspect of the common law is that it evolves and adapts, frequently making use of analogies to prior circumstances to determine whether there are, for example, duties of care in new circumstances.
If you think that the word "premesis" in a half page summary of a common law concept going to be enough to completely shield this business from liability (i.e., a jury will not be permitted to decide whether there is a special relationship and duty to warn), then you either failed the first year of law school or never attempted to attend.
Re: (Score:2)
The law you site was made to make sure that business owners put up warnings to unsuspecting customers if they have people doing potentially harmful work in their buildings, like renovators/construction, etc. This doesn't translate to a website. It's not reasonable to think that a certain person is going to commit rape, especially if you've never met them. It doesn't pass the foreseeability test, let alone the multi-factor test. Does eHarmony or PlentyOfFish have the same duty of care? Are we going to requir
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Are the owners of derelict buildings where drug selling and other crimes are openly conducted ever liable for that?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Are the owners of derelict buildings where drug selling and other crimes are openly conducted ever liable for that?
If they can be shown to know about it beforehand, yes. Then they're aiding and abetting criminal activity, and property used in the commission of a crime can be seized, and that explicitly applies to land in the case of drug busts. That's why the states generally want people to get permission from their landlords before e.g. they do a grow; then they can seize the property.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lawyer here. Doesn't matter. The website is the agent of the model and therefore owes a fiduciary duty to the principal(the model) to not place itself in a position where its interests conflict with those of the principal.
Here they placed their interest in making money ahead of the models' interests in not being raped. Since they had notice that there was a reasonable likelihood that their models were being raped, then by proceeding to accept models' money while not warning them, they were in clear violatio
Re: (Score:2)
Because you are talking as an AC, the value of your statement is worthless. place your name and brand so your statements can have a weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the problem with the statement I had was, he pointed out he/she was a lawyer. just a simple link to your law firms add's value and weight to the discussion ( positive or negative ). my goal is to get more people to start making citation, helps make a better /.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right (that if you can't argue against a position without considering its source, you likely don't have an argument in the first place), but note that this has been roundly ignored in public discourse for years. It had gotten so common by the 1940's that C. S. Lewis felt compelled to make up a name for it - he called it Bulverism. Others have come up with their own monikers for it (Anthony Flew referred to it as the "Subject/Motive Shift", and it is more generically known as the genetic fallacy, o
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. As sickening as those two freaks are, in the absence of a conviction or any other kind of legally binding decision (e.g. a civil suit), for all Model Mayhem knew they were just allegations.
Not so simple (Score:2)
By making themselves look as much as possible like a professional modeling agency they deliberately lulled people into a false sense of security.
So more like fraud than trafficking, but still a deliberate action that it's worth getting the courts to sort out.
Re: (Score:2)
Also important:
* did they state that the photographers were checked by them
* did the website state a warning (some web sites interesting for potential abusers do)
* what did the TOS say about whose obligation it is to do what?
But I mean, seriously, the police knew one of the guys tried to get a 13yo to pose semi-nude while he worked there and they just fired him?
I mean it's good that the judge allows to sue the website, but i for sure hope that the court will consider the fuckups of the police and possibly t
Re: Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:2, Informative)
WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.
Re: Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.
It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist". The damage this does to actual victims of rape is hard to quantify and tragic in and of itself.
Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do, but you have to research the topic to find this out. It won't appear on the evening news. The narrative is that men are the nasty brutish aggressors and women are the innocent victims. The truth is that both sexes are capable of criminal behavior because both are equally human. One is just a lot less likely to be believed, the other less likely to be prosecuted.
Likewise, a man who tried to report being assaulted by his wife/partner tends to be viewed as less masculine, attaching a stigma to it. The reality is that a woman who physically abuses her husband won't be instantly arrested and charged on his word alone (like a man would). The abusive woman can be confident that he probably won't defend himself with his superior strength because if he did that, then HE would go to jail. This isn't the only example of double standards in the system - just try finding a woman who has to pay alimony to a man. They do exist but they're almost unheard-of. Actual equality and accountability under the law would be a positive change.
If you thought the news was some kind of seeker of truth that always tells the whole story you are sorely mistaken. Just like when a legal gunowner uses a gun to stop a crime (usually just by drawing it and not having to fire), the news report says something like "the suspect was subdued until police arrive". Because guns doing good does not fit the desired narrative, not because it doesn't happen. Yet when some nut goes crazy and shoots an innocent victim the details are fully presented. This is not a coincidence. This is because it comes from a set of beliefs, a set of desired outcomes.
Re: Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:4, Insightful)
> It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist".
This sounds like a Trump-style "fact". "this thing that supports my conservative agenda is true, and I can prove it by stating that there's no proof because the scumbag liberal media covers it up." Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. It's an actual fact. And there's plenty of proof:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape+conv... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the false murder reports? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=murder+conv... [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, a search results link is indeed a valid citation, even a snarky lmgtfy version, although only in certain circumstances. It's only valid if the top search results support the point being made, which is not the case here. No one doubts that there are overturned rape convictions -- but that doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. Any more than overturned murder convictions prove the murder didn't happen.
Now, if he had provided a search results link for a study showing a high proportion of rape reports were fa
Re: (Score:3)
> Clearly, the victims are faking it
Maybe the victims were clearly raped, but they arrested the wrong guy. there's no link to the MRA assertion "they're all faking it".
Re: (Score:3)
DNA can't show that no rape took place. DNA can show that this man did not commit that rape. The DNA exonerations are not evidence that women claim rape happened when it didn't.
Without digging through these cases, I'd suspect these were primarily cases of stranger rape, where the victim couldn't identify the rapist at the time, which means that the victims probably didn't start by making false accusations, but identified the wrong assailant.
False rape reports do happen, but I've seen no evidence that
Re: Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think.
This. I've had 3 women accuse me of rape, and one accuse me of sexual harassment, in my lifetime. Two of the rape accusations came from women I never even touched (one of whom I'd never met in person) and the other from a woman who made the claim after her boyfriend (who i didn't know about) found out about us; I had video of the supposed incident, including her turning on the camera. Luckily for me, all of those were dropped quickly without police involvement when I pointed out the evidence I had that they were all lying.
I didn't get so lucky with the harassment accusation, which happened back in high school, though. I was called into the office, shown the list of things she claimed I had said to her and admitted that all of those things had been said... by her, not by me. I was suspended pending investigation and possible expulsion and criminal prosecution; thankfully, the police insisted on written statements from students she claimed would have heard the things on the list being said. Most of the people she named as witnesses were her friends, many of which were none too fond of me, so I was a bit worried about the outcome; in the end, though, every single one of them told the truth and she ended up getting expelled. Sad, really, since her and I were (or, so I thought) friends until I turned her down when she asked me to a school dance, as I already had a date.
Then, there was the girl I dated who drugged and raped me. I would have been more than willing but, apparently, it was a fetish of hers. Of course, being male, it didn't matter that I tried to report it. The police simply told me that, next time, I should avoid the drugs. Well, no shit! I didn't put them in my own drink.
Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do
I'm not entirely sure how true that is, but here's an anecdote to back it up.
A girl I dated in the early 00's was the abusive type. She was sweet and caring until she convinced me to move in with her, then the games began. Fortunately, I'm capable of defending myself and know better than to fight back. I could tell you some stories about this one, but I'll fast-forward to the meaty bits. What got me to leave her was when she came at me with a knife; I got the knife away from her and was walking back to the kitchen to put it away when she reached around me and grabbed the blade. She cut two fingers down to the bone and said something along the lines of "if I'm not getting you, the police will". I'm so thankful for attentive neighbors who met the police outside and informed them of what actually went down before they got to my door after she called them (after I drove her to the ER, if course). They came in and asked if I was alright, I told them I was, then they asked if I wanted to press charges. I declined, but did ask that they file a detailed incident report as I would be moving out and filing for a restraining order, ex parte. Of course, my request for a restraining order was denied by two different judges (I appealed the first); the second even went so far as to say that, since I'm a man, I should be able to defend myself without giving my ex a criminal background.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Not really. It sounds like you've been monumentally unlucky. However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people and aggregating those measurements. If you picked Roy Cleveland Sullivan, you might come to the conclusion that people get hit by lightning an awful lot.
A few are enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people and aggregating those measurements.
On the other hand, you DO NOT need the event to frequent to be problematic.
Most girls I know are more or less well adjusted.
But all it takes as a few bad apples to abuse the system and try to wreck the lives of innocent guys.
These women not only cause problem to guys involved, but also to all the other normal women because the people will get more suspicious about any allegation.
Actually raped girl might fail to report due to being afraid of being accused of lying, or won't be believed after reporting.
(It's not that much different than the situation of girls considering all men to be *assholes* just because they got burned by a psychopath.
It's not that all men are actually that fucked up.
But a lot of damage is done by a small but very noisy group of psychopath tend to consider "The Game" is a bible.
And because of them the girls tend to look with suspicion to *all* men)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also saying that simply being unlucky does not make you statistically representative.
Oh? Then I'm implying you forgot what you wrote. Let me remind:
However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people
Re: (Score:3)
Ouch, you have had an interesting past. In the Chinese curse sense.
On my part,
- rapes: 0
- false accusations of rape: 0
- sexual assaults (perpetrated): 0
- false accusations of sexual assault: 1 (that I know of)
- sexual assaults received: 2 (or off the fucking scale if you include unwanted hugs, which apparently counts these days)
Of those 2 assaults, one was by a group of four males, fought off by myself and a kind passer-by. One was by a woman. She was drunk. I was sober. Her male friend actually gave me shi
Re: (Score:2)
All of these things are bad. They're bad no matter who they happen to, and anyone who doesn't see that has some severe mental issues. I would never say thlse people deserve to share in these experiences but, were I the kind to suggest someone go and get raped, well, I'd suggest it to anyone who claims rape isn't serious, or that it can't happen to a man, or that a girl should
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly male, although 'unwanted hugs' got close to 'sexual assault' one time I was out while wearing a vinyl skirt with lots of petticoats. He may not have realised from behind what he was taking hold of..
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly male
Feel free not to answer, as I feel I may be prying, but transexual or simply transvestite?
He may not have realised from behind what he was taking hold of..
Sorry, I laughed at this. Not because he assaulted you, but because the end result was likely something he did not want. I always find it amusing when criminals get a "surprise".
I almost feel like, if there were more people like you in the world, there would be less rape. Sort of how violent crime drops in areas where it's easier to get a CCW because the criminals quickly learn that their victim is more likely to hav
Re: (Score:2)
Fair to say it's a continuum, and I'm on it.
I'm not transexual. I'm not a transvestite. I'm comfortable with blurring gender boundaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's fair to say, at least when you wear women's clothing, you are a transvestite. After all, that is the definition of the term.
Transvetites get sexual pleasure from the clothes they're wearing - hence transvestites are a subset of people that cross-dress, as are the fashion freestylers (who define themselves as not intersecting transvestites at all, although I'm sure some TVs would disagree).
I'm not always level headed, but on this topic, I tend to be. But I've flatshared with a pre-op transexual who went to work as one gender and went out at night as another. You rapidly start to just kind of shrug and get one with life.
Re: (Score:2)
Transvetites get sexual pleasure from the clothes they're wearing - hence transvestites are a subset of people that cross-dress
Huh. I thought transvestite and cross-dresser were synonyms and there was a different term (which I didn't take the time to learn because I never really cared to single those people out) for cross-dressing for sexual pleasure. Thanks for educating me on that point.
I'm not always level headed
What I've read so far of your posting history seems to disagree. But, then, nobody is always anything; I'm sure you're a bit different in real life than on the internet. We all are.
You rapidly start to just kind of shrug and get one with life.
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. I would imagine it's difficu
Re: (Score:2)
And if a man defends himself against a woman, he is charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, it's acceptable for you to talk about your rape? Only when it's a man doing the talking does it become unacceptable. As I said to dbill, thank you for illustrating the point I, and the post I was replying to, was trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way as mine.
Actually, in the case of my abusive ex, even less valid as there were witnesses. Try actually reading my post, you might learn something. The police report is a matter of public record, along with wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
5-digit uid checking in. But neither statement above provided any evidence, and the OP being an AC, less credibility.
Re: Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do know that it's a pain being asked for sources. I often can't remember where I read stuff. On the other hand though, I can't automatically accept every claim made by someone I don't know who doesn't provide a source. If I did, I'd have to accept a lot of contradictory claims.
Definition of Rape... (Score:3)
"For purposes of this page, we use the term rape to mean all crimes of sexual violence, not just those crimes that would qualify as rape under the FBI definition ..."
WTF is that garbage? That is like considering what a used car salesman does to the average person as rape...
previously...
"Rape is the forcible act of penetration of a female vagina by a male penis or foreign object. All other acts are considered sexual assault"
as of 2012 the US federal statue has been changed to reflect...
"The penetration, no
Re: (Score:2)
It's garbage if they spring it on you without telling you up front what they are talking about.
Also the FBI definition doesn't hold in Canada, Mexico, wherever so spelling out what is being discussed makes sense on the World Wide Web.
It's telling you to do a global replace of many words for that one in your head when you read that web page which sounds pretty simple, direct and upfront to me
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it is direct, simple or upfront considering the gender variations today. Add in a LGBT in one form or another and things can get quite complicated, let alone if both or more parties involved are not traditional genders. The USA is a codified system of law and requires specific legal definitions of terms for something to be a crime. What people would consider common law is called case law or legal precedence in the USA.
As for Canada and Mexico there is no legal definition of rape, but rather sex
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the UK, no. Rape requires penile penetration:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... [legislation.gov.uk]
At best it's "Sexual assault", with a maximum 10 years' custody rather than Life (for rape), and an offence range of 'no prison' to 7 years, rather than 4-19 years (for rape).
https://www.sentencingcouncil.... [sentencingcouncil.org.uk]
The law itself is sexist, even before you then start adding in the police reluctance to refer women to the CPS, the CPS reluctance to pursue a case against a woman or the discrepancy in sentencing that leads to women ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The prosecution rests.
Re:Did they know who the culprits were? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facists.
Really? REALLY?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Committing suicide isn't "coward's way out". His plans was (thankfully) ruined and there were nothing more to do. Why then expose himself to the victors law and simultaneously legitimate the rule of his enemy? He considered himself the military commander and they were (and still are in some places) expected to commit suicide rather than give themselves up to the enemy. Hitler expected that from field marshal Paulus, considered Paulus choice of surrendering cowardice - if he then didn't do it himself that wo
Not user-posted content at issue here (Score:5, Insightful)
The liability isn't being created by user-posted content in this case. It stems from the site actually knowing about the actions of some users and failing to give notice when it could foresee that that failure would put other users at risk. It's the same principle that says that if I know of a danger on my property and fail to post notice of it or take steps to keep people out I'm liable if someone gets hurt by it. Section 230 never comes into play.
Re:Not user-posted content at issue here (Score:4, Interesting)
Your example depends largely on your jurisdiction. Some have successfully allowed thieves to sue because they got injured breaking and entering, others allow you to beat or shoot to death anyone who appears on your lawn.
The question is indeed whether they had knowledge that a convicted sex offender was using their site as bait or alternatively whether they had made a promise of background checks and legitimacy of all parties and failed to fulfill that promise . It's a tall order to prove that, if this is a craigslist type site for models, the assumption of risk should at all times remain with all parties involved. If I get murdered or raped because I wanted to buy a $15 lawn mower from CL, why would CL be liable? Do you hold a classic paper liable for the ads that appear? What if a magazine were to advertise a drug that later turned out to be harmful or even fraudulent, would you hold all advertising channels for homeopathic "cures" liable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, I wonder which jurisdictions have lower rates of home invasions?
Hard to say, home [wikipedia.org] invasion is not necessarily a term in use everywhere.
There is data [protectyourhome.com] but you may consider it suspect.
When convicted criminals (burglars) are interviewed there's one thing they all agree on: getting shot by a homeowner is their number one fear. Getting caught is their number two fear.
Really? Can you post some?
It's just like the whole gun "debate". I say "debate" because it's only a debate when clear conclusions cannot be drawn from the facts.
Facts, as they say, are slippery things, especially when some sides make them up.
It's more like an article of religious faith at the altar of political ideology and a general "guns are icky" feeling when clear conclusions can be made and a "debate" persists. States which make it easy to conceal-carry have lower rates of violent crime. Mass shootings overwhelmingly happen in "gun free zones". Chicago, a city where it's nearly impossible to legally own a gun, has tons of shootings.
Actually, a lot of the pro-gun movement has its own ideology, and it's own "Guns are cool" feeling, because you know what? Crime has dropped across the country, mass shootings are rare incidents that don't really determine the events that concern us, and Chicago has lots of problems, i
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't worry about mass shootings, I worry about cases where two people know each other and there's a murder-suicide. The problem is that we are so surrounded by gun violence that the daily occurrence of such cases just doesn't cause a stir anymore. In order to be shocked now it has to be children slaughtered in a school or movie-goers killed at the mall. And then gun idiots use that kind of thing to argue that there should be MORE guns... like we aren't already awash in weaponry. Somehow t
Re: (Score:2)
If it's the story I'm thinking of, I doubt he'll repeat his error.
Treated like financial crimes. (Score:3)
If the site(s) knew something, then yes, they should have some accountability. In this regard, it should be treated similarly as someone who had participated/facilitate, unknowingly or not, in money laundering - the law won't care about actual intent/claimed innocence, only about the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what's being alleged in this case.
If they made money they are liable. (Score:4, Interesting)
But where to draw a line between rapists claiming to be photographers posting classified ads to lure people in? Or even simple job posting in your old dead tree newspaper to lure applicants in?
We should draw the line on a case by case basis. Let them sue, let us look at the facts of the case and then decide whether they are culpable or not. Giving them blanket immunity without even looking at the facts of the case is simply wrong.
Bingo! (Score:2)
I think this is an interesting situation from a legal standpoint and worth thinking about. But your response makes more sense than anything else I read here.
IMO, there should be an expectation that any web site providing a service for pay would make reasonable efforts not to allow misuse of the site to continue, especially when it's of a criminal nature and injuring your site's own users. When such things happen, they have to be examined on a case by case basis by the legal system. (EG. How much evidence re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the Indian women, of which there is a great pressure to allow themselves to be raped
Sorry, but that is just bullshit. Indian women don't "allow" themselves to be raped.
Get a fucking clue.
My understanding is this is a negligence case (Score:5, Interesting)
Craigslist has the same issue, and as such they display warnings to users when you respond telling you about common scams.
Using Vice as a primary source ? (Score:5, Informative)
Well I suppose the weekly world news is out of business so no more batboy or doctors resurrect Lincoln stories
http://www.businessinsurance.c... [businessinsurance.com]
Anyway there is an article from a source that is actually in the business of informing their readers.
Lavont Flanders Jr. and Emerson Callum were using Model Mayhem to identify targets for a rape scheme, allegedly as early as 2006, according to the ruling. They browsed profiles on Model Mayhem posted by models, contacted potential victims with fake identities posing as talent scouts, and lured the victims to south Florida for bogus modeling auditions, according to the ruling. When a victim arrived, they used a date rape drug to put her in a semicatatonic state, raped her and recorded the activity on videotape for sale and distribution as pornography, according to the ruling.
There's who, what and when, how, why. The firm is in Florida, the model from Brooklyn going to guess the attorney was shopping for the craziest jurisdiction he could find to get this to move forward.
And here is the theory of liability
Jane Doe's claim is different, however,” says the ruling. She does not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of content posted on the Model Mayhem website, or for Internet Brands' failure to remove content posted on the website. Flanders and Callum are not alleged to have posted anything themselves.”
“Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through Model Mayhem” said the ruling.
So three judges in California decided that not telling women that hooking up with strange men through the internet could be dangerous is sufficient to sue for negligence. Why not, we have to tell people plastic bags are not toys and pose a suffocation risk.,
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse case for Internet Brands than that. One of the allegations of the lawsuit is that Internet Brands knew about these guys, knew enough to warn their users, and actually sued the people they bought ModelMayhem from.
From the opinion: "It is also alleged that Internet Brands sued the Waitts in August 2010 for failing to disclose the potential for civil suits arising from the activities of Flanders and Callum." It's also covered in the businessinsurance article you linked to.
If you know enough to sue w
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Vice article explains it better than your's does:
Critical to understanding this caseâ"â"and what makes it different from, say, someone suing Craigslist after buying a bicycle off a classified ad and getting in a crash while riding itâ"â"is a legal concept called failure to warn. Callum and Flanders were arrested in 2010 for pulling a similar rape scheme with a handful of victims, but the case proved difficult to prosecute, and they were released. Doe is alleging that Model Mayhem, knowing they were on the loose, should have warned users not to fall for similar scams in the future.
The key thing is that Model Mayhem were aware of the arrests (or so she claims, and it seems likely given that the police would almost certainly have contacted them) but didn't issue warnings. I expect it will come out that they decided not to email their users with some extremely negative publicity that might make them leave the site, putting their profit before the model's safety.
personal responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
These girls went off and did stuff which was inherently risky without personally taking precautions.
Wish I could get a payout for some of the stupid, risky stuff I've done through my lifetime.
Some lawyer told her she can make lots of money suing the web site, so can the lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called situational awareness and a surprising percentage of the populace completely lacks it.
Always the boundary ... (Score:3)
Liberty depends on not causing harm. Either accept reasonable restrictions or get none. Would you rather total strict liability? In this case, the website was willfuly negligent, potentially to the level of depraved indifference.
Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a photographer, my fiance is a model who also runs a "watchdog" group about creepy/seedy people in the industry. In one instance, there was a convicted sex offender who other models apart of her group reported on about several instances where he was crossing the line. She reported his model mayhem profile to the site, along with the link to his conviction on a government website; and they treated her like shit, refused to take any action, removed her profile when she complained about how shitty and dense they were being. It wasn't until she publicly blogged about it, with screenshots of the email chain, that they started singing a different tune, and restored her profile and deleted the sex offenders.
This was just last year. Not to mention the mysterious disappearances linked to the model mayhem site a year or two before that. Most models I have worked with have a creepy/rapey vibe story that starts with Model Mayhem. And by all accounts, they do not take any user reporting seriously.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/modeling-networking-site-common-denominator-disappearance-colorado-women-reports-article-1.1278375
http://www.abc17news.com/news/modeling-website-linked-to-disappearances-rape-and-human-trafficking/20037496
Re:Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, and I forgot an important detail of the story. Before they acted on it, they threatened her with legal action if she did not take the blog post down. Claiming that posting the messages were in violation of their TOS. When she didn't budge on from their threats, that's when they decided to actually do something.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely after they've removed her profile she's no longer a user of their site and has no obligation to conform to their TOS?
(leaving aside the idiocy of the TOS in the first place)
How does law work for newspapers? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if rapists post a modelling job ad in the local newspaper asking for young females. Would the newspaper be liable to be sued?
I don't believe I ever seen any warnings in the classified sections. Surely this scenario has happened in the past. What is the precedent on those kind of cases?
Re:How does law work for newspapers? (Score:4, Informative)
Use some street smarts first. (Score:2)
I think you need to be really careful about putting yourself in a situation where you *can* be harmed, i.e, personal responsibility. There is no excuse for rape, robbery or any sort of violent assault however walking across a busy road while talking on a phone is pretty risky with similar consequence for injury and it's no different from anyone, female or male, taking precautions because you can be harmed through intent or negligence.
If I was alone with a stranger I had never met I certainly would not be a
Re: (Score:2)
If I was alone with a stranger I had never met I certainly would not be accepting an *opened* beverage from them, even at a venue you shouldn't leave your drink unattended where you can drugged then robbed, it's the same thing, i.e Thanks, I'm not really thirsty.
Hmm. I accept cups of coffee from complete strangers regularly.
A one-on-one encounter with someone met through the Internet may admittedly be a reasonable justification for a little more caution. Then again, I've had male and female friends met online stay overnight at my house having never stepped into the country beforehand, so maybe I mix in different online communities to others.
Please NOTE (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that all we have here is a judge ruling that they CAN sue, not that the website is liable.
This sounds strange to me. Can someone explain how this works? I thought people just sue and then a judge or jury decide if the defendant is liable. Is this an extra first step in the process?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers,
And an internet cookie for you for choice of the content :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"sue" not "win" (Score:2)
This just in: solitary women meeting strange men alone in a dark alley are taking a risk.
I was shocked when a female real estate agent met me on an arbitrary street corner of my choosing 100 miles from her home.
Of course they "can" sue the site, you have a legal system that basically allows anyone to sue anyone for anything. That's the beginning of the process. Winning is something totally different.
I'd imagine that the site would need to have actually had some degree of knowledge that the future rape was
Re: (Score:2)
While Russia and China are big enough to tell the USA to fuck off, New Zealand along with much of the world, isn't and will bend over. See the case of Kim Dotcom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...because women are responsible for their own adult decisions, where children are not. Because we have all sorts of tax-paid services to protect children from dangers that they can't possibly understand -- otherwise, they'd be forced to stay at home and with parents 24/7, which is not the kind of society that we want.
But if grown women need to be told to avoid stupid and dangerous decisions, like meeting strange men in their homes all alone, then you're simply asking us to spend more tax dollars on their