myspace sued, but who's really at fault?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:31 pm

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/n ... space.html

So, absentee parent's 14-year-old child either with or without permission goes on a date (what's a 14-year-old doing dating?) with a 19-year-old man she met on myspace, he sexually assaults her after dinner, a movie and a return to his apartment, and mom blames myspace?!?!?!? I think the child should sue her mother for being a moron. It's not myspace's fault that mom didn't supervise the daughter. Just my opinion, although the 19-year-old male certainly holds a huge chunk of blame as well. Myspace holds zero blame though.

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:02 pm

Nobody tends to be blameless in such matters. The parents set up an apathetic foundation, the nineteen year old used myspace to reach her and myspace used them both as stats to sell flash ads.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:11 pm

Sure MySpace shares the blame; but is that share worth $30 million? I would happen to think no.

HillgrassBluebillyFTW · Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:13 pm

Sankofa wrote:and myspace used them both as stats to sell flash ads.

best quote ever.

On the subject... it's hard to place blame because everyone is at fault.

veronica · Post by **veronica** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:10 pm

I think the 19 year old would have found a way to find someone else in the absence of myspace. Myspace just made it easier for him.

Do we know if he was specifically searching for young un's? I assume everyone pretty much posts their age on myspace so it's not like he didn't know how old she was. (she may have looked older...)

The 19 year old is guilty and is to blame and the mom was the enabler.

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:50 pm

there's no way myspace will get in trouble. i just read an article about the culpability of websites in regards to anonymity. myspace doesn't guarantee that people are who they pretend to be. there's also a congressional thing passed regarding this very issue - websites can't be blamed.

But no one should blame the mother. People that blame the victim(s) should be ashamed of themselves.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:53 pm

But no one should blame the mother. People that blame the victim(s) should be ashamed of themselves.

Hell yeah people should. Why wasn't she aware of her daughters rendezvous with someone? She has a daughter not old enough to drive and she has no clue of her whereabouts?

This wasn't a kidnapping.

Jambrea · Post by **Jambrea** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:59 pm

Parents are responsible for minor children. Parents need to be more involved in knowing who there kids are talking with. With that being said: Of course the child could have gotten out of the house with out the parents knowing about it. The kid could also have told the parents that she was going out with some one they knew as well. The kid is 14 and at an age where anything can happen and they can be sneaky!!!

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:59 pm

The mother isn't the victim, she's the irresponsible parent. Had this creep grabbed her against her will, that's one thing, but this kid had (apparently) unfettered access to the internet, which every parent knows (or at least should know) is potentially dangerous, and then she went on a "date" with a man 5 years her elder, whom she only knew from myspace and who her mother had apparently not met. She therfore had also apparently not been taught to not meet people from myspace, to not go to men's apartments, etc... Also, the complaint says she was sexually assaulted, and does not include the words forcibly or raped. It may well be that this is statutory rape and was consensual (technically, it wasn't since 14-year-olds can't legally consent to sex, especially with a 19-year-old), which is considered sexual assault in most states.

The 19-year-old is criminally responsible, but the mother also holds a great deal of responsibility here. Even if the girl said she was 18 (to get around the parental notification requirements of myspace), the man is still legally responsible, since deceipt is not a mitigating factor in statutory rape cases (in most states, anyway).

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:20 pm

Unless you people are working with some serious psychological and James-Bond-technological insight, there's no way you can restrict your child and know their whereabouts 24/7. How was the parent supposed to know? Should she have set up a myspace account, befriended her daughter under a false guise, and then discussed boys with her? Should she get some spy software and key stroke analyzers?

Would you people use the same logic if a mother took her daughter to The mall and let her go to a store by herself? If the girl slipped away, it would, under the same reasoning, be the mom's fault.

"The mother isn't the victim" When someone's child is "sexually assaulted," that's some callous and pedantic sh*t to say they aren't a victim.

"She has a daughter not old enough to drive and she has no clue of her whereabouts?" So I'm sure you were never able to deceive your parents.

Jambrea · Post by **Jambrea** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:11 pm

If you'll notice I said that parents are responsible, BUT a teenage can be sneaky. I'm just saying, as a parent, you need to have open communication with you child and hope they will talk to you and do the right thing!

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:28 pm

there's no way you can restrict your child and know their whereabouts 24/7.

Nope there isn't. However teaching your child about the pro's and con's of meeting people online could deter such activity.

How was the parent supposed to know? Should she have set up a myspace account, befriended her daughter under a false guise, and then discussed boys with her? Should she get some spy software and key stroke analyzers?

Something was needed, that's for sure. It's aparant her child knows more about the technology then she does.

Would you people use the same logic if a mother took her daughter to The mall and let her go to a store by herself? If the girl slipped away, it would, under the same reasoning, be the mom's fault.

Seriously, if you're watching someone and they slip away it's your fault.

"She has a daughter not old enough to drive and she has no clue of her whereabouts?" So I'm sure you were never able to deceive your parents.

Yeah I decieved my parents, but I wasn't foolish enough to meet people online; and I always knew my dealer. The mother doesn't need to know where her daughter is at every second; if she has taught her how to handle such responsibility.

*there's a reference in the above statement and +1000 points to whomever gets it*

QWETTY · Post by **QWETTY** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:54 pm

omg omg omg... i hate to say this but girls who are dumb enough to go on a date by themselves with a guy they dont even know need to be punched in the face. Not raped, but punched in the face.

you know how they do all those "catch the molester" things on dateline? guys go to a young girls house expecting to get a lil actyion from a 13 yr old and then... "boom" arrested...

what they need to do is set up these young girls to see how many of them show up. Yes older guys who do this are weirdos... but the girls who are involved also need to get in trouble. THEY had intent j/ like the man but j/ becus they are "to young to know right form wrong" means they dont get in trouble.

thats funny... the words "too young"

15 year old girl is considered to young to know what she is getting into when she meets a 40 yr old man she meets on myspace. She is unpunishes, while at the same time (in florida a couple yrs ago) a 15 yr old boy does a wrestling move on a kid and the kid dies... he goes to jail for life.. FOR LIFE!?!?!

what is too young?

heaven's chimney · Post by **heaven's chimney** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:26 pm

sharkmansix wrote:*there's a reference in the above statement and +1000 points to whomever gets it*

Mallrats?

girls who are dumb enough to go on a date by themselves with a guy they dont even know need to be punched in the face. Not raped, but punched in the face.

Who says chivalry is dead?

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:30 pm

On Chivalry, from wiki:

There was no single code that served as a definition of how a knight should act, but there were several lists written down during the Middle Ages. One example code can be found in the book Chivalry by 19th century French historian Leon Gautier.

Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Church.

Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.

Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.

Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.

Thou shalt be generous, and give largess to everyone.

Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil