Slashdot Mirror
AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex
Amy's Robot writes "According to the AP, an Internet chat room monitor hired by AOL to keep children safe from sexual predators seduced a California girl online and was about to meet her for sex when he was found out by a co-worker, a lawsuit charges. The incident happened 2 years ago, but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19. She accuses AOL of failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children. Who's watching the watchers?"
This might not be the only case, we might see a lot of me-toos lawsuits soon.
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?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
It started when she was 15, they were going to meet when she turned 17, that was 2 years ago, now she's 19. So that clears that up.
Wouldn't that make her 17? Hey, if there's grass on the field, play ball!
Original poster: A/S/L?
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
The girl was 15 when it happened, but now, two years later, she's 19? Something's wrong there...
In other news, people who arrive at the stark realization that they're going to be losers on welfare and in debt for the rest of their lives are suing corporations with deep pockets instead of getting real jobs.
I do support the right of people to sue big corporations, however.
Just for the money!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I guess that means they need to move to AI bot monitors instead of those silly humans? I mean, if they can make bots in UT2004 that are that good....
one would think he knew better
Yet another case of the parents not watching what their children are doing. But, if this means AOL gets hammered in the courts, I suppose I'm for it, as a loyal slashdotter.......... All jokes aside, parents should be supervising thier children's wherabouts and doings, rather than the big brotherish leanings that this implies should be implemented--it is evident that not even the watchers can be trusted. Who do you trust with your children, yourself or some stranger that is hired by AOL or other isp for close to min wage to watch for this shit?
I's ok baby, I have the protection of AOL!
AOL monitor. Seriously, don't they do background checks for this type of job. I understand not doing them for most jobs, but this type of job, you would think it would be par for the course. But I guess if he doesn't have a record and she was only 17 at the time and if he was like 21-24 its not that bad (illegal, but not like he was 45). But what is really sad is that she is the one sueing. She made the decision to meet someone from a chat room and now is sueing because she was allowed to meet the guy. Sounds like sueing for dollars more than anything. Isn't America great...
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
She was fifteen, she'd had the talk about the birds and the bees. I find it hard to believe that people are seduced into sex, and this was only considered seducing after he had been talking to her for two years. Most teenagers don't know eachother for two days and they get it on like jack rabbits. If anything I applaud his patience.
RTFA - god you idiots.
Four years ago the AOL guy first chats with the then 15 yo
Two years later (and two years ago) they plan to hook up on her 17th b-day, when an AOL co-worker catches on
Two more years go by and the AOL stock values are back up, and its time to file the lawsuits.
I really have no idea what the AOL stock values have done in the past four years, but she claims she waited because it's been "a very confusing and painful time for her," according to her lawyer Olivier Taillieu (FTA)
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
You've got sex!
So - AOL successfully thwarted a potential sexual predator... what's the lawsuit about?
What's the age of consent in California? In Pennsylvania, if they had sex after she turned 16, they'd be in the clear, if I understand my age of consent laws correctly (85% sure).
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
It's hard to find a halfway attractive girl, under 18, not living in a third world country, who doesn't have a picture like this on a website somewhere : 15 Year Olds Don't be surprised to see more of this.
Most /.'ers don't every have to worry about breaking that rule!
Who's watching the watchers?
Sounds like they are watching each other.
Thats why MSN Chat is no longer available.
A shame that a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us. MSN Chat was a great way to meet everyday people instead of the geeky IRC chat.
Whos watching the people watching the watchers? What about watchers for those people?
Must have been one of those ugly rate-a-buddy girls...
So she agrees to meet an adult for sex, it gets stopped before she can carry out her desire, and then she sues AOL for not keeping things safe for children? Safe from what? Girls who want to have sex with adults are complaining when they get stopped?
All the guy did was talk. The morality of hitting on underage girls is certainly debatable, but theres nothing illegal about it.
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.
According to the story, they met online when she was 15, and he was in his early 20s. Two years later, when she was 17, they arranged to meet for sex. As far as I know, the age of consent is 16, meaning that a 17 year old can legally agree to have sex with an older person. I don't see how the monitor committed a crime, unless he propositioned her before she turned 16, and that might be difficult to prove in court.
As for AOL being liable, that's a stretch too. They probably disclaim all liability in their terms of use, and unless she can prove some fraud or negligence on the part of the employee, I don't see how they can be held liable.
This whole story smacks of a frivolous lawsuit by somebody who just realised that she might be able to embarass a big company into settling rather than face publicity.
more about me
I thought Slashdot was "news for nerds"? So how did the submitter not ask, "Who watches the Watchmen?"
America has become a place where if you can't absolutely guarantee 100% of the time that whatever you are providing is 100% safe, you are bad, bad, bad. Watch out Microsoft, you'll get sued soon as well, because someone will be pissed off that while they were using Windows XP, they saw something on a web site that offended their sensibilities, rendering them emotionally distressed to the tune of several million dollars.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Whores are Whores and in Canada if she is 14 or older she's fair game.
10:09pm: Popular weblog provider Xanga's "featured content" is a front-page link to psychologically disturbed anorexic scumbags.
Good to know information providers have their users' best interests at heart.
You must be new around here.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Any monitor with a 2-year response time is going to be crappy for gaming.
Until the 50s, it was absolutely normal to marry (and then fsck) underage girls - even if you were three times older. Today, underage girls are so pure they cant be seduced anymore. So bizarre.
I always found out moraly debatable anyway to allow sex between a 17 and , say , a 15 , but not allowing the same 17 to have sex wuith a 18. And please no "you can't stop them". Minor sex is a crime , be it a minor or a a grown up starting it. What is the difference ? Mind you, Once you start down this road, what is the difference between 17 and 20 ? 25 ? 45 ? Frankly some girl I have known were not yet "grown up" in their mind at 34 y-o, and some I ve met were more advanced mentally at 15 than I have ever been... Arbitrary age limit might be the easiest to put in law, but are far from the reality.
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.
It's called vicarious liability. This trial will be a jury trial, which means it basically comes down to litigation. If she's got a good enough lawyer, she has a chance. That's the beauty of a jury of your peers.
In other words, AOL should be allowed to hire whoever they want to be put in a position of responsibility over susceptible minors. So if the local church brings in a Jack Daniels spokesman to chair local AA meetings, the church shouldn't be held responsible?
AOL must list all documents relating to these chat room monitors. Have there been other reports? Have they been shuffling them from department to department and avoiding culpability for these horrendous actions? Any resistance on the part of AOL should be seen as evidence of guilt! They're trying to hide things! We must know the truth!
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
Qui Custodes Custodiat? is probably better translated as "who guards the guardians" than "who watches the watchers"?
Close, though.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
It's about people realizing they need to take responsability for keeping themselves and their children safe from online predators, instad of expecting someone to be a parent for them.
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.
OMFG what a cockblock that was.
While I certainly don't condone sexual preditors, if she is going to sue AOL for not monitoring their workers, she needs to also sue her own parents for negligence for not keeping an eye on their child. I'm getting tired of all of this "its the fault of the bad old internet" bullshit. Its the duty of the parents to keep watch too.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Meanwhile, back in the real world... ;o)
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies? In this case, apparently no one.
19 - 15 = 2?
Should you really be talking up a Microsoft app/service and putting down IRC *on Slashdot*? :)
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
For large values of 2.
Wouldn't be California girls!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/video/McKinney2.rm
You're a slashdot reader and you expect us to believe you've had not one but TWO girls at once...
I don't know about the article numbers but I think yours don't add up!
Sounds like the girl might have lured the AOL employee for some money. At 15 she should have known better.
I say the following completely jokingly please don't flame me :-P :
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.
Let me guess, you are 15 now, and you are making this up to impress people.
http://leetcharmer.blogdns.org/
And those new commercials with the guy pouring gravy over his co-workers lunch had me convince AOL was on top of online safety...
the Coast Guard?
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Why 14? Why not 12? Why not 9?
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.
And yes, it's very easy for a 12 year old to become pregnate and even come full term to give birth. So the question is, who is going to provide child support? You better not advocate the government, because that gets paid for by the citizens tax dollars.
Life is not for the lazy.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Why is there no "Didn't read the article" moderation option? It seems like it would be so useful in many circumstances.
http://notanumber.net/
Heh. ehhhh.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I know of a place with a job opening.
It started four years ago, started in earnest two years ago, and she's suing him now.
If she was so confused and hurt, why didn't she just tell someone?
I mean, call me an insensitive clod, but someone had to have known about it..!
Interesting lawsuit. The complaint would seem to be a) that somebody allegedly talked naughty with a minor and then, b) didn't do anything else. Sounds like it should be worth a couple of million to me.
Maybe she saw all those boys getting millions from Jackson and thought, darn, its that easy eh... fake suit, earn some dollars
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
"The incident happened 2 years ago, but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19."
Headline "15 year-old..."
Uh...15...plus 2..."girl now 19"....uh...
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
All of you are LIARS!!! The internet is perfectly safe. There is no pr0n, there are no hackers, and no pedophiles. AOL is using false advertising saying the internet is dangerous and only they can protect you from nothingness.
age of consent laws are a joke.face it, your little 13 yo daughter is mostly likely not a virgin. having laws so far out of touch with the real world is dangerous
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Require ppl to be 18 or older to access the internet.
Then no one will whine anymore about kids being predatored online.
Well, it sounds like in this case the co-worker of the perp was watching the watcher. Doesn't it? (Assuming the blurb is correct I mean.)
It's not like a Disney Internet exec was seducing underage girls or anything... (*cough*)
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"And yes, it's very easy for a 12 year old to become pregnate and even come full term to give birth."
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.
You're assuming the girl was sufficiently mature to make reasonable decisions about her sexuality. Since she was 15 and he was 23, this is doubtful.
The point of laws like statutory rape is that young teenagers aren't mature enough to give informed consent, and are vulnerable to being exploited by those older and more experienced than them. Even if the girl *did* string him along, she was not the aggressor: as the adult, he was required to behave responsibly, not her.
I should buy some cement.
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.
This isn't as bad as when an underage girl gets into a club or bar with a fake ID and gets picked up by some 21+ guy then screws him. She either regrets it or her parents find out, and the guy is a child molester, even if he asked for ID. There's been several cases like that in the past, I feel sorry for the dude. Stupid bullshit paradigms in the US.
-Woad
a/s/l? is she hot?
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.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
WHOA! lets not eliminate the age of consent, i dont wanna see a 12 year old get taken advantage of, i think at 16 most people know what they're gettin into with sex.
it's pretty sleazy to use that position to monitor chatrooms
OMG, not sleaze !!! This is the end of the world.
IANAL, in the US, the age of consent is a state issue, not a federal one. For instance, in the state of Alabama (leave the incest and hillbilly jokes at the door please), the legal age of consent is 16, with provisions for those between the ages of 12 and 16 where the persons have to be within a certain age range. Any sexual activity with a child younger than 12 is illegal. I forget which section it is in, but if you are interested, you cand find it in the Code of Alabama (a legal document).
Uhm, yeah, the age of consent varies widly state to state too. In Michigan for example, the age of consent is 16, as Section 750.520e (criminal sexual misconduct law) states: "That other person is at least 13 years of age and under 16 years of age, and the actor is 5 or more years older than that other person ". So a 17 year old could "legally" have sex with a 13 year old. 18 with 14, 19 with a 15 year old, 89 with 16 year old.
Click here for a list of what the various legal age of consent is for various countries/states.
P.S. I know this information from a joke with a friend of mine, where it was illegal for him to have sex in wisconson with his girlfried (he is 18, she is 17, 18 or below illegal in wisconson) but could in michigan.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
...age of consent in every country and state
http://www.ageofconsent.com/
This guy "lures" this girl for two years? I don't know, he doesn't sound like a sexual predator to me. She's young, sure. But she was 17 when they were *going to meet* (read: they didn't.)
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 18 or 19 years old.
Sounds like another finger-in-the-chille to me.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Motherfucker!!!
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The article says she is 19 now. But on Aim you can make up any age. This is what the poster is implying about this guy being the victim because he was probably mislead about the girl's age.
For the record I am 90 and like Asian women. Aim Screenname: Chinkybastaid
Who's watching the watchers?
Everyone else. The logs should be made public if anyone can enter the chatroom. Or if it's limited to minors only, when a child signs up for an account for the chatroom, a parent account should be made where they can access logs of when their child was logged in.
Only by accountability can safety be provided. And the children don't really have any expectation of privacy in a MONITORED chatroom. They should of course, be well aware they parents can read what they say.
This is the such a stupid argument, its ridiculous. The only sure way not to get into a car accident is not to drive. But you know what? Everyone drives. So instead of futily trying to stop people from driving, we try to get them to wear seatbelts. Abstinance only health classes (and other health classes that mention condoms, but only to talk about their failure rate), are the equivolant of pleading with people not to drive.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
AZOOONIBMOONBEEF. We KNOW, son. We know.
old enough to bleed
old enough to breed.
Pardon my bluntness, but, WHERE ARE THE FSCKING PARENTS?
Frankly, I would love to see the day where a parent who sues ANYONE because some stranger a thousand miles away they've never met fails to protect their child from [WHATEVER] finds their butt drawn up on charges of child endangerment. It's YOUR FSCKING KID. YOU protect it, damn it!
Ya ya ya..I know the repressed anti-social geek is the steriotype... "Getting some" is more luck then skill or attitude or anything else. You just gotta be in the right place at the right time to meet.... ummmm intresting people. Perhaps it's impolite to brag. I probably run the risk of going so far as to strike fear and disbelief into the hearts of slashdot's users. If you don't believe me, fine; but please don't mod this down any more. You have to admit that people mature at different rates and that teens are perfectly capable of making good choices if we give them some responsabilities. If we continue to shelter them from the world, what will happen on the day they turn 18? Will they magicly be transformed into wise mature adults? I don't think so.... We belong to an interdependent society. Your peers will be voting, working, and living with you, they have to grow up some time. Moreover, restricting other people's consentual behavior is anti-libertarian and illiberal. It defies any ethical system of law. Why do we stand for it?
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
Yeah, but it's such bullshit. If a 17 year-old girl consents to having sex after having known someone since she was 15 then that's her own decision and can't in all honesty be considered illegal (assuming, of course, that the age of consent has now been passed).
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?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
PROFIT!
1. Chat with some dude when you are underage
2. Wait till you can sue the chatroom providers
3. PROFIT!
There *MUST* be something away too wrong with this legal system!
after you knew you has been "damaged"? This happened at least 2 yrs ago.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It takes two to tango.
God of course... I'm sure he'd never even think about impregnating some innocent virgin.
If at any point before or after contact one partner says "STOP" or expresses any notion of not enjoying the experience, then the act could be considdered rape....but why should age have anything to do with any of this? Everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm* someone else's body or property. Yep....I'm a radical libertarian like that.
*Harm is defined as modificatoin without consent...so any contact with a human body that is not consented can be delcared illegal. Any contact that both participants want and enjoy should be legal, regardless of age.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
come on, listen to all this banter
who's responcible? should we change the age of concent? is it the parents fault? who is this sick bastard?
honestly, thank god im far enough away from this story to call bullshit. This day and age, its soo easy to call any 1 of the hundreds of lawyers in the yellow pages and make up a BS story and take said company to court over it.
For traction on the plaintif's case, i probably don't doubt she actually met with the guy. But if they actually had a sexual encounter or not is a he said she said. For all we know, nothing happened and she's just looking for a few bucks to put her through college.
I don't mean to come off as an insensative prick or anything, but the honset fact here is the following:
The only thing a young woman has to do to put an inocent guy into a world of SHIT is to simply cry wolf these days.
.02
yeah
Actually the laws are a bit odd in Canada. but let me clear this up
The age of consent is 14 if they are both under 18
The age of consent is 16 if the other person is over 18. (Marrage without parental permission is also allowed at 16)
heres the really odd one at 14 a person over the age of 18 may obtain permision of the Guardian to have sexual activitys but the person in question is not allowed to be a person Who is in a position of power over the 14 year old..
Then theres sodmey which isnt legal till 21?
Atleast thats what I got from reading the Age of Consent Laws in Canada..
Sex is bad! It won't do to have people having sex, no sir.
This is a case of AOL failing to provide an advertised service.
I just turned 27 years old. My girlfriend is 18. We started dating a month prior to her 18th birthday. We started having sex two months prior to that.
It's not a pattern with me. I've dated people my own age and older.
It used to really bother me, the entire age difference. From the moment I realized there was an attraction, I made it known immediately that her age was something that I was not likely to be able to overcome. I had initially dismissed the idea out right that anything would ever come of it, but I find that people and time can wear you down, and I'm glad.
Six months have passed and I don't even think about age anymore. It doesn't bother me in the least. In retrospect, the only reason it ever did is because American society has the flawed notion that it is somehow wrong for a 26 year old man to find a 17 year old girl attractive.
I like the way you said that, I've often thought of it in those terms. It's not that I was attracted to someone below the age of "maturity", it's that I was attracted to maturity below the age of consent.
I guess this is as good a first post as any.
(forgive me for being redundant but I messed up trying to back out of a submit that I meant to preview--I looked for a way to delete/edit to no avail)
I personally know a guy who met a girl on the internet when they were younger (both around 16/17) and had consenual sex..kids today are permiscous, the age when they start getting together is slowly slipping. there isnt much you can do to stop it - you literally cant watch your kids 24/7. the fact he worked in a position to stop something like this raises conflict of intrest, and although i dont think anything was illegal, i do think its wrong that he took advantage of the fact he knew every ''lure'' trick in the book (it was his job!) to abuse young females. not right at all..
but dont be nieve and say it doesnt happen, right or not.
and also why I get into fights with certain kinds of women. (hopefully that's not a Troll Alert... I'll try to be intelligent about this.)
Sex, ah, our society's favorite, misunderstood topic. I will venture to say that the things that drive sex AND seduction and make it hot seem to be... where you are "getting what you're not supposed to normally be getting or what you feel like you wouldn't have been able to get, but did." It's an achievement, in other words. Which fuels passion, which fuels (hopefully) genuine love.
I just feel like the mechanism of seduction is the same all around, whether disparate ages or different sexes (or not), because if the person wasn't receptive to the seduction in the first place, then it wouldn't work. So you (typically) take this slightly immature man (like I myself am- I matured quite late physically/emotionally/sexually) and this woman who (even for her age) happened to mature early, and all of a sudden you have something illegal, even if these two genuinely love each other. The thing is, there are two kinds of seduction. There's predatory a.k.a. serial seduction, and seduction "for keeps". If the latter, and there is love, who cares? who can judge honestly?
Anything done out of love cannot be that wrong. (If on the other hand they were both like "We just wanted some amazing fucking and that's it"... well, then, that lass is undoubtedly quite a handful... and the laws again fail to apply properly)
Who's watching the watchers?
The metawatchers, of course!
and the timing couldn't have been better, she'll be able to retire at 19, just as it should be.
Ask any psychologist...
If a 12 year old male or female is initiating sex with a peer of the same age, that child was 9 times out of 10 sexually abused. That is why the age of consent is 18. Children under 18 are not MENTALLY mature enough to make intelligent decisions when placed in sexual situations. We did not evolve to be sexually mature at early ages. We actually evolved to be sexually mature at later ages 18+ in most cases. One is not considered sexually mature just because their physical development illustrates this... Sexual maturity requires mental maturity, something that some like the author of this thread probably will never achieve...sorry
Parents can't watch their kids 24/7. Even if it was a physical possibility, you don't want to completely shelter your kid because at some point, they have to become a functioning adult and deal with the realities of the world.
Now I'm one of the first in line advocating watching your kids on the Internet. However, if AOL advertises their chatrooms as being monitored and safe for kids, it is perfectly justifiable for a parent to believe them and allow their kids unsupervisied access.
It's the same thing as school sponsored after-prom parties. The school claims that they will have adiquate monitoring and protection to keep kids from doing things they shouldn't like drinking, having sex, etc. Thus parents are justified in feeling safe in having their kids go there.
While I admit, blaming the internet is trendy and in 99% of cases it's retarded parents allowing unrestricted access, in this case it sounds like the parents had good cause to believe it was safe.
Age of consent is 18 in some states, not 16 as you seem to be saying.
It's OK mate, I was just kidding. I know Slashdot readers get laid sometimes - even OFFline sometimes.
As for getting modded down - get used to it. This is Slashdot. One mans insightful is another mans flame-bait. It happens!
Then he should be fired, not jailed.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
if these two cases are related ;-)
http://www.bash.org/?163052
Then he should be fired, and she should get no more than her subscription fees refunded.
"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.
I was kicked from aohell for a comment I made in an adult chat room. Really it was not for the comment it was for one word fuc*. I was told I had offended a fellow aohell subscriber by using that word, in that chat room it was used by everyone all the time but to get back at people they report you. So my lesson learned. I gave aohell the boot it was my only link to windozzz anyway. I am way better off without aohell
Excellent. And now a court will decide if AOL was negligent or not. We'll see what happens.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
of a quote I once heard.
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you."----Friedrich Nietzsche
Seems like the abyss stared into him.
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
yeah but he was 23 not 40, and if he did nothing illegal what does it matter? I think the earlier comment stating that if he never asked for sex or anything before her age of consent, he did nothing unlawful, if he did nothing unlawful, why should his job be relevant in the matter. to be honest if he did nothing unlawful, he shouldnt not be fired (unless he somehow did not fufill his duties otherwise), even if the whole issue is somewhat controvercial... theres nothing wrong with him meeting this girl... unless he solicited her before the age of consent.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
send me her nude pics that she sent the guy to anonymous_coward+porn-stash@gmail.com
Thanks!
It isn't really that easy, you can't watch your children 24/7, especially not if you want them to have some integrity of their own, which is reasonable at 15-17 years age.
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?
1. Guy and girl meet in online chat room and develop a relationship over the course of 2 years. They decide to meet and have sex when she turns 17 in order to setup a huge lawsuit.
2. The girl sues AOL for millions of dollars, thanks to the guy's behavior.
3. They run away together to a tropical island with millions in the bank.
It's like the movie Wild Things, only without that pool scene.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
http://www.ageofconsent.com/
if you haven't lured, over the internet, underage girls to your house, then you haven't lived.
Hey, at least the guy has a good job working for a good company! He probably did keep a lot of pedophiles away... he wouldn't want the competition. And he could have taught her about computer networking etc...
"You've Got Jail!"
;-)
sorry yall... I couldn't resist
Libertas in infinitum
If the incident happened two years ago and she's 19 now, how could she have been 15 like the title of the article suggests?? :)
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
FYI: Age of consent in California is 18, with a 3-year buffer range for those 16 and over.
a 16-yr-old can legally have sex with someone between 16 and 19.
a 17-yr-old, between 16 and 20
an 18 or 19-yr-old, anyone 16 and up
a 20-yr-old, 17 and up
21 and over, 18 and up.
From TFA, the guy was outside of this 3-year buffer, so she was not legal. It doesn't matter that they didn't do the deed. What matters is that they were planning to, so he is therefore guilty of soliciting a minor, even if she was the initiator.
There is nothing that makes me angrier than seeing sexual assualts being tried as a civil matter. If someone is raped or otherwise sexually assaulted then this is a CRIMINAL matter. Sueing for money in these cases basically says that the "crime" was not bad enough to warrant any real punishment.
{warning - if you have a weak stomach, don't continue to read further)
The great thing about being in the shower with a 12 year old is that you can slick their hair back and make them look like they are 5!
and of course:
"Officer... how was I supposed to know she was only 3?"
I read the human brain does not become fully developed until around 21.
Why should 18 the limit? the brain argument would push it higher.... and then you'd have to push back military service...or lower drinking to the same level. You can't drink, but you can have sex.
At least if they could drink (18-20), they could blame the beer.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Mores fits better.
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...)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
They were preparing to meet on the girl's 17th birthday when one of the monitor's co-workers became suspicious and prevented the encounter.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Funny, I thought it was a long way for the AOL employee in India to seduce a 15 year old girl in California.
Apparently she was so confused she's forgotten her age either now, or at the time of the "incident"
Just another lawyer looking for a big damages win... Nothing to see here folks, move along.
culture just covers it up or cuts down the numbers a bit, but it happens at reasonably high levels most cultures; most time periods. Not to mention how different times/cultures differ on the definition of "adult".
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Excellent. And now a court will decide if AOL was negligent or not. We'll see what happens.
Amazing how quickly you just summed up what everyone was arguing about for 400 comments or so huh?
In Soviet Russia, SEX HAS YOU!!
Yeah, I know. It's a talent. What can I say? : )
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
i'm surprised i'm the first to jump on the term "me-too!" lawsuits in an AOL related discussion.
Wow you're dumb.
The entire fucking point is to keep people like him away from kids... that's the entire fucking point. Of course he should be fired! He failed to "fulfill his duties"
"Who's watching the watchers?"
Well, according to the summary, the co-workers. RYOFS (Read Your Own F**** Summary)
that's why you don't nail 17 year olds, even if they ask you to.
She was 15 when the incident occurred. Now she is 19. The incident was 2 years ago........
Tada: She ages pretty quick lately.
Wrong. In CA, it is illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 18, regardless of your age. The "three year buffer" you speak of is the difference between a misdemeanor charge and a possible felony.
It is the default.
What you are looking for is "+1, Did read the article"
It's unfair if kids can have fun while adults don't.
All I know is that I used to go without sex for months at a time... And then I got divorced.
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
15+2=19 15 years old + 2 years since incident = 19 year old is her current age
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
In the article it says " They Agreed to meet." If it was her that suggested they meet, this lawsuit will go nowhere. If he suggested it, there might be trouble for AOL. It will be interesting to see how they try to prove this, if there isn't an original e-mail lying around in someone's inbox. Welcome to he said, she said, the legal version
-Khyras
When your 15yo kid wants to go out alone on her birthday and says she'll be back the next day, you check up with the parents, who you of course KNOW, and then say you'll DROP HER OFF AT THAT EXACT ADDRESS, because she's not old enough to drive herself anyway, or when her 23yo boyfriend comes to pick her up, you grab her by the elbow and drag her back to her room, which she will not be leaving for the next week except for meals and bathroom, haul the 23yo kid into the house and call the damned cops.
Geezuz.
Mostly, if you're 15, and female, and say "HOORAY ILL HAVE SEX WITH YOU, YOU ANON INTARWEB PERSON", you're a fucking whore, and deserve what you get.
Slashdot sucks
Even for small values of 19, and large values of 2 and 15, 15+2 19.
that kids grow up quickly these days
ageofconsent.com isn't bad, but a bit more of an authoritative list can be found in the Hawaii Age of Consent Task Force Report pages 65-68.
The graphs on those pages indicate very specifically the "pure" age of consent, and the stepping age of consents for different age ranges.
I don't think this is about who, where, why or when. People are talking about "Age of Consent" all over the place and I'm not sure where or why that's relevant here either.
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.
She sounds like shes money and attention grabbing. She started talking to him at 15 (he was 23), when she was 17 (above the legal age where I come from?) they arranged to meet, now shes 19 and trying to make some cash off of it. This is really fucking pathetic because you just know the knee-jerk reaction will be that shes a poor little victim. She needs to grow up because there are kids out there who have REALLY been abused and had a bad time and she is a fucking attention whore.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The difference here is it's not 'just some older guy'. It is an AOL employee specifically hired to prevent exactly what went on.
So he failed to do what his employer expected him to do. He might be fired for that.
But I fail to see how this creates a valid court case. AOL does not have the authority to change legal standards, and if the girl was above the age of legal consent, there should be no grounds for a lawsuit.
C - the footgun of programming languages
This is the only insightful comment on the page, and it's modded 'interesting'. /me cries.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Okay, so based on the /. article, the following facts are reported:
- She was 15 when it happened (title).
- It happened 2 years ago (body).
- She's 19 now (body).
Where'd she get the time machine?
Timmy, you're a imbecile.
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.
The coast guard.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
This is exactly like my own personal experience. I am a 24 year old guy who has met a 15 year old girl on ICQ.
Now, before you accuse me of being a bad person let me explain. I met Katie by random search and we chatted for a bit, she gave me her phone number and we sent texts to each other. All very mutual. Then I found out she was only 15 (I knew she was younger than me, but had no idea as to _how_ much) I backed right off and thought that it was probably best we didn't keep chatting.
BUT, she kept in touch, and, to make matters worse she's got a pretty nasty eating disorder, OR, has felt the need to make that up, which in either case means she's pretty desparate for attention. I decided that not talking her because of the age difference was just silly, and if there was any good I could do for her then it would be by continuing the relationship.
We don't talk dirty or anything, most of the time it's about movies and bands, and her friends at school. She's even asked me about drugs a bit and I think I've given her good advice on that one.
So my question for the crowd here is this: is this relationship feasible? We're really good friends now, almost like siblings, and I think we will probably meet up later in life once she goes to Uni.
Is this wrong? Is it doomed because men my age just shouldn't have relationships with younger girls?
I'm curious to know what everone thinks.
I could see how perhaps any party could be mistakenly led on an AOL date. Some example conversation from the rare AOL Chatasaurous has been discovered and shown below:
ROFL! LoL!!! ASL????? ASL?????? Cyber???
See, aiming a gun that-a-way and shooting is the easy part. Technically you could even get a monkey to kill people, or just release a bunch of rabid pitbulls and hope they gore someone.
/. You don't get to be fashionable and popular in college by being the guy/gal who actually learns stuff. You get to be fashionable and popular by fitting in with the rebel-without-a-clue gang. You get to be _really_ popular if you up the ante: whatever idiocy someone else did, by jove, show everyone that you can do it twice as idiotic.
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Firstly, the article suggests that he was flirting with her when she was 15, and when he was supposed to be looking out for that sort of behavoiur. Secondly, this should be like it is with teachers and students. Don't know about other contries, but here in the UK it is illegal for school teachers to have relationships with pupils even if they are over 16 (the age of consent in the UK). He was in a position of responsibility and he abused that.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Did anyone else notice the lawsuit was filed on April 1st ?
Is this likely to be a spoof ?
"she claims she waited because it's been "a very confusing and painful time for her," according to her lawyer"
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.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Remember kids : Anonymous does not forgive!
Ok 15 yrs old... two years pass, girl files lawsuit... is now 19.
;)
... damages, for what??? Being hit on? Oh my is this girl gonna have a lot of lawsuits in her short but colorful life.
Jeez, get your facts straight. I wouldn't want to be this ultra fast aging girl though, the way she's racking up years, she SHOULD get all the sex she can asap
Also
Because Sex is a viral reporduction.
Viruses are illegal.
There Sex is Illegal.
uality is just a bunch of letters tacked onto Sex, and Now that SEX is illegal... so is sexuality.
QED.
AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex
The incident happened 2 years ago
the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19
Why is there no "Didn't read the article" moderation option? It seems like it would be so useful in many circumstances.
If you ask a question answered in the article, I'd say "-1, Redundant".
*HOWEVER* the major fault here lies with the submitter and editors for posting a misleading summary. Sure, people should RTFA if they want the full facts but we should expect a flavor from the summary. And if the summary spawns this number of "Huh?" then it's wrong.
Who's watching the watchers? Uh...the other watchers apparently. Just read your own article!
Those poor bastards, they have us surrounded. Now we can fire at them in all directions!
More like this:
She meets guy online
Guys job is to prevent people from cracking on to younger people on chat rooms
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
Now, is the guy doing his job, or not? That's what the whole thing is about.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
The girl 19, has just filed now, but it happened two years ago... where she was 15 - at least according to the headline?
Was Dr. Who involved somehow?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Is it just me or does the math not add up? She was 15 two years ago when this happened, but is 19 now when she is filing?
WTF, O?
AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex
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.
http://xkcd.com/386/
that he didn't go out and buy a sniper rifle...
Can you imagine spending all your time at work
listening to interchanges between immature...
Ooops. Forget that I said that...
Age of consent in Cali is 18. Old enough to drive, yet not old enough to screw. *shrugs*
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I'm offering this insight for people who are not aware of how other countries have 'tackled' this issue. In canada the age of official, un-ruled concent is 18. (The same as the USA).. However as soon as an individual reaches the age of 14, they are legally able to have sex with anyone under the age of 18, and anyone over the age of 18 who is not in a position of power. (Hence this operator, or a boss at the local 7-11, or whatever). The fact that this moderator was abusing his title and used it to build a relationship with this girl is un-ethical. That said, there is nothing wrong with a 23year old man and a 17 year old woman having a sexual relationship. Providing the woman or the man (whomever is younger) is not in a position where the person may be in an athoritative position and apply pressure on said individual. Oh and to that individual that said the "US" agrees that 15 year old's shouldn't be having sex, is speaking for him or herself only. I'm sure there are many different views, and I would bet that isn't necessarily the most popular one either.
No, this is
Does this date tell you something.
I've noted that a few replies have pointed out that AOL is liable, but I've also noticed the few examples provided have the employee actually committing a crime before the employing company became liable. In this case one employee was about to, another employee prevented it, and AOL fired and reported the guy to the police. Where's the crime? Where's the damage that she's suing for?
Parent's responsibilities aside, if this incident was so terrible and scarring to the girl, why didn't the parents sue? At 15 the account probably belonged to her parents, so they must have been informed by either AOL or the police (even if the account didn't belong to them they should have become aware of the incident).
I'd be surprised if the girl got any money out of this, since AOL can very easily just tie up the case until she hemorrages enough money until to back off; but hey, that's the failing of the legal system.
The watchers are watching the watchers.
Sounds like SOMEBODY didn't read the article.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Should even really have a case after applying for the lawsuit SO LONG after all this happened. It's not like he tried seeing her when she was 15 or anything... I guess she has to pay for college somehow.
You steal men's souls.. and make them your slaves...
"alternative" sexual behavior ... acquiring psycho-stalker ex-girlfriends, getting pregnant." Apparently a sex-change was involved at some point as well *grin*
Bark less. Wag more.
That's the whole point - he didn't fulfill his duties. His duty was to prevent adults from coming in there and hitting on the kids, and he himself went in there and did that very thing.
When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the dwarves began to suspect Hungry.
Haha..
I bet you expect politicians to keep their promises?
The garage mechanic to REALLY fix your car?
That snake oil to cure all your problems?
The bank not to collapse?
ONE WORD: GULLIBLE..
But does the US have such a law? And does it apply to Internet chat room monitors?
Even if the answer to the first was "yes" I bet the answer to the second is "no".
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
in Denmark. Sweet, sweet 15.
Still, I'm 23 now and wouldn't consider having sex with a 17 year old. That would be *sick*.
When are you too old to ride the child-safe aol chat room?
Seriously. I'm sure the whole point is that 40 year old men don't stumble in there. So, what about 35? 30? 25? 20? 17? women?
If you're past the age of consent, are you still a child? AoL should add some terms of service that list that they cannot protect young men and women with raging hormones, regardless of the chat room, if they're going to be giving out their phone numbers and the likes.
I'm sorry, she's probably not 'the aggressor' - but she's not innocent either. Plenty of 15yr olds are slutting it up - her parents should be happy she was doing it online and just talking instead of being pounded by the local football team and getting pregnant.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
In almost every state in the country, the actual age of consent is 19 unlike what most people think it to be of 18.
In California, You can be charged with Statutory Rape if your partner is under 19 years of age and it's absolutely gender neutral. The only modification to this is Graduation from High School. If you have a High School Diploma, GED, or Certificate of Proficiency and are 18, you are no longer protected by the Statutory Rape Law as you are considered a High School Graduate and emancipated to your own recogninze.
In my house, I am the watcher.
If you're not tech-savvy enough to know what your kids are doing online, then you really need to learn. Otherwise, you're taking a big risk in allowing someone else to "watch" for you.
There are times and situations where you have no other choice but to entrust your family's safety to someone else, but what happens in your house is your responsibility.
My sig sucks.
Maybe instead of being so focused on what the kid should be forbidden to do, maybe explain to him/her _why_ that stuff is bad, and what the consequences are?
Someone else already did mention college and kids going off-guidance. And while I do mostly blame it on the wrong incentive and peer-pressure there, it should also be noted that it also coincides with the moment they get out of their parents' reach. Mommy and daddy are no longer around to say "you're not allowed to drink." So, whoppee, it must be allowed now. Let's end up in an alcoholic comma.
Maybe explaining what's wrong with it would have been more productive?
Or I see you mention sex and violence references in games. You probably also know already _why_ those are taboo nowadays: the fear that they'll teach the kid to be a serial killer. Maybe, you know, teaching the kid the difference between right and wrong (and that murder is squarely in the second category) would be a safer way to solve that problem, than hoping that your kid will never ever see a violent game?
So your protection lies in hoping that your kid is physically prevented by AOL from ever hearing any sex talk? Are you _that_ sure that he/she is equally protected IRL? There is no filter in Real Life, as far as I know. What if they get seduced by a RL paedophile?
Or what will happen when, see above, they go to college and are suddenly without AOL's protection? Are you sure you won't see that kid starring in some amateur porn flick? (Gay porn flick for bonus points.)
Basically what some of us swiftly blame parents for isn't that you weren't there 24/7 to look over the kid's shoulder. Au contraire. What we blame parents for, is not taking the time to teach those kids _why_ some stuff is wrong, even at those times when mommy and daddy aren't around to protect them.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
i just dont get it.. people can't expect to blame AOL.. even though I hate AOL, I don't think that they are responsible for the spawn of some crazy ass old perv..
this is a perfect example of how poorly parents are raising their children.. its the fuckin parents.. i don't condome fuckin pervs that harass little girls one bit.. therefore, as a parent, I would make sure that I restrict the use of the internet to my child.. its MY job to make sure THEY'RE safe.. i don't trust ANYBODY to take care of my child, (AOL) so its all up to me.. for fuck's sake..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
Yeah, granted we all did some stupid things as teenagers. But how many of us did "stupid" things that we now think we can make money from, by suing other people for them?
That sounds pretty smart to me.
And of course, it's worth noting that there is no significant IQ difference between 17 and 18, or between a lot of other age groups for that matter. The stupid stuff we were doing at 15, most of us still do at 30. She probably knew what she was doing at 16 just as well as she does now.
I'd imagine that this case won't be very hard to prove either way, if either party involved happened to keep any of the chat logs.
Anyhow, this is entirely unsurprising. Anyone who's actually used AOL/AIM for chatting knows its laden with perverts. What's a little surprising is it's one of their own employees, who was in the position of actually trying to stop the very thing he is accused of. Irony?
Okay they're old so it shouldn't be such a 'Glorious Prime-Time Event (TM)' or that much of a loss, after all they're old, even taking into consideration that they really know how to conserve their strength (read fight really really dirty.)
Actually. given the asymmetric warfare that we seem to be engaging in, it would seem a better adaptation to do so.
The old codgers can go out and fight and die for out better tomorrows (since the young have so many more of them stretching out in time.)
As for the middle-aged, they can make up their minds to stay and party or go to the front with the old debris, (simultaneously solving the social security crisis and the health care crisis.)
Before you get on my case about my 'Swiftian' solution ('How do you solve over population and the potato famine in Ireland? Eat the young!) think about it. Its what the old are doing to the young right now.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
A couple key terms here:
Seduce
Age of Consent
Seduction implies deceit. That's why there are laws against it. (Kinda like laws against writing bad checks.)
When you start fooling around with these, you're gambling with your life. Best case is some cheap thrills. Worst case is some angry relatives removing your anatomy. Somewhere in between is arrest, jail, STD, abortion consequences, paternity suit, broken relationships, other psych issues.
As a teacher in foreign countries, I've been in situations when I could have, but I didn't. Partly because what the girl wants and what she'd get are completely different. But mostly for my own reputation and career. I like my career and my freedom.
Bottom line is: I'm old enough to know that jumping in the sack with a teen - even of legal age - is going to cause too much trouble from too many directions to be worth the fun. (That's where the business about age of consent and intelligent adult come in.)
P.S. I'll bet most of you horny pseudo-geniuses will change your tune after you have a teenage daughter.
because they think that the'll "get away with it(C)" and that some acts are without consequence.
With the coming of computers and the 'Net, that option is rapidly coming to a close. The same revolution in information processing that make us possible is also making THEM[1] posssible. And that's is the end of (y)our civil liberties. They're spinning it your way in the guise of efficiency, security and convenience and, damn it, its all of that, but it also requires you to surrender all of your rights to privacy.
Enjoy going out for a walk under clear open skies, free from cameras recording your every move, for one last time. Oops! Too late.
1] No Place to Hide: Behind the Scenes of Our Emerging Surveillance Society (Hardcover)
by Robert O'Harrow, Publisher: Free Press (January 12, 2005) ISBN: 0743254805
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
EVERYONE risks death EVERY DAY
Well, yes. But that doesn't inspire me to start off each morning with a rousing game of Russian Roulette. It is all about balancing risks vs. rewards. I COULD be hit by a bus as I cross the street, but the risk is small, and the reward of being able to walk out of my apartment far outweighs this miniscule risk. Especially if I look both ways first.
Wow, that's some stelar math, there.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
i can't help it but for me the us legal system just looks idiotic. everyone is sueing someone for really idiotic reasons. sooner or later half of the us jobs will be lawyers to keep the system going.
that's just insane.
it's the parents' job to keep an eye on their children. if they allow them to use the internet then they have to be aware of the fact that they might stumble upon some more or less strange persons. either they are mature enough to handle the situation or the parents have to keep them from using the internet - that easy.
when they sue the person that really wanted to have sex with a child it's perfectly ok. but to sue aol is just idiotic.
in my eyes the whole legal system is crap.
It's a good way to meet people of all types, rather than just geeks.
I have dated geek-girls... many of them have even more issues than geek guys (particularly in regards to sexual issues). Common interests is great, but my experience with dating all-out-geeks has definately been less than spectacular in many cases.
*Yes I know it is slashdot, given the number of visits to the site I think you can assume that *some* of us actually do date girls and/or even get lucky, get over it.
If the girl was 15 when seduced, and this happend two years ago...how can the girl be 19 now? 15 + 2 = 19????
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
What are the circumstances though? Two years is a long time... I know people who have been married after such a length of online relationship. Did the employee intend a sexual relation (the timeline indicates that he must have been damn patient if he did), or perhaps he was just a lonely but not-so-smart dude who met an equally lonely girl.
In the early two years, perhaps they started as friends and it bloomed to a type of relationship. Is there something saying a 20-yr-old can't be friend with a 15-something? If years down the road that friendship becomes something else... well that's a bit odd but it wasn't premeditated.
Yoda says: "A mathalete you are not".
can somone explane our sex laws? I meen if someone can say yes they want sex, age apropiatness issues aside what the fuck is wrong with two PEOPLE 'audults' or otherwise, well having sex? shit we can own a gun wich is GARUNTEED to kill in som states as young as 16, drive around then to,
Uh, what base numbering system is that?
Yeah, but it's such bullshit. If a 17 year-old girl consents to having sex after having known someone since she was 15 then that's her own decision and can't in all honesty be considered illegal (assuming, of course, that the age of consent has now been passed).
Age on Consent laws are especially complex in the US since there are over 50 of them. Each state has one, there's also a federal one where "crossing state lines" is involved no doubt DC also has it's own...
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?".
Probably best to first ask "Who made the first sexual overtures?"
{screw the mod points. someone has to say it, might as well be me}
Well, at least he was thinking of the children.
(in both senses of the term)
And, C'mon, how smart can the girl be?
She, or her parents, are AOL users!!!
Sheesh.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I think there may be a really simple solution to this problem of making the thief the caretaker of the proverbial treasure chest, make the moderators women. I think this should solve it or atleast reduce the chances of things like this happening. Or on the other hand, this may all be a hoax and a really stupid attempt by a teenager to earn some easy cash...
My last sig was ridiculed
The incident happened 2 years ago, but has become public this week because the lawsuit was just filed by the girl, now 19.
If all else fails... RTFM
Forgive me if my math is off but the title and summary states facts that dont add up.
1) Two years ago a 15 year old girl was lured.
2) The girl is now 19 suing AOL.
Something wrong with that no?
I dunno, coast guard?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
*In a familar voice* "You've got new Jail Time!"
As a former tango instructor, oops! Oh. Euphemisms. Yeah...
De Bas Meister
The blurb says she's now 19 and the incident happened 2 years when she was 15. Isn't the math done by adding 2 to 15 to get 17 years old or subtracting 15 from 19 to get 4 years ago or am I missing something here?
You stick a guy behind a computer for 40 hours a week and you think he's not going to hit on chics?
AOL wake the F up and hook your employee's up... Sponsor parties, send the guys to strip clubs, etc. otherwise you'll be seeing more of these bs lawsuits.
Honestly, I'm not sure why this chic is suing? Emotional distress from what? not getting any?
I thought 16 is the age most girls (in the US) start becoming sexualy active. If I'm not mistaken, this girl waiting until she was 17 is quite amazing.
I might have been tempted as teenager where the internet around then. I lived in a very restrictive family and boring small town. The net might have been an escape to the priveleges of adulthood.
Thats why I suspect there will always be a fresh crop of potential victims on the net.
Careful, Americans get particularly rabid regarding anything remotely related to sex with minors (repression, anyone?). The last thing you want is some international age-of-consent law forced down the EU/UN's throats, set firmly at 21 "just in case".
Nah, I'm not having any of that bullshit.
You honestly expect people in the EU to not say stuff like that just in case people in the US start pushing for stuff like that? Fuck it.
You might get away with pushing it on small second-world tourist destinations (who, let's face it, probably don't want to be prostituting 13-year olds either, if the alternative is some lucrative trade agreement), but telling people in the EU or other first-world countries their age of consent isn't going to wash.
Even if it were a risk, by modifying your behaviour like that, the US has already won. I'm sick of certain segments of US society trying to force *their* values on the rest of the world and thinking they can intimidate the rest of the world into obeying. More so that they think it applies in all cases.
It might be unwise to behave like that if you want to live in- or visit- the US, but for the former, most people (outside the US) don't, and for the latter... yeah, lots of people would like to take a holiday in the US, but they wouldn't run their lives differently because of it.
Anyway, can you spell hypocrisy? Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 14-year old cousin in the 1950s?
Maybe I shouldn't mention that I find some black girls attractive either, because some people in the US don't like the idea of anything interracial. Tough.
Cute black 17-year old girls. Mmmm..... (^_^)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
She was 15, and it happened two years ago..... and she is now sueing at age 19?
Something's not right there.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
While I agree that it was wrong for the AOL employee to pursue a minor in such a fashion, I think the lawsuit is completely lame. She's taking someone to task for something in which, by all apperances, she was a willing participant. That's like a kid using a fake ID to enter a bar, proceeding to get drunk off their ass, and then calling the cops on the bartender for selling alcohol to a minor. They were involved in the crime -- they shouldn't be entitled to jack.
Still, I'm 23 now and wouldn't consider having sex with a 17 year old. That would be *sick*.
Depends on the 17-year old, surely?
There are a large proportion of 17-year olds who are still kids (I was at that age), and some who aren't.
Reminds me of when I was at university; I was a mature student (26 at the time) and looking for a flat share. One ad I looked at turned out to be a girl going into her second year, so she would have been 19, possibly 18.
It just felt *wrong*; she seemed pretty shy, basically still a kid, and her damn *parents* were showing me round the house. If I'd been them, I'd have been very dubious about this older guy sharing a house with my daughter, but they seemed quite keen to show me round.
She was 19 (I'm guessing, logically), but seemed less grown-up than some 17-year olds. That was one reason I didn't go for the room; the others being that the place was *miles* from the university and being a final-year student, I didn't fancy sharing with a houseful of second-year 18-year olds.
Really, though you can't cut this stuff as being black-and-white. For example:-
If I had two photos, one of a girl under the age of consent, but looking much older (and sexually attractive) and another slightly above the age of consent, but looking distinctly child-like, and you didn't know their ages....
Which one is it acceptable to want to sleep with?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Loveline!
Phone number: 1-800-LOVE-191
If I throw a stick, will you go away?
I hate to be the grammar cop, but you typed "WHERE'S THE PARENTS!" 3 times and that's just too much. Here's a quick 1st semester ESL refresher for you.
:)
1) The word "parents" is plural. You can glean that from the "s" added to the single form "parent".
2) The "is" form of the "be" verb is used with singular nouns.
3) The "are" form of the "be" verb is used for plural nouns.
Thus, if you have one parent you should ask:
"WHERE'S THE PARENT?" (note: question sentences use question marks, not exclamaition points.)
If you have 2 parents, then you should ask:
"WHERE ARE THE PARENTS?"
Dear idiot,
It was obviously a quote implying ignorance on the part of the characterized party.
You are a fucking twit, idiot.
BTW, fucktard, it's ex-cla-ma-tion. There is no i before the t.
Man, did anyone actually read the article? They first started talking when she was 15. They talked for 2 years and were going to meet on her 17th birthday. That meeting happened almost 2 years ago - now she is 19. There was anopther two years in there all of you are forgetting about.
BTW - I would put money on the fact that the lawsuit was filed now because the statute of limitations was problably going to run on her ability to sue AOL.
The title refers to a 15-year-old. The Summary says the event happened two years ago, and that the girl is now 19.
somehow, that doesn't seem to add up.
Of course, reading the article, we learn the girl was 17 when she was (finally) propositioned, and the guy was 25.
Hardly an outrageous abuse of her innocence. Though I am sure the lawsuit will deal adequately with any "innocence she has left".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Well it's not slashdot's fault completely. The original story is misleading. It said that aol chatroom monitor lured 15-year old into sex, yet it said she was 17 when he tried to lure her, not 15. It may have started when she was 15, but it actually happened when she was 17. Slashdot should have cleared this in the summary they wrote though.
My Gawd WTF...
n/m
One thing I've noticed is that #1, normal and healthy people reach biological adulthood well before they reach legal adulthood, and #2, if people are idiots in their teens, they're idiots in their 20's and 30's too. The fixation with the age of 18 is rediculous, nothing magic happens at 18 that doesn't happen at 13, 14, 20, or 50. Some people are pemanently children, others seem to grow up in a reasonable amount of time.
Mary K. Letourno went to jail for sleeping with her male student. And went to jail a second time for sleeping with him again after her first term was up.
noone speaks in purities when they make generiations that's ONE case I can recall maybe one other and i think it's this one anyway out of that one case vs how many consensual male younger female cases.--
The Wolfkin
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-205683.html?legacy=c net
http://www.aolwatch.org/checksub.htm
http://www.aolwatch.org/list/0079.html
Back in 1997, a 28 year old staff attorney for AOL named Andrew Lewis Singer plead guilty to fondling an 11 year old boy in a DC area park after showing up to meet a teenage boy he found on AOL:
- begin article -
E-Mail Leads Authorities to AOL Lawyer
Va. Man Is Charged In Assault on Boy, 11
By Peter Pae and Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 6, 1997; Page D01
The Washington Post
A lawyer for America Online Inc. -- charged with sexually assaulting an 11-year-old Loudoun County boy at a pond last week -- went there after
exchanging AOL e-mail with another boy who said he would be there that afternoon, the sheriff's department said yesterday.
Investigators said they identified Andrew Lewis Singer, 28, after learning of the online exchange and tracing it to him. Authorities said Singer used the screen name "DCBOY83" to trade AOL "instant mail" with a teenager one afternoon last week, then drove from AOL headquarters in Dulles to the pond in Ashburn Farm.
After meeting the teenager there, officials say, Singer asked him about the 11-year-old fishing across the small lake, and then went over to him. After starting a conversation, Singer allegedly put his hand in the boy's pants and fondled him before walking away.
[...]
Primrose would not say whether Singer's status as an AOL employee gave him access to information about subscribers, such as lists of children who use AOL "chat rooms" meant only for young people.
She said, however, that "procedures are in place which govern the level of access to subscribers' information based on the employee's job."
[...]
Sheriff's officials said the teenage boy reported the online conversation after he heard about the alleged assault. He said Singer had asked him what he was doing that afternoon, and the boy responded that he was going to get ice cream and play basketball with a friend near the pond, investigators said. The teenager said he was surprised when Singer showed up.
[snip]
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
I've noticed on here that there is a mix of blaming the girl...blaming the guy. One question I keep wondering is "Where were the parents when all this was going on?" Issues like this always skirt the one key term "Parental Responsibility." Any parent that would let their child play on the internet chat rooms (esp. knowing what the rooms are like), without some involvement, should be held in greater contempt than the guy. Hey, if they are not willing to take responsibility for their kids...they shouldn't be allowed to have em...just my thoughts....
I posted this in my blog. So not sure of you are aware, but Slashdot is running a posting stating the headline that AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex which is false in context if you read the article. Also I have some insight on how these "AOL Monitors" work; since people have very minimal perspective them besides faulty articles and rumors. First, to summarize the article: Some [woman] online is suing AOL because when she was 15 she was conversing with an AOL "Monitor" (Community Leader - CL), and she was considering meeting that fellow around the age of 17, but never did. Now she is 19 and suing for psychological damages somewhere around $250,000. The Community Leader was/is (not clearly disclosed, 23 years old, male). First, AOL has this program for tenured AOL members call Community Leaders so they can empower the service and its members on how to use the service, and to moderate chats, message boards and other "public" areas on AOL. The requirement is that they commit to about 3 hrs a week to this "community work" of talking with other members abnd also creat lively good discussions. As a reward; they get a free unlimited usage AOL account ($23.90 value). Most people who do this are usually either Retired people, or Stay-At-Home types who like the internet. Some of the featured areas are Kids Only (KO), and Teens (RED) where moderators regulate chats. They do a FINE job of protecting the community and KO chats. I see a number of accounts with these CL's scrambling passwords and leaving notes that 'this SN said their full name' or like 'this SN said their address'. Its not a bad thing, but helps parents talk to their kids about online safety. These CL's like what they do since it helps everyone have a safe, more rewarding online experience. The abuse comes in when there is a line of trust with these accounts. AOL does its best job of screening applicants for a CL position. They must have an AOL acct for a minimum of 1 year, with NO terms of service violations, and must pass a criminal background check. A majority of applicants are refused for various reasons and only the outstanding few are accepted. They have an online training session, and a lot of legal guidelines and disclosures to adhere to, and then they begin. Their moderations are reviewed, but mainly to ensure no misuse of moderation powers (gagging, deleting posts, etc). Since AOL does not log its members for what they type; AOL does not have the ability of logging CL's unless it is reported via the 'Notify AOL' feature. AOL is very strict with those accounts and if you misbehave you are gone from the program. AOL does not pay the Community Leaders. They are compensated in the form of 1 free AOL account. So they are not AOL employees. However, AOL employees (paid) do oversee the program of AOL Community Inc., and they do their jobs well and this story doesn't (or atleast, shouldn't) reflect on their level of quality and professionalism on the service. As a result, AOL did fire that CL, and will be legally pursuing the issue. I hope that clears some things up on that article. Feel free to comment. :)
Although the issue of the girl's age is not irrelevant, I think the main issue is the AOL Monitor's abuse of authority. What he did was creepy because without his position of authority, there would absolutely be no socially acceptable reason for him to even be in there chatting with "children" in the "chidren's" chat room.
I'd also like to point out (albeit a bit off-topic) that in the political realm, we're all so polarized over certain issues that most of us fail to realize that politicians notoriously abuse their authority, but are often able to pull hot-button issues out of their asses in order to capitalize on our short attention spans. For example, Bill Clinton was able to successfully convince many people that the "dignity of the presidency" was far more important than the integrity of the president himself. His actions were "none of our business." Bush uses the authority that God gave him as an excuse to blow up other countries and install a pro-business government. Questioning his methodology is the quivalent of being a terrorist.
The concept of "integrity" is all but dead.
I still can't make the choice to put weed in my body...
If the girl's 19 now, and the incident was 2 years ago, then why does the title say the girl was 15? 2 years ago the girl was 17...
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"