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.
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.
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.
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
The way I see it: the girl strings along the guy for two years, promises to meet, changes her mind and two years later slaps the guy with this!
Could someone clarify who the aggressor is again?
Was this girl chained to the computer and forced to make herself available for chat and respond?
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.
Sure, parents should be responsible.
But if AOL specifically went out of their way to make chat rooms that were SAFE for young children, by actively having people monitor them and keep them acceptable, tha'ts a selling feature to parents.
It's like if you sent your kid to daycare, and he was mistrated.. would you say to that parent "You should have been there, how dare you trust your kid to some daycare?"
At some point, AOL WAS responsible for this.
I agree. His behavior was not exactly proper, but since no actual crime took place, I don't see how her lawsuit will go anywhere. The fact that this took place over a long period of time and that she waited just as long to sue will make it very easy to question her real intentions. Of course, AOL executives should see this as a wake up call to what could have been a much worse situation and do what they can to make sure it is not likely to happen again.
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.
No nobody forced her to chat with the man but it is possible that she was lured into chatting with him. I don't know that exact contents of the messages that were sent back and forth but I think it's safe to say that those are what will determin who was at fault here.
If she was 15 when they started talking and he brought up sex to her, at that age, and knowing how old she was than it's her fault. But maybe they were just chat pals for 2 years or so and at 17 she mentioned having sex, her parents find out and they want this guy in trouble, because of his job it's headline news. Everything depends on the context.
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.
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.
First of all she was 17, in many, many, countries this is exceeding the age of consent so its either saying that american girls are typically more innocent then the rest of the world, or the people running the show in your country are a bunch of prudes.
Secondly the guy isn't a pedophile because she isn't exactly prepubescent. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to girls who have gone through puberty no matter what their age, its a biological thing.
Regardless the best job for a pedophile would be in the clergy or as a scout master or something, many more people are wary to meet someone off the internet these days, and besides why put in all the effort when you could just have the parents bring their kids to you.
The AOL kid chat rooms were specifically advertised as being monitored and safe. This one was not.
As a parent, you cannot, indeed should not, be by your teenagers side 24/7.
Regardless of your obscure views of paedophiles this guy was employed to protect her from people like himself. He is a fraud. Parents use AOL because they advertise the child protection angle. OK, I think that AOL is rubbish but this guy was abusing his position in order to get payed a salary to do what he was getting paid to prevent.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
Well, aside from the technicaliites of the law, even if he didn't committ a crime (I think age of consent varies by state) this is pretty sketchy. This guy's job was to protect kids from being propositioned for sex - it's pretty sleazy to use that position to monitor chatrooms until the girls become "barely legal" and then go for it...
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/
"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.
Regardless of your obscure views of paedophiles this guy was employed to protect her from people like himself.
It seems to me that the guy's behavior was improper, given that he had a professional relationship with the young woman. On the other hand, I think the term "paedophile" should be reserved for those who are sexually attracted to people who are below the age of sexual maturity, not merely below the age of consent in a particular locale.
"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.
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.
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...
I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the sort of guy who takes advantage of a professional relationship to seduce somebody who is (at least initially) underage, inexperienced, and in emotional turmoil. And it would not surprise me if, with a little time to reflect upon what happened, the young woman felt that his behavior toward her was unethical. Regardless of whether it would have been legal or illegal for him to have sex with her in that state, it seems like AOL has an obligation to supervise the activities of its chat room monitors and make sure that they are in accord with company policies and the representations that AOL has made to customers.
The expectation based on AOL advertising was that minors would be protected from predators.
Predator is often used for pedophile. A pedophile is someone who has sex with someone who is under the age of consent. The fact that this isn't a criminal matter suggests that she was in fact over the age of consent. How was AOL's promise broken by this case?
Or is ANYONE who has sex (or wants to have sex) with a consenting partner that is over the age of consent a predator?
The only part of the lawsuit I saw that had any credence was the "for causing emotional distress" part. So guess what guys. Anytime you enter into a relationship with a woman, if you break-up it better be on good terms, because otherwise you'll case emotional distress and have to pay for it.
The fact that a rape victim is 16 does not automatically mean that the victim in fact consented, or that a possible lapse in promised security did not in fact provide the means for the rape.
Why bring up rape? It's got nothing to do with the article.
And they did exactly that. They chose an ISP that has what is specifically advertised as 'kid safe' chat rooms. Monitored by supposedly responsible adults, hired for the express purpose of preventing the precise condition that happened.
Or are you advocating that the parents should sit in the chair next to her evry minute she is online?
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
old enough to bleed
old enough to breed.
"And a parent who never, ever let's their kid out of their sight, especially when they are 14/15/16, is even more abusive. Kids have to be allowed some freedom. Within ever increasing limits, of course."
Well parents want it both ways I guess. They want their kids to have freedom and not have to mind them 24/7. However, they do not want to give their children the knowledge (e.g. sex education) and wherewithall to engage their environment and other human beings intelligently.
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
"I think the term "paedophile" should be reserved for those who are sexually attracted to people who are below the age of sexual maturity, not merely below the age of consent in a particular locale."
;).
Well then you have R.Kelly's in the mix then (although she was 14, and likely not prepubescent, but is a close example to my point).
The dangerous people* are adults who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children as they have no other release for their sexual energy.
*This assumes an adult having sex with a person under the age of concent is dangerous. Few places exist to intelligently discuss that topic, and fewer people still would advocate that it is not. I guess untill people can intelligently discuss this issue openly this problem, such as it is, will continue to exist in (post anicent Greek) Western societies
It takes two to tango.
Why yes it does, but an adult "tangoing" with a 15 year old is illegal in the US, even if the 15 year old wanted it. Besides, one would expect that a person who's job it is to keep children safe from predators by monitoring chat rooms would have the sense and willpower to not succumb to the wiles of a kid.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
This is a case of AOL failing to provide an advertised service.
Also, this term refers only to those exclusively attracted to adolescents. The way you state it would classify pretty much the entire adult population of Earth as mentally ill, which is (While I personally am prepared to accept it) pretty much a contradiction in terms.
It sounds like an interesting case. "The article" is short enough that anything could be going on, but it sounds like over the course of 2 years he formed a relationship with the girl. Maybe. And then a co-worker stopped this, somehow.
And now she's suing for the surprisingly small sum of 25k. Not 25 million, 25 thousand. Which is still a lot of money, but in the realm of litigenous bastards it's pretty modest.
Of course, I do think the guy should be fired, there is no question of that. But the question is was this "safe for children?" Can someone below the age of consent consent to meeting for sex after they'll be above the age of consent? Is it preying on someone if they've had a relationship for 2 years? Is this a lawsuit about false advertising, or will the courts be forced to quantify the damages that one year of a virtual relationship can do to someone one year under the age of consent?
It's a big, grey splotch, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in court.
The ______ Agenda
There is nothing wrong with being attracted to girls who have gone through puberty no matter what their age, its a biological thing.
This reminds me... a friend of mine (with a degree in biology) is fond of pointing out that there are excellent evolutionary reasons to be attracted to the youngest post-puberty potential mates...
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
"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.
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!
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?
n America, we all agree that girls and boys that are 15 years old should not be having sex, rather they should be having a full childhood.
No, we don't all agree. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Do try to remember that.
I'm asking, on behalf of the United States, for the same of respect for our laws in this regards.
My, you certainly have delusions of grandeur. You might want to see a therapist about your problem....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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?
Normally I would completely agree with you, however in this instance, AOL were advertising the service as being safe for kids. Much like a day-care centre where you drop your kids off with adults you believe are there to ensure your children won't come to any harm; AOL advertised this service as being a place where your kids could safely chat on the internet.
If a day care centre did not perform adequate checks on their employees, and then employed a known pedophile who then attempted to molest children at the centre, the centre would rightly be sued for negligence - precisely because they've advertised the service as safe for children. AOL's case is no different; they've advertised the service as safe for kids.
Of course, whether AOL have or have not failed in this duty is for the courts to decide.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
I am a parent with teenage kids. They love the 'net. They especially love instant messaging and are fiercly protective of their privacy on their email chatting. They don't want a parent watching their conversations.
It's all very well to say the parents should be responsible, but how? How can I protect them, aside from banning net use altogether?
In this instance AOL have said to parents "Unmoderated internet chat rooms are a dangerous place where pedophiles and other nasty people frequent", so they've - correctly - identified an issue with unmoderated chat rooms. They then go further and state "However: moderated AOL internet chat rooms are safe. If you pay us money, we will provide safe moderated chat rooms."
And this is the issue: AOL internet chat rooms are only available to AOL subscribers, and AOL subscribers pay money to AOL precisely because they've been told the potential danger of non-AOL chat rooms and have been assured that this danger can be eliminated by paying AOL money.
Similarly with you chainsaw juggling class for under-5s. If your chainsaw instructor identified the common concern with most chainsaw juggling lesson providers ("live chainsaws will chop off various body parts") but provided a solution to this problem ("we're only actually juggling inflatable chainsaws that couldn't cut paper if it tried"), but then provided live chainsaws instead of inflatable chainsaws - then you'd have a case when your kiddie comes home less two arms and a foot: because you'd been assured that your kid would only be using safe inflatable chainsaws.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
Where I'm from (not Slovakia.. although its a great place for hosting a webpage) the age of consent is generally 16, it can vary from state to state and depends on other things like the sex of your partner (and that rule is rarely enforced, if ever) or their age sometimes its a bit less sometimes its a bit more but in general 16. Charges are almost unheard of because in general people believe that if some teenager is having sex with another teenager then who are we to judge. They get given condoms and are told how to use them so we don't care if they go at it.
I seriously doubt everyone but religous prudes believe that these laws stop people having sex. It perhaps makes them regret it later when their girlfriends crazy parents come along and press charges but it doesn't stop shit.
I can tell you right now that as soon as children start going through puberty they are going to be interested in sex. The reason girls used to get married so young (ie. 12) not 50 years ago is because before birth control they got pregnant and it was the socialy accepted norm that she was to be married. These days teenagers are having sex at the same age as they always did, its just that with propper birthcontrol use they don't have to worry as much about kids.
Don't even get me started about contributing members of society, as soon as you start paying taxes (15 in your country IIRC) you should have the right to get a leg up.
To summerize, those laws do nothing to stop people from having sex and those who believe they do are fooling themselves. If anything they would stop girls telling their mothers that the condom broke and they need a morning after pill.
Aparently the parents didn't feel she was worth protecting. Otherwise we'd have heard about them dragging AOL and the pervert through the courts 4 years ago, rather than the girl doing it now.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
And they absolutely can be liable. If a firm offers a service, they cannot then state the service does not in fact exist, or is of no value.
No, but they are certainly entitled to claim the service cannot be reasonably expected to be perfect. If AOL was consistently and routinely screwing up this promise, and kids were being targeted all the damn time, maybe you'd have a case. But all signs point to this being a very rare accident which AOL took all reasonable precautions to avoid.
Human nature being what it is, no service is absolutely 100% perfect, however hard the provider tries. On occasion, your doctor is going to miss something. Your lawyer is going to blow it a bit in Court. Your tax accountant is going to miss a deduction and cost you a few bucks. Your software is going to have a bug.
And, sure, they should make reasonable amends. It sounds like AOL is doing that here. They fired the guy, they'll probably do more careful checking. They probably offered to return all their money, maybe pay a little extra dough because, oh dear it turns out the 15-year-old girl was actually talking about sex, not homework or cute animals online. (I know, I'm shocked too. What is the younger generation coming to? Why I didn't talk about sex until I was...um....well, never mind.)
But if anyone thinks products and services provided by human beings are going to be absolutely perfect, and throw a huge fit and sue for millions when they're not -- well, they're either parasites who should be fumigated or whiny adolescents not ready to join the real world.
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.
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.
In Italy, both approaches are active. Consenting heterosexual sex is allowed from the age of 14, with a partner no older than 16, and the 2 years difference is maintained through to 18 years. At 18, anything goes of course.
Religiously enough, though, homosexual practices are only allowed at 18.
The rule seems to be in accordance with the average age of a girl first having sex, which according to surveys is 14.something years.
Of course this doesn't change parents' mentality and denial at all. As a doctor, when taking a patient's history, I need to ask parents out of the room in order to ask an underage girl if she's taking contraceptives. This isn't actually in complete accordance with the law, but you can't expect a true answer if you don't do this.
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.
"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
"Safe" and "Supervised" are not the same thing and your analogy is stretching a bit :)
If I leave a child at a day-care centre, I have every reason to believe that my child will not come to physical harm because day-care centres are not normally staffed by child-molestors or chainsaw juggling instructors. A better analogy, perhaps, is a playground.
If a parent takes a child to a playground, and then leave them unsupervised at the playground, then the parent is being negligent and has no good reason to sue the local council. If, on the other hand, the parent takes the child to a playground and pays someone to babysit - ie. supervise - their child, and that supervisor - either through negligence or through willful misconduct - allows the child to come to harm then it is the supervisor who is at fault and not the parent, as the parent has had a guarantee from the supervisor that they as a responsible adult will not allow the child to come to harm.
This extends further: if, instead of employing a supervisor directly, the parent takes their child to a supervised playground where the playground owner specifies that by paying an entrance fee the playground will ensure that the children are properly supervised, the parent has acted properly and has ensured that their child will not be tempted to go to the back of the car of some pervert offering the kids sweets.
And this is the point: AOL are not offering chainsaw juggling lessons: they're offering a supervised playground. An unsupervised internet chat room is no more directly dangerous to a child's health than an unsupervised playground. It's only when the pervert in the car is allowed to approach the kids that the playground becomes a dangerous place; and it's only when the chat room is improperly supervised - EITHER by the parent OR by the delegated supervisor - that they become dangerous.
In this instance, allegedly, it went further than the trusted playground supervisor failing to prevent a child approaching the car offering sweets, it was the supervisor himself who offered the sweets from the back of a car.
And the same applies with baby-sitters.
A parent does not always have to be present for them to reasonably believe that their children are being properly supervised.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.