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?"
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?
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."
The most effective approach I've seen to this is to define the ability to consent in terms of the age (and therefore 'power') difference. That is, a fourteen year old can consent to having sex with a fifteen year old, but not with an eighteen year old.
However, this approach makes particularly liberal people uncomfortable since they don't like the idea that you can legally have sex with some people but not with others (where the others can legally have sex with some people). It also makes particularly conservative people uncomfortable since they don't like the idea that their fourteen year old daughter can legally have sex.
Since it isn't getting picked up by either the liberals or the conservatives, I can't see the US adopting it. But that's politics for you...
The age of consent has nothing to do with it. The expectation based on AOL advertising was that minors would be protected from predators. The fact that a rape victim is 16 does not automatically mean that the victim in fact consented, or that a possible lapse in promised security did not in fact provide the means for the rape.
And they absolutely can be liable. If a firm offers a service, they cannot then state the service does not in fact exist, or is of no value. That is bait and switch. I cannot, for instance, open a store, say that a product is available, and then not have the product available. Even the cheapest of stores guarantees product availability for at least on day. Under your logic, I can claim to provide DSL speed, but only offer analog telephone modem lines. All I have to do is send a note with the shipped package saying that all service is analog modem. The standards of product offers and prices have been set for quite a while. If a firm is going to offer something, they better provide it. Even an disclaimer is often not enough.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If the 12 year old's parents don't have a the insight to tell their sex-crazed 12 year-old that protection should be used, then they can deal with an extra addition to their family. Of course, they then will get their 12 year old to file with the IRS, get an Earned-Income-Credit form (remember, the 12 year old makes no income to support her child, regardless of dependant claims by her folks), and bilk around $2500 per kid they pop out. The law should state that unless the minor is legally emancipated from the parents, the parents should take legal custody of any child produced by said minor until either a) said minor files for legal emancipation or b) said minor becomes a legal adult. Of course, clauses will be added for special cases.
Having been in the same position as the "victim" here, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiment.
That is, I've dated older men online (years and years ago) when I was around that age. Indeed, I met my fiance when I was around 14 and he was about 19. He is probably the oldest person I've ever been involved with, but it was extremely awkward when we were dating for the first few years, especially when he turned 20 and I was still under the AOC in my state (and still in high school, though not for long).
It's unfair to call the younger one in this relationship a "victim" and especially unfair to call the older one a "pedophile" or even a sexual predator when all signs seem to point to the opposite; a consenting and apparently rather close relationship.
That said, AOL still dropped the ball here. At the very least, this will hopefully force them to tighten their belts a bit to prevent something truly tragic from taking place (if it hasn't already).
"He does look a bit Oompa like, even if his Loompa is a bit off-kilter."
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!
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
I agree with a lot of you say, it is a very good post.
"Well that and a.) Shit happens, b.) No birth control is 100% effective, c.) There's no reliable way to ensure that everybody participates."
And the solution is to pretend children are not sexual and will not engage in sex for 5-8 years after puberty? Let's do better.
"Problem two is that if I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody arbitrarily making these decisions without me."
How about allowing the children to make the decisions for themselves. Allow for laws that permit children to ask for birth control from their doctor without parental consent.
= Additional Thoughts =
The sodomy laws were just repealed in 2003 (in the United States), so Puritanism is still out there but it seems to be on the decline. But in rejecting Puritanism society seems to be going towards some sort of cheap commercial view of sex. This is also probably wrong.
Indeed, a lot of the problem has to do with societal attitudes, especially with respect to society to the victims as well. What if the so called victim thought the relationship was rewarding? His or her choice is to either believe they were victimized and are damaged goods or say they enjoyed the relationship and turn the pity of society into disgust and persecution, or be brainwashed into thinking it was evil.
If you are 15 and stupid enough to meet someone from the net to have sex...you're an idiot.
Of course in most place in the world you'd be allowed to have sex if you were 15.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating