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?"

Comments

Can of worms?

[fembots]

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?

Re:Can of worms?

[mboverload]

If you are 15 and stupid enough to meet someone from the net to have sex...you're an idiot. She has no right to file this lawsuit. When will people be responsible and stop trying to freeload?

Re:Can of worms?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to agree with mboverload. Most fifteen year olds have minds of their own. They are able to be held responsible for killing someone, so why is it someone elses fault when she decides to sleep with someone she met over the net?

Re:Can of worms?

[1u3hr]

If you are 15 and stupid enough to meet someone from the net to have sex...you're an idiot.

More importantly, she never met him at all, and it didn't come to almost meeting him till she was 17. The slashdot headline and even summary is, as usual, bullshit.

Re:Can of worms?

[CodeBuster]

The law does not recognize someone as a legally responsible adult until the age of 18. Who among us did NOT do some fairly stupid things when we were teenagers?

Re:Can of worms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, I don't know about you, but the dumb stuff I did as a teenager pales in comparison to the shockingly, dangerously, freakishly stupid things I did after I went off to college.

The same goes for most of my friends:

Teenage years: petty crime, drinking, and a little driving recklessly.

College years: alcohol poisoning, joining cults, getting stoned, stealing radar detectors from cars, exploring "alternative" sexual behavior, losing thousands of dollars playing blackjack, acquiring psycho-stalker ex-girlfriends, getting pregnant, getting arrested for providing beer to minors, starting fires... and the list goes on.

Maybe it really shouldn't be legal to do much of anything until you're 29 or so.

And don't give me that "old enough to fight for your country is old enough to drink or vote" bullshit. 18-year olds can be very good at killing people, but that doesn't mean they can hold their liquor or stay awake through a whole episode of "Frontline."

Re:Can of worms?

[lachlan76]

18-year olds can be very good at killing people, but that doesn't mean they can hold their liquor or stay awake through a whole episode of "Frontline.

The idea is that if they're old enough to make a choice that can result in getting killed for their country that they should be able to make choices regarding their own bodies.

Re:Can of worms?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it really shouldn't be legal to do much of anything until you're 29 or so.

Oh yes, delay adulthood to almost fsking age *30.* That'll be a real boon to society. Hows about we just put it off until 40 or 50 to make absolutly sure the little buggers are mature enough? Jesus, this sounds like Logan's Run in reverse.

Re:Can of worms?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what?

There is no 'Can of Worms"

It's f**king inappropriate for an adult to attempt a meeting like this with a minor, even if SHE thought it was a good idea. She may think it's exciting and want to meet an older man but it is legally wrong, for reasons we can all speculate on, like say, it may prove to be dangerous, she could become psychologically damaged in a situation like this, she could come home in a box (wait, that's the military, sorry) etc, etc, etc.

The burdon here is on the ADULT, and he should get charged to the extent of the laws in the state he is in. Not only did he attempt the meeting, but he was in an extremely lucrative position at AOL to do EXACTLY what he was there to protect people from. This is not a typical 'internet danger story' because of that very thing - he may have told her this was a way to stop things like this, come to this meeting, blah blah blah...

Kids will eat candy instead of food all day long, but an attentive adult won't let that happen. As an adult, it was his responsibility to say 'No,' as the teen may not have the experience and knowledge to realize the long-term consequences. Man, I was all up on some high-school shennanigans in my time, but it was with my own age group... This guy knew better and I hope he gets charged as a deviant and a danger to minors...

You Slashdot lunks saying she gets what she asks for really need to get outside more, untuck your shirts, stop wearing your phone on your belt (that's you, dork) and understand the difference between a 17 year-old and a clever adult male - it's pretty drastic, and can be a lot more than the one year 'til she's 18. She may not even be a responsible adult then, at this rate.

So yeah clowns, I'll rate myself muthf***kin' INSIGHTFUL

Re:Can of worms?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny. My wife married me when she was 19. I was 21. We have steady, well paid jobs, we're paying a mortgage and have been married for over three years now.

So you're saying because you have no self control and act like a four year old, no one is capable of being an adult until they're "29 or so"? Don't tar me with the same brush as you and your college buddies thanks. Some of us have brains.

Re:Can of worms?

[master_p]

What you are describing is the failure of modern society to put a decent system of ideals and values into today's people.

If I am to put it in different words, why should anyone need to do the things you describe? the only reason would be if he/she feels empty inside, and all these actions are to fill that void.

Society fails to give the proper messages to young people. All that it matters to them is what matters to us grownups: money, power and fame. Are they suckers not to want that? from every corner of society, today's youth is bombarded with the same bad message.

Another issue is that of the legal age to have sex. Let's stop the hypocricy. A young adolescent should be entitled to having sex. He/she will do it anyway, so what's the point of hiding it? by suppressing it, the dangers of young pregnancy, diseases and HIV could be minimized; and the most important message would be that of responsibility concerning sexual behaviour.

People will become useful citizens only when they are trusted and feel responsible. If they feel that their life is not in their hands, they will be irresponsible and act like that girl.

Re:Can of worms?

[TheoGB]

Where did all the irony go? Perhaps people need to re-read what was posted and realise the '29 or so' thing was obviously a joke. "Hello? McFly?"

The point that was so eloquently made was that 15 is an age where you can be as adult or as stupid as when you're 25. Yes, there are somethings you don't have experience of but fundamentally you can't just sit there letting the state and others pay for someone else's stupidity until an arbitrary cut-off where you say "Well we've taught you all we can. Any gross stupidity from now on is your own look out."

Re:Can of worms?

[benzapp]

I completely agree with you.

But I personally believe that violent, destructive behavior that results from a collapse of a society's value system is sort of a natural feedback loop.

It shouldn't be shocking that despite the fact all truly human virtues have been extinguished in our decadent society (creativity, honor, loyalty, bravey, etc), what remains is this incessant respect for life, no matter what the quantity or quality.

Perhaps this destructive instinct is nature's way of restoring balance, and in a world of 6 billion people and a rapidly declining ecosystem, this can be a good thing.

Yes, I think it shouldn't be surprising at all the gods of war have become ignored.

Re:Can of worms?

[Snaller]

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.

Re:Can of worms?

[jhines0042]

Your average 15 year old (heck, even most 17 year olds) will sill do stupid stuff on a dare.

And their friends aren't smart enough to realize that there are permenant consequences for some actions.

Now I'm not saying that this is the case here, but online it is impossible to really know someones age. I could tell you that I was 15 and if you were 15 you probably would not be equipped to know if I was telling the truth or not.

Sure, there are some people who are very Internet savvy who know better. Most of them are not 15 (or even 17)

2 things should have happened here. 1) Her parents should have known more about what she was doing, though that doesn't always stop a 15/17 year old from doing it anyway. 2) AOL should have caught the activity, which they did, and fired the offender (not sure if they did).

Re:Can of worms?

[Nutria]

They are able to be held responsible for killing someone,

Those are all boys.

so why is it someone elses fault when she decides to sleep with someone she met over the net?

This was a girl.

This is the part of the feminist hypocrisy: "Let me do what I want, but if I screw up, I get to sue you."

Re:Can of worms?

[Short Circuit]

Your username describes your position succinctly.

Re:Can of worms?

[Hatta]

More importantly, she never met him at all, and it didn't come to almost meeting him till she was 17. The slashdot headline and even summary is, as usual, bullshit.

I was wondering how 15 + 2 = 19

Re:Can of worms?

[tbannist]

Yes, the U.S. "Respect for Life" required that she be starved to death, rather than being given a lethal injection that would have ended her "life*".

* As much as you can qualify the death of all higher brain functions due to liquification of the cerebral cortex as life.

And your second suggestion is just ignorant. Having an abortion is a traumatic experience both physically and emotionally, women don't often choose to repeat it.

Re:Can of worms?

[swimmar132]

Odd, there's plenty of girls under 18 in jail for murder.

Re:Can of worms?

[Maestro4k]

In most of the states (in US), the consent age is 16. As in, if I am 50, 16 is good to go for me.

• Better
• check the laws before you try that. Many states have an age limiter, so that for a few more years after the age of consent unless you're within 2-3 years of the younger partner it's still considered statutory rape. IIRC, AgeOfConsent.com lists the actual age where it's legal to have sex with anyone of any age. I can't quite check though as work blocks the site.

Re:Can of worms?

[NextGaurd]

There are two issues here: one is the age but the other is the man's job. When you are in any sort of authority position it becomes quite different to interface sexually. In this case he encouraged a minor to make and send child pornography , he sent pornography to someone he knew to be a minor and did this as a monitor for a children's only area. There are plenty of non-cyber parallels - for example, Professors often are not allowed to date their studehnts; jailers are not allowed to have sex with prisonser and high school teachers are often not allowed to even have lunch with a student outside of school.

Re:Can of worms?

[clem]

AgeOfConsent.com lists the actual age where it's legal to have sex with anyone of any age. I can't quite check though as work blocks the site.

You don't by any chance work at AOL, do you?

Clarifying the numbers

[serutan]

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[jerw134]

Thank you for clarifying those numbers. I was about to start complaining, since I haven't RTFA yet.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Monkelectric]

Posting anonymous for obvious reasons.

I think at some point in this country we are going to have an honest debate about age of consent. In most european countries it varies from 14-17.

We like to maintain this fantasy that our kids are NOT having sex -- but, Ive been in the back rooms, and the level of detachment young people have from sex took me until my late 20's to develop.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[fyngyrz]

Posting anonymous for obvious reasons.

Whoops. Whatever your reasons were, they're irrelevant now.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Kaz Kylheku]

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?

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Monkelectric]

Yea ... im a capital bonehead :)

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[lakeland]

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...

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[CSMastermind]

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[geminidomino]

Actually, thats how many states' AOC laws work now.
In Florida, for example, there's a two-year "safe zone" (a 14 year old can legally consent with a 16 yo, etc...)

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Zemran]

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[notthe9]

at least I can admit to my kiddie porn addiction anonymously!

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[tgibbs]

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[aussie_a]

It's 14 here in B.C.

Yeah, but times have moved forward a couple of thousand years since B.C. Who cares what the age of consent was back then? I want to know what it is now.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Reene]

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).

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[NanoGator]

"at least I can admit to my kiddie porn addiction anonymously!"

I hate to break it to you, but those Japanese schoolgirls aren't kiddies.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Famatra]

"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 ;).

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[404notfound]

There's actually a subdivision of pedophilia known as ephebophilia. Ephebophilia refers to an adult's sexual attraction to adolescents, whereas pedophilia, strictly, refers only to attraction to prepubescents.

Don't ask why I know.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[caxis]

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Marr]

So it's not a subdivision of pedophilia then, is it? It's a paraphilia.

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Martin Blank]

While many states do have separation laws, they also usually have absolute lines under which almost any sexual activity involving another person is illegal, particularly if one of the pair is above that line. Generally speaking, anything done with a child under the age of 13 or 14 (depending on state) is [insert act] with a child, and "with a child" is a REALLY bad phrase to have on your record.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[mbaciarello]

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.

Re:Clarifying the numbers

[Joe the Lesser]

I'm sorry, but your fiance's ethics are quite suspect.

You see, laws like this exist to prevent women like you from being taken advantage of. It's not wrong that your fiance is 5 years older than you, but 14 year old girls, on average, can not distinguish what love is. How many other men have you dated? You'd be suprised how what you once thought was love can be reproduced by a good portion of the population. Moreover, young people are weak willed and easily manipulated.

So, by dating a 14 year old he's effectively rejecting our culture's rules. Because he couldn't wait for you to grow up, he's adding clout to any man who want to seduce a young girl because 'it might work out'. Yea, that's healthy. Morals are grey enough as it is, the least we can do is try to let people experience life for as long as possible before they have to make hard decisions. I mean hell, I've met tons of 19 year olds who don't have the maturity to have a serious relationship, and every relationship I know of that started before college and has been going on for years is creepy, trite, and uncomfortable because they weren't ready for it.

Your fiance *is* a pedophile by definition, as he was attracted to you while you where a child. You could have easily been a victim, and incredibly selfish to say that because you're in love with your fiance that 14 girls who get hit on by older men are not victims.

I ain't a conservative nor do I have the best ethical record either, so I rarely preach values, but it's just disgusting, wrong and stupid. It shows a complete lack of responsibility as a member of a society.

If he really had respected you, he would have waited, and if you had respected yourself, you would have waited.

Hmm...

[pwnage]

Original poster: A/S/L?

She's suing whom?

[Dachannien]

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.

Re:She's suing whom?

[Macadamizer]

The general rule is that the employer is liable for the actions of its employees, and even for intentional torts of its employees when said employee is acting within the scope of his employement.

In this case, if the AOL employee was, say, a tech support person or something cruising the chatrooms during his breaks or after hours, then it is unlikely that AOL would be on the hook for his intentional conduct. However, this guy's JOB was to cruise chatrooms -- is more likely that a court would find that his behavior, even though intentional, illegal and not within company policies, to be behavior "within the scope of his emplyment" and therefore AOL will likely be on the hook. So will the guy -- but AOL will end up paying up, and will have to go after the guy for reimbursement, if he has anything.

This is standard agency stuff -- employers carry a lot of responsibility for the actions of their employees. As another poster noted, the reason for this policy is to keep a company from intentionally hiring pervs to cruise chatrooms, or hiring drunks to lead AA meetingds, or whatever -- if you are hiring someone, you have to make sure that they are not a bad seed for the job, and you have to keep your eye on them to make sure they don't change...

Only Human?

[tesseract5d]

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....

Re:Only Human?

[pyrrhonist]

I mean, if they can make bots in UT2004 that are that good....

W00T!!! Which UT2004 bot allows you to pick up chicks???

gg

Re:Only Human?

[NitsujTPU]

Interestingly, I don't think that this would be too bad.

The problem in Natural Language Processing applications is generally the availability of training data with which to train systems. AOL is a large corporate interest. They also have a vested interest in monitoring their chat rooms, as they advertise their babysitting as part of the service.

AOL could invest significantly in having linguists tag chat transcripts. Perhaps they could create semantic frames for various types of romantic interractions (flirting, scheduling dates, net-sex, raging pedophiles praying on children, whatever).

Anyway, there isn't a whole lot of variety in chat transcripts, so the sparse data problems that ordinarily plague NLP applications can be somewhat avoided. It takes very little to identify someone saying A/S/L, and then someone replying. It takes only slighty more to notice that the one is 40 years older. Data mining records for such numeric disparities would be a simple exercise, and information extraction patterns to analyze this sort of data would be simple to produce, especially for such a trivial task.

Parents

[tankenator]

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?

Re:Parents

[mindstrm]

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.

Re:Parents

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

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.

Re:Parents

[YrWrstNtmr]

This took place in her home, where the parents had the ability and option to monitor and supervise her activities in any number of ways.

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?

Re:Parents

[Famatra]

"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.

Re:Parents

[cahiha]

As a parent, you cannot, indeed should not, be by your teenagers side 24/7.

Quite right. So, you should just have brought them up such that when they are 15, they either heed your rule that they don't chat at all, or they are mature enough to handle it.

If your 15 year old chats on AOL and makes sex dates with 28 year olds, then that's a problem with how you raised her, not AOL. AOL monitors aren't going to help you there.

perfect job for pedofiles

[sfcat]

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...

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[fembots]

From the friendly article:

Graham said AOL puts its chat room monitors through "rigorous screening and training procedures," including a criminal background check.

and

The man, who was 23 when he met the girl online, has not been charged with a crime.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[pete6677]

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.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[Frogbert]

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.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[LighthouseJ]

... 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.

... or the fact that our (American) society expects people under the age of consent not to be having sex. We aren't trying to be prudes or whatever warped reality you think we have, it's the level of society we've built for ourselves. In 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. Once they mature as contributing members of society, then they inherit the freedom to be with who they want to be with (granted it's not with an underage individual, of course). Americans, both as children and adults see 15 year old girls and boys as children that go to school, participate in extracurricular activities and play sports, not exploring their sexual potential. When one particular American sees the latter, we punish those people and very few people (outside of NAMBLA and related organizations) disagree.

It's fine if in Slovakia or whatever country you actually reside in (if it's different from where your email account is hosted) that your laws have a different age of consent because that's the society that has developed and I respect that. I'm asking, on behalf of the United States, for the same of respect for our laws in this regards.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[tgibbs]

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.

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[merlin_jim]

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...

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[maxpublic]

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

Re:perfect job for pedofiles

[Frogbert]

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.

I doubt she was 'seduced'...

[Ninwa]

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.

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'...

[A beautiful mind]

It is more likely that they got close together, were good friend, or even some online relationship. Something bad happened after two years and now the girl is just trying to take advantage of AOL in this way.

I'm pretty disgusted by what she's doing, it's not that a 17y old girl needs to be protected from a guy she knew for 2 years and wanted to have sex with herself.

In most european countries according to my vague knowledge, the legal age to start having sex varies between 14-16.

15-17y old kids are having one night stands these days, so it's not they are into some weird thing.

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'...

[krumms]

wanted to have sex with herself

mod me up if you too like out of context quotes!

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'...

[C0llegeSTUDent]

15-17y old kids are having one night stands these days, so it's not they are into some weird thing. Why wasn't I informed of this when I was 15-17?

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'...

[al912912]

In most european countries according to my vague knowledge, the legal age to start having sex varies between 14-16.

The mere existence of a "legal age to start having sex" is something bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not into free love and would never cheat on my girlfriend.

But I do think people are free to do as they please, at least in this matter.

BTW, 16 is still a more or less high age, you'd be amazed about what a 15 year old kid knows. And if that kid decides to have sex with her 16 and a half years old boyfriend, I don't think there's any reason for the boyfriend going to jail except some angry parents who want to think their daughter is more naive than what she really is.

Re:I doubt she was 'seduced'...

[Phroggy]

Why wasn't I informed of this when I was 15-17?

When we were that age, girls didn't chat online, so we didn't meet them.

(Actually I did meet a girl from a BBS when I was about 14; we went to a laser tag arena. She was huge, and I didn't really talk to her after that. But now there are attractive girls using the Internet.)

AOL Chat

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got sex!

Re:That's some weird maths

[technix4beos]

The alleged affair lasted until her 17th birthday, at which time a co-worked became suspicious.

She is filing now when she is 19, for her own reasons, obviously.

Age of Consent

[Rinisari]

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).

Re:Age of Consent

[Princess Tarja]

iirc in calif it's still 18, I never thought about that though, I just went with it when the time felt right.

Re:Age of Consent

[eric76]

In Texas, if she (or he) is a student in a public school, it is illegal for any employee of the school to have sex with the student regardless of the student's age.

So you could conceivably see a 22 year old teacher going to prison for having concensual sex with a 20 year old.

Who's watching the watchers?

[venicebeach]

Who's watching the watchers?

Sounds like they are watching each other.

MSN

[nighty5]

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.

Re:MSN

[zakezuke]

Thats why MSN Chat is no longer available.

MSN chat is still around. You have to subscribe to a Microsoft service in order to gain access to MSN chat, or join up one of the free channels if they are still around. I seem to remember CA, usually Canada or Centra Australia depending on the hour, was free. If you pay for hotmail, have an dialup/dsl account, or use webtv (if that's even still supported), you could access MSN chat. Prior subscribers, and those who created a @MSN.com hotmail account also seemed to have access to the chat rooms freely.

MSN Chat in communities is as always free.

A shame that a few bad apples have spoiled it for the rest of us

Was that the actual reason they closed their door to everyone who wasn't willing to give out their credit card? You could be right. A CC would help track down real pedos, well except those who steal them from overseas. But I doubt MSN chat had the monopoly on bad apples.

But it is somewhat sad the fact that they put so much in the way of resources tward IRC style chat to all but abandon it. MS Comic Chat 2.5 for example was ultra spiffy in the fact that you could choose a persona and expressions and have your chats in a comic strip style. This software was standard on win98se boxes IIRC. They also had a Virtual Chat where you could construct 3d worlds and interact with the environment. This wasn't as practical as MS Comic Chat. All of these were abandoned when they switched to passport logins, but with some tweaking one could get standard IRC software into MSN chat, very useful as the whole MSN Chat universe was filled with spam.

Re:MSN

[zakezuke]

No its because MSN chat sucked an no one used it. They just shut it down saying it was to stop pedophiles for good PR value.

I seem to remember a 60 Minutes episode on how a young girl, not sure how young, was convienced to leave home, and caught a flight from America to Greece. Most notable hearing the MSN chat / messenger sounds in the background which made me wonder if this did happen on MSN chat or if they just used that as a generic example. You could be correct that this was a PR move, as well as a move to lower their user base to a more manageable level.

MSN chat far from sucked, and many people used it, from hundrads of thousands to millions depending on the hour. It was for the most part identical to IRC except the client by default had full Unicode support. Fonts and colors where supported, as well as each user's name linked to a profile. And the software was far more likely to work on a user's machine than those Java chat programs.

The only reason it sucked was the fact that the people, for the most part, were so freaking paranoid. You couldn't join a chat, visit the loo, and come back without being kicked/banned 24hr for fear you were some evil program trying to get at their bank account. When you point out their mistake, no one knew how to unban as the default client didn't support it. Any speaking of software other than the official MSN client, even a trivial Trivia game would label you a hacker and get you permibanned.

More funny, the default client banned you based on info that was stored in your registry, which you could change at will either with regedit or editing the source of the room you were in, change the numbers, and poof. Worse yet, they went though much bother and effort associating names with accounts, yet allowed you to change your name once logged in. And when you create a room, you are given a key that is stored in your registry somewhere. There were two levels, gold owner and red operator (msn had a different term). Unless you saved this key, it might change and poof no one can get admin access in a room anymore.

What MSN chat needed was to limit the ability to change your name to a registered one. Also, different software for managing chat rooms that would allow you to define a owner password, define a operator password, and store ban lists. There were 3rd party programs to do this, and there was always a plugin for mirc, but every few months MSN would change something that didn't allow 3rd party clients to connect. But as far as design and layout I considered MSN to be far more useable than most IRC solutions.

Whos Watching?

[CarlinWithers]

Whos watching the people watching the watchers? What about watchers for those people?

he didnt break any laws

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What is the crime?

[shamir_k]

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.

Re:What is the crime?

[fermion]

There is not crime. This is not a criminal trail. It is a lawsuit. And it is certainly not frivolous. AOL marketed thier service as superior to other services based on the fact that service was monitored. They claimed in advertising that the service was worth the extra money because of the added security. They fed off the paranoa of parents, who were the one likely paying for the service, by explicitely claiming added security. Security that was clearly not realized, at least in this particular case.

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.

Re:What is the crime?

[venicebeach]

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...

Re:What is the crime?

[aussie_a]

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.

Crappy monitor

[Anonymous Coward]

Any monitor with a 2-year response time is going to be crappy for gaming.

17 y-o ? 24 ? 45 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

AOL (as a company) didn't do anything...

[SeaFox]

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.

Re:AOL (as a company) didn't do anything...

[booyabazooka]

with the exception being that the older party is in a position of trust: Teacher, caregiver ...

This IS that sort of case. The older party is a chat monitor, and it's his job to make sure that nothing sexual takes place. Among the chat room environment, there really isn't any higher authority.

From the article...

[AvantLegion]

>> Their conversations online and by phone became increasingly explicit, the lawsuit says. 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.

OMFG what a cockblock that was.

Re:From the article...

[brlancer]

OMFG what a cockblock that was.

If he's not careful, he's going to need a whole lot of cockblocking very shortly.

Should you really....

[PornMaster]

Should you really be talking up a Microsoft app/service and putting down IRC *on Slashdot*? :)

Re:So what?

[skingers6894]

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!

Re:First Post?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if there is no grass in the field, turn her over and play in the mud!

About baldness

[CSMastermind]

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.

Re:About baldness

[menace3society]

Wow, it's been a long time since a joke made me want to stab my eyes out. Thanks!

Re:While she's at it...

[east coast]

she needs to also sue her own parents for negligence for not keeping an eye on their child

This does beg the question as to what level of safe is truly safe. Should a parent be over the childs shoulder 24/7 until they are 18? Does the safety claims of AOL absolve third parties (ie, the parents, schools) of responsibility? What about software like Net Nanny?

If paying for these services gains you no real protection and no real safety doesn't that make them useless and potentially fraudulent?

I will tell you why

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:I will tell you why

[Kinetix303]

Bahahaha, yeah, kids will stop having sex and stop getting pregnant if you make it illegal. Good one! I haven't a laugh like that in awhile.

Re:I will tell you why

[darkpixel2k]

kids will stop having sex and stop getting pregnant if you make it illegal

I didn't have sex until I was 18 because it was Illegal in my state...

*sobs*
Ok, OK! It's really because I was a loser in high school and couldn't get laid if my life depended on it...

Re:I will tell you why

[brsmith4]

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.

Re:I will tell you why

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm... being a loser doesn't just vanish away you know?

There is a good chance that you are still a loser but figure that since women settle for less as they age, that you're no longer a loser. It could just be that now that you're old enough to travel around and meet a much larger assortment of people, and more importantly drunken people, you're more likely to meet a girl with lower standards that doesn't mind losers.

I'm not saying this to be rude, I personally welcome critisicm of this sort, it keeps me in my place. I for example used to be and still am a loser. The difference is that when I was a teenager, I knew how to pretend to be someone cool by going to the other schools where they didn't know me :) That was effective.

I am still however a loser and managed to have a good sex and party life by hanging out with the older girls (4 to 5 years older), it's amazing how loser is often defined by how well you associate with members of your own age group. My wife is 6 years older than me an was one of the popular kids in school. She knows I'm a loser, but she's ok with that since I get a lot of leadway with her friends (since I'm American and they're not).

So to sum it up, never stop believing you're a loser. You should instead brag that you're able to overcome your loserness long enough to find a warm bed :)

Re:numbers dont add up [Offtopic]

[John Meacham]

Why is there no "Didn't read the article" moderation option? It seems like it would be so useful in many circumstances.

If there's grass on the field......

[simetra]

play ball!

Heh. ehhhh.

Re:the Plato reference

[nacturation]

Qui Custodes Custodiat? is probably better translated as "who guards the guardians" than "who watches the watchers"?

I was thinking more along the lines of "Who cleans the janitors?"

Math?

[NoseBag]

"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...

possible solution

[WormholeFiend]

Require ppl to be 18 or older to access the internet.

Then no one will whine anymore about kids being predatored online.

Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[Famatra]

"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.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[The Only Druid]

"Of course it is, and the question becomes if evolution has made 12 yearolds[sic] sexual beings at the age of 12, why is the age of concent[sic] 18?"

Let's look at why that argument makes no sense:

If evolution has made humans capable of killing each other, why are there laws against killing?
If evolution has made humans liars at any age, why are there laws against lying in some situations?

I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature. I forget the philosopher who said it, but laws are only for criminals. If we could trust everyone to behave in mutually altruistic was (assuming somehow that everyone agreed on what that meant), we wouldn't need laws. Laws exist to exert normative force on those who would otherwise transgress.

What this comes down to is that we have laws restricting the age of consent so as to prevent the abuse of children by adults. The state has a valid interest in preventing emotionally immature children from being taken-advantage-of by malicious adults.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[Famatra]

"I could go on. The point is this: human laws exist to curb human nature. I forget the philosopher who said it, but laws are only for criminals."

Then sexuality is defacto criminal? I think that is an assumption, and one I do not happen to share with you at this point in time.

"Laws exist to exert normative force on those who would otherwise transgress. "

This is a discussion about norms, thus you conclude with your assumption when you say that this is wrong because it is not normal. The point is I argue it (sexuality) is normal, and to deny so is harmful.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[Famatra]

"The obvious problem with this is that a 12 year old in the USA cannot typically get a job to support a child."

Sex should not = pregnancy (not with the amount of birthcontrol available), and the reason why children are more prone to this is that they are kept ignorant.

Then perhaps instead of denying these 12 yearolds sex education where they can learn about birthcontrol we tell them; then they can be aware of their sexuality, how do intelligently deal with people who want to have a sexual relationship, and how to intelligently engage in sex should they choose to do so knowing the rewards and risks in such behaviour.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[DigiShaman]

You make it sound as though these 12 year olds have the intellectual mental capacity to make such choices and to be responsible to boot. The reality is they will NEVER be this. They are not just young human beings. Rather, they are (by and large) immature children. Always have been, and always will be until genetic evolution states otherwise.

If I can't get a 12 year old girl to do her chores and put away her toys when she is finished, what makes you you even think she will be responsible to be on the pill? And even if shes on the pill (better yet, a patch), can you guaranty the 15 year old boy will wrap his rod to prevent the spread of STDs?

Now I understand there are always exceptions to the rule as everyone is different. But when you at the average maturity children, the society they live in will dictate age of consent. And personally, if it was up to me, I would make that age 16.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[composer777]

I know this is a bit off topic, but my girlfriend has trouble getting me to do chores and I'm 30, with a college education (BA in music, BS in Comp Sci), and a decent job. The point is, lack of "trainability" isn't necessarily a sign of lack of intelligence (I would argue that it could be a sign of just the opposite). Some people just don't care to be ordered around, and may have a higher tolerance for disorganization.

If you think I'm bad, one of the managers of the bioinformatics department hasn't paid his taxes, ever. He decided he didn't believe in debt, and as a result has a credit score that's about as low as it gets (do they go below zero?). And, he's a manager and a great programmer.

If you put someone in a bubble world such as school, where everything is fake, most of the asignments are nothing more than busywork, and nothing really matters, at least not for another life time (which is what 12 years seems like when you are that age), then you get the expected behavior of not really caring. On the other hand, I think that if you put people that 12 and beyond in an environment where they are exposed to the consequences of their actions, and these actions matter, then they suddenly start acting like adults.

Whether this change in behavior is a function of age or a function of environment is up to the reader. I believe that it's due to the former.

That being said, I couldn't see myself dating someone under the age of 18, mainly because most of them haven't experienced enough, they just don't have enough repoirte. But I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that they incapable of the least amount of responsibility. They are still a member of the same species, and being 12 doesn't make you mentally retarded.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[Artifakt]

Evolution didn't really make average 12 year olds able to concieve. Before modern dietary and medical improvements, typical age of menses was about 14-15. Sure some females started at 12, or even earlier, but it was far from average, and it didn't used to be very easy at all for a (typical) 12 year old to become "pregnate'.
Up until the 19th century, the average age for settling down and getting hitched or makeing some kind of arrangments to assure the kids would be taken care of seems to have run consistently only about 18 months past onset of fertility.
Now, average age of first menses is actually under 12 in most of the industrialized world. Kids are expected to wait until at least age 18, often 22-24 to start having kids of their own. That 18 month gap has become 10 years or more! Plus, the kids are younger, and therefore less experienced, when they have to face the decision! No wonder it's a bigger problem - but it has little or nothing to do with people rallying against nature (and did you mean "railing"?). This is an impact of something artificial.
Some reasonably well educated and credentialed people even think there are other, less benign technologies than just better medical care and neutrition involved, and cite trace hormones found in beef and poultry from modern industry farm techniques as pushing the average age down still further.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[lampajoo]

Thanks, Captain Ostensible... while that explanation of law and government sounded good in your second grade civics text book it has absolutely no relationship with the actual workings of the state and power.

Laws exist to provide justification for intrusion by the state into a particular aspect of life of the community on which it resides. When the state takes on the role of protector of your child you no longer have a claim to him or her. Laws exist to carry out political agendas, to create policy. To keep the powerful in power and keep the weak out. It is true that people don't act in mutually beneficial ways, but the greatest concentration of self-centered people is in the government. Less laws is the solution. To stop violence, the greatest source of violence in society must be delegitimized.

Your view of the law is just something that people started telling themselves during the enlightenment so they could go to sleep at night without feeling like a total bitch.

Re:Pregnate 12 year olds? Nature is Telling Us...

[Famatra]

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.

He continues with an account I cannot independently verify: "A few years ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13 he had an affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He later stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every second.... Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is told he was abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show and says what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage here?"

This doesn't add up...

[kiddailey]

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.

Re:This doesn't add up...

[Edmund Blackadder]

I know every body loves to blame the victim, but it is completely immaterial whether at 15 she was smart enough not to hook up with that guy. Fact is that AOL made a representation that their chat rooms were safe for kids, and they should be held to that.

That's like an someone selling you a waterproof watch which breaks the moment you step into water, and then the seller saying "you are stupid to swim with your watch on" as an excuse.

Re:This doesn't add up...

[kiddailey]

I'm not blaming the victim here - I'm just stating that the whole story is not known. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

For example, the article doesn't specifically say if their explicit conversations even took place *ON* AOL.

Is AOL also responsible for any voice communication outside their network? Think carefully before you answer ;)

For all we know, the chat room WAS safe. The "unsafe" parts may not have even been on the network and (depending on what the unsafe bits were) might make things different in terms of what AOIL is responsible for.

Sadly, I predict that the court experience will be FAR more mentally disturbing for this girl than the conversations she had with the guy.

What's worse...

[Lonin]

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.

19 years old?

[piecewise]

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.

Been waiting for years to post this site

[Anonymous Coward]

...age of consent in every country and state

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

Doesn't sound very preditorial to me, really..

[cbreaker]

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.

Re:Doesn't sound very preditorial to me, really..

[cgenman]

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.

Re:While she's at it...

[ottothecow]

I'd be pissed if my parents watched me on the computer (especially when I look at porn...man that would suck) and read my conversations and the like.

There comes a time when parents SHOULDNT be constantly watching and that girl was the right age. Either she knew exactly what she was doing (maybe she wanted it or maybe she was just playing...they never actually did it) or she needed to learn a few things about life before leaving the house.

Yes, in Virginia too.

[Magic Thread]

Re:Abstinence...

[benna]

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.

As my roommate would say..

[DarkTempes]

old enough to bleed
old enough to breed.

Watching the watchers?

[C10H14N2]

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!

Re:Watching the watchers?

[necrofluxneo]

Parents are probably a factor, if not the cause in this case as you claim. But AOL should have at least one employee for every online customer to read their conversations in case something like this comes up. They would then need a second teir of employees set up to watch those employees so that cases such as this are shut down before trouble ensues. I would further suggest 5 additional tiers of protection, a sort of check and balance system against untoward acts. To cap it all off there must be a final line of defense - a "high council" if you will - of people who have proven to be impecably moral, perhaps some of the Catholic Church's best, to oversee the entire operation. Surely then AOL's customer's parents can be confident their children are safeguarded against having to make any decisions for their own well being or god forbid have to take any responsibility for anything that happens in their lives. In this case I hope the parents make out with billions! That'd show 'em!

Re:Watching the watchers?

[Armchair Dissident]

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.

Re:Watching the watchers?

[commking]

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?

Re:Watching the watchers?

[Armchair Dissident]

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.

Re:Watching the watchers?

[R.Caley]

What if it isn't worth protecting?

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.

Re:Watching the watchers?

[Armchair Dissident]

"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.

Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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?

Re:Women are always presupposed as innocent

[Mike Buddha]

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.

Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit..

[YrWrstNtmr]

The difference here is it's not 'just some older guy'. It is an AOL employee specifically hired to prevent exactly what went on. To prevent adults from coming on to kids in a kid only chat room. Whether they had sex or not is irrelevant.

This is a case of AOL failing to provide an advertised service.

28 dating 18

[caxis]

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)

See, this is what I don't understand

[5n3ak3rp1mp]

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)

Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit..

[YrWrstNtmr]

Uh, that's exactly what happened.

"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.

Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit..

[Moofie]

Excellent. And now a court will decide if AOL was negligent or not. We'll see what happens.

Re:Obligatory Digital Fortress Quote

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

"This is my custard, are you the janitor?"

(failed Latin)

The parent's can't do everything.

[Sebastian Jansson]

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?

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[R.Caley]

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.

If you decide the child is responsible enough to be allowed access to the world on their own, then your argument is with them if they decide to investigate the red light district.

[...] Like that AOL service claimed to be.

If I set up a club for children claiming I was a nice guy, honest, would you let your kids join without finding out anything more about it? And you have no reason to believe I have an ulterior motive, whereas you know that AOL is just trying to squeeze money out of you, so will be running the cheapest possible service with minimum possible regulation and supervision, hireing people for peanuts and so potentially attracting people who get more than the wage packet out of the job.

if a parent bought a game for children and it contained harsh violence and strong sex references. Would that be the parents fault?

Yes.

Well, not if they just bought it, but if they gave it to the kid without checking whether it was actually what they thought it to be.

Would you be that perfect parent that you expect everyone else to be?

The question is not whether parents can be perfect, but whether they should be able to not try and then blame the rest of the world for the resulting problems.

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[R.Caley]

would you expect someone paid to make sure they are out of trouble to try and have sex with them?

I wouldn't allow, let alone pay, someone I didn't know anything about to supervise my kids.

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[TheRaven64]

It isn't really that easy, you can't watch your children 24/7,

Here's a thought:

You could try teaching them some common sense[1], so they don't go off to have sex with strangers they know nothing about.

Just a thought...

[1] Ideally, this should be done before they are 15.

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[ergo98]

It seems the Slashdot crowd is very fast on judging parents

I think it's pretty much to be expected given that the vast, vast, vast majority of Slashdotters are either under-age (and thus jumping at an opportunity to subtly pass judgement on their own parents), or single. The "where's the parents???" line has reappeared in hundreds of threads on Slashdot, and every time it gets moderated up as insightful.

It isn't insightful - it's tired, repetitive, idealistic bullshit, often in direct logical opposition to the story that they're bitching about. A parents group spending their time and effort to try to have age-limits applied on video games? WHERE'S THE PARENTS! Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content? WHERE'S THE PARENTS! It's so illogical it really defies comment, but every time these moronic comments get modded Score 5: Insightful (but dumb).

Parents can't watch their children 24/7 and create healthy children, especially in the mid teens, and there has to be some reliance upon the behaviour of others in this giant village that we all live in - It DOES take a village to raise a child, unless you're raising a bush-person.

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[ergo98]

I wouldn't allow, let alone pay, someone I didn't know anything about to supervise my kids.

Wow. So your kids have never had a babysitter, a coach, or a teacher? What amazing home schooled, super-parented children you must have.

Or more likely you don't have children, and this just provides the opportunity to imagine that if you did you'd be the uber-parent. Right....

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[R.Caley]

It is impossible for a parent to know much more than the superficial over all of the people in a school that may supervise your kids

If the kid was going to spend an extended period of time being supervised by one person alone, then rather than just being in a class, then I would think you'd want to know that teacher a little better than `oh some guy I never even heard of at AOL is supervisng her today'.

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[Nutria]

are you seriously telling me that you do not "know anything about" your children's teachers, coaches or babysitters? damn that's a scary admission to make.

How much do you know about your children's teachers/coaches?

Re:The parent's can't do everything.

[Syntax Heir]

"A parents group spending their time and effort to try to have age-limits applied on video games?"

"Television censored after massive complaints about inappropriate content?"

"Where are the parents" indeed. You see with your examples the "fixes" the parents are trying to implement effect not only the kids they're trying to protect but *every* consumer. Some of which don't want or need parental protection.

So if it does take a village to raise a child, [A point I will not dispute because I don't have a child.] great, organize your village parenting as needed. I'm all for the PTA, and the Boy Scouts and even parent warnings on video games/CDs. These organizations presume you have a kid and their services apply *only* to people involved with kids. In fact, anything which helps parents but *does not* impede non-parents, is fine by me.

I am of the opinion child rearing should begin and end in the family's home and not extend into mine.

AoC for many states, countries here

[xiphoris]

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

the truth is

[lampajoo]

if you haven't lured, over the internet, underage girls to your house, then you haven't lived.

Let me be the first to say...

[SonicSpike]

"You've Got Jail!"

sorry yall... I couldn't resist ;-)

Umm... the ages seem wrong.

[borgheron]

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

Re: Keyword: Normative

[bussdriver]

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...)

translation

[maxpublic]

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

Re:OH NO, NOT SEX

[kliment]

Oh well, the first time I was in Amsterdam, I came across a group of middle-aged russian tourists. They were walking through the red light district with their guide, clearly fascinated yet trying to look offended. Then one lady said to another (in russian) "Where we live, there is no sex!".

Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit..

[milkman_matt]

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?

Re:Can of worms? No, more like a can of bullshit..

[Moofie]

Yeah, I know. It's a talent. What can I say? : )

Who's idea was it to meet?

[Khyras]

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

She's just after easy money

[erroneus]

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.

This whole thing is bullshit

[t_allardyce]

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.

the only thing wrong here...

[Eivind]

...is that the USA has a set of laws which enables a 19 year old to sue someone because they flirted with her when she was 17, and considered meeting her for sex.

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.

It's NOT about "good enough at killing"

[Moraelin]

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.

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 /. 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.

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.

Re:It's NOT about "good enough at killing"

[amiliv]

Sorry. I've been in army when I was 18. And I can tell you, 18 year old in the army with live ammo and grenades are no more resopnsible than 18 year old in college. They do stupid things. And they get up the shit creek without paddle. On regular basis. Occasionaly, somebody gets hurt or even killed. Army is not as organized as it may seem on the surface. And once you send those 18 years old to some far away country, and they blow up a bus full of high school kids, nobody cares back home. And they don't get up shit creek without paddle. After all they were fighting for their country. There are reasons army prefers 18 years old over 38 years old. And responsibility is not one of them. Frankly, if the army could get away with recruiting 16 or 14 years old kids, they would do it.

Re:It's NOT about "good enough at killing"

[Moraelin]

I'm technically supposed to be a reserve sergeant. I.e., in case of a war I'd actually get a squad or maybe a platoon of people, and I'd be supposed to lead them to their deaths. Now it doesn't mean I'm an expert in military matters or anything, but I like to think it does at least give me _some_ idea about it. You know, means at least I've seen some of it up close.

And there's a helluva lot of difference between _maybe_ 1 in 10,000 soldiers doing something stupid in the army, and 9 in 10 students doing stupid stuff in college. You know, as in: several orders of magnitude of a difference.

The vast majority of people _are_ responsible in the army. The vast majority of people are dangerously irresponsible in college. And here's the fun part: it's the same people in any country with conscription.

Re:It's NOT about "good enough at killing"

[amiliv]

You know, there's a reason why soldiers do not have access to live ammo as they wish when not on duty. There's also a reason why soldiers are not allowed to take their M16 (or AK-47, depending in what army they are) with them when going to the town (to get drunk).

I've been in army. I've been at university. The only difference is, in the army there's always somebody who supervises (and brainwashes) those kids. That's the reason you get less bullshit in the army. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.

BTW, your numbers are wildly exegerated. In my experience, you have about 1 in 100 kids doing something really stupid and dangerous in the army, and about 1 in 100 kids doing something really stupid and dangerous in the college/university.

Re:It's NOT about "good enough at killing"

[FurryFeet]

...in case of a war I'd actually get a squad or maybe a platoon of people, and I'd be supposed to lead them to their deaths.

That's a mighty weird battle plan you got there, Sarge. Say, you don't mind if I try and transfer to a different platoon, do you? ;)

Overspecialized culture

[Slur]

"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.

Missing the bigger story here

[untaken_name]

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.

Canadian Law is Drastically Different...

[Spl0it]

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.

UN Peacekeepers

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of you arguing against the girl are working as UN Peackeepers in Africa?

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.

Here is my reply/stance on this

[dygital]

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. :)