Judges Rule Raped Woman Can Sue 'Enabling' Web Site (vice.com)

Web sites that matched models to photographers also led dozens of women to a pair of rapists in 2011, according to Vice. "Civil court documents show that the owners of Model Mayhem knew about the first wave of rapes but failed to issue a warning to users," Vice reported last summer. Facebook, Craigslist, and Tumblr filed briefs in support of the "Model Mayhem" site, arguing that allowing women to sue them could create a new "failure to warn" liability for other web sites. But now AmiMoJo writes:In a decision that one day could have reverberations across the internet, a three-judge panel in California decided she can sue the Model Mayhem site that the pair used to lure their victims. "Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the Internet," Judge Richard Clifton wrote in the panel's decision. The CDA traditionally exempts web sites from liability for anything their users post. Do Slashdot readers think there should ever be any exceptions?

Comments

Did they know who the culprits were?

[drinkypoo]

If they had specific knowledge that crimes had been committed, and who committed them, then they may have been aiding the criminal activity. If someone had suggested to them that something like that might have been going on, but gave no specifics whatsoever, then not so much. Either way, a court and probably a jury will have to decide.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[jcr]

The greasy little scumbag took the coward's way out. "Master race", my ass.

-jcr

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist". The damage this does to actual victims of rape is hard to quantify and tragic in and of itself.

Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do, but you have to research the topic to find this out. It won't appear on the evening news. The narrative is that men are the nasty brutish aggressors and women are the innocent victims. The truth is that both sexes are capable of criminal behavior because both are equally human. One is just a lot less likely to be believed, the other less likely to be prosecuted.

Likewise, a man who tried to report being assaulted by his wife/partner tends to be viewed as less masculine, attaching a stigma to it. The reality is that a woman who physically abuses her husband won't be instantly arrested and charged on his word alone (like a man would). The abusive woman can be confident that he probably won't defend himself with his superior strength because if he did that, then HE would go to jail. This isn't the only example of double standards in the system - just try finding a woman who has to pay alimony to a man. They do exist but they're almost unheard-of. Actual equality and accountability under the law would be a positive change.

If you thought the news was some kind of seeker of truth that always tells the whole story you are sorely mistaken. Just like when a legal gunowner uses a gun to stop a crime (usually just by drawing it and not having to fire), the news report says something like "the suspect was subdued until police arrive". Because guns doing good does not fit the desired narrative, not because it doesn't happen. Yet when some nut goes crazy and shoots an innocent victim the details are fully presented. This is not a coincidence. This is because it comes from a set of beliefs, a set of desired outcomes.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[CanadianMacFan]

And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims. I'm not saying that in this case the claims were false or not because I didn't read the article but it would be easy for a model who had a disagreement with a photographer to bring up a false charge to the site in order to hurt the photographers business.

There is something that used to matter and that is the presumption of innocence.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Noah Haders]

> It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist".

This sounds like a Trump-style "fact". "this thing that supports my conservative agenda is true, and I can prove it by stating that there's no proof because the scumbag liberal media covers it up." Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. It's an actual fact. And there's plenty of proof:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape+conv...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your stupid UID dipshit, it's the content of the comments that counts ONLY. Anything else is just cliquey bullshit for retards like you to feel special about themselves because of how meaningless their lives are.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think.

This. I've had 3 women accuse me of rape, and one accuse me of sexual harassment, in my lifetime. Two of the rape accusations came from women I never even touched (one of whom I'd never met in person) and the other from a woman who made the claim after her boyfriend (who i didn't know about) found out about us; I had video of the supposed incident, including her turning on the camera. Luckily for me, all of those were dropped quickly without police involvement when I pointed out the evidence I had that they were all lying.

I didn't get so lucky with the harassment accusation, which happened back in high school, though. I was called into the office, shown the list of things she claimed I had said to her and admitted that all of those things had been said... by her, not by me. I was suspended pending investigation and possible expulsion and criminal prosecution; thankfully, the police insisted on written statements from students she claimed would have heard the things on the list being said. Most of the people she named as witnesses were her friends, many of which were none too fond of me, so I was a bit worried about the outcome; in the end, though, every single one of them told the truth and she ended up getting expelled. Sad, really, since her and I were (or, so I thought) friends until I turned her down when she asked me to a school dance, as I already had a date.

Then, there was the girl I dated who drugged and raped me. I would have been more than willing but, apparently, it was a fetish of hers. Of course, being male, it didn't matter that I tried to report it. The police simply told me that, next time, I should avoid the drugs. Well, no shit! I didn't put them in my own drink.

Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do

I'm not entirely sure how true that is, but here's an anecdote to back it up.

A girl I dated in the early 00's was the abusive type. She was sweet and caring until she convinced me to move in with her, then the games began. Fortunately, I'm capable of defending myself and know better than to fight back. I could tell you some stories about this one, but I'll fast-forward to the meaty bits. What got me to leave her was when she came at me with a knife; I got the knife away from her and was walking back to the kitchen to put it away when she reached around me and grabbed the blade. She cut two fingers down to the bone and said something along the lines of "if I'm not getting you, the police will". I'm so thankful for attentive neighbors who met the police outside and informed them of what actually went down before they got to my door after she called them (after I drove her to the ER, if course). They came in and asked if I was alright, I told them I was, then they asked if I wanted to press charges. I declined, but did ask that they file a detailed incident report as I would be moving out and filing for a restraining order, ex parte. Of course, my request for a restraining order was denied by two different judges (I appealed the first); the second even went so far as to say that, since I'm a man, I should be able to defend myself without giving my ex a criminal background.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to check your privilege.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[james_gnz]

Nearly every time I see someone demanding sources, it's because they're whining and pouting due to not being able to counter.

I do know that it's a pain being asked for sources. I often can't remember where I read stuff. On the other hand though, I can't automatically accept every claim made by someone I don't know who doesn't provide a source. If I did, I'd have to accept a lot of contradictory claims.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Megol]

Committing suicide isn't "coward's way out". His plans was (thankfully) ruined and there were nothing more to do. Why then expose himself to the victors law and simultaneously legitimate the rule of his enemy? He considered himself the military commander and they were (and still are in some places) expected to commit suicide rather than give themselves up to the enemy. Hitler expected that from field marshal Paulus, considered Paulus choice of surrendering cowardice - if he then didn't do it himself that would be the way of a coward!

TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

So, the implication is that the above is a work of fiction? Thank you for illustrating the point I, and the post I was replying to, was trying to make.

Not user-posted content at issue here

[Todd Knarr]

The liability isn't being created by user-posted content in this case. It stems from the site actually knowing about the actions of some users and failing to give notice when it could foresee that that failure would put other users at risk. It's the same principle that says that if I know of a danger on my property and fail to post notice of it or take steps to keep people out I'm liable if someone gets hurt by it. Section 230 never comes into play.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder which jurisdictions have lower rates of home invasions?

Hard to say, home invasion is not necessarily a term in use everywhere.

There is data but you may consider it suspect.

When convicted criminals (burglars) are interviewed there's one thing they all agree on: getting shot by a homeowner is their number one fear. Getting caught is their number two fear.

Really? Can you post some?

It's just like the whole gun "debate". I say "debate" because it's only a debate when clear conclusions cannot be drawn from the facts.

Facts, as they say, are slippery things, especially when some sides make them up.

It's more like an article of religious faith at the altar of political ideology and a general "guns are icky" feeling when clear conclusions can be made and a "debate" persists. States which make it easy to conceal-carry have lower rates of violent crime. Mass shootings overwhelmingly happen in "gun free zones". Chicago, a city where it's nearly impossible to legally own a gun, has tons of shootings.

Actually, a lot of the pro-gun movement has its own ideology, and it's own "Guns are cool" feeling, because you know what? Crime has dropped across the country, mass shootings are rare incidents that don't really determine the events that concern us, and Chicago has lots of problems, including many revealed in a recent investigation of its police department.

I could go on and on but the point is clear: criminals who are willing to commit murder aren't afraid of being charged with weapons violations. Law-abiding folks who view criminal charges and jail as something that will ruin their life because they have a lot to lose, those people obey weapons restrictions. Those people tend not to be armed unless it is legal. Criminals don't want a gunfight in which they can easily die, criminals want an easy target. Conceal-carry means anyone is potentially armed so choosing a would-be victim becomes a lot more dangerous. This discourages crimes of opportunity which most robberies and the like are.

Despite popular belief, very few homicides are actually by criminals engaged in criminal enterprise. You're more likely to be murdered by somebody who has a relationship to you than a random criminal. FBI statistics.

Also the hypocrisy is amusing. The politicians who are all anti-gun always have armed guards. Isn't that something? Most people who are anti-gun are okay with police being armed.

You mean people draw a distinction between professionals and civilians? So??

This is strange because a police officer who shoots someone is almost never charged or held personally accountable. A private citizen who shoots someone can be guaranteed to be investigated and prosecuted if it was unjustified. Yet they're okay to have the parties with the least accountability holding the power of lethal force? This is a strange belief system and you can tell that it's strange because it has difficulty providing simple, clear reasons to justify itself.

Oh, you want to talk police accountability? Or even private citizen accountability? Sorry, but it's not the pro-gun movement that is doing that, instead they're the ones who are telling us POLICE are the victims of a massive conspiracy, at greater risk, and also pushing for laws to make citizens even less accountable.

But don't let any facts get in your way.

After all, you have your own religious faith to follow, right?

personal responsibility

[bigtreeman]

These girls went off and did stuff which was inherently risky without personally taking precautions.
Wish I could get a payout for some of the stupid, risky stuff I've done through my lifetime.
Some lawyer told her she can make lots of money suing the web site, so can the lawyer.

A few are enough...

[DrYak]

However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people and aggregating those measurements.

On the other hand, you DO NOT need the event to frequent to be problematic.

Most girls I know are more or less well adjusted.
But all it takes as a few bad apples to abuse the system and try to wreck the lives of innocent guys.
These women not only cause problem to guys involved, but also to all the other normal women because the people will get more suspicious about any allegation.
Actually raped girl might fail to report due to being afraid of being accused of lying, or won't be believed after reporting.

(It's not that much different than the situation of girls considering all men to be *assholes* just because they got burned by a psychopath.
It's not that all men are actually that fucked up.
But a lot of damage is done by a small but very noisy group of psychopath tend to consider "The Game" is a bible.
And because of them the girls tend to look with suspicion to *all* men)