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

If they made money they are liable.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the website made money by the contents users posted, then they also have a liability. Allowing them to profit from the contents, but without any liability will create perverse incentives. There are enough provisions and protections for the websites already. If they did not know about the criminals misusing their site, it is one thing. If they knew about it and kept quiet to make money they are liable.

But where to draw a line between rapists claiming to be photographers posting classified ads to lure people in? Or even simple job posting in your old dead tree newspaper to lure applicants in?

We should draw the line on a case by case basis. Let them sue, let us look at the facts of the case and then decide whether they are culpable or not. Giving them blanket immunity without even looking at the facts of the case is simply wrong.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[guruevi]

Your example depends largely on your jurisdiction. Some have successfully allowed thieves to sue because they got injured breaking and entering, others allow you to beat or shoot to death anyone who appears on your lawn.

The question is indeed whether they had knowledge that a convicted sex offender was using their site as bait or alternatively whether they had made a promise of background checks and legitimacy of all parties and failed to fulfill that promise . It's a tall order to prove that, if this is a craigslist type site for models, the assumption of risk should at all times remain with all parties involved. If I get murdered or raped because I wanted to buy a $15 lawn mower from CL, why would CL be liable? Do you hold a classic paper liable for the ads that appear? What if a magazine were to advertise a drug that later turned out to be harmful or even fraudulent, would you hold all advertising channels for homeopathic "cures" liable?

My understanding is this is a negligence case

[rsilvergun]

The site didn't know exactly who was doing it, but they knew someone was using their service to find victims and intentionally choose not to disclose the fact. The reason the judge let it go through is that there's evidence the company had knowledge of a specific risk and failed to alert the users. That's why common carrier protections didn't cause the case to be thrown out.

Craigslist has the same issue, and as such they display warnings to users when you respond telling you about common scams.

How does law work for newspapers?

[Lotana]

What if rapists post a modelling job ad in the local newspaper asking for young females. Would the newspaper be liable to be sued?

I don't believe I ever seen any warnings in the classified sections. Surely this scenario has happened in the past. What is the precedent on those kind of cases?

Re:Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and I forgot an important detail of the story. Before they acted on it, they threatened her with legal action if she did not take the blog post down. Claiming that posting the messages were in violation of their TOS. When she didn't budge on from their threats, that's when they decided to actually do something.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[DRJlaw]

This law means the proprietor of a business has a duty of care to people visiting a physical location he owns and controls.

The standard is not a statute. The standard comes from English (and then American) common law. A key aspect of the common law is that it evolves and adapts, frequently making use of analogies to prior circumstances to determine whether there are, for example, duties of care in new circumstances.

If you think that the word "premesis" in a half page summary of a common law concept going to be enough to completely shield this business from liability (i.e., a jury will not be permitted to decide whether there is a special relationship and duty to warn), then you either failed the first year of law school or never attempted to attend.