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?

[DRJlaw]

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.

No. That is not the standard. This is:

DUTY OF CARE OF PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS
The proprietor of a business establishment owes a duty of care to customers when they come upon the business premises at the proprietor's express or implied invitation. This duty of care requires the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover whether accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons are occurring or are likely to occur on the business premises. If a proprietor knows, or should know that such acts are occurring or are likely to occur, the proprietor has the further duty to either give the customer a warning adequate to enable the visitor to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect the visitor against such harm.

This has nothing to do with aiding the criminal activity. This has very little to do with whether they had specific knowledge of crimes. This has to do with whether they invested reasonable effort into determining whether a risk was likely to be present, and warned their customers of the risk. If someone suggest that something like that might have been going on, then for various values of might (with a threshold between more likely than not and lottery odds), they very well could be liable.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[o_ferguson]

We didn't prosecute Hitler. He killed himself.

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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?

[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

[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?

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.

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.

Using Vice as a primary source ?

[Crashmarik]

Well I suppose the weekly world news is out of business so no more batboy or doctors resurrect Lincoln stories

http://www.businessinsurance.c...

Anyway there is an article from a source that is actually in the business of informing their readers.

Lavont Flanders Jr. and Emerson Callum were using Model Mayhem to identify targets for a rape scheme, allegedly as early as 2006, according to the ruling. They browsed profiles on Model Mayhem posted by models, contacted potential victims with fake identities posing as talent scouts, and lured the victims to south Florida for bogus modeling auditions, according to the ruling. When a victim arrived, they used a date rape drug to put her in a semicatatonic state, raped her and recorded the activity on videotape for sale and distribution as pornography, according to the ruling.

There's who, what and when, how, why. The firm is in Florida, the model from Brooklyn going to guess the attorney was shopping for the craziest jurisdiction he could find to get this to move forward.

And here is the theory of liability

Jane Doe's claim is different, however,” says the ruling. She does not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of content posted on the Model Mayhem website, or for Internet Brands' failure to remove content posted on the website. Flanders and Callum are not alleged to have posted anything themselves.”

“Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through Model Mayhem” said the ruling.

So three judges in California decided that not telling women that hooking up with strange men through the internet could be dangerous is sufficient to sue for negligence. Why not, we have to tell people plastic bags are not toys and pose a suffocation risk.,

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.

Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a photographer, my fiance is a model who also runs a "watchdog" group about creepy/seedy people in the industry. In one instance, there was a convicted sex offender who other models apart of her group reported on about several instances where he was crossing the line. She reported his model mayhem profile to the site, along with the link to his conviction on a government website; and they treated her like shit, refused to take any action, removed her profile when she complained about how shitty and dense they were being. It wasn't until she publicly blogged about it, with screenshots of the email chain, that they started singing a different tune, and restored her profile and deleted the sex offenders.

This was just last year. Not to mention the mysterious disappearances linked to the model mayhem site a year or two before that. Most models I have worked with have a creepy/rapey vibe story that starts with Model Mayhem. And by all accounts, they do not take any user reporting seriously.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/modeling-networking-site-common-denominator-disappearance-colorado-women-reports-article-1.1278375
http://www.abc17news.com/news/modeling-website-linked-to-disappearances-rape-and-human-trafficking/20037496

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.

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:How does law work for newspapers?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the newspaper knew the guy posting the ad was using it to lure victims, they too would be liable.

Please NOTE

[Attila Dimedici]

Please note that all we have here is a judge ruling that they CAN sue, not that the website is liable. All that has happened is that their lawyer made an argument that the judge agrees would be the basis for the website being liable. Now, the lawyer has to prove that the website is indeed liable. Having read the summary and the comments it appears to me that there is a basis for suing the website. Now they have to prove in a court of law that the website knew that it was being used by a rapist to lure victims and chose to take no actions. It appears from some of the comments made here that the website was not only not warning the models but actively trying to silence others who were attempting to warn potential victims (key word in that statement is "appears").

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)