Teen, Mom Sue MySpace.com for $30 Million

Teen, Mom Sue MySpace.com for $30 Million; Suit Filed in Travis County Claims Popular Internet Site Fails to Protects Children From Adult Sexual Predators.

By Claire Osborn
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, June 20, 2006

A 14-year-old Travis County girl who said she was sexually assaulted by a Buda man she met on MySpace.com sued the popular social networking site Monday for $30 million, claiming that it fails to protect minors from adult sexual predators.

The lawsuit claims that the Web site does not require users to verify their age and calls the security measures aimed at preventing strangers from contacting users younger than 16 "utterly ineffective."

"MySpace is more concerned about making money than protecting children online," said Adam Loewy, who is representing the girl and her mother in the lawsuit against MySpace, parent company News Corp. and Pete Solis, the 19-year-old accused of sexually assaulting the girl.

Hemanshu Nigam, the chief security officer for MySpace.com, said in a written statement: "We take aggressive measures to protect our members. We encourage everyone on the Internet to engage in smart web practices and have open family dialogue about how to apply offline lessons in the online world."

Founded in 2003, MySpace has more than 80 million registered users worldwide and is the world's third most-viewed Web site, according to the lawsuit.

Loewy said the lawsuit is the first of its kind in the nation against MySpace.

Solis contacted the girl through her MySpace Web site in April, telling her that he was a high school senior who played on the football team, according to the lawsuit.

In May, after a series of e-mails and phone calls, he picked her up at school, took her out to eat and to a movie, then drove her to an apartment complex parking lot in South Austin, where he sexually assaulted her, police said. He was arrested May 19.

The lawsuit includes news reports of other assault cases in which girls were contacted through MySpace. They include a 22-year-old Wisconsin man charged with six counts of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and a 27-year-old Connecticut man accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

MySpace says on a "Tips for Parents" page that users must be 14 or older. The Web site does nothing to verify the age of the user, such as requiring a driver's license or credit card number, Loewy said.

To create an account, a MySpace user must list a name, an e-mail address, sex, country and date of birth.

"None of this has to be true," the lawsuit said.

Attorneys general from five states, including Texas, have asked MySpace.com to provide more security, the lawsuit said. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to the MySpace.com chief executive officer May 22, asking him to require users to verify their age and identity with a credit card or verified e-mail account.

Lauren Gelman, associate director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, said she does not think MySpace is legally responsible for what happens away from its site.

"If you interact on MySpace, you are safe, but if a 13-year-old or 14-year-old goes out in person and meets someone she doesn't know, that is always an unsafe endeavor," Gelman said. "We need to teach our kids to be wary of strangers."

Loewy said he was confident about the lawsuit, which he said seeks damages worth 1 percent of the company's estimated worth.

"We feel that 1 percent of that is the bare minimum that they should compensate the girl for their failure to protect her online when they knew sexual predators were on that site," he said.

cosborn@statesman.com; 445-3871

Jeff, okay, sue them for something different, something having nothing to do with personal responsibility. Are you suggesting victims of public library crimes that result from the use of unfiltered Internet access that remains unfiltered despite CIPA and US v. ALA and at the direction of the ALA are somehow personally responsible for being attacked? How? Please provide examples, suggestions.

Are you suggesting victims of public library crimes that result from the use of unfiltered Internet access

If we ever find such a case we'll deal with it then.

The case you cited was the result of a scumbag attacking a girl. He was a scumbag before ever logging onto the net. The girls parents should have kept a better eye on her though.

The net and the world in general is run by and largely populated with adults. Children need to be protected by their parents weather in a library, a store or a church. You never know who the scumbag is.

BTW filtering does'nt work worth a !#$%. I hope you're not depending on it.

As much as I detest the library libertarians who fight for the "right" of children to view pornography

Look, let's kill the BS here.

Internet usage in libraries is highly regulated and monitored. Most libraries have filters that block adult content. Others computers (within the library) don't have the filters because adults may want to use the computers to do medical or biology research and unfortunately porn sites pop up. Do you honestly believe that kids go into libraries and get inundated by porn and sexual predators? Please. Of the public facilities, libraries are among the SAFEST.

If children under 12 are going into libraries alone, WITHOUT PARENTAL OR GUARDIAN SUPERVISION, then whose fault is that? The libraries? Besides, most libraries have security.

The poster has an agenda, he's one of those busybody nanny types who believe that the almighty federal government is the solution to parenting.

Are you suggesting victims of public library crimes that result from the use of unfiltered Internet access that remains unfiltered despite CIPA and US v. ALA and at the direction of the ALA are somehow personally responsible for being attacked?

Are you suggesting that preteens are going into libraries, accessing MySpace.com or whatever, and meeting sexual predators, despite libraries being highly regulated and monitored?

If they are, where are the cases? Why haven't I read about it? Surely it would be in the MSM, right?

I say two wrongs do not make a right.

Porn at the library is wrong.
Suing someone for one's own lack of responsibility is wrong.

Don't sue, educate. Teach the parents how to take responsibility for their kids. Teach the parents to teach their kids responsiblity.

Sorry, you are incorrect. Being with your children is not enough where the libraries allow unfiltered access to the Internet.

(Game show wrong answer buzzer) - "AAANNNDDDTTT!" You hear that, phoenix? The busybody poster said that you weren't good enough to monitor your child in the library. Never mind that you're right next to the child. It's not enough, because the evil internet will snatch your child and suck him in like that TV did to the Poltergeist girl.

You obviously didn't read the information about the case. The guy was a repeat public library offender. He was previously barred from area libraries. He appeared on FOX News in the very library where the crime occurred showing how easy it was to get porn on the Internet!!! The library did not have filters, even post US v. ALA, because they had a political reason for failing to do so. They have them now. There may be more reasons.

Please read the material to which I link. I link there for a reason.

As to my agenda, some ALA librarian using an ALA list of books for kindergartners pushed inappropriate material on my child as part of the ALA's agenda to sexualize children. I, and many others, are trying to expose that agenda for what it is with the goal of preventing more children from being harmed. So it's not really an agenda, it's really an effort to expose the ALA's agenda.

Merriam-Webster says an agenda is "2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program ." Are you suggesting that trying to expose the ALA's agenda to sexualize children is an agenda in and of itself? Are you suggesting seeking to protect children from rape and molestation in accordance with existing law that is not being followed on a national basis by the ALA, potentially, is an agenda?

If so, you really are an "Extremely Extreme Extremist," as you call yourself (but I do think the name is funny).

The guy was a repeat public library offender.

Obviously, justice failed down the line here. That's a liberal judge's fault, not the library.

As to my agenda, some ALA librarian using an ALA list of books for kindergartners pushed inappropriate material on my child as part of the ALA's agenda to sexualize children. I, and many others, are trying to expose that agenda for what it is with the goal of preventing more children from being harmed. So it's not really an agenda, it's really an effort to expose the ALA's agenda.

Well that's all warm and fuzzy and it pulls my heart strings a little, but it's not germaine to the topic at hand, as to why internet filters would have prevented these transgressions from taking place.

If so, you really are an "Extremely Extreme Extremist," as you call yourself (but I do think the name is funny).

Well thanks for the compliment but I still disagree with you.

Sorry,

a) filtering now is very effective,

b) this "it's the parent's fault" argument is getting old,

c) there are numerous cases, sadly, that prove what I have been saying -- that's precisely why I have been saying this. There is no need for me to make this stuff up for my fun and health. These are real things really happening nationwide. I have been watching this for years. I have meticulously catalogued my findings and linked to them on the SafeLibraries.org web site. Sometimes I personally have been directly involved in exposing these cases and my involvement has been acknowledged, and

d) people like you who say it's the parent's fault are definitely not going to be the ones interesting in exposing that it's not always the parent's fault.

Internet usage in libraries is highly regulated and monitored. Most libraries have filters that block adult content.

You don't live in San Francisco. People using the internet computers can sit down and watch anything without fear of interference. I have had the displeasure of utilizing a library connection in between one guy looking at nude gay personals and another guy looking at hardcore porn videos. Signing up for internet usage is first come, first served, and the only requirement is a library card. If you don't want to use the PC next on the list, you're screwed. Back of the line, wait at least an hour.

You said, "The poster has an agenda, he's one of those busybody nanny types who believe that the almighty federal government is the solution to parenting."

You have swerved into the line of personal attack as a method of avoiding the issues, or, as you say, the "BS." And you make "parenting" the central issue again. People will take your personal attacks and methods of avoiding argument into account when they consider how much weight to give to your arguments. That's your loss, not mine.

You have swerved into the line of personal attack

"Busybody nanny types" is a personal attack? You've got thin skin, fella, because that's normal dialogue here on FR.

as a method of avoiding the issues

Wrong. I didn't "avoid" anything. I've answered all your posts fair and square.

And you make "parenting" the central issue again.

Because your position is indefensible. How do internet library filters via judicial fiat trump the rights of parents/legal guardians?

People will take your personal attacks and methods of avoiding argument into account when they consider how much weight to give to your arguments. That's your loss, not mine.

Ah yes, when losing the argument, resort to saying the other guy is engaging in personal attacks. Typical lib tactic.

a) point me to one filter that works. Not a white list a filter. I'll show you how a reasonably clever 14 year old will defeat it. I'll also show you good content that is filtered erroneously.

b) I'm sorry the arguement is getting old but it remains true. Parents are primarily responsible for their kids.

c) amazingly for all these cases you can't supply one better then 'a perv attacked a girl in a library with unfiltered internet', thats the nets or the librarys fault how? Were library staff watching the kid?

d) Parents who want everybody else to watch their kids are definitily not going to be interested in actually watching their kids. If your kid is too young to defend his/her self s/he should be monitored 24/7. Tough noogies for the parents if that cuts into their social lives.

Obviously, SF is the exception. Here in the heartland, computer usage is monitored and regulated, and some of the computer stations have filters. There is security on-staff for high school students who use the computers when the library is open later during final exams.

Here in Sacto the libraries follow ALA guidelines and line the machines up so that the whole library can see what you are browsing. You will be booted if seen viewing inappropriate material. Repeat offenders are banned, given a trespass warning by the police and no doubt checked for warrants. This leaves 'inappropriate' to the librarians and patrons discretion, I'm OK with that. Librarians are hired by local government, problems are delt with locally.

But someone with a breast cancer diagnosis can actually see sights with words that might make teenager giggle. If they dig they might actually see a (hoping this is'nt potty language) breast!

They don't have computers at all in the children's section of the library near me, nor should they.

Dinsdale,

a) Finally, a Library Director Who Gets It contains information about a very happy library director happy with her library's excellent filter.

b) Yes, they are responsible, but why have filters at all if the parents are solely responsible? I'm saying existing law is not being followed. The law and the US Supreme Court already asked and answered these questions. I linked to the US v. ALA case above so people could read it. My arguments are based on the failure to follow the case and the law, not on my personal feelings or beliefs or morality or parental responsibility or whatever.

c) Here are more cases that I can supply, thank you for asking: Examples of Crimes and Filters in Libraries

d) Parents are not asking that librarians watch their children. They are asking, or rather I am asking, that the existing law be applied. Us parents have a powerful ally behind us -- the US Supreme Court. All relevant questions have already been asked and answered in US v. ALA, Board of Educ. v. Pico, and others.

Take your pick as to what is more authoritative for you, the US Supreme Court or the American Library Association's "Office For Intellectual Freedom" headed by a former head of the Illinois ACLU.

As to "breast cancer," that link "a)" I gave you in my last post shows filters properly filter out the right stuff and allow the breast cancer research through. And honestly, it's peculiar how everyone, not just here, uses breast cancer as the example to use, curiously, just like the ALA. The ALA continues to say filters don't work and filter out breast cancer. They know better by now so that's not a mere oversight -- it's misinformation.

A 14-year-old Travis County girl who said she was sexually assaulted by a Buda man she met on MySpace.com sued the popular social networking site Monday for $30 million, claiming that it fails to protect minors from adult sexual predators.

Dear Parents, It is your job to protect your child from predators and to monitor what your children are doing while on the computer.

Here is a good way to start.
-Do not allow computers in teenager's rooms. Move the computer into the living room as visible to all as is the television.
-If your teenager always has the door shut when on the computer but not when doing other things in their room, they don't want you to know what they are doing and likely doing what they should not be.
-Install software that will let you either review what your kids did on line or will let you watch from another computer in the house.

Or, just get out the yellow pages and higher an attorney to sue.

a) Your reply is non-responsive the the nature of the filter. I won't just take someones word a filter works. I've seen too many that only appear to work.

b) Filters are flawed technical solutions to a social problem. They give a false sense of security when the only real security is looking over their shoulder every few minutes.

c) Cases listed include 12 year olds that defeated filters to view porn. The filters likely bought the kids time. (assuming they kept the screens pointing so they could supervise). Other heinous crimes listed are the responsibility of the scumbags not the library that they happened to occur at.

d) Some parents want only a pre-filtered white list of acceptable content available in librarys. That is a good solution for a dedicated childrens machine but not acceptable for adults doing research.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.