Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Blaming MySpace For Sexual Assault

from the suing-whoever-has-the-money dept

Thu, Feb 15th 2007 1:25am — Mike Masnick

Last summer we were disappointed, but not surprised, to see the family of a 14-year-old girl who claimed she was sexually assaulted by a 19-year-old guy she met on MySpace decide to sue MySpace for allowing it to happen. Such a lawsuit is ridiculous on any number of levels -- both legally and at a common sense level. It's like suing the phone company any time a phone is used as part of a crime. Legally, it's quite clear that MySpace is protected by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which makes it clear that a service provider is not responsible for the actions of its users. This makes perfect sense. The law is designed to make sure it's those who are actually responsible for the illegal actions who get in trouble for them. That's why it's good to see that the judge has tossed out this case, pointing to section 230 and noting that if it were allowed, companies like MySpace "would be crippled by lawsuits arising out of third-party communications." The lawyers for the family, of course, plan to appeal -- wasting even more resources on a case that is unlikely to get anywhere. Of course, we're still waiting to hear what the 19-year-old involved in this case is going to do. After the girl's family sued MySpace, his lawyers realized that if MySpace was somehow responsible, then perhaps they could sue as well, and take some of the blame off the guy.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ScytheNoire, 15 Feb 2007 @ 2:17am

Take responsibility little girl
I'd love to see a newspaper headline "Woman takes responsibility for her actions."

Hey, little "innocent" girl, you have to step up and take responsibility for your actions. If a guy raped you, then sue him, get him put in jail, and seek therapy as to why you would allow yourself to get into a situation to where you could be raped. You can't be a victim your entire life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 2:26am
  
  Re: Take responsibility little girl
  Thank god someone has common sense, Kudos to you, first poster!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:26am
  
  Re: Take responsibility little girl
  Dude, she's 14. The law states that you can't take responsibility for your actions until you're at least 18.
  
  I blame idiot parents. How did you girl manage to meet up with a 19 year old she met on myspace without her parents knowing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dorpass, 15 Feb 2007 @ 8:14am
    
    Re: Re: Take responsibility little girl
    The law doesn't state anywhere that anyone under 18 can't take responsibility for their actions. If that was true, there would be no prosecution of minors.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:28am

Dont shoot the messenger
I think that plenty of these people really do not understand communications as well as they think they do. To be fair, if they were blaming myspace in this way, then I would imagine SMS phone texts are to blame for so many more. Which would be ridiculous

One further question, when it comes to responsibility, is that was this an assault in that she was unwillingly raped by him, or was it that she actually consented although she was underage? For either, I would blame the parents - SQUARELY for not keeping better tabs on their 14 year old girl. Do they know who her circle of friends are? Were they aware of her internet habits if they did not approve.

With much of the child crime, including 14 year old boys mugging, shooting and stabbing people for drugs in the street, the parents MUST take responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dateline NBC, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:51am

What about suing AOL for all of the attempted Predators that are caught on "Datline's To catch a predator" why can people sue myspace but leave out the people who are caught on national TV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nunya, 15 Feb 2007 @ 5:21am

Kudos
Kudos to poster #1 and #4 for being one of the elite thinking people to post on techdirt today! Nuff said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 15 Feb 2007 @ 6:24am

The real victim...
in this is the site (in this case being myspace). I'm not talking about the crime itself, I'm talking about the lawsuit. I wholeheartedly agree that the guy should be punished for what he did. But it makes no sense to try to sue the sit on which they met. What's next:

Suing the cab company when you get mugged after getting out of one near a dark alley?

Suing the nightclub when a person is drugged then raped?

Suing your college when you get robbed walking to your dorm alone at night?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 7:18am

Appeal?
I don't see why the family can even make an appeal when the law clearly states you can't sue myspace for that crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
akee bashee, 15 Feb 2007 @ 7:55am

reasonable care
All institutions have a duty to take reasinavke care that their patrons customers agents will not be harnmed thru the negligence of aid entity.Any Bar must take steps to prevent raping of drunken and/or drugged women (or men/boys). Cars must be made to a safe std. Food cannot be poisonous (quickly, long term effects they dont care)
So yes sue the nightclub, sue the cab driver (if complicit) sue the fork company for not enclosing instructions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dorpass, 15 Feb 2007 @ 8:15am
  
  Re: reasonable care
  Ever heard of undue burden?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alex, 11 Apr 2007 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re: reasonable care
    Like, underwear bourbon?
    
    No, I haven't heard of undue burden. It'd be swell of you to tell us about it though, rather than just post a question asking us if we know about it.
    
    Do you know about "tarps 'n funnels"? No? Me neither.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greedy, 15 Feb 2007 @ 8:04am

There suing my space because they have money. They don't care about the dude who did it! They just want money!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
djv75, 15 Feb 2007 @ 8:36am

The true blame should go to...
Someone should sue the lawyers that keep convincing the parents that they can sue myspace. It's shameful that these parasites can latch onto a family's grief and anger and use it to try to make a quick buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 8:44am
  
  Re: The true blame should go to...
  The lawyers aren't doing anything wrong. They are running a for-profit organization (better known as a business) and are taking extra steps to ensure they turn a higher profit, nothing immoral about that...if the family is ignorant let them get financially raped by these lawyers, it'll teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 8:52am

For some similar hilarity, do a search for DiMeo v. Max (a Philadelphia socialite is suing Tucker Max, owner and operator of the popular Tuckermax.com, for publishing allegedly libelous postings made by anonymous 3rd parties on his message board forums). The district court judge dismissed the case, and it's currently pending appeal before the 3rd circuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never Know, 15 Feb 2007 @ 9:39am

Keeping in mind the parents are moronic idiots who have absolutely no idea what the internet is and yet turned their little Suzy loose with no restrictions at all. It is the internet after all, it’s like TV, if you don’t like the show, turn the channel, or better yet, turn it off.
It would seem to me little Suzy was out prowling around and got caught where she should not have been. So instead taking responsibility and taking away or at least limiting the girls access, they see a quick way of making a buck or two. So who is at fault here, the Boy? The Girl? The internet? I would think the parents. I’m just glad to see at least the judicial system waking up to the fact that you don’t shoot the messenger gut because you don’t like the letter being sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never Know, 15 Feb 2007 @ 9:39am

Keeping in mind the parents are moronic idiots who have absolutely no idea what the internet is and yet turned their little Suzy loose with no restrictions at all. It is the internet after all, it’s like TV, if you don’t like the show, turn the channel, or better yet, turn it off.
It would seem to me little Suzy was out prowling around and got caught where she should not have been. So instead taking responsibility and taking away or at least limiting the girls access, they see a quick way of making a buck or two. So who is at fault here, the Boy? The Girl? The internet? I would think the parents. I’m just glad to see at least the judicial system waking up to the fact that you don’t shoot the messenger gut because you don’t like the letter being sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never Know, 15 Feb 2007 @ 9:39am

Keeping in mind the parents are moronic idiots who have absolutely no idea what the internet is and yet turned their little Suzy loose with no restrictions at all. It is the internet after all, it’s like TV, if you don’t like the show, turn the channel, or better yet, turn it off.
It would seem to me little Suzy was out prowling around and got caught where she should not have been. So instead taking responsibility and taking away or at least limiting the girls access, they see a quick way of making a buck or two. So who is at fault here, the Boy? The Girl? The internet? I would think the parents. I’m just glad to see at least the judicial system waking up to the fact that you don’t shoot the messenger gut because you don’t like the letter being sent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
viewfromthenorth, 15 Feb 2007 @ 9:43am

As mark Twain said '' Kill All The Lawyers''
I do believe these folks (the Kids Parents) are being led along by the carrot, of a huge cash settlement, being hung on the end of a stick weilded by some lawyer or group of Lawyers,whom are the only real winners should the case be settle in or out of court.

There should be a law to the effect that if a judge deems a case tivial and having no grounds, that the Lawyer (s) who prepared and submitted it shoud be fined and must pay all the court costs.

lets see how many more law suits like this go before the courts when the lawyers suddenly have to account for the idiotic things they try to sue for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logical, 15 Feb 2007 @ 10:33am

prospective...
So, to put this in prospective.

I am driving down the road at 45mph (legal speed limit) and some moron blows thru the traffic light and broadsides me. I sue.... the state of course. If the speed limit had been 55 I would have already past the intersection thus avoiding the other driver, makes sense. Then I sue... the auto manufacturer, if they had not produced the car I would not have been at that place, at that time. Then I sue... the list could go on and on. Sue the lawyer, that is the real moron, plus has all the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security, 15 Feb 2007 @ 9:03pm

Why do Lawyers Take These Case
One also has to question why skilled lawyers would take this kind of case. Do they really think that Murdoch's attorneys would NOT have had all of these potential litigious issues covered in advanced?

Were they being paid by the hour - or was it a case of getting 1/3 of the judgement as compensation.

If in fact, the parents are responsible for the bill, this usually amounts to $400 hourly in most instances - money that could have been saved towards their daughters college tuition in a few years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
self, 23 Feb 2007 @ 1:07pm

i think they are very responsible i know someone that listed himself as a 14 year old boy. and was an twice convicted pedaifile and he was 48 years old .and still was able to register to myspace .was talking to all kinds of minors .can you imagine that now convicted again .see who myspace lets register.. they are very responcible for what happens thru there site thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 9 Apr 2007 @ 12:48pm

It's NOT MySpace's fault
It's not MySpace's fault,nor the fault of any common carrier if their service is used to facilitate a crime. There's simply NO way they could monitor every communication taking place on the site, nor would you want them to do so.

And even if they WERE doing so - there's methods of hiding information that they wouldn't be able to detect, and things would still slip by them (cf: E. German Stazi, KGB...)

No - the proper people to blame for this farce are the Parents of the child. They have failed to teach their child the dangers of the Internet. Just like Mom used to say "Don't Talk To Strangers" - that now applies to the Net as well.... If your kid, and you are stupid enough to chit chat with someone on some site with MILLIONS of users from around the world, then you reap what you sow...

As for the lawyers - they are paid to be zealous advocates for their clients. They MAY have advised the client that it was a longshot case, and the CLIENT may have wanted to do it anyway. If someone is offering your $300+/hr or 1/3 of settlement + retainer, and THEY WANT to do it, who are you to say "oh no... keep your money..."... a fool and their $$$ are soon parted, so you might as well pick it up and run with it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shirley Humeumptewa, 24 Jan 2011 @ 10:22am

Case
I was glad to know that this was a bogus case and if anything the parents should be held accountable for what happen. Where the hell were they?Come on either your going to be a parent or not!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]