• On BNET: Vote: How will Apple blow it?
May 19, 2008 12:48 PM PDT

Court: Don't blame MySpace for offline sexual assault

by Caroline McCarthy

MySpace can breathe a little easier. A federal appeals court ruled last week that the News Corp.-owned social network can't be held responsible for the sexual assault of an Austin, Texas, teen by a man she met on the site.

The girl, named in the case as Julie Doe, initially filed suit along with her mother, named as Jane Doe, after she was sexually assaulted in May 2006 by 19-year-old Pete Solis, whom she met on MySpace. The lawsuit, filed in a Texas state court, targeted MySpace, parent company News Corp., and Solis. Among the allegations against MySpace were fraud, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, and the Does claimed MySpace should have had technology in place to make it impossible for someone as young as Julie to create a profile in the first place.

But on Friday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Does can't target MySpace in the case, which had already been dismissed once before. "Parties complaining that they were harmed by a Web site's publication of user-generated content...may sue the third-party user who generated the content," Judge Edith Clement Brown asserted in the ruling, "but not the interactive computer service that enabled them to publish the content online.

It would have been Julie Doe's parents' job to protect her, not MySpace's, the court decided.

The Does' case might have been able to stay afloat if the assault in question had stemmed from actual harassment on MySpace rather than a real-life assault instigated by correspondence on the site. Had Julie Doe been harassed online and reported Solis' profile to MySpace, only to receive an inadequate or slow response, it'd be a very different story.

That's something that MySpace rival Facebook ran into when New York legal authorities conducted an investigation to see how the site responded to claims of harassment. Claiming that Facebook was slow to action, the office of N.Y. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo subpoenaed the social-networking site before the two eventually reached an accord.

It also probably didn't help the plaintiffs' side in Doe vs. MySpace that Doe had lied about her age to join the site, claiming she was 18 when she created a profile in 2005, despite the fact that she was actually 13. MySpace's safety regulations bar children younger than 14 from using the site, and profiles of members under 16 cannot be viewed publicly.

Court documents from the February 1, 2007, hearing before the district court show that the legal authorities saw holes in the Does' case early on: "You have a 13-year-old girl who lies, disobeys all of the instructions, later on disobeys the warning not to give personal information, obviously, (and) does not communicate with the parent. More important, the parent does not exercise the parental control over the minor. The minor gets sexually abused, and you want somebody else to pay for it?"

Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act has historically protected Internet service providers and other online communications services, like social-networking sites, from the legal issues that may arise from activity on them. In recent years, courts have increasingly found ways through the implied "immunity." Matchmaking site Roommates.com, for example, couldn't hide behind Section 230 when an appeals court decided it was violating a housing discrimination act by allowing members to filter through potential roommates by criteria like sexual orientation.

But in this case, it really doesn't look like MySpace can be held responsible. Tech-law blogger Eric Goldman agreed with the court in a blog post Monday, writing that "even though the 5th Circuit clearly got it right, and the plaintiffs never should have been brought this lawsuit against MySpace, I remain flummoxed by the number of cases I'm seeing involving teens making poor (and, in some cases, life-altering) decisions using MySpace."

In January, MySpace announced that it was working with the attorneys general of 49 states--the exception, a bit ironically, is Texas--to develop an an arsenal of safety tools on the site. Age verification technology is among the priorities, the social network has said.

Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline.
Recent posts from The Social
Rickrolling iPhone worm is never gonna give you up
Going rogue? Palin bans gadgets, reporters from speech
Facebook: We're going after scammy ads, too
Offerpal Media mess gets stickier
After onstage spat, Offerpal replaces CEO
Beatles catalog comes to USB
MySpace changes terms of use to combat app scams
Twitter translates into Spanish
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by The_Decider May 19, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
Wow, an intelligent court ruling. The parent is responsible for their child? It is so crazy, it might just work. What I want to know is why this girl was so stupid as to meet a total stranger. It happens all the time, even to adults. They talk to someone online and think that they actually know a person when the reality is that person they have been talking to(how long doesn't matter) is a stranger. How did the human race devolve to this sort of idiocy?
Reply to this comment
by The_Decider May 19, 2008 2:37 PM PDT
Wow, an intelligent court ruling. The parent is responsible for their child? It is so crazy, it might just work. What I want to know is why this girl was so stupid as to meet a total stranger. It happens all the time, even to adults. They talk to someone online and think that they actually know a person when the reality is that person they have been talking to(how long doesn't matter) is a stranger. How did the human race devolve to this sort of idiocy?
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis May 19, 2008 5:28 PM PDT
They haven't 'devolved'. It's just that people think that other people are going to be more 'honest' online.... as if!
My experience: people lie JUST AS MUCH ONLINE AS IN REAL LIFE, if not a little bit more, unless they are like myself.
by hunter_jc May 19, 2008 2:59 PM PDT
This ruling sound contradictory to the charges laid to that woman who said things to make a girl to commit suicde.
Reply to this comment
by Dalkorian May 19, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
Why? These are two very different cases, you're trying to compare apples to automobiles here. In this case we have a minor (13 years old) who tells lies, disobeys all instructions and hides her activity from her parent, all in an attempt to "act like a grown up", but then cries like a baby when grown up things happen to her and tries to sue the website she DEFRAUDED to put herself in this position. The other case is a grown up committing fraud in order to torment a depressed 13 year old until she commits suicide. If you can't see the difference in these cases, please find a nice cave to hide out in for the rest of your life.
by Lerianis May 19, 2008 5:27 PM PDT
Finally..... a SMART ruling by a judge, who realizes that the true way to protect children is for them to follow the rules of these online communities and to NOT meet the people there in person.... at least not without their parents or someone else with them, if they are adults.
Reply to this comment
by basraw May 20, 2008 5:08 AM PDT
I bet this girl looked like she was 18. damn.. poor pete solis.
Reply to this comment
by Mercury23 May 20, 2008 5:51 AM PDT
Can it be true? A judge with common sense? Parents seem to think they can pass off their duties in raising their children to TV and the internet and then want to blame things like music, video games, chat rooms for their children's behavior. It's the lack of parental involvement that is the problem, not the music, not the websites, not GTA IV. Thank you judge for telling this woman the way it is. It's not MySpace's place to ID check every single person who lies about their age. The parents should be watching what their children are doing. I would have fined the mom, or give her and the daughter 1000 hours of community service, that way they are forced to spend some time together and maybe they will actually bond in a way that the mom wants to watch over her child like she should be doing.
Reply to this comment
by ghosford May 20, 2008 7:18 AM PDT
Wow, I wonder how many posters here have children? First, I want to say that, tragic as this situation is, the judge did make the right decision. I also believe that most parents need to be more involved with their kids. However, many parents have never been on these sites and don't know what the age requirements are for these sites.

Parents of teens have to strike a delicate balance between granting the teens independence and controlling every move they make. It's harder than it looks! I probably err on the side of controlling our kids too much, which has its own drawbacks, but when your child says "all my friends" (12 yr old 6th graders) have accounts on Facebook or MySpace, contrary to the published rules (and, yes, most of them have), you have to realize that the norm is for kids to lie about their age and keep it from their parents. And before you say that good parents know what their kids are doing, ask yourself how many things you successfully kept from your parents when you were a kid?

Yes, the mother should have monitored more closely what her daughter did (and I bet she will in the future), but don't make it a rant about how bad parents are today. Learn from it, and if you have kids, do your best to stay involved in their lives.
Reply to this comment
by soggy0 May 20, 2008 7:25 AM PDT
Not an irony Texas is the exception. Just look at its "products."
Reply to this comment
by Heebee Jeebies May 20, 2008 8:26 AM PDT
It is sad that in today's world this could happen to a 14-year old. I feel for her. However maybe next time she won't think of rules and safeties as something put there for everyone but herself. Oh, and mom and dad its a good thing she has you looking out for her.

Robert
Reply to this comment
by MaxAgent86 May 20, 2008 12:48 PM PDT
Not really, as if you read carefully: "Parties complaining that they were harmed by a Web site's publication of user-generated content...may sue the third-party user who generated the content," Judge Edith Clement Brown asserted in the ruling, "but not the interactive computer service that enabled them to publish the content online. In the suicide case you are talking about the 3rd party (the mother) was sued, not the site
Reply to this comment
by MaxAgent86 May 20, 2008 12:51 PM PDT
Prev post in reply to hunter_jc post
Reply to this comment
(13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

FAQ: Buying the right Windows 7 upgrade

Readers still have lots of questions on just which version of the software they need to buy in order to upgrade their PC. CNET News tries to offer some answers.

N.Y. lawsuit details Intel's 'largesse' toward Dell

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's federal antitrust case filed Wednesday alleges a longstanding symbiotic relationship between Intel and Dell.

About The Social

CNET News' Caroline McCarthy is a downtown Manhattanite who believes that, despite popular opinion, the Web can actually help your social life. She's happily addicted to fun social-media tools from Twitter to Yelp to Facebook, sends an inordinate number of text messages, and has a tendency to waste time at the office reading restaurant blogs. Here, she explores all facets of the Web's gregarious side, as well as the unique tech culture in her home city of New York. (Don't call it Silicon Alley.)

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Social topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right