Hold on. How do we know she ISN'T at fault, Arch?

It says she was 'sexually assaulted'. She's also fourteen.

In the states consentual sex at fourteen counts as sexual assault, and she had some scrapes and bruises on her back (such as is common for anyone with soft skin shagging in the back of a car).

He called her, talked to her, took her to eat and then they fucked.

It never says ANYWHERE in any story I can find (and I did just look) whether or not she consented. There's no reason to assume she was raped. By the by, here's a more complete version of the link: http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...20assault.html

Now, while I don't agree with calling her a skank at this point (or any, really) either, it's unfair to just assume that she was raped. Especially considering the way things went up until then (the messages, the phone calls, etc.)

Hell, it doesn't even say whether or not SHE was honest about HER age on her profile anywhere--so we don't even know if he was specifically looking for some kiddy ass, like some horrifying sexual predator that we'd all like to imagine he is.

We're too quick to judge both people.

Also, I have to ask: Does anyone have any suggestions for HOW myspace could keep people from taking advantage of kids without completely killing their buisness?

Seriously: Anything you do that involves a 'honesty system' for age (no credit card checks) means that anyone who is under the age necessary to get the full range of options is going to lie.

Anything you do that involves a credit card check is going to immediately kill the system.

Or lets say we just have people carefully moniter all the messages checking for pedophiles--how long do you think the site will stay up then?

There's nothing you CAN do to protect kids in such a situation that's not going to result in web death.

First of all--WHY does the company have a responsibility to protect the people using its web space from other people on it? The website ITSELF isn't hurting people, it's other people on it, and why should the company take responsibility for that? It's like suing a chainsaw manufacturer because leatherface went to town on your brother.

Then, even IF they should, how do you propose they do anything to stop it?

In krylo's link they call they imply that the guy is a pedophile. But really, is he a pedophile? It's not like he's forty years old or she's six. They're only five years apart. My uncle married a woman ten years younger than him. Is my uncle a pedophile?

EDIT: And the article does mention the point we're making: Parents should monitor their children. But one question: Why are such sentiments always relegated to the last line of an article? You never see it as a topic for a piece.

Oh please.

Several other people in this thread assumed her version of the story (and the police's, incidently), was true. How else do you account for people calling her stupid and foolish? I'm aware we don't really know either way, but your timing to point that out is very interesting.

This is ridiculous.

Find three posts from me before this thread was started and I'll give the timing argument credence.

I wasn't online for over five-ten minutes at a time the last few days.

Well really I think people wouldn't care if the measure was effective as long as it looked like they were doing something. At the very least the could set up dummy accounts of younger users to try and identify unsavory types. It's kind of a delicate balancing act to not fall into entrapment but its something. Really their responsibility, at least I assume this is how the reasoning goes, is that they are providing the service and have the cash to at least attempt to make it safe for those not smart enough to stay themself. Thereby they have at least a small amount of responsibility for user protection.

But I assume you read the whole thread, so this doesn't change anything. You homed right in on my statements. Most if not every poster before me worked, as I did, from the hypothetical case that this wasn't consensual. At least, everybody who sought to exonerate Myspace from any kind of responsability did, it just wouldn't make sense if they thought there was nothing to be responsible for.

Well, again, this is the states.

There's 'something to be responsible for' even IF it was consentual. It's not so much that other posters worked from it being rape, but rather from him being a legal pedophile. A few even commented directly on that fact (like Nikose and a few others around page 1 and 2).

Him being 19 and her being 14 automatically makes it rape, regardless of whether she consented.

Ergo, even if it was consentual, there is a legal problem.

If it were in Canada, this case wouldn't have ever even happened, most likely.

Also: you were the most recent person to apply blame (or exonerate blame from a party), ergo, your post is the one I leaped off of.

Regardless of the consentual nature of the interaction it shouldn't have happened. If they liked each other that much I don't think it would have killed them to wait a few years before doing the nasty. For chripes sake keep it in your pants. Of course, Myspace could theortically be keeping a closer eye on who is asking its younger members to do what. Hence, the essentials of my argument.

And leap you did, krylo, totally oblivious to the implicit assumptions made for the sake of discussion, yes.

Bravo.

Well, the only person I saw make any 'implicit assumptions' that she was raped was you. Even in a quick rebrowse I mainly saw people patently noting the 'pedophilia' and underage aspect, as opposed to the 'consent' aspect.

I really really really hope that no one who blamed the girl thought she didn't consent. Because that's fucked up.

Very much so.