I saw it on the news. She was raped by a 19 year old she met through myspace and is now claiming that the site doesn't do enough to protect kids from predators.

If she wins, all courts should be destroyed.

I like how you phrased that.

And I like how you pretend to know whether she has a legitimate case, based on a one-sentence description.

In this case, you happen to be right about her case, but you probably also think the old lady who sued McDonald's was a money grabbing whore who laughed all the way to the hospital for her crotch-skin graft.

Will you at least pass the fucking bar before you start chasing ambulances and defending frivolous lawsuits already?

You're going to have to explain the implicit witticism, billy.

the mcdonald's lady deserved the money she won if you read about the case and you understand punitive damages...and how the verdict was cut way way back by the judge.

you see you meant this case in reference to the myspace suit....I double quoted your this case statement to make it also apply to the mcdonalds lawsuit.

see what i did now...

See? rparis agrees with me, and he's nearly passed the bar.

Very clever, billy. I think I would have understood if you had left the first part out of the first quote.

She's claiming that THE SITE is responsible for her being raped, because it states in its terms that 14 and 15 year olds will be protected from adults. That means that she either added him as her friend or lied about her age to get a public profile. If they came into contact any other way, then the site clearly doesn't have anything to do with it.

So you're wrong already. If MySpace said that, it would certainly be liable. In fact, it says that people under 14 are not allowed to sign up, and that if they find out you've lied they may cancel your membership.

It also doesn't matter if the site "is responsible for her being raped." What matters is if the site owed her a duty of care, if they were negligent in that duty, and if the rape was to some degree due to that negligence. Whether any of these things are true depends on the specifics of the case, which you clearly know little about.

myspace is an attractive nuisance.

I agree that this lawsuit sounds ridiculous and defies common sense. However, I don't think the judiciary system cares too much about common sense. Right and Wrong are technicalities in cases like this.

Then again, I don't even know how to spell type-o correctly.

I have no idea how any of what you just said makes any sense whatsoever.

Which is why you shouldn't pretend to know whether a lawsuit has merit.

So could Dalen sue Haq if OPA raped him at a board meet-up?

Yeah, he should have said all lawyers should be destroyed instead of all courts then it could apply to the judges, attorneys and legislative counsel. Then he wouldn't need to understand whether the law was correctly applied or not, just that it didn't pass common sense muster.

Do you go to law school or something? I don't know why else you'd be acting like you're so much more well-informed than everyone else in a situation like this.

Use your fucking brain. Whether or not she can get away with it or not from the court's point of view is irrelevant. Myspace is NOT responsible for what happened and they should not have to pay a damn cent to her.

Aaron, won't it be difficult to even prove that she was raped, let alone raped by a guy from the specific guy from myspace? Wouldn't she have to have already gone through the rape case and essentially go to court over two different items, one necessitating the other? If not, then doesn't she have to prove during her myspace case that she was, in fact, raped by this specific person whom she met through myspace?

luckily for haq...they probably met through cmj

Verbal Intercourse (and billy): I do go to law school, and have taken torts. The struggle here is not between "common sense" and a "broken torts system." A million different things can make a judgment make more or less "common sense," which is why we have jury trials and let the parties make their cases. If you think MySpace could say something like "we will protect kids from adults" and then not be held liable for one cent if they don't deliver, then your view of the law has no relation to common sense.

Joe: you wouldn't need a separate trial to prove the rape, but you would have to prove it. How hard it is again depends on the facts and the jury. Maybe she immediately ran to a stranger or a phone to ask for help. Maybe there is semen residue. It mostly comes down to whether the jury believes your story.

1) Yes he's in law school. So yes he knows a lot more then us.

2) I agree with the part about MySpace not being responsible. It's not their fault that she didn't use common sense and trusted some idiot from a website.

If she were to win against the site then every stupid person in the country who has ever been wronged by something or someone they trusted on a website would be able to sue.

I think the best choice in this matter is for her to go after her own damn parents for lack of fucking supervision. I'm sick of hearing of these cases and it always turns out the parents were morons and not monitoring what their teenage kids were doing on websites.

ha. also, dalen is of age, and can't claim that obner's policies imply a duty to protect adults.

anyway, i said it before, but i don't think that this girl has a colorable claim. but there are a million examples of judgments that seem to defy common sense when you read a headline about them, but that make a lot of sense when you hear the details.

So if MySpace said "we will protect kids trying to cross the street that don't look both ways", you as a reasonable person would rely on that statement to consider your kids safe crossing a busy street and hold Myspace accountable if they got run over by a truck.