I can't help but think that My Space, like an ISP or the telephone company, is a neutral carrier of content and therefore not responsible for what happens in that space. Now, I should say I am NOT a policy-wonk on new communication technology, and my last brush with policy on this was in, oh, 1999, and I suspect things have changed. For those of you who are knowledgeable about policy: Why isn't My Space viewed as a common carrier, and hence not responsible for the content that is shown on its pages? Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.? ~Jenny Stromer-Galley -- Assistant Professor Department of Communication, SS 340 University at Albany, SUNY 1400 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12222 518-442-4873 jstromer@albany.edu http://www.albany.edu/~jstromer
Possibly, but I think there's a few significant differences.
In the MySpace cases, a crime was committed by someone against a minor. We're not talking about "metal-inspired" teen suicide ... perhaps more analogous with the record company that sold music to the Columbine teenagers, but I don't recall that claim being made ... at least, not in court ...
Also, it's not just about these court cases ... there are no numbers mentioned in that story, but let's assume the complainants are after another $30Mill each ... Does anyone know the payout figure from the first case? Has it settled? Murdoch only paid $580Mill for MySpace in the first place, so adding $150Mill to that looks bad for the bottom line ... maybe they can afford it, maybe not ... there's also the compliance cost, which they have already tried to meet (apparently).
But it's also about the political pressure this will generate. Parents forming anti-MySpace lobby groups - getting the entire legislative framework arround the protections that a social netwok provider must comply with changed. The US government is traditionally loathe to interefere with big business and their practices, but they also traditionally very quickly and quite irrationally respond to any suggestion that children might be abused (see Dana Boyd on moral panics: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/01/10/a_few_more_thou.html) ... ignoring children in danger is a sure-fire vote loser and these examples give the campaigners a clear rallying point ... and they're in several states ...
Didn't I read something the other day about crimes being committed in the Second Life environment??
Time will tell ... thoughts? predictions?
Cheers, Hughie