You don't think this smacks of " It's the record company's fault for selling my kid that heavy metal music"? I'd think that these were very small thorns in news corp's side - they must regularly be sued by more powerful complainants. Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604
Hugemusic <hmusic@ozemail.com.au> 01/19/07 10:28 AM >>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/More-families-sue-News-Corps-MySpace/200...
Will they survive this time? How much more of this will News Ltd put up with?? What more can they do? How many other sites will have the same experience?? Stay tuned for more ... Cheers, Hughie _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marj Kibby" <Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] MySpace sued again ...
You don't think this smacks of " It's the record company's fault for selling my kid that heavy metal music"?
I'd think that these were very small thorns in news corp's side - they must regularly be sued by more powerful complainants.
Marj
Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604
Hugemusic <hmusic@ozemail.com.au> 01/19/07 10:28 AM >>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/More-families-sue-News-Corps-MySpace/200...
Will they survive this time? How much more of this will News Ltd put up
with??
What more can they do?
How many other sites will have the same experience??
Stay tuned for more ...
Cheers, Hughie
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
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
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.?
The presence of advertising (of their own) all over MySpace's pages would seem to be one of the first of many reasons to kick them out of common-carrier status. --e
On Jan 18 2007, elw@stderr.org wrote:
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.?
The presence of advertising (of their own) all over MySpace's pages would seem to be one of the first of many reasons to kick them out of common-carrier status.
I'm not sure I follow this. MySpace is clearly not a common carrier, but common carriers advertise and carry ads all the time. My telephone carrier(s) plaster ads everywhere they can think of. DLB -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu
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.?
The presence of advertising (of their own) all over MySpace's pages would seem to be one of the first of many reasons to kick them out of common-carrier status.
I'm not sure I follow this. MySpace is clearly not a common carrier, but common carriers advertise and carry ads all the time. My telephone carrier(s) plaster ads everywhere they can think of.
They don't, however, interrupt your use of the service to shove their ads at you. At least, not usually. ;) There's a strong sense of non-neutrality surrounding myspace. It is a non-common-carrier service, as you say - the advertising plastered everywhere just makes it more obvious that they're a for-profit business. [Probably a faux pas on my part to mention advertising first as part of a discussion of common carrier status - they're related, intuitively, to me. Oh well.] --e
On Jan 18 2007, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
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.
True in general for some activities, but not others. They will be treated somewhat differently depending on whether the claim sounds in libel, copyright, criminal pornography, or something else. They can be required to react to content on the system, but generally cannot be required to police content on the system.
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?
MySpace is not a common carrier, nor are other ISPs/OSPs. They are not regulated as a common carrier, and are not required to provide services (carriage) to anyone who requests service.
Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.?
The lawsuit is largely BS. MySpace is a media distributor for First Amendment purposes, and cannot be required to screen or purge content unless they have actual knowledge that the content passing over their system. They are also almost certainly not the proximate (legal) cause of any harmful activity that occurs off-line. That is not the standard outside the U.S., BTW, since no one else has our First Amendment jurisprudence. -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu
Thanks, Dan. That helps a lot.
The lawsuit is largely BS. MySpace is a media distributor for First Amendment purposes, and cannot be required to screen or purge content unless they have actual knowledge that the content passing over their system.
I gather this is the nub of the issue. In the original case (see http://www.barryloewy.com/law-attorney-news-detail.php?Id=7), they claim: "MySpace.com had full knowledge that sexual predators were contacting young children on the website but did nothing to stop it. Additionally, the suit alleges that MySpace.com fraudulently represents it has security measures in place to protect its young members but, in reality, it does not" Now there are 5 examples to use - all minors. This is why I'm concerned that regulators will step in and make the standards for "protection" so obscenely impossible that not even MySpace will be able to meet them satisfactorily ... Apparently, the offender in the first case is also considering suing, claiming MySpace allowed the young girl to represent herself (fraudulently) as older than she was (see http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1207043,00.html). I wonder if there's any significance in the venues: the first case in Texas and the other four in California, despite the assaults happening in Ohio, South Carolina, New York and Texas ... thoughts?? Cheers, Hughie ----- Original Message ----- From: <burkx006@umn.edu> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org>; <jstromer@albany.edu> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] MySpace sued again ...
On Jan 18 2007, Jennifer Stromer-Galley wrote:
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.
True in general for some activities, but not others. They will be treated somewhat differently depending on whether the claim sounds in libel, copyright, criminal pornography, or something else. They can be required to react to content on the system, but generally cannot be required to police content on the system.
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?
MySpace is not a common carrier, nor are other ISPs/OSPs. They are not regulated as a common carrier, and are not required to provide services (carriage) to anyone who requests service.
Or is it, and this whole lawsuit is just, well, B.S.?
They are also almost certainly not the proximate (legal) cause of any harmful activity that occurs off-line.
That is not the standard outside the U.S., BTW, since no one else has our First Amendment jurisprudence.
-- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
On Jan 18 2007, Hugemusic wrote:
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 ...
These kind of lawsuits are fairly common against media/publishers -- not just the "metal-inspired" teen suicide cases, but the "copycat" cases (e.g., the Olivia N. case in which the plaintiff, who was raped with a plumber's helper, alleged that the perpetrators got the idea from a television show and so sued the broadcaster), and the "forum for crime" cases (e.g., the series of cases against Soldier of Fortune magazine for attempted murders from the ads for hit men in they run in their classified section). This most closely resembles the Soldier of Fortune type cases. Generally the plaintiffs lose (in the U.S. at least) either on First Amendment grounds, or for lack of causation -- that is, providing a forum for advocacy or exchange of criminal speech is not a proximate cause of resulting criminal activity.
Time will tell ... thoughts? predictions?
If MySpace wants to tough it out, they probably win on summary judgment. But as you point out that creates bad PR. The better business strategy is to install safety features and/or settle. -- Dan L. Burk Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55455 ********************************** voice: 612-626-8726 fax: 612-625-2011 bits: burkx006@umn.edu
I find that people have a difficult time conceptualizing what is really occurring when these sorts of activities move into "virtual" spaces, even in more traditional non-brick-and-mortar spaces like ads in a magazine. I therefore find it useful to draw a real world parallel. If a coffee shop/bookstore/library/etc allows both adults and teenagers to use its premises, and pedophiles happen to like it because it is near a Catholic girl's school (and thus uniformed students happen to frequent it), would the coffee shop be responsible if a pedophile struck up a conversation with a student in the shop and this later led to an assault? In other words, is the coffee shop somehow *facilitating*, aiding, or abetting the aspects of this event, including the illegal ones? If so, does this mean the business model of the coffee shop (allowing people to meet and talk) inherently assists illegal activity? What steps would the coffee shop legally, or morally, be required to take to prevent this from happening? If it is not *required* to take any steps, should it anyway? -Alexis On Fri, 18 Jan 2007 burkx006@umn.edu wrote: ::Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:29:52 -0600 ::From: burkx006@umn.edu ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] MySpace sued again ... :: ::On Jan 18 2007, Hugemusic wrote: :: ::>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 ... :: ::These kind of lawsuits are fairly common against media/publishers -- not ::just the "metal-inspired" teen suicide cases, but the "copycat" cases ::(e.g., the Olivia N. case in which the plaintiff, who was raped with a ::plumber's helper, alleged that the perpetrators got the idea from a ::television show and so sued the broadcaster), and the "forum for crime" ::cases (e.g., the series of cases against Soldier of Fortune magazine for ::attempted murders from the ads for hit men in they run in their classified ::section). :: ::This most closely resembles the Soldier of Fortune type cases. :: ::Generally the plaintiffs lose (in the U.S. at least) either on First ::Amendment grounds, or for lack of causation -- that is, providing a forum ::for advocacy or exchange of criminal speech is not a proximate cause of ::resulting criminal activity. :: ::>Time will tell ... thoughts? predictions? :: ::If MySpace wants to tough it out, they probably win on summary judgment. ::But as you point out that creates bad PR. The better business strategy is ::to install safety features and/or settle. :: ::-- ::Dan L. Burk ::Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly Professor ::University of Minnesota Law School ::229 19th Avenue South ::Minneapolis, MN 55455 ::********************************** ::voice: 612-626-8726 ::fax: 612-625-2011 ::bits: burkx006@umn.edu :: ::_______________________________________________ ::The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ ::
Interestingly, I used the same coffee shop reference here<http://digitalconversations.blogspot.com/2007/01/myspace-parental-responsibility.html>. Thank you for taking it a step further. There was a recent-ish Law & Order episode that dealt with similar issues surrounding social networking sites (the fictional "B-friendz site). With such a large viewing audience, I am always nervous when such a big production handles such potentially controversial issues - but I was quite pleased with how the show discussed responsibility not only on the web site's part, but also on the parents. Episode Information can be found here<http://www.tv.com/law-and-order/avatar/episode/870987/summary.html> . Kelly Boudreau Concordia University, Montreal Canada www.gamecode.ca On 1/19/07, Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org> wrote:
If a coffee shop/bookstore/library/etc allows both adults and teenagers to use its premises, and pedophiles happen to like it because it is near a Catholic girl's school (and thus uniformed students happen to frequent it), would the coffee shop be responsible if a pedophile struck up a conversation with a student in the shop and this later led to an assault? In other words, is the coffee shop somehow *facilitating*, aiding, or abetting the aspects of this event, including the illegal ones? If so, does this mean the business model of the coffee shop (allowing people to meet and talk) inherently assists illegal activity? What steps would the coffee shop legally, or morally, be required to take to prevent this from happening? If it is not *required* to take any steps, should it anyway? -Alexis
participants (7)
-
Alexis Turner -
burkx006@umn.edu -
elw@stderr.org -
Hugemusic -
Jennifer Stromer-Galley -
kelly boudreau -
Marj Kibby