• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Child's play on the Internet?

Junkman

Extra Super Moderator
This is the second article that I have seen in less than a week.. Junk..

Perspective: Child's play on the Internet?
By Eric J. Sinrod
Many parents worry that their children spend too much time on the Internet, fearing they might view inappropriate content or be contacted by unsavory characters. My hunch is that far fewer have ever considered that they might get sued for the online misbehavior of their kids.

Well, that chicken has come home to roost.

A recent complaint filed in San Antonio, Texas, by an assistant high school principal against two former students and their parents came about because of allegedly defamatory statements made by the former students on their MySpace.com Web pages.

The complaint says a colleague showed the assistant principal a printout of a MySpace.com Web page that contained her photograph and name, as well as "lewd, defamatory and obscene comments, pictures and graphics." The Web page allegedly also portrayed the assistant principal, who is married with two small children, as a lesbian.

The complaint says that the woman has since experienced "sleepless nights and worried days." It also states that one of the students has admitted to creating the offensive Web page, and that records subpoenaed from MySpace by the local police department demonstrate that the computers used to create and update the Web page were located at the two students' homes.

Because they created a Web page that contained false statements which caused the assistant principal damage, the contention is they are liable for defamation. However, the more remarkable part of the complaint is that the claims made against the parents of the former students.

It argues that parents generally owe a duty to supervise the activities of their children on the Internet. In this instance, the complaint claims these particular parents knew their kids were working with computers, supplied by the parents, to create Web pages.

The assistant principal also claims the parents knew that there was "animosity" toward her, because there was a history of prior disciplinary issues involving the former students.

The core allegation that deserves attention goes like this: "Allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint, poses an obvious risk and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes."

Plainly, parents should do their best to supervise the online activities of their children. Does that mean that parents can be on top of their kids 100 percent of the time? Probably not. Sure, steps can be taken to minimize all sorts of risks, such as teaching them what is proper Internet behavior, insisting that the family computer stays in a public place in the home, using filters that restrict access to certain types of sites, and the like.

But computer and Internet use is becoming a constant for modern youth, and parents cannot be with them online every single second. Moreover, kids generally are more tech-savvy than their parents.

Thus, when someone does the best that a reasonable parent can do, should that person be on the receiving end of a lawsuit if a child has not behaved perfectly on the Internet? Could the parents have foreseen that their kids would create this type of Web page, simply because they have Internet access and that there had been a prior disciplinary issue with the assistant principal?

The statements on the MySpace page allegedly were false and certainly painted the assistant principal in a negative light. Still, you must wonder whether everyone who visited this page would believe these statements.

We know that the Internet now contains millions of pages. While it is not right, Web pages are often created that contain false and unflattering information about specific people. Sometimes, the best approach is just to ignore them and not call attention to and highlight this information.

While the assistant principal has succeeded in launching a lawsuit against the parents of the former students, it is not yet clear whether the charges will stick. I've steered clear of mentioning the names of the parties involved in the lawsuit. But the suit is a matter of public record, and certainly has made a greater spectacle of the negative comments made by the former students against the assistant principal. Even if she ultimately wins her lawsuit, the assistant principal may inadvertently stir up more interest in the negative comments made about her.

What's more, the case also could lead parents to more closely consider their potential liability. At that point, it could even force them to consider reining in their kids' independent ways on the Internet.

Click here to read from the website...
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Another example of our sue happy society.
Why not just request they change it and move on? The 1st reaction to often is to seek a lawyer and sue.

But, it brings up a question. What is the definition of 'lesbian'? Being married with two children does not mean you could not be or have been one. Same would hold true for a guy in a married relationship. That is no guarantee they are straight. So, if the woman ever had a one time girl on girl relationship would it then be considered that she is a lesbian? Or even if she had a long term relationship with another woman, then later married and had kids, could she correctly be described as a lesbian?
Still seems to me she would have been much better off to demand the myspace stuff be changed and move on. Attribute it to kids being kids.
 

beds

New member
I don't understand this. Assistant principals are generally the disciplinarians at high schools and there likely would be alot of conflict in their lives. What is the difference between this and the kids drawing a caricature of the assistant principal, signing it and posting it for all to see? Would they be up on charges if they did that? I guess if they would be charged with an offence in both cases, then it makes sense. But if they're only charged because it's on the internet, I disagree.
 
Top