Group yahoo chating sex
Yahoo said that it had immunity from prosecution under section 230 of the CDA, which protects online service providers from being considered the "speaker" or "publisher" of third-party information posted by users.
Yahoo should have acted more quickly, of course, but the company claimed that there was no basis in law for the suit.
Barnes countered that once the Yahoo PR person had promised to have the information removed, Yahoo was negligent in not doing so.
The judges raised the 1952 case, wondering if there might be a situation in which someone who provides public services might be considered the "publisher" of something if they refuse to take it down for a long enough period of time.
(PDF), a case that was in many ways identical to the 1952 barroom graffiti incident.
The decision itself was written by a judge with a flair for the literary and the dramatic; it makes a great read. "This case stems from a dangerous, cruel, and highly indecent use of the Internet for the apparent purpose of revenge." Back in 2004, Cecilia Barnes broke up with her boyfriend. Soon after the breakup, he created numerous fake Yahoo profiles for Barnes, then entered Yahoo chat rooms posing as Barnes and told men that he met there to check out the fake profiles. ) The fake profiles contained "some kind of open sexual solicitation," and anonymous men soon began "peppering [Barnes'] office with e-mails, phone calls, and personal visits, all in the expectation of sex." Definitely not cool.
Even more tellingly, he accidentally said he ("she") was at the office when "she" was supposed to be home from school, a glaring error that "she" immediately corrected. Criminologist Robyn Lincoln of Bond University and forensic psychologist Ian R.
The study, "No one Knows you're a Dog on the Internet: Implications for Proactive Police Investigation of Sexual Offenders," has been accepted for publication in "At his trial, he testified that he never for a moment believed he was talking to a minor; he assumed he was chatting with a bored housewife pretending to be 15." In hindsight, his perception was the TRUE REALITY.
Just like Ritter, Plumridge engaged in online chat with an undercover police officer posing as a teenage girl, in this case a 13-year-old with the screen name of "Erin Princess Baby."His defense was simple, according to a forthcoming article in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: "He claimed that he knew the person with whom he was communicating was an older male and he was simply role playing."At trial, he testified that the covert police operative inadvertently supplied various content cues as to his true age and gender.