The 14 year old’s mother left an old laptop in a closet and now alleges it’s adult sites’ problem that he watched porn.
A Kansas mother who left an old laptop in a closet is suing multiple porn sites because her teenage son visited them on that computer.
The complaints, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for Kansas, allege that the teen had “unfettered access” to a variety of adult streaming sites, and accuses the sites of providing inadequate age verification as required by Kansas law.
A press release from the National Center for Sexual Exploitation, which is acting as co-counsel in this lawsuit, names Chaturbate, Jerkmate, Techpump Solutions (Superporn.com), and Titan Websites (Hentai City) as defendants in four different lawsuits.
So if it weren’t a web site… would she be able to sue 7-11 if the kid found a playboy someone else in her house bought?
Could she sue them if the employee was doing their duty, but a kid broke 7-11’s rule, snuck around and stole one?
The site was illegally breached (accessed in violation of their terms) and the kid accessed content not appropriate for them.
How is the site liable? Doesn’t dmca precedent here say the kid is at fault for bypassing access controls?
Let’s not get it twisted. If he was just watching videos on RedTube or something, I don’t think that would have been a huge issue. But what you don’t want is a minor in a chat app actively talking to groomers and what not. I feel like a lot of you would be way less judgy here if it had been a 14-year-old girl on a porn site with adult men.
Doesn’t change the fact that the parent wasn’t parenting their child.
You’re right, kids should grow up in a highly observed police state experience with constant observation so nothing is ever the fault of corporations. Turns out Mom has to work when kid is off school and trying to keep someone offline now is nearly impossible. There’s a myriad of endpoints. I think the parenting aspect here is the mom should be explaining to the son why sites like Chaturbate are extremely dangerous. It’s not parenting to constantly police your child. I find it hilarious that a generation that grew up just disappearing into the night until the lights came on for dinner advocates that anytime a parent isn’t directly looking at their child, they’re wildly irresponsible.
I grew up with completely unfettered access to the internet. I first had sex with a married woman that I met on a site when I was 15. I think I largely turned out okay, but I can understand why someone may not want that to be possible for their child.
Don’t change the gender, change the event. Teen shoots self on the foot while playing with parent’s unsecured revolver. Is Smith and Wesson responsible?
Morally? Maybe. Legally? Hardly.
If dems went on that basis to push gun laws Republicans would have a fit. That’s how you know the political attention and support around this event is an hypocritical act. This has nothing to do with protecting children, but all with exerting government control over citizen’s internet activity.
Grooming happens everywhere on the internet, and Kansas laws aren’t aimed at that at all. Xitter, Facebook, tiktok, Snapchat, Instagram are way bigger vectors of child grooming. We’ve known for a decade that social media is the biggest source of CSAM, usually with way less moderation than porn sites. But this isn’t about children, it is about pushing a purinatical agenda to get support for a party to acquire control of free speech online and ultimately squash dissent and independent thinking.
Lol okay let’s equate a computer and gun, this is a hilariously bad argument
Imagine watching porn like everybody else and now your mom sues multiple billion dollar porn companies and everyone around you will know about her idea to do so…
At the schoolyard:
So my mom commented on my tiktok dance, cringe!
You think that’s cringe, I borrowed the laptop and now my mom is suing a bunch of porn companies.
Her logic is, “I was a bad neglectful parent so now you must pay.” Nonsense.
Who shit myself
If only there was a person that’s supposed to care for and watch over this kid.
Uncle Sam, right?
/s
SOCIALISM REEEEEE
Nope, this child is already born, should have stayed in the womb, that ungrate.
The right wings infatuation with the government needing to parent for them. Tucker opening to an audience with “Daddy’s coming home” and talking about how the left thinks of the government as being the nanny state (how much protection??)
Eminem had it right, “shouldn’t you have been watching him? Apparently you ain’t parents”
Admin already wanna ban porn, I’d be surprised if they didn’t use this to push that agenda
The porn ban is more focused on banning trans people. They have been systematically redefining LGBTQ+ people as pornographic, especially trans people. So if they manage to ban porn, they can use that to wipe any and all LGBTQ+ representation. Gay romance novel? Banned cuz it’s porn. Two female characters happened to hold hands? Banned cuz it’s porn. Trans people existing in public? Banned cuz it’s porn.
It’s always projection.
Man imagine having your goon receipts be public court record at 14.
Also the National Center on Sexual Exploitation is exactly what you’d expect: a bunch of Catholic loons trying to legislate their moral dysfunction upon the country.
I’d genuinely die if the amount of times I got off to femboys while pretending to be straight got out when I was 14 .
The more I think about it the less funny it is.
A particularly vulnerable teen would consider suicide, from the bullying if not the embarrassment.
We laugh, but that mom is the kind of person that wholeheartedly supports the ‘You must provide proof of age to access adult sites’ laws that’re poised to ruin the internet.
And all because she’s too lazy and / or too incompetent to properly parent her child. If you really think something is dangerous for your kid, you’re the number one person responsible to keep them away from it.
How could it be my fault my kid got hit by a car? The government built the street in front of my house!
I consider that analogy somewhat different. Being able to leave your home to travel safely is a basic human right. Cars on roads are inherently dangerous, even if you try to be defensive as a pedestrian. You can be sitting in your grassy front yard and vehicles can come crashing in to kill you. That happens on a regular basis in the US. You can be walking on the sidewalk and have a car run you down. The vision of kids running into the street to be hit isn’t the only risk, merely existing is. Hell, there’s plenty of people killed in their home by cars crashing into their houses!
Car crashes are the #2 reason for children’s deaths in the US (#1 is now guns, it was cars until about 3 years ago). It’s the #3 reason for adults to die after heart disease and cancer. Those stats are actually low balling it because we’re finding the noise and pollution from cars jacks up many of the other categories (including heart disease, cancer, dementia). Living by car roads is just inherently dangerous, regardless of how you try to teach your kids to avoid being run down in their own neighborhood.
The government building car only infrastructure, I feel, is an immoral and murderous act against the public. It’s categorically different from the parental preference of whether your 14 year old manages to see some porn using a computer you bought on an Internet connection you installed.
The government building car only infrastructure, I feel, is an immoral and murderous act against the public.
It ought to be considered malpractice on the part of the civil engineers.
The government should be paying millions of dollars to the family every time someone dies of car.
Or because a lawyer approached her about it…
laughing at her, not with her.
So they want us to use our ID card every time we use the Internet now?
Maybe they can countersue for her negligence in leaving the laptop unsecured…
shes the one paying for the isp, and should be monitoring his internet usage. just shut it off at certain times of the day when your not home, or when hes not doing hw.
A victimless crime?
The victim is probably the porn industry in this case. An unsecured laptop on an unsecured network is a porn machine. They had a porn machine in their house the whole time. This makes about as much sense as suing Jack Daniels because your kid got drunk when you went away and didn’t lock up your booze.
Victimless? Every sperm is sacred!
Yeah but flip the gender and see how it sits
Like, a girl jaggin’ in the closet and daddy sues the porn company?
Sits the same for me?
What am I missing here?
I’m not getting your point. Why does it matter if it’s a girl enjoying porn?
This Karen probably won’t explain sex to her kids, so they have to get info in other ways.
“Oh no, my little girl found our unsecure laptop and used it to enjoy porn using Chaturbate.”
Yeah I still don’t see how it’s the platform’s problem that that mom failed to lock the laptop. And I feel really bad for her kid, for having such a Karen for a mom.
I didn’t say it was the platforms problem. The topic was how the boy wasn’t a victim. So you go on to say that the girl WOULD be a victim (to her mother) proving my point.
The boy would definitely also be his mom’s victim, but please note what I said: “I feel really bad for her kid for having a Karen for a mom.”
That you read that to only mean “girl” is not my problem. As far as I know, her kid is not a girl, but a boy.It’s funny because we don’t even disagree. Your first comment isn’t even related to the topic and your second is arguing a moot point. But go off I guess.
It depends on what you consider the crime to be. Is it the mom outing her kid’s porn habits or the kid using a platform in the way it’s meant to be used, but not by kids of his age?
If it’s the latter, I’d argue that is a victimless crime. If it’s the former, then yes, the kid (male or female) would be the victim.
Well I’d hate to assume what OP meant by “crime” but whatever it was certainly wasn’t victimless.
I don’t think either of your options for “crime” here make sense. The root problem isn’t the porn site. Or “outing” the kid. It’s that kids probably don’t need unrestricted access to the entire internet. All mom had to do was put a password on the laptop.
