PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Father can be sued for son's Net abuse
December 5th 2000, 00:28 CET by Andy

A father can be sued for damages after his son allegedly posted a sexually explicit photo, superimposed with a female classmate's face, on his web site, a Chicago judge has ruled.

The girl is seeking at least $50,000 from the boy and his father.

Judge Ward S. Arnold last week dismissed two counts against J. Bowen Palenske, but ruled he could be sued for not properly supervising his son's use of the family computer.

Palenske's attorney argues that for him to be liable, it must be proved that the computer was a "dangerous article" which Palenske knew would be used to harm others.

The girl's attorney claims Palenske should have known such use of the computer was possible, and even likely, as an older son had already created similar material.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Father can be sued for son's Net abuse

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2000-12-05 00:31:21
pianist@canada.com
FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!! WARREN MARSHALL YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!
#2 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2000-12-05 00:34:42
pianist@canada.com
The father should have taught his kid not to be a fucking idiot. Yes, he should be sued. Yes, the kid should be beat up for being a loser. Yes, American parents should either start doing their job or stop having kids.
#3 by "Orpheus"
2000-12-05 00:39:30
RobertHeadley@email.com
... well,
I dont know if the Father is completely at blame. Would you want your parents constantly watching what your doing online ? even if you werent doing anything nasty. Sure, the parents provided the computer, (or so I assume)
but, the kid should be liable for his actions.
#4 by "BinaryC"
2000-12-05 00:56:39
binaryc@teamreaction.com
uhm... $50,000 because your head is on a pr0n pic?  Jevus, what has the world come to...
#5 by "Frijoles"
2000-12-05 01:07:55
aarona@cc.usu.edu
Erm.. why don't one of you take MY head and put it on a nekkid body.. then I can make some money. Hell, you can put it on a goat. I don't care, as long as I can sue you and pay off college.
#6 by "None1a"
2000-12-05 01:14:31
none1a@home.com
Um, the parents are always liable for what their children do. This isn't some shocking new revelation in the legal system here.

BTY I any one would want to past my head on porn, pay me $100 and I'm good (for $350 I'll take a naked priture of myself, no pasting required :)
#7 by "Intaglio"
2000-12-05 01:21:30
eric@gurutech.org
The father should have taught his kid not to be a fucking idiot. Yes, he should be sued. Yes, the kid should be beat up for being a loser. Yes, American parents should either start doing their job or stop having kids.

Thats rediculous, some people take the "your kids, your responsibility" rhetoric too far. Its not that parents arent teaching their kids the difference between right and wrong these days, its that people have realized they can exploit the legal system and get away with it.

Asking $50,000 for having your head superimposed into pornography is exploitation, plain and simple.
#8 by "Preacher"
2000-12-05 01:26:31
preacher@unreality.org
How old are the boy and girl?
#9 by "Sgt_Hulka"
2000-12-05 01:27:59
rwaring@ameritech.net
Goodness Gracious!  Great Balls of Fire!

Mom / Dad - Run for the HILLS!

My parents are going to owe a shitload of money to boatloads of people!!!
#10 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2000-12-05 01:28:39
pianist@canada.com
You're sick Henrik. Sick.
#11 by "Preacher"
2000-12-05 02:09:29
preacher@unreality.org
Nah Pianist.. Just a tad horny, that's all...
#12 by "Quicken"
2000-12-05 04:57:04
geoffrey@access.com.au
I don't think it's an issue the parent(s) having to pay up. I mean if the kid took photos of the girl (the full deal) and posted those up on the net we wouldn't be talking about it here. I think the issue is should the superimposed photos be treated as seriously as the real photos. Sure it's a large sum in damages but hey it's like that in American courts. I think it's fine as it has the same sort of impact as having the full real photos instead of some fakes. It's easy these days to make fakes that no one could spot the difference with and it could make some career choices for her impossible if the employer thinks she posed nude at such a young age (so just how old are they?)
#13 by "bago"
2000-12-05 05:29:27
manga_rando@hotmail.com
In another time, a good smack across the chops would have saved a lot of fuss.
#14 by "AshRain"
2000-12-05 10:10:31
ikhier@wish.net
People who sew for that much money for such a trivial thing should be shot.
#15 by "BloodKnight"
2000-12-05 13:04:47
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
Yeah another example of parenting in this generation sucking ass
#16 by "legion88"
2000-12-05 13:12:03
legion88@yahoo.com
The girl knows how to make a quick buck.  She knows her stuff.  How old is she?

As for the boy and father, it is claimed that the son provided similar material before.  If so, then the father did nothing stop it or failed to stop it.  For all we know, the father encouraged it.  Don't assume that the son was not raised properly.   There are parents out there who are teaching their kids to be bad.  I hope people know that.  Look at the hardware scene.  There are fathers who go on the Internet and lie about other people for the sake of their video card or company.
#17 by "Andy"
2000-12-05 13:18:45
andy@meejahor.com
A couple of people have asked, but I'm afraid I don't know how old the girl or boy is. They're described as classmates, so they're around the same age, and they attend Marian Central Catholic High School so... teenagers?
#18 by "Preacher"
2000-12-05 13:29:13
preacher@unreality.org
Perhaps the dad was just encouraging his son to take up a career where he's got to be able to use Photoshop or another similar program.
#19 by "Andy"
2000-12-05 14:18:02
andy@meejahor.com
Well I've tried to find out how old they are, but this story just isn't getting a lot of coverage and I'm NOT calling Chicago.

But hey, some of you folks think you're better at getting info than I am, so I'm sure one of you can find out easily enough. Can't you? ;-)
#20 by "Stallion"
2000-12-05 20:28:29
clambert@gamespy.com
None1a:
<quote>Um, the parents are always liable for what their children do. This isn't some shocking new revelation in the legal system here.</quote>
The issue is not of the parents being liable, but its about the computer being a "dangerous article" and the boys father not recognizing that. Its ridiculous...only as dangerous as a photo album and a pair of sissors.
#21 by "None1a"
2000-12-05 21:03:39
none1a@home.com
The issue is not of the parents being liable, but its about the computer being a "dangerous article" and the boys father not recognizing that. Its ridiculous...only as dangerous as a photo album and a pair of sissors.


So I guess sending virus, trying to hack into your bank account, or any number of other things would not be dangerous.

Ona releated note looks like my kid brother has been downloading kiddy porn again, time to set a new user password (see it's not like it's even hard to stop).
#22 by "Stallion"
2000-12-05 21:14:53
clambert@gamespy.com
must be proved that the computer was a "dangerous article" which Palenske knew would be used to harm others.

If the parent knows that the computer is being used to send viri or hack back accounts, then they're responsible, but I don't think that was the case.
#23 by "Gunp01nt"
2000-12-05 22:31:52
supersimon33@hotmail.com
Ah, well, the USA has always been kind of a strange country.
"Well, I'm under 21 so I can easily get an M16 and blast the shit out of everybody I encounter and make it so my dad gets the blame for it!" (apologies to people from Columbine High School) This is kinda weird, don'tcha think?

You all know that story of this woman who washed her doggy and tried to dry him in the microwave, killing the poor animal. Then she sued the microwave company for not mentioning that this could be harmful, in the manual. She won.

Tsssj, ZIJN ZE NOU HELEMAAL BESODEMIETERD??!?! :-)
#24 by "None1a"
2000-12-06 00:54:11
none1a@home.com
If the parent knows that the computer is being used to send viri or hack back accounts, then they're responsible, but I don't think that was the case.


According to the girls laywer the the fathers older son had already created the same stuff. This should have told him to watch the other son as well. It doesn't matter anyway since it's assumed (mostly incorectly) that parents keep a eye on their kids, when he creating a viri or hacking back account (or pasting up nudies) the parent should know about it. This mean they've failed in their duty to watch their kids or they allow it to happen, eather way they should be punished.

Ah, well, the USA has always been kind of a strange country.
"Well, I'm under 21 so I can easily get an M16 and blast the shit out of everybody I encounter and make it so my dad gets the blame for it!"


Not really, for crimminal stuff the kids are mostly to blame (the parents will have to pay for juvinal court fees, which can run any where from 100-400 depending on the state). If say one of the other parents desided to sue the killers parents would take up most of the responcability. The court fees are probably the number on reason you don't see many parent turning their kids in for stuff (your kid could be beating the the hell out of you daily, put calling the cop and having the kid taken away will get you charge, thats fucking odd).
#25 by "Vengeance"
2000-12-06 02:28:43
rhiggi@home.com
Damn I miss CS.  Oh well, in respone to noone :-), by that same logic a pencil is a "dangerous article".   I could write death threats to the President, black mail people, all sorts of dangerous things.   Hell, if it came down to it, I'm sure you could stab someone to death with a sharp pencil (better make it a number 2 those big ones are a little bulky).  
So now I suppose you'll suggest his dad keeps the pencils locked in a safe?

The boy should be punished if his intent was to hurt the girl.  Something meaningful and not money.  What the hell does he care about how much it is if his dad has to pay for it.  Thats the problem with suing the parents for money, you punish the parents and the child doesn't learn anything (they don't necessarily know the meaning of money, dont believe me, go to Toys R Us - yes even teenagers).  The money isn't going to help the girl, her parents are going to get it, not her (I assume its not going to a trust fund). and her lawyers will get most of it.  Its bullshit, plain and simple.  Too bad we dont know more about the boy and girl, but they are probably minors so I doubt theres much information out there.

Quicken:  It all depends on the photos now doesn't it?  If its completely obvious that the head and body don't match, we don't have much to argue about.

Also, there are probably some appeals left.  This judges ruling doesn't make sense to me unless you can prove some information we don't have available to us.

All because Andy won't call Chicago... heh heh, just kidding :-)

V
#26 by "Tech"
2000-12-06 03:30:00
techsupport@madmail.com
Society Today...
It is a shame....

http://uls.clanpages.com
#27 by "None1a"
2000-12-06 05:47:36
none1a@home.com
Damn I miss CS. Oh well, in respone to noone :-), by that same logic a pencil is a "dangerous article". I could write death threats to the President, black mail people, all sorts of dangerous things.


Some one had damn well know the kid was writing and sendind death threats (acctauly I think their are a few cases like that, but I'm just to lazy to go look them up right now). Any way it still doesn't really matter, the parent is always liable for monitary damages for any thing their kids do, no matter what. Remember that in order to get damages you've got to prove the images harmed her in some way (50,000 does seam like a large amount, consdering the damages would have been therapy bills), but then again some of the waky sexual harasment cases make it possible to get money this type of thing with no lose. O and BTY a pencil doesn't have to be sharp to stab someone with.
#28 by "AshRain"
2000-12-06 10:06:06
ikhier@wish.net
You all know that story of this woman who washed her doggy and tried to dry him in the microwave, killing the poor animal. Then she sued the microwave company for not mentioning that this could be harmful, in the manual. She won.


Actually it was a cat. I think.
Btw Gunp01int, I have a strong feeling that it's a Dutch urban legend. I know the story too but I don't think anyone outside the Netherlands does.

Tsssj, ZIJN ZE NOU HELEMAAL BESODEMIETERD??!?!

Also Dutch and Belgians are notorious for inserting Dutch sentances into English language forums. :)

Zoals dit bijvoorbeeld. :P

Remember that in order to get damages you've got to prove the images harmed her in some way (50,000 does seam like a large amount, consdering the damages would have been therapy bills),


People who really need therapy for something like this should also be shot.
So far this girl/parents have earned two bullets. One for displaying blatant parasitic behaviour and one for being an pityfull emotional weakling.
#29 by "TomC"
2000-12-06 15:50:32
tc10@st-andrews.ac.uk
AshRain/Gunp01nt:

It's an urban legend :)
#30 by "AshRain"
2000-12-06 16:04:36
ikhier@wish.net
Whoopie, I was right :)
#31 by "Napoleon"
2000-12-06 23:16:02
nap@softhome.net
Of course the father is liable for the son. It's like that in most legal systems around the world. However, the real question should be how LARGE the actual damage done is. I mean, the girl will just become more popular, with all the jocks flocking to protect her, and the boy will become an even larger outcast than he probably already is. And you will NOT convince me that the girl actually suffers a psychological trauma from all this.
In short, the boy, IMHO, has to pay a fine, yes, for Slander, or Libel, or whatever the exact US legalese term is, but there IS no objective damage, so he should not have to pay any damages.
To me, the 50k claim just SCREAMS that no real damage has been suffered. The girl's parents are seeing a get-rich-quick scheme right before their eyes, probably.

Also, why is it that everywhere you go, there always seem to be some dutch people :)
Goed zo jongens, ga zo door!
#32 by "legion88"
2000-12-07 13:17:55
legion88@yahoo.com
#31,
I mean, the girl will just become more popular, with all the jocks flocking to protect her, and the boy will become an even larger outcast than he probably already is.


Either you do not remember high school very well, or this is a dutch thing:)

Here in the U.S. the boy probably might be more of an outcast than before.  But the girl is now a target by those "jocks" that you mentioned (not to mention others).  They will not be lining up to protect her.  (Okay, some will but not all will want to "protect" her.)  She would be teased from weeks maybe months on end because of those nude pics of "her".  The question then becomes, which one of those jocks would progress from teasing to actual physical harassment.

Some people are pretty short-sighted when it comes to writing.  They think that if the words don't kill then it is okay.  Some never stop to think the influence that these words (or pictures) have on OTHER PEOPLE, not just the target of the joke.  More often than not, it is those other people you have to worry about, especially if those other people are physically present five days a week, 7 hours per day.
#33 by "Napoleon"
2000-12-08 13:07:06
nap@softhome.net
legion: okay, let me expand a bit...the boy was probably an outcast already. Who do these outcasts target? The hugely popular girls. At least, that's what I THINK they'd do. And those hugely popular girls will only get more popular.

Allow me to make an example. When I was in high school (two years ago ;) ) some guy from my class got a crush on a girl. The girl was pretty weird as well, but she was reasonably liked. The guy who got the crush was seen as a harmless nerd. What did the guy do? He started stalking the girl. He took pictures of her, he called her on the phone, and taped it when she said hi, but he never revealed it was him. He finally put all his stuff up on a site, and on Valentine's day, he sent a postcard, with on it the url to the site to a couple of key persons in school. The most popular guys, mostly. Someone told the girl about the site, and she almost had a nervous breakdown because she had been stalked. The guy knew almost everything about her, and he even printed her home address and phone number on the site. Result, however, the guy got completely outcasted, and the girl DID get more support, and became a lot more popular.

But maybe that's a dutch thing? ;)
#34 by Squeaky
2004-09-23 11:33:07
You missed one, gman.

UAC will be like the Far Side of webcomics, if Gary Larson hadn't been such a pussy about rape humour.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Father can be sued for son's Net abuse

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]