Originally posted by no1marauderSo far, none of the suits against myspace or facebook have been dismissed because the plaintiff lacked legal capacity.
Your attempts at legalese are laughable. According to your theory, every site on the net is legally liable if they present material that is inappropriate for minors even if the site rules explicitly ban minors. That is utter nonsense.
Originally posted by Red NightSuits for what?
So far, none of the suits against myspace or facebook have been dismissed because the plaintiff lacked legal capacity.
Someone who falsely misrepresents their age to gain access to a web site isn't going to be able successfully sue claiming damages for "inappropriate" material for someone their actual age. If you think differently, you are sadly misinformed.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's alright, that's the goal. As long as the 13+ can't acsess the +18 forum then 1/2 the battle is one. Just 1/2
The same people would go on that forum and complain about everything they complain about now except they wouldn't have to fake the "save the kiddies" rationale - which is never what their complaining is really about anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by YEAH BOYIt doesn't really solve anything. The 13-17 year olds that are here (assuming some are here) are already misrepresenting their age; what's to stop them from getting on the 18+ Forum?
That's alright, that's the goal. As long as the 13+ can't acsess the +18 forum then 1/2 the battle is one. Just 1/2
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I hire a 14 year old to paint my house and they paint my house, I cannot refuse to pay because the 14 year old lacked capacity.
Your attempts at legalese are laughable. According to your theory, every site on the net is legally liable if they present material that is inappropriate for minors even if the site rules explicitly ban minors. That is utter nonsense.
If I hire a 14 year old to paint my house and give them a defective ladder to do the job, I cannot use their lack of capacity as a defense when they fall and injure themselves.
Conversely, if I hire a 14 year-old to paint my house for $10,000 and they don't do it, I cannot sue them for the additional expense to hire a real painter, because they lacked capacity.
Do you understand now?
My advice to you is to stick to house closings.
Originally posted by Red NightRHP doesn't "hire" 14 year olds, moron. They tell 14 year olds by the TOS that they can't register on this site. If the 14 year old does anyway by falsely claiming to be of legal age to make a contract, he can't later claim that material on the site was "inappropriate" for his age when people his age aren't supposed to be here.
If I hire a 14 year old to paint my house and they paint my house, I cannot refuse to pay because the 14 year old lacked capacity.
If I hire a 14 year old to paint my house and give them a defective ladder to do the job, I cannot use their lack of capacity as a defense when they fall and injure themselves.
Conversely, if I hire a 14 year-old to paint ...[text shortened]... y lacked capacity.
Do you understand now?
My advice to you is to stick to house closings.
Go back to telling people in the TSM what to think; you obviously don't know jack about the law.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23342
Originally posted by Very Rustymy guess is that they would have to make everyone agree to the terms that they're over 18 and they understand that tis forum may contain...whatever. if a 14 year old agrees then it has nothing to do with rhp.
Well if you had a special 18+ Forum Only... How would you actually keep any minors out of it? Might this present a Legal problem for the site?
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23342
Originally posted by no1marauderdude, what were you asked when you joined the site? that you were over 13 or over 18?
RHP doesn't "hire" 14 year olds, moron. They tell 14 year olds by the TOS that they can't register on this site. If the 14 year old does anyway by falsely claiming to be of legal age to make a contract, he can't later claim that material on the site was "inappropriate" for his age when people his age aren't supposed to be here.
Go back to telling people in the TSM what to think; you obviously don't know jack about the law.
Originally posted by no1marauderLet me ask you a question. Lets say that the legal age to be served a dink is age 21. Lets then assume some minor walks into a bar where it is posted that no one under the age of 21 is allowed to be served liquor. What would happen to a bar tender if they serve a drink to say a 13 year old who first claims to be 21 and then latter confesses to be 13. What would happen to the business establishment say that child has an accident in that club? Would the establishment have any legal liabilities in a court of law. Would their liquor license possibly be suspended if a member of the Alcohol, tobacco , and fire arms was to walk in and see these children in this club being served liquor?
Suits for what?
Someone who falsely misrepresents their age to gain access to a web site isn't going to be able successfully sue claiming damages for "inappropriate" material for someone their actual age. If you think differently, you are sadly misinformed.
Now this example might be slightly extreme for a forum, because I don't know what the actual case laws are, but I hope you can kind of see what I am getting at. There are Minors here, we know they are here, yet the bouncer is letting them stay. even though the Tos says it's a no, no.
Originally posted by no1marauderAgree to your age when you join. Cotractually that should cover RHP. Again i'm not a lawyer. I only play one on TV
It doesn't really solve anything. The 13-17 year olds that are here (assuming some are here) are already misrepresenting their age; what's to stop them from getting on the 18+ Forum?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThen you would be wrong, because I am agreeing with you. They don't so why have they NOT been bounced? If they are still here and they are, then does that not put some liability on this site? Even if only 40%?
All of it as you apparently think that minors have some contractual authority to be on this site when they clearly don't.