Dad Seeks $4M After Daughter Sees Gay Porn

[CactusCarlos]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=65559&mesg_id=65559

Dad Seeks $4M After Daughter Sees Gay Porn
Posted by WillBowden on Thu Feb-21-08 05:20 PM

(Knoxville, Tennessee) A Tennessee man who once was a Big Brother contestant is seeking $4-million in damages after his young daughter opened a mailing containing gay pornography.

Kent Blackwelder, who appeared in Big Brother 2" in 2001 and now runs a sandwich shop, has filed a federal lawsuit against Delaware-based Specialty Publications which promotes adult gay material.

The lawsuit claims that the mailing was "unsolicited" and that his 12-year old daughter opened the envelope that said on the outside "free DVD" thinking it was from the Disney Corp.

Instead, the envelope contained the DVD "Titan Men's Farm Fresh," and promotional material for a gay adult magazine.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/02/022108dvd.htm

[Chris_]

This ain't gonna go anywhere. 

Unless he can prove they knew his daughter was 12 and they targeted her anyway he can't win.

They might be able to get them under some sort of Spam law, but even then, they won't have 4 dimes, much less 4 million by the time anything happens.

[mamacags]

He shouldn't sue.  He should track down the mailer and cut his balls off and make him eat them for brunch.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This ain't gonna go anywhere. 

Actually, showing pr0n to minors is illegal and the company can be sued for failure to take "due diligence."

Due diligence in civil litigation (also known as due care) is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party. Failure to make this effort may be considered negligence. This is conceptually distinct from investigative due diligence, involving a general obligation to meet a standard of behaviour. Quite often a contract will specify that a party is required to provide due diligence.7

It is not correct to confuse due care and due diligence. Due care should be spelt out in full as duty of care. It is a legal concept by itself. Duty of care may be very wide, far reaching, and also a grey area subject to argument. Basically, parents owe their infant a duty of care in everything. As the infant grows to be a child, to be an adolescent, an adult, the duty of care and its scope become less and less. Fundamentally, a duty of care is a moral duty to care. When legal acknowledgement is extended to this moral obligation, then this duty becomes a legal requirement. Inversely, the legislature sets the duty in the statute. Then we consider this duty as legal and amoral ["a-", without, not having to consider the moral aspect].

When read carefully, care is the passive mode; diligence is the active mode.

First the duty of care (due care) arises, making it a requirement. In order to fulfill this duty, due diligence is exercised. The flow may be continuous, but these two concepts are different. When due diligence is called for, then there will be a set of demands to be complied with, depending on the context. For example, before a surgery, what should be done and who should be present in the theatre? After the surgery, what must be done to the patient, equipment, facilities?

As a matter of independent inquiry, whether by a court of law or professional body, the line of investigation is: (1) Is there a duty of care? How is this duty of care imputed? (Previous case law, statute, new case) (2) If the duty of care exists, what are the applicable standards? In other words, what due diligence (and the components that go to make it a comprehensive due diligence) is required?

The last issue is always considered in light of specific circumstances of the case. If brain surgery is involved, the standards are those required of competent brain surgeons. If deep sea welding is involved, the standards are those required of competent deep sea welders. In an auction of a Picasso, due diligence standard must be comparable with an international auctioneer to authenticate an art object. In the sale of a diamond, due diligence may be necessary from human rights and political aspects. As such, expert opinions are often considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence

It could be argued that sending unsolicited mail to a private residence wherein minor children could presumably reside made for a situation wherein children could be exposed to pornography. Children in homes are a common occurrence. Unsolicited gay porn in the mail is not.

Had the mail been solicited the responsibility would be on the party placing the order.

[Chris_]

It could be argued that sending unsolicited mail to a private residence wherein minor children could presumably reside made for a situation wherein children could be exposed to pornography. Children in homes are a common occurrence. Unsolicited gay porn in the mail is not.

Had the mail been solicited the responsibility would be on the party placing the order.

The obvious counter argument is the children should be monitored when using the computer and the fault is with the father for being a bad and lazy parent.  That is one of the problems with a suit like this -- every aspect of the family's parenting is open for discovery.  If I was defending this (I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Days Inn last week), I would make the father out to be a lax parent who lets his kids do anything they want and doesn't monitor their activities on the Internet  or in RL.

This could get ugly and, as I said, the target can just go to the Barbados and start the same site with a different name if things look like they will go south.  It is a civil trial so you can't detain people, nor can you freeze assets before a judgment is rendered.

Loss and loss of face and reputation, worst case.  Win a Pyhrric victory and still lose face and reputation, best case.

And before you all give me the "this must be STOPPED" speech, the bottom line is that 80% of all email is spam, most of which is sexual in nature.  If Daddy didn't teach his kid safe computing (never open an email from anyone you don't know), then he is part of the problem.  It could have been a virus that wiped out the whole computer, so I don't think I am off base here.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The obvious counter argument is the children should be monitored when using the computer and the fault is with the father for being a bad and lazy parent.  That is one of the problems with a suit like this -- every aspect of the family's parenting is open for discovery.  If I was defending this (I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Days Inn last week), I would make the father out to be a lax parent who lets his kids do anything they want and doesn't monitor their activities on the Internet  or in RL.

Um-m-m...

You do realize it was a DVD sent via snail-mail in this case, don't you?

The lawsuit claims that the mailing was "unsolicited" and that his 12-year old daughter opened the envelope that said on the outside "free DVD" thinking it was from the Disney Corp.

Instead, the envelope contained the DVD "Titan Men's Farm Fresh," and promotional material for a gay adult magazine.

[Chris_]

The obvious counter argument is the children should be monitored when using the computer and the fault is with the father for being a bad and lazy parent.  That is one of the problems with a suit like this -- every aspect of the family's parenting is open for discovery.  If I was defending this (I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Days Inn last week), I would make the father out to be a lax parent who lets his kids do anything they want and doesn't monitor their activities on the Internet  or in RL.

Um-m-m...

You do realize it was a DVD sent via snail-mail in this case, don't you?

The lawsuit claims that the mailing was "unsolicited" and that his 12-year old daughter opened the envelope that said on the outside "free DVD" thinking it was from the Disney Corp.

Instead, the envelope contained the DVD "Titan Men's Farm Fresh," and promotional material for a gay adult magazine.

*WHACK* on my own forehead.  I thought it was email!! 

Ah, that is a whole new kettle of worms.

I take back everything I said about this case (but leave it up for email cases).

Dang -- my Perry Mason moment gone in a flash of fact!

ps: I still think the perpetrator will skip town.

[Chris_]

This ain't gonna go anywhere. 

Actually, showing pr0n to minors is illegal and the company can be sued for failure to take "due diligence."

Due diligence in civil litigation (also known as due care) is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party. Failure to make this effort may be considered negligence. This is conceptually distinct from investigative due diligence, involving a general obligation to meet a standard of behaviour. Quite often a contract will specify that a party is required to provide due diligence.7

It is not correct to confuse due care and due diligence. Due care should be spelt out in full as duty of care. It is a legal concept by itself. Duty of care may be very wide, far reaching, and also a grey area subject to argument. Basically, parents owe their infant a duty of care in everything. As the infant grows to be a child, to be an adolescent, an adult, the duty of care and its scope become less and less. Fundamentally, a duty of care is a moral duty to care. When legal acknowledgement is extended to this moral obligation, then this duty becomes a legal requirement. Inversely, the legislature sets the duty in the statute. Then we consider this duty as legal and amoral ["a-", without, not having to consider the moral aspect].

When read carefully, care is the passive mode; diligence is the active mode.

First the duty of care (due care) arises, making it a requirement. In order to fulfill this duty, due diligence is exercised. The flow may be continuous, but these two concepts are different. When due diligence is called for, then there will be a set of demands to be complied with, depending on the context. For example, before a surgery, what should be done and who should be present in the theatre? After the surgery, what must be done to the patient, equipment, facilities?

As a matter of independent inquiry, whether by a court of law or professional body, the line of investigation is: (1) Is there a duty of care? How is this duty of care imputed? (Previous case law, statute, new case) (2) If the duty of care exists, what are the applicable standards? In other words, what due diligence (and the components that go to make it a comprehensive due diligence) is required?

The last issue is always considered in light of specific circumstances of the case. If brain surgery is involved, the standards are those required of competent brain surgeons. If deep sea welding is involved, the standards are those required of competent deep sea welders. In an auction of a Picasso, due diligence standard must be comparable with an international auctioneer to authenticate an art object. In the sale of a diamond, due diligence may be necessary from human rights and political aspects. As such, expert opinions are often considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence

It could be argued that sending unsolicited mail to a private residence wherein minor children could presumably reside made for a situation wherein children could be exposed to pornography. Children in homes are a common occurrence. Unsolicited gay porn in the mail is not.

Had the mail been solicited the responsibility would be on the party placing the order.

That's true. But unfortunately our PC court system won't see it that way.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

*WHACK* on my own forehead.  I thought it was email!! 

Ah, that is a whole new kettle of worms.

I take back everything I said about this case (but leave it up for email cases).

Dang -- my Perry Mason moment gone in a flash of fact!

ps: I still think the perpetrator will skip town.

n/p mate, we've all one it; me included. Today was just your turn.

 

[Lauri]

can a case be made for the kid opening mail that wasnt addressed to her?


i hate all this gay crapolla being foisted on our kids as much as anyone - but why is the kid opening mail, even if she thinks its from Disney? my kids know i will give them what is theirs, but the mail is mine or jeff's to open.


i also doubt this will go anywhere. think of all the kids who have witnessed dad's Hustler over the years?

[Chris_]

can a case be made for the kid opening mail that wasnt addressed to her?


i hate all this gay crapolla being foisted on our kids as much as anyone - but why is the kid opening mail, even if she thinks its from Disney? my kids know i will give them what is theirs, but the mail is mine or jeff's to open.


i also doubt this will go anywhere. think of all the kids who have witnessed dad's Hustler over the years?

It is an interesting angle. A more 3-D version of the cyberargument I made above.  Both sides have some interesting legal ground to cover here.

But I'll wager real money it will get settled -- and for not very much.

[Lauri]

can a case be made for the kid opening mail that wasnt addressed to her?


i hate all this gay crapolla being foisted on our kids as much as anyone - but why is the kid opening mail, even if she thinks its from Disney? my kids know i will give them what is theirs, but the mail is mine or jeff's to open.


i also doubt this will go anywhere. think of all the kids who have witnessed dad's Hustler over the years?

It is an interesting angle. A more 3-D version of the cyberargument I made above.  Both sides have some interesting legal ground to cover here.

But I'll wager real money it will get settled -- and for not very much.

yeah, i think that unless the gay porn company put it in the girl's hands and told her to open it and then look at it on her computer, the dad really cant do much else.

its pretty unfortunate that she saw it, but to me, the best thing to do is just explain what she saw, in terms she can understand. and then move on.

if dad grinds on this for months or years to come, THAT will affect his daughter more than what she saw.