MySpace sued over 2006 suicide
MySpace Sued Over 2006 Teen Suicide:
in 2006 15-year-old Kristin Helms of California committed suicide. She was having sexual relationship with 27-year-old Kiley Bowers. The two had initially met when Helms contacted Bowers through his page on Geocities, a free and shabby webhosting company owned by Yahoo. The two continued to chat over Yahoo Messenger then Bowers convinced Helms to get a MySpace so the two could communicate that way. In late 2005, the pair finally met when Helms snuck out of her house and Bowers took her to a local motel. In June of ‘06 Bowers stated to Helms that he now just wanted to be friends. A month later Helms took her own life.
On July 17th, 2006, the girl hanged herself. In her suicide note she referenced Bowers, the “man who raped me.”
Now the family is suing MySpace because they claim in so many words that MySpace did nothing to stop the ‘relationship’.
Kevin Poulsen of Wired, who wrote the article, is saying what we’re all thinking…
But it’s not clear why MySpace should be held responsible. This isn’t a case of a predator finding victims on the social networking site. Helms didn’t even have a MySpace profile when she first started chatting with Bowers online.
Which of course is just common sense. As we all know common sense is thrown out the window when it comes to lawsuits.
I am deeply saddened by the death Kristin Helms. Do I think MySpace should be sued because of it. Not at all. If anything Bowers, who is already incarcerated on charges of traveling across state lines to have sex with a minor and transporting child pornography, should be charged in Kristin Helms death as well.
I’ll even take it one step further. When are we going to start holding parents responsible for not keeping better tabs on their child’s internet behavior?
Tags: , kiley bowers, kristin helms, Lawsuit, MySpace, suicide
15 opinions for MySpace sued over 2006 suicide
BelchSpeak
Feb 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Shouldn’t they be suing Bebo for the hanging?
Kristin Helms Internet Safety Foundation
Feb 26, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Mr. Belch . . .
There is nothing humorous about the sexual molestation, death / suicide of a teen . . .Or the dangers that the Internet has brought to children in the last 10 years.
Bored bloggers make extreme assumptions, writing cruel, ignorant and ridiculous comments in an effort to cause pain due to the shield of anonymity the Internet provides. Pertinent facts, a clear desire to aid other families, and a glimpse of the profound love Kristin experienced in her 16 years and 40 days of life can be found at http://www.kristinhelmsfoundation.org .
Linker Barn: Hump Day February 27
Feb 27, 2008 at 1:42 am
[…] MySpace sued in California suicide. […]
BelchSpeak
Feb 27, 2008 at 2:03 am
I beg to differ with you, kristinhelmsdangler.org, there are often lots of humorous things related to the deaths of teens, monkeys, paraplegics, gang bangers, mexicans, houseplants, and other things on the internet. Hell, I personally spent a few months taunting a bedwetting bisexual on this very site.
One of the biggest dangers to children regarding the internet is the lack of parental supervision. Oops, are you going to sue me for saying that?
Dan
Feb 27, 2008 at 11:22 am
Humor about violence and other volitile topics should be strictly adults only material. I observe a widespread phenomenon of children becoming desensitized by concepts they are simply not equipped to process.
Think about how long it took to train a generation of parents that not all adults are trustworthy companions for their children. Two decades? Now a teacher or coach who wants to pick a kid up alone in their car raises a red flag for most. I’m afraid of how long it’s going to take to teach parents that internet access is predator access.
It might take even longer because, as Trench says, not MY precious snowflake. We could accept that a trusting kid might be preyed on by an evil coach. But how could OUR snowflake be groomable? It’s a big leap to make.
We get how 9 year olds are groomable, I think? Well 9 year olds have far fewer complexities and inner turmoil. Our young teens and even older teens are indeed very groomable.
A few years ago my 13 year old had a conversation with a “13″ year old boy who used slang from my generation. I’d had the computer shop install barriers. I’d excluded chat on our parental controls. I was ignorant. Only being invasive was effective.
One of my precious darling revved pretty high between the ages of 13 -16. Meaning I had to bodily obstruct her doorway a few times. From knowing her now, no one would ever suspect. People are all over me with compliments about what a superstar she is.
My daughter says she knew deep in her heart of hearts that she was a full adult when she was 14. She says she didn’t get why i didn’t see that. So smart, so capable, of course she could do as she pleased. At 17 she felt guilty, sheepish, wouldn’t talk about it. Now she laughs and says “I was crazy.”
I can’t stress enough: Yes YOUR kid! it is a normal healthy part of exploring self, limitations, seperation from the parental identity and control. They are not bad people, only temporarily confused/overwhelmed/insane, whatever you want to call it. It’s our job to make sure the mistakes they make at this time in life do not produce unduly harsh lessons. A broken wrist, a failed class, those things will pass. Contact with a predator is an unacceptible consequence.
The internet is like leaving your backdoor open and your kid alone in the house when you just got a flyer saying a predator had moved in next door.
BelchSpeak
Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41 pm
No. Its not like that at all. The internet is just a tool for communicating, and is no more malicious than a frying pan. I think a more proper analogy would be to compare it to having a firearm in the home. Responsible gun owners teach their children about the firearms- not to play with them, etc. Responsible parents must also teach children about the dangers that come with misuse of the internet.
Like internet usage at the office, there should be a strictly enforced policy. And if you can’t enforce the policy, you have no business having internet access.
bootyj
Feb 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm
so I assume that the person/persons running that site are close family or friends, so please inlighten us as to where you were when this “relationship” was going on? It is so easy to blame everyone else but yourself when a tragedy happens. It’s like all those idiots that sue mcdonalds for making them fat, I even dont really understand suing tobacco companies, sooner or later everyone needs to take responsiblity for thier actions, or in the case of a child, the parents need to accept responsiblity for their actions, or lack of actions.
Laurie
Feb 27, 2008 at 8:55 pm
The problem is that we all pay for parents who are not taking responsibility for their kids.
Some parents do take responsibility, and still their kid makes a stupid mistake.
Then what?
The internet is both a communication tool, and a pandora’s box.
“Back in the day”, we would not have handed kids a trunk full of porno magazines, or sex toys, and said ‘have at it’, which is what the internet is like today. When we do not monitor kids, and we know of the danger, we are to blame as well, and must make a change for our child and ourselves.
If we have a computer in the house, it is our responsibility.
There is really no way for the ‘government’, or others to truly control all that free space, so it’s onus.
Dan
Feb 28, 2008 at 11:29 am
Hmm, handgun analogy. I get it, but it doesn’t convey the aspects of access and predation. There are personalities involved, not an inanimate object. There is active ill-intent in this equation.
The Wired article, though not specific, twice mentions the parents efforts to intercede and once that they got her counseling. I think it’s scary to acknowledge the power of predators.
And you can’t just “teach your kid” the dangers. People don’t generally learn by words, they learn by experience. I’m pretty sure these parents taught their kid the dangers. Didn’t protect like they thought it would This crazy little superstar thought she was a grown woman capable of True Love with a grown man.
The problem might be what to do when a child is ensnared in True Love Forever with a predator, no matter how they get connected. Reading Kristin’s calm exchange with her predator belies the dramatic turmoil in her. We underestimate (or forget) the drama, the intensity of teen emotions. I think parents need to know they can meet drama with drama. No one advises that. I don’t see why mom couldn’t put another bed in Kristin’s room, have an ongoing slumber party. No, it’s not normal, but predation is an extraordinary circumstance. The kid, calm on the outside, was in torment on the inside. So maybe she needed to be held and even slept with for months. Dramatic to be sure, but kids sometimes need an intense display to show the depths of our devotion. That’s what they think fake True Love does.
And of course, predation must be vigorously, emphatically squashed. It’s too potent a force to always be able to combat.
Dan
Feb 28, 2008 at 11:35 am
Oh, I don’t think we need to be mad at the parents for any way they lash out, no matter how absurd. They tried, they did all they thought they should, so someone else is to blame. Damn, if one of my kids died by any means I’d wretchedly ugly and unreasonable.
Dan
Feb 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm
OK, been reading. Kristin did have a computer in her room. Mom did check and prohibit social network type sites. Kristin used Geocities. When mom found out about chats, she physically removed Kristin’s computer and took down the new Myspace page the predatr had convinced Kristin to create (against mom’s rules) Kristin used school computers and called him secretly.
I think this comes down to two things: the power of predators and the parental attitude “not my happy, healthy child.” Mom did take good measures, but they were not informed by the actual fear that something could actually happen. When fear entered the picture, mom reacted stidently. But the predator already had power.
Part of the problem with holding parents solely responsible is that we’re damn inadequate on our own. Some are grievously inadequate. Kids shouldn’t pay for grown-ups’ inadequacies.
Holding a predator “responsible” isn’t much of a solution since predators prey. Parents protect but are inadeqaute. The solution requires another component. The mistake is looking for that in punishments and regulations. Parents and the systems that support them need to be made adequate.
BelchSpeak
Feb 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm
The family should have done the sensible thing like this UK couple did when their daughter began a relationship with an older man:
http://tinyurl.com/yovdao
Jessica
Feb 28, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Kristen was lying… about both her age, and about the rape (which she didn’t make up until after HE DUMPED HER, because he discovered she’s been lying to him!)
What the media doesn’t tell you, is that Kiley is not the first man she’d accused of sexually assaulting her. Whether she was telling the trith about the previous “assault”, I do not know… but, knowing Kiley, as I do, I’d sooner believe the sky was orange than that he forced himself on anyone!
www.kristinhelmsfoundation.org
Feb 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Kiley Bowers knew Kristin’s age, checked into a Lake Forest motel, and molested her as documented in computer/court records.He made the choice to prey on a 15 year old and got caught. Why accepted a plea agreement if innocent? Kristin NEVER made any accusations of ANY other individual.The slander of a dead teen is beyond sad and pathetic.
Dan
Mar 2, 2008 at 9:57 am
Jessica, Lying about your age to flirt with a cute older guy is just one of the crazy things teen girls often do. By their very nature teen girls make very bad decisions. That’s why they need so much supervision. They’re kids. Predator take a great personal risk when they choose to prey on kids. Kids are not capable of negotiating a sexual encounter or sexual relationship with an adult.
Records show that Kristin confessed her real age shortly after they began chatting.
“Rape” is not necessarily the kind of “assault” you’re thinking of. We call sex with a kid rape even if physical violence isn’t involved. It’s a violation because a child is vulnerable to adults.
She wasn’t an equal partner being a manipulative girlfriend. She was a child with her head twisted up by an adult who wanted to use her.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: