For five months, the Bourne family of Warwick, R.I., allegedly had an unwelcome intruder in their home –- the hardcore porn programming of the Playboy Channel. Now they are suing their cable provider for trespassing on their property.
The law of trespass has been used to combat computer viruses and spam e-mail, but the Bournes’ suit against Verizon Communications (NYSE: VZ) appears to ignore what distinguishes their case –- they could have avoided any exposure to “sexually explicit hardcore pornography” by simply not viewing the Playboy Channel.
The “unauthorized transmissions” into the Bournes’ home allegedly began in March. The family did not subscribe to the Playboy Channel and, the complaint says, repeatedly notified Verizon of “the harm that was being caused.”
“The Defendant, Verizon, continually broadcast and transmitted sexually explicit hardcore pornography into the premises after it had received notice of the prior unauthorized entries,” Robert Bourne, his wife and two children allege.
The suit also includes claims for negligence, nuisance and invasion of privacy, alleging that Verizon failed to maintain “reasonable and proper control over its equipment” and unreasonably intruded on the plaintiffs’ “right to physical solitude or seclusion.”
On Point News – 12/20/08:
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
That’s does it. I’m suing because of the 20+ religious channels coming through my tubes unabated. I find them all offensive.
Don’t most cable systems allow you to block offensive channels at the cable box? Sort of what I did to MTV and the Eternal Word Network?
#1 – Tyates
>>That’s does it. I’m suing because of the 20+
>>religious channels coming through my tubes
>>unabated.
I doubt you have much of a case. If you have 20+ religious channels, you must have signed up for the Holy Roller Special. I wouldn’t even know where to go to get more than 2 or 3 out of 100 channels.
why didnt they just put up a craigslist ad: FREE VERIZON CABLE BOX THAT GETS FREE PLAYBOY!!!!. would have had it sold in about 30nanoseconds and their problem of trespassing would have been solved…
Unscrupulous lawyers (and the stupid people who hire them) will be the death of civilization. There needs to be a better system in place to screen out and reject these ridiculous lawsuits BEFORE they are filed. I am thinking that a few hours of public display on a pillory for the filers of groundless lawsuits (and their lawyers) wouldn’t be such a bad idea either.
I guarantee that these people are religious nut-balls. Sex is dirty and to be avoided at all costs. The only thing sex is good for is reproduction, and I bet they have a strict set of positions to maximize pregnancy probability. I shudder to think of this couples sex-life.
Woah! that girl is a beauty. Scratch that, both of them are beauties. hehehe!
I’m curious, if the Bourne family didn’t sue Verizon would Verizon have attempted to charge the Bourne’s for unauthorized access to the Playboy channel? Since you complained about it now we have to charge you for it.
I suspect that this whole episode could have been avoided if Verizon’s customer service simply would have responded in a timely manner to the original complaint.
So is this the 21st century version of the Bourne Ultimatum?
#5:
Move to Wisconsin or Iowa. They have frivolous lawsuit laws.
Two observations. Dish, the people I now do buisness with, lets you block anything but once upon at time Charter had some channels bleeding through that I had not subscribed too that were porn. The video was often very snowy but it was coming through and so for as I’m aware they didn’t have a method to block it at that time. When you went past it you could see what was going on. I’d assume things have since changed.
What I’d like is some easy method to block all the pay for view, sales, and the religous huckster channels.
I’m not anti relgious but the guys on TV tend to be in it for the standerd of living it brings them.
I prefer local churces and God’s Store House which feeds local people in need.
Who cares!?!?!?
I’m more interested in finding out who is the Asian hotty on the top righ!
#6 – Mr. Cosmi
>>Sex is dirty and to be avoided at all costs.
You REALLY need to get out more. You’re getting a skewed view of the world staying in Mom’s basement all day and all night.
The #1 problem here is that the last time I was it at least, the Playboy channel was NOT “hardcore” porn. You never see actual penetration and as far as we know the sex is simulated. Mild soft core at best. It’s the kind of stuff that should be suitable for regular television and could even be shown in church.
Why does god allow people and his other creatures to starve to death?
If I were all merciful and all powerful, I would have all living things able to live without having to breath or eat or any of those other nasty “body” oriented things.
Of course, I’m neither, so I don’t.
12. “I’m more interested in finding out who is the Asian hotty on the top righ!”
The magic and beauty of Google Images. You can see more here.
As the article says, they always had/have the option to avoid that channel. Or lock it out, as one of the previous posts pointed out. But neither of those options would provide them with some revenue.
“Nonami Takizawa” is hot!
I’m suing Sony for making me watch my TV.
Sizzlin Hotties!! I get this all the time. I’ll get a call because somebody’s got an infected PC. I go there, 9 times outta 10 it’s a household with adolescent kids, and they got zapped from a web trap offering free porn. First they ask how is that possible. Then they get angry and offended and insist that no one there navigates to porn sites. Then I show them how to use the history of their browser, and they get angrier still and ask me how is that possible if no one there goes to those sites. I suggest maybe the kids did it and then I’m lucky if they don’t kick me out. Same thing!
Umm, how hard is it to disconnect the cable box and not reconnect it until the problem is solved?
I vote that the customers should win as long as they publicly admit they are really that stupid.
Why does this never happen to me ?
Har! They watched it for five months before complaining?
Zorker… you’re not supposed to look at women with their faces uncovered. Bad boy
I’m sure they can throw this case out due to a number of technicalities.
Playboy isn’t “hardcore” porn, playboy has always been soft-core porn, I’ve never seen any sex/penetration other than it being implied as a couple rubs up against each other. But this isn’t much more than you’d see in a love/sex scene in a [R] rated movie; say for example Fatal Attraction.
But then again I’ve not seen the playboy channel in eons, so maybe they have ramped up the raunchyness?
The plaintiffs have to show actual damage as the article mentions there was some harm done to their family.
ALL cable boxes and newer TVs have the ability to block any channel. It’s called the V-chip that was such a controversy back in the 90s, now no one gives a shit about it anymore.
But if these people can sue for inadvertently seeing boobs on TV, then I should be able to sue over inadvertently seeing people getting killed on TV, or other types of violence, as well as televangelists begging for money.
#16 how does image Google search actually work in reverse? Did you submit the image to Google to find that page, or did you just search for “busty Asian?”
#16 – SN
>>The magic and beauty of Google Images. You
>>can see more here.
Now is somebody would just go at her with Photoshop and shrink down those massive hooters, she’d be pretty cute.
“Busty Asians”. Pffft. Now THAT should be an oxymoron.
#26 Mister Mustard said, “Busty Asians”. Pffft. Now THAT should be an oxymoron.
-roflmao..
seriously…it’s 2009 (almost), you would *think*
sexual hangups would have died out decades ago..
::sigh::
-s
Don’t the people on this blog generally agree with the idea that businesses are responsible any time a customer falls for something they sell?
I bet the only one complaining is the wife.
#26 – I used to date her. Then once when I said “does that look infected to you” she left me.