I’d argue yes. It’s not like they’re stuffing his mailbox with polaroids; it’s a website specifically designed to do this. Mens rea sez I.
3 Likes
He’s not looking for your sympathy. It’s a carefully crafted statement to make the conviction a little easier. The sole purpose of it is to demonstrate “remorse” to the court.
How else could it be so ironically similar to what most of hist victims must have felt about their pictures?
Or both.
I’m going to hope that they haven’t charged him for that yet because they’re working on building a case.
1 Like
IMHO, if you can’t tell for sure, it isn’t kiddie porn. (There is no question when it’s real kiddie porn.) 18 is an arbitrary number. They need to alter the laws so 16 and 17 year old kids don’t end up with a sex offender record the rest of their lives because their SO sent them boob/wiener pics.
1 Like
I don’t get the point of this site. There is sooooooooo much porn out there - why does one need revenge porn? Anyone who posts pics to that site is a Class A1++ asshole who deserves a kick in the nuts. Repeatedly.
… because some assholes get off on women being humiliated? It’s a shitty reason, but there you go.
1 Like
Incidentally, there are also a fair number of men who get off on being kicked in the nuts, so I’m not sure if your solution is necessarily helpful…
The solution is mandatory online nudity. Once all of us are online, legs akimbo, finger in mouth, nobody will have any reason to feel ashamed of being seen naked by millions of people.
4 Likes
Heheh - “Oh no, B’rer Bear! Not the briar patch!”
Yeah people repeat that endlessly but I have never actually seen any proof of this.
Apparently, personal information of the victims was a requirement for upload, according to the article. Seems like clear inducement to provide enough information for identity theft.
1 Like
That’s part of it, but more not everything on theses sites are undoctored nude photos. There have been cases of doctor’s computers being hacked and post-surgery photos being stolen – not exactly sexy stuff. There have also been cases of the faces from non-nude, non-sexy photos being Shopped onto nude photos of someone else’s body.
Funnily enough, I was saying it correctly in my head, even when I re-read what I wrote before submitting, but clearly my fingers weren’t in agreement with my brain. It happens. Thanks for the grammar check, dude. Really adds to the discussion and was totally necessary and doesn’t make you look annoying at all!
But the humiliation of women seems to be the main subject of most porn these days (not just revenge porn), which is definitely even shittier.
Hey all, thanks for your thoughts, and happy to talk a bit more about the law in a very general way based on some of the posts.
So, posting someone’s personal information online is generally not a crime. For instance, see the yellow pages, google, and even the complaint itself (which has the defendant’s full name and date of birth) as well as the warrant. And again, mugshot sites are all over this area. If you have ever been arrested anywhere, it is likely you can search your name and find the mugshot picture online. In fact, mugshot websites go out of their way to make sure if you search someone’s name, the mugshot picture will appear as close to the top as possible. Imagine posting a friend’s address on facebook because you want people to throw him a surprise party. Not a crime normally.
Identity theft is normally a crime that involves one person pretending to be someone else. I have no idea why they charged him with this crime, and can’t say without seeing discovery (which obviously, no one is going to share with me).
Soliciting sexual pictures of an underage person is (still) absolutely a crime. My view is that the reality of the law (by which I mean someone posts illegal materials to a website) in this area is a little bit shady still, but basically if a third party posts something illegal to a website, the website itself is not normally responsible. For instance, if someone posted illegal content to Facebook, the facebook would not be criminally liable. If the AG thought they could support a charge for any of the various porn charges, they would have filed it.
As for hacking the pictures. There are specific criminal charges associated with that sort of thing (unauthorized access to a computer, etc). And again, I can assure you that if the AG had any kind of evidence to support the charge that the defendant had either directly hacked into someone’s computer/accounts, or had encouraged him to do so, they would have charged him with it (or conspiracy).
Anywho, it is possible that the AG will file an amended complaint if they come up with more evidence and could add these, or as yet unconsidered criminal charges. Doing so is a fairly standard practice.
Always happy to chat about any particular issues if anyone is interested.
This shit again? Didn’t we already cover it pretty comprehensively in that Hunter Moore thread?
2 Likes
Eep! Wow, scary shit…
I completely agree, and dd not mean to let the creep off the hook in any way.
Page 13 of the arrest warrant “Conclusion” elaborates on the relevant statutes for Identity Theft.
1 Like
