'Revenge Porn' Operator Gets 18 Years In Prison 230
Frosty Piss writes Kevin Christopher Bollaert, who operated a 'revenge porn' web site, was been found guilty in February of six counts of extortion and 21 counts of identity theft. He faced a maximum of 23 years in prison. On Friday, April 3rd, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The extortion charges stem from a second web site he ran that solicited payments of $250 to $350 from people who wanted to have the photographs deleted. Bollaert made about $30,000 on that site.
Caution: Autoplaying video (Score:5, Informative)
Autoplaying video should be banned from the interwebs
Re: (Score:2)
Autoplaying video should be banned from the interwebs
It doesn't need to be banned. It just needs to be (optionally) disabled by browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be disabled by default, and optionally re-enabled to support video streaming sites where autoplay video makes some sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Autoplaying makes zero sense on streaming sites as well. If you open multiple videos in as many tabs, you want to watch them one by one in sequence, rather than all in parallel because some punk decided that auto-playing was a good thing.
Constipated Justice System (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constipated Justice System (Score:5, Informative)
The sentence must be proportional.. and all that (Score:5, Insightful)
As the person you responded to pointed out, we have an extreme imbalance in US courts dishing out sentencing. Politicians convicted of pretty much any charge get no jail time, where the laymen receive up to life in prison for identical charges. I am of course referring to retired General Petraeus who provided classified information to his girlfriend, while Bradley Manning is spending LIFE in prison for doing the same thing. The difference was in the people, not the crime..
Face the facts here, the courts wanted to make an "example" of this guy. That is called retribution, it is not called Justice.
Yeah, I agree that the guy did some slimy crap just to make a few bucks. That said, this sentence ensures the he will never be rehabilitated, ever. This is a demonstration of a failed system of justice, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, facts like Manning was not sentenced to LIFE in prison, but for 35 years. And facts like Manning leaked far more documents than Petraeus did. And facts like her name is Chelsea Manning.
Yes, Petraeus's sentence was a joke. But when you're going to be harping on "facts", you kinda need to get yours correct.
As for this fine gentleman who just got sentenced, he's going to serve about 15 hours per victim (unless he gets paroled or other early release). Less than a day per crime doesn't seem unreasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Face the facts here, the courts wanted to make an "example" of this guy. That is called retribution, it is not called Justice.
The fact that there is no justice in the justice system doesn't mean that this case of thousands of extortions was improperly sentenced.
Yeah, I agree that the guy did some slimy crap just to make a few bucks. That said, this sentence ensures the he will never be rehabilitated, ever. This is a demonstration of a failed system of justice, nothing more.
Yeah, some guy that does slimy stuff for a few bucks. I could see someone who kidnaps 8 year olds and sells them into slavery having the same thing said about them. Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean that others share your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, some guy that does slimy stuff for a few bucks. I could see someone who kidnaps 8 year olds and sells them into slavery having the same thing said about them. Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean that others share your opinion.
You have the opinion that petty embezzlement (250 bucks is petty) is the same thing as kidnapping ans slavery? I think it more likely that the only way to justify your opinion is to invent irrational analogies, which you just did.
Seriously, you don't believe it better for this guy to repay everyone he took money from illegally and work community service after? Okay, maybe he can't pay back 30-35K, but that's 1-2 years in prison normally. Add in another 2-3 years of community service and the world is goin
Re: (Score:2)
You have the opinion that petty embezzlement (250 bucks is petty) is the same thing as kidnapping ans slavery?
Who did embezzlement? This guy did 10,000+ separate blackmails, doxing (with intent to harm), and 10,000 copyright violations. That the prosecutors went for the easy convictions and thought 18 years was enough, so the provable convictions were only for the ones where the people harmed were ones willing to testify doesn't diminish what he did.
Seriously, you don't believe it better for this guy to repay everyone he took money from illegally and work community service after?
Yeah, and if you rape a woman and steal her purse, your punishment is to pay back the contents of the purse.
Do you think the blackmail profits are the only harm from
Re: (Score:2)
No, the guy set up 1 web site where customers submitted content that he hosted on 1 server. How many victims went to the site is not relevant to this type of crime. A guy who robs 1 bank is not brought up on charges for every customer of that bank, he did 1 very wrong act and should pay for that one act. A guy arrested selling crack on the street does not get 1 count for every person who bought the drug, he gets 1 charge.
I don't like what he did any more than you, but the punishment is completely out of
Re: (Score:2)
A guy who robs 1 bank is not brought up on charges for every customer of that bank, he did 1 very wrong act and should pay for that one act.
A guy who robs one bank and shoots 6 people in it will be brought up on the 6 shooting charges, as well as the robbery. Your argument is that you get the one (presumably worst) act at any moment, and can't count the others. I find it fatally flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how the law works.
All done with this conversation, because psychopaths are never wrong in their minds.
You are living proof of that.
Re: (Score:2)
And that means? The US criminal justice system is seriously fucked up? OK... maybe you have a point
Yep.
Re: (Score:3)
Try and find a single case in which a drunk driver or hit and run driver who has killed someone gets 18 years in jail.
Nailed it!
http://www.adn.com/article/201... [adn.com]
http://www.kokomotribune.com/n... [kokomotribune.com]
And. For the bonus point
http://www.9news.com/story/new... [9news.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I've looked for them, but this is the first time I have heard of vehicular homicide under the influence of marijuana.
Who did he mess with (Score:2)
Sounds like he blackmailed the wrong people [politicians] and those who paid also had the wrong sort of influence on his business.
Re: (Score:2)
Sentence is simple- "Pour encourager les autres".
Re: (Score:2)
To make the comparison fair, try finding a drunk driver who caused thousands of accidents in multiple incidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the long sentence is because they brought 21 counts of identity theft against him, which are served consecutively. In many countries multiple crimes are served concurrently.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears the long sentence is because they brought 21 counts of identity theft against him, which are served consecutively. In many countries multiple crimes are served concurrently.
Which I find incomprehensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that it is difficult to achieve a balance in fairness in sentencing but here we have an example of a court getting whacked out. Try and find a single case in which a drunk driver or hit and run driver who has killed someone gets 18 years in jail.
Ah, but this wasn't a single case with a single victim. This was 27 separate charges with literally thousands of victims. It shouldn't be surprising that someone who commits a crime 27 times serves more time than someone who commits it just once, and that yes, even though it may be only a couple of years of time for a single charge, when you aggregate more than two dozen charges, the time starts approaching that served for a more heinous crime.
For comparison, would you say that it was an example of a court
Re: (Score:2)
I also thought that 18 years was pretty harsh, compared to the penalties for crimes in which the victim dies.
His problem: He managed to hit every hot button that makes a defendant unsympathetic. Posting naked pictures of women that were stolen for the purpose of humiliating and harming them is essentially on-line sexual abuse. Blackmail is another hot button.
That's the way the system works. If you make enemies of a lot of angry, articulate, politically influential victims and their families out for revenge,
Willingly? No. (Score:2)
I don't willingly breathe coal combustion products, and I don't willingly breathe cigarette smoke. The same is true for many other people.
It is long past time we went nuclear, solar, etc. for power. Burning stuff that continuously pollutes the atmosphere is not the best choice available. It's just what the politicians working on behalf of petroleum profiteers work to keep SOP (congress: 14% approval rate, 94% re-electio
Re: (Score:2)
I don't willingly breathe coal combustion products ... It is long past time we went nuclear, solar, etc. for power
But I don't willingly want to live in a world that includes evil nuclear power or thousands of acres of pristine desert habitat ruined by solar farms that kill birds and ruin the scenery!
See how that works?
The "willingly" part is a reference to society, generally, as manifested in these matters by our elected legislature's ongoing non-interest in shutting down, yet, the use of fossil fuels (including coal, despite the executive branch's ongoing efforts to do so unilaterally). If the fact that a perso
How it ACTUALLY works (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. They are not my elected representatives. There isn't anyone in congressional office I voted for. My opinion, input, and concerns are not represented directly or indirectly, fractionally or otherwise, by any currently sitting politician. The relationship to me of the legislature's work product in these particular matters is purely coercive.
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion, input, and concerns are not represented directly or indirectly, fractionally or otherwise, by any currently sitting politician.
Sure they are. They are represented in the sense that you haven't done enough (anything?) to persuade enough other people to see the world your way and elect someone more to your taste. The insufficient number of people who think like you do is exactly what's being represented.
You think nuclear power is "evil."
No, I don't. Re-read. I'm making a point about how other people reflexively freak out and have a fit whenever someone uses the word "nuclear," thus preventing our wider use of it because they don't think it's a good thing ... just l
Still no. (Score:2)
My electricity is strictly hydro.
Second-hand smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
In civilized countries, you don't get 18 years in prison for extortion of $30,000. In Scandinavia you'd get one or two.
Also found in civilized countries: people who read enough of article or are otherwise familiar enough with the case to realize that this wasn't about one single case of extortion. This was wide-spread, systematic extortion against many people using incredibly invasive material in an especially scurrilous way meant to inflict as much distress as possible in a public forum, until they paid him. If that sort of deliberately inflicted misery aimed at large numbers of people is, in Scandinavia, only worth a cou
Re: (Score:2)
The maximum prison sentence in Denmark for a non-violent crime is 3 years, with very few exceptions. Only mass-murderers get on the order of 18 years. In Denmark I believe there have been fewer than 10 people in the past 50 years to serve a prison sentence that long. Locking people in cages for decades just isn't a thing that is very reasonable to do, as there are other ways to protect society from repeat offenders in all but a very small handful of extreme cases involving violent psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
The maximum prison sentence in Denmark for a non-violent crime is 3 years, with very few exceptions
So, when someone commits dozens and dozens, or hundreds of cases of those crimes over an extended period of time, Denmark still considers that to be one event, for which three years is sufficient punishment? Just to be clear, could one spend more than three years wrecking the lives of hundreds of people, and still serve only three years for that extended parade of distinctly separate individual crimes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, recidivism is a different situation: if you've been in prison 6 months, are released, and commit the exact same crime, than you will probably get more than 6 months. But you won't get 18 years on a first trial for a crime, regardless of how many small crimes are bundled up.
One reason is that recidivism is usually prevented through other means anyway. Once you're caught, you aren't just released completely unattended; you may have restrictions on movement or things like computer usage. There are ways to
Re: (Score:2)
Pure rubbish (Score:2)
Also found in civilized countries: people who read enough of article or are otherwise familiar enough with the case to realize that this wasn't about one single case of extortion.
Yes, it was exactly 1 case of extortion. It happened to involve multiple people, but it was a single web site and single person doing the work. When a drug dealer is busted, why don't they charge him with 99 counts of selling drugs? Because the crime is selling drugs, and low and behold there are multiple victims. Another fine analogy, why is a bank robber charged once instead of once for every customer of the bank? Because that would be something other than justice.
You sir, or madam, have been duped i
Re: (Score:2)
A bank robber who robs 5 banks is charged with 5 bank robberies.
This guy isn't extorting a consortium of 10000 people over a single something they all share, he's doing 10000 extortions.
Re: (Score:2)
And how many web sites was this guy running? Oh, it was just the one. Shitty as his actions were, it's better to actually rehabilitate criminals. You know, that thing we don't consider important in the US, hence the highest per capita population in prison for non-violent offenses and such.
Give the guy 2 years and make him work community service for several, and if he makes a decent living make him pay back the 250 bucks he took from someone for shitty actions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the amount of money, it's the sheer number of people he tried to extort.
That he asked so little money and still managed to fail most of the time is no excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Extortion is not necessarily violence (though violent extortion is certainly a real thing). The definition of violence requires physical force. There seems to be a trend of people confusing "violence" and "force" with coercion. They aren't the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Conceded. This isn't a civilized country. We haven't even gotten rid of the last vestiges of slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the WHOLE indictment?
Re: (Score:2)
In civilized countries, you don't get 18 years in prison for extortion of $30,000. In Scandinavia you'd get one or two.
So what is the punishment in Scandinavia to breaking the kneecaps of an extortionist in such a way that he will never, ever be able to walk again? I think a $30,000 fine would be an appropriate punishment. I think that should actually be turned into a law, that physical violence against an extortionist will not get a punishment other than a fine.
Misandry? (Score:2)
Had it been a woman, it'd have been 18 months.
Re:Bring on the discussion of fair sentencing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. From what I can see the normal prison term for aggravated identity theft is five years and for extortion of $30,000 is about 2 years or a bit more depending on prior criminal record, so a five to seven year sentence would be normal and actually feels reasonable to me. There's no question that this guy's behavior was abominable and deserving of punishment, but the novelty of the offense is not an aggravating factor. It just triggers revulsion more powerfully than heinous acts we're more habituated to. It's natural when confronted with a novel offense to want to stamp it out, but it can't be done this way.
We'll probably never get past the notion that outrageous punishments deter crime, even though we see that proposition disproven every time we see people speeding through a section of highway posted for $500 construction zone fines. The fact that the sight of a car that looks like it might be a police cruiser makes people tap their brakes even in an ordinary speeding fine zone should tell us something. It's the likelihood of punishment that modifies people's behavior, not the magnitude. A $50 fine you think you'll probably get is more powerful than a $500 fine you believe you probably won't get.
What keeps this kind of futile draconian sentencing going is accepting the "well at least we're doing something" standard as good enough. If you think about it, that's a very low standard of performance. In fact it's not a standard of performance at all. Nothing could be simpler than passing a law mandating extremely harsh sentences or inflating sentences by gaming the sentencing guidelines in unusual ways but those actions aren't going to work and are arguably unconstitutional.
Re:Bring on the discussion of fair sentencing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since he blackmailed over 10,000 people that means he is serving less than 15 hours per instance. That's a substantial "bulk discount".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't, but it does allow one to consider the potential fairness or not of a sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can see the normal prison term for aggravated identity theft is five years and for extortion of $30,000 is about 2 years or a bit more depending on prior criminal record, so a five to seven year sentence would be normal and actually feels reasonable to me. There's no question that this guy's behavior was abominable and deserving of punishment, but the novelty of the offense is not an aggravating factor.
It's not. Rather, the number of separate victims and separate instances of crime is the aggravating factor - he was convicted of 6 counts of extortion and 21 counts of identity theft. Going by your math above, that's 12 years for the extortion and 105 years for the identity theft, or 117 years. He got about 1/6th of that, so, if anything, this is light.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you don't understand what "multiple counts" means? He didn't commit identify theft and extortion one time; he committed them many, many times, and each person he committed them against is a victim and deserves separate justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the second amendment in its entirety and read up on the founding fathers' writings leading up to it.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is, the people. I.e., you and I.
"well-regulated militia" - the government already had the established right to maintain a standing army. This preserves the right of the people to form militias to protect against tyranny (such as the one we had just thrown out of the colonies around that time), and by "well regulated" they meant
Re: (Score:2)
Read the second amendment in its entirety and read up on the founding fathers' writings leading up to it.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That is, the people. I.e., you and I.
"well-regulated militia" - the government already had the established right to maintain a standing army. This preserves the right of the people to form militias to protect against tyranny (such as the one we had just thrown out of the colonies around that time), and by "well regulated" they meant that they expected The People to be able to competently use those arms to kill tyrants.
I've always understood that in English, "well regulated" meant it had to be orderly and controlled, etc. - not just some folks who are separately doing their own thing. While I understand that that interpretation is unpopular, coming from the outside the founding fathers never struck me as anarchists. So I always considered it more of a "Swiss homeguard" type of militia they envisioned and less a "everyone for themselves" type of militia. Which isn't really a militia but a mob.
And while I understand the pol
Re: (Score:3)
They really did mean well practiced much as a clock of the time would be called 'well regulated' if it kept accurate time.
That would include the ability to work in groups without shooting each other but need not mean government regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
They really did mean well practiced much as a clock of the time would be called 'well regulated' if it kept accurate time.
Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean â" neither more nor less.'
Well regulated does not mean "like a clock", as if "like a clock" would mean anything at all in terms of a militia. Well regulated means regulations and regulators. Just like any army, full or part time, amateur or professional.
Libertarians hate what the constitution actually says. They make up their own nonsense interpretations.
Re: (Score:3)
That may be what it means NOW, but that was not what it meant when the Constitution was written. If you want to understand it properly, you'll need to do some learning.
Likewise, the militia was every able bodies citizen with a gun.
BTW, I'm not a Libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Read my posting history and feel your shame.
Re: (Score:2)
the government already had the established right to maintain a standing army.
Actually, it didn't have that right, because there WAS no real national government, and they didn't have the money at that time to maintain or even equip with weapons a large standing army.
The standard practice at that time being "issue a call for volunteers" The second amendment exists because the government didn't have enough money to equip an army so they expected volunteers to bring their own.
We now have a large professional paid army with the best equipment money can buy. If you think the second amen
Re: (Score:2)
18 years... wow. Yes, that he did was morally reprehensible... but he got a sentence longer than many rapists. Obviously the $30K he supposedly pulled in didn't afford good legal assistance.
He had more victims than the average rapist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bring on the discussion of fair sentencing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit watering down 'rape'. 'Violation'?
Re: (Score:2)
You should go argue with the other AC who claims that your side is the side of feminists abusing the term rape.
At *best* this is a conflation. The guy used the same word, rape, to mean two completely different things in that sentence. Once about forced sexual intercourse and once about an invasion of privacy (albeit with a sexual component).
Re: (Score:2)
...and he blackmailed the people on the pictures.
It's still not rape, but it's quite a bit more evil than "just" posting private nude pictures without permission, which is pretty bad to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't claim it was rape. I said he victimized them. Specifically he blackmailed them. Don't even try to tell me he thought those people were fine with their pictures being posted, the fact that he charged hundreds to take them down suggests he was well aware that their posting wasn't wanted by the subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. If you DUI and kill someone, you should get a lot more than 3-5.
Re: (Score:2)
Me thinks you are overestimating the number of people blackmailed. That's $3 per person (he only made $30k).
You don't have to be successful in blackmail to be convicted of committing it. They said he charged
$250 to $500
To remove people's pictures, so yes there were far fewer than 10,000 people who paid him but there were 10,000+ who he blackmailed.
Re: (Score:2)
27 counts (in total) at less than 1 year per offence.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet people who sexually abuse children get less time than that.
Their business model is to profit from revenge, it is implemented via sexual humiliation (abuse). Personally I don't think 20yrs is long enough to rehabilitate such a badly broken moral compass. The customer may also have psychological problems or may suffer psychological problems associated with the guilt and shame of what they did on the internet at a drunken pity party. The people who run the business have no feelings of guilt or shame, let's all hope they find some in the next 20yrs.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that ironic. Pathetic.
But, I'm sure he'll get his dose of "revenge porn" in prison....... GRIN.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a certain attitude and culture of sexuality in prison, that's what I was referring to. Talk to anyone who's been there about the pressure that exists.
I said nothing about rape, nor was it implied, so fuck BOTH of you. Especially, posting challenging comments like that as Anonymous. Grow up.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't imagine being sentenced to nearly two decades in prison over $30,000 bucks. It's like committing an armed robbery for a couple of packs of cigarettes.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it kinda was. It wasn't the cigarettes, it was the armed robbery.
Similarly, It wasn't the $30k, it was the extortion.
See what I mean?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more commenting on the criminal's stupidity. So great a risk for such little reward. The punishment seems just to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Never mind, then. My misreading. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Given what a horrible personal violation this must feel like for the victims, both the original act of disclosure and then using it as leverage for financial gain, and given how many victims he seems to have had and the sustained and systematic way in which he seems to have exploited them over a long period, I have no sympathy in this case.
Also, this guy made $30K, but if he actually serves anything like his full sentence will be spending over 150,000 hours "earning" it, for an hourly rate of pay of about 2
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he "fails at business" depends on what the probability of him being caught was and the probability of various sentence options.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Probability of causing life-changing damage to victims: 100%.
Probability that as a result he would sooner or later be charged with serious financial and/or sexual crimes: close to 100%.
Probability that such crimes would result in a multi-year jail term on conviction: close to 100%.
Probability of achieving life-changing profits for self even under idealised conditions: close to 0%.
Even from a ruthless profit-making perspective, his odds of success were always negligible. This guy is a failure any way you look at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, basically 20 years in prison over social inconvenience and 30k dollar?
It seems what he was actually on trial for was the identity theft and extortion side of his behaviour rather than the act of leaking (or helping to leak) the personal photos. So in that sense, maybe the punishment was on the harsh side, though given the number of victims I don't think it was entirely unreasonable, and apparently neither did the legal system if the theoretical maximum sentence would have been significantly longer (or, as others have pointed out, life on a three-strikes rule had he been tried
A sane new world (Score:2)
There are killers that gets away with less
- Did any of his victims (or customers) remedy their "social inconvenience" via suicide? - What is a "killer", do spiders count?
Using the phrase "social inconvenience" to describe extortion via sexual humiliation shows that you don't even recognise sexual abuse when it's right under your nose, let alone begin to understand it. Educate yourself on the human mind, you have one of your own, right? I suggest starting with some of the talks from Ruby Wax on YT [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... just wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Male and female discrimination in one paragraph.
This remarkable feat is usually only achieved by what is commonly called a "hard core feminist".
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you ran into a porn star? I've only met porn stars that I haven't seen yet and that's only because I frequently operate within the field of "adult entertainment". Revenge porn is really about the Streisand effect, most people really don't know their neighbor was on that site.
Re: (Score:2)
Triggered?
Re: (Score:2)
One would imagine then a person would guard themselves from it by never engaging in it in the first place. I don't want a DUI on my record so I ensure that I never drive when I'll be drinking. This way I am sure to never receive a DUI.
DUI is a crime. Taking a picture of your tits for your bf isn't.
Enough to go around (Score:2)
It's both. Neither one is an excuse for the other.
Nor is comparing punishment times useful, because that assumes one side of the comparison is correct. That has to be demonstrated first, and no one has managed that (nor, under the current legal system, have I any confidence that it could even be managed.)
Harm was done. Society is not innocent in the matter. While the individual who to
Re: (Score:2)
You're losing track of the argument. The AC above said that society was guilty and the revenge porn operator was innocent. He lieterally said
Nothing to do with pictures
. The person you're quoting is pointing out how stupid that is. You are attacking a straw man.
Re: (Score:2)
I simply answered the asserted hypothetical correctly. I didn't attack anyone. Carry on. :)
Re: (Score:2)
18 years is extreme considering this is a case of media Distribution Rights over what should be termed "Regret Porn".
Um, no. Please RTFA or at least RTFS. The sentence is for the EXTORTION and IDENTITY THEFT, not for the porn.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much a textbook case of extortion, specifically blackmail.
He made a business out of continuing to publish embarrassing and socially damaging imagery until he was paid off. Publishing the images alone would have been a grey area at the time he did it, but the extortion site is definitely illegal.
If Google started a service where they dug up dirt on people then contacted them to get a payment in order to make the problem go away, their representatives would absolutely be hauled into court. Go
Re: (Score:2)
$30,000 is more money than many hard working Americans earn in a year. It's not trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
High level what what? Her gf convinced her to carry some contraband across the border. She was a drug mule.
Re: (Score:2)
likely she carried a pack of bills along with the dope when she crossed the border.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So he gets more time that rape or murder 2?
Yes, but a lot less time than someone who committed 10,000 rapes or murders would have.
I wonder how many of these SJW manginas here cheering this bullshit were also cheering when Hulk Hogan had secret video of him having sex taken without his permission and, again without his permission or consent, had it splattered all over the web?
I didn't cheer about that. Did anyone else cheer about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone else cheer about that?
Did anyone actually know about it? Did it make it out of noise bubble from all of the other amateur sex tapes coming out around that time? Basically, if you've ever been naked and you're a celebrity, it's going to come out. It goes with the territory of being a celebrity, Taylor Swift's whining about that notwithstanding. Bottom line, be a celebrity, be seen naked. Just as it's harder to claim defamation when one is a celebrity, it's harder to claim damage for photo release
Re: (Score:2)
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
Putting unauthorized porn of unwilling people on the internet, and then charging them money to remove it? What a scumbag. They're going to have a lot of fun with him in jail.
Nothing illegal about putting pictures of people on the internet. Absolutely 100% legal if they had been street photos. I didn't read this ruling, but I suspect he may not have been convicted if he hadn't charged for removal.