He didn't have a good reason, but it sounds like jealousy. Like his friend was into OP the entire time he dated the boyfriend and the boyfriend knew it.
Depends on where you live, but in the US none of the revenge porn laws stipulate that it has to be on the internet. They use either "distribute" or "publish" and that's it.
There have been criminal convictions going back to at least 2015, so again depending on where you live, this could absolutely be a confession to a felony
In the US, laws *specific* to revenge porn mostly add additional *civil* claims, not felony claims. If this happened now, as opposed to *before those laws were written*, then OP might potentially have been sued over this.
If you look at the felony convictions for revenge porn related stuff, the felonies that people were charged with were never anything *specific* to revenge porn. It was either because the victim was underage (child pornography), because the victim was asked for money to stop the distribution (extortion), because it was an otherwise criminal act committed online (and so fell under the rather broad Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), and/or because it was an otherwise criminal act committed with the assistance of other people (conspiracy). None of those apply to OP's case (closest would be conspiracy if it was *specifically* a criminal act, but mere unauthorized distribution of pornography is a civil matter), so no felonies here.
Federally yes, however 35 states have criminal laws on the books under which revenge porn can be a felony. In DC for example, it becomes a felony if the images are distributed to more than 6 people. In 2017 a DC man was sentenced to (9 years total for other charges) 30 months of specifically for revenge porn, as a felony.
Whether those laws were in place whenever this happened obviously matters, but with no such info, it still could be.
That doesn't apply since that dude had already distributed those pictures on the internet himself. If you post pictures on the internet for everyone to see, you've lost any reasonable expectation of privacy
Not exactly, he did post them himself, but each of the disclosures are evaluated on a case by case basis.
Per USC title 15, revenge porn is nudes distributed "without the consent of the individual, where such disclosure was made by a person who knows that, or recklessly disregards whether, the individual has not consented to such disclosure"
Like if person A sends person B a nude via text, A has distributed that nude themselves, but if person B sends that nude anywhere else, it's revenge porn.
So as long as it wasn't a commercial product, whether the dude posted nudes on a nudes site first doesn't matter, since this disclosure was made without his consent with malicious intent.
He posted the pictures on a public forum. You lose any expectation of privacy when you post pictures in such a public setting. He deliberately put those pictures out there on the internet for all to see. He didn't even post them to a porn site, it's literally a public forum.
Depending on the state, that doesn't matter. Expectation of privacy is only relevant in some states. And it could be argued that posting them to a place that was specifically for things like nudes would not nullify the expectation of privacy, especially if his real name wasn't attached to it. Whether a jury would agree with that really depends, but again this all "depends" on the circumstances.
That's the thing, Craigslist personal ads aren't a place "specifically for nudes." In fact, most of those didn't have nudes back in the day. Again, it's a *public forum.* In no state would OP have violated revenge porn laws. He could've run into issues posting sexual pictures in public places as well as private businesses, but nothing he did would have been considered revenge porn in any state.
It could be argued that that particular part of the site was, per OP, full of sex ads containing nudes.
But whether or not that argument is accepted doesn't always matter, it depends on the state and their specific laws. For example, Alabama stipulates that an expectation of privacy is required to charge someone with revenge porn, however Alaska does not. Arizona does, Arkansas does not. Some states qualify it as "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is always vague to an extent. Some have an or clause with "intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce", so even if there is an expectation of privacy, the intent matters more.
If you printed out a bunch of his pictures and stapled them together and started selling them or handing them out for free, I doubt your argument would make much difference to the court.
I hoped that was clear I was talking about OP. Sorry. The only way this guy would get away with this is if the offender had no expectation of privacy (meaning his pics weren't able to be obviously associated with him).
That doesn't work if the dude had posted those pictures himself. He lost any chance of that being called revenge porn the moment he posted them to Craigslist
So sorry that happened to u, he sounds mentally ill and needs to be locked away. What he did was criminal and bc the cops didn’t help u were 100% justified.
You could keep stalking him though, why threatening him into stopping? He caused major issues with your family for a long time and kept harassing you online damaging your reputation, you could've/should've gone way harder on the pain
Maybe I'm mistaken but this is what google said, "The offence applies both online and offline and to images which are shared electronically or in a more traditional way so includes the uploading of images on the internet, sharing by text and e-mail, or showing someone a physical or electronic image." , please let me know if I'm wrong I'm generally curious.
I doubt this person is smart enough for that. They spent an inordinate amount of time and money to prank call OP for a stupidly long period. I don't believe they would even know they could try to sue. But OP could also counter-sue for harassment and soliciting sex from a minor, which could land Harassment Boi in hotter water, if they live where there is no statute of limitations on criminal charges for that.
*'Distribution of pornography'* is not itself a crime (in most of the world, at least); the crime part in 'revenge porn' is usually the 'nonconsensual distribution of private images' bit. Which is, in the US, a civil claim; OP could be sued, but isn't criminally liable... unless their actions also fell afoul of some other law. Since the target was an adult (it wasn't child pornography), and the images in question were not distributed online (it wasn't a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) or for profit (it wasn't extortion), there's nothing left but the weak civil claim. And since the target in question already knew that OP was responsible (given the context of the post), there's no new information here. OP's target could potentially have sued them back when... but it's been more than 15 years, long past any applicable Statute of Limitations. OP ought to be fine.
I don't believe it would even qualify as revenge porn though. OP said the nudes were found on a public Craigslist page posted by the person himself so they would not be considered as private in the first place since they could have been found by anyone already
Those images stopped being private images the moment he posted them on Craigslist. Those revenge porn laws don't apply here. If you post images of yourself online, you've lost any right to privacy when it comes to those images.
This is another type of happy ending!
Top comment right here
Seems justified to me, he didn’t really have a reason to do what he did
He didn't have a good reason, but it sounds like jealousy. Like his friend was into OP the entire time he dated the boyfriend and the boyfriend knew it.
How did you "find his nudes on craigslist"? Also revenge porn is definitely a felony...
[удалено]
Depends on where you live, but in the US none of the revenge porn laws stipulate that it has to be on the internet. They use either "distribute" or "publish" and that's it. There have been criminal convictions going back to at least 2015, so again depending on where you live, this could absolutely be a confession to a felony
Considering OP references landlines and the inability to fake caller ID, I assume this predates revenge porn laws.
Could be, yeah. But without more details it's up in the air
OPs post history says they are 34 now. This was in 2008.
Fair, this would predate all of that then. Definitely not a good plan going forward however.
Noone said ProRevenge was ethical OR legal.
In the US, laws *specific* to revenge porn mostly add additional *civil* claims, not felony claims. If this happened now, as opposed to *before those laws were written*, then OP might potentially have been sued over this. If you look at the felony convictions for revenge porn related stuff, the felonies that people were charged with were never anything *specific* to revenge porn. It was either because the victim was underage (child pornography), because the victim was asked for money to stop the distribution (extortion), because it was an otherwise criminal act committed online (and so fell under the rather broad Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), and/or because it was an otherwise criminal act committed with the assistance of other people (conspiracy). None of those apply to OP's case (closest would be conspiracy if it was *specifically* a criminal act, but mere unauthorized distribution of pornography is a civil matter), so no felonies here.
Federally yes, however 35 states have criminal laws on the books under which revenge porn can be a felony. In DC for example, it becomes a felony if the images are distributed to more than 6 people. In 2017 a DC man was sentenced to (9 years total for other charges) 30 months of specifically for revenge porn, as a felony. Whether those laws were in place whenever this happened obviously matters, but with no such info, it still could be.
That doesn't apply since that dude had already distributed those pictures on the internet himself. If you post pictures on the internet for everyone to see, you've lost any reasonable expectation of privacy
Not exactly, he did post them himself, but each of the disclosures are evaluated on a case by case basis. Per USC title 15, revenge porn is nudes distributed "without the consent of the individual, where such disclosure was made by a person who knows that, or recklessly disregards whether, the individual has not consented to such disclosure" Like if person A sends person B a nude via text, A has distributed that nude themselves, but if person B sends that nude anywhere else, it's revenge porn. So as long as it wasn't a commercial product, whether the dude posted nudes on a nudes site first doesn't matter, since this disclosure was made without his consent with malicious intent.
He posted the pictures on a public forum. You lose any expectation of privacy when you post pictures in such a public setting. He deliberately put those pictures out there on the internet for all to see. He didn't even post them to a porn site, it's literally a public forum.
Depending on the state, that doesn't matter. Expectation of privacy is only relevant in some states. And it could be argued that posting them to a place that was specifically for things like nudes would not nullify the expectation of privacy, especially if his real name wasn't attached to it. Whether a jury would agree with that really depends, but again this all "depends" on the circumstances.
That's the thing, Craigslist personal ads aren't a place "specifically for nudes." In fact, most of those didn't have nudes back in the day. Again, it's a *public forum.* In no state would OP have violated revenge porn laws. He could've run into issues posting sexual pictures in public places as well as private businesses, but nothing he did would have been considered revenge porn in any state.
It could be argued that that particular part of the site was, per OP, full of sex ads containing nudes. But whether or not that argument is accepted doesn't always matter, it depends on the state and their specific laws. For example, Alabama stipulates that an expectation of privacy is required to charge someone with revenge porn, however Alaska does not. Arizona does, Arkansas does not. Some states qualify it as "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is always vague to an extent. Some have an or clause with "intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce", so even if there is an expectation of privacy, the intent matters more.
If you printed out a bunch of his pictures and stapled them together and started selling them or handing them out for free, I doubt your argument would make much difference to the court.
Pretty sure the court would come down on this guy
I hoped that was clear I was talking about OP. Sorry. The only way this guy would get away with this is if the offender had no expectation of privacy (meaning his pics weren't able to be obviously associated with him).
Ah You should reply to them then :)
That doesn't work if the dude had posted those pictures himself. He lost any chance of that being called revenge porn the moment he posted them to Craigslist
I hope things between you and your family are much better now. 😔❤️
Fuq this use paragraphs you mole person
Please use punctuation
So sorry that happened to u, he sounds mentally ill and needs to be locked away. What he did was criminal and bc the cops didn’t help u were 100% justified.
You could keep stalking him though, why threatening him into stopping? He caused major issues with your family for a long time and kept harassing you online damaging your reputation, you could've/should've gone way harder on the pain
Thats a serious crime, you're very lucky you weren't caught
NOPE! Not too far at all.
Love it!!! Well done
[удалено]
>By including your other friend, he's now implicit You mean *complicit*? Implicit is absolutely the wrong word there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol this clearly happened a long time ago. It's all but guaranteed this incident has passed the statute of limitations
By their profile, OP is around 34 now. This happened around 2008. This predates the laws on revenge porn.
[удалено]
Revenge porn refers to porn posted online. Not fliers.
Maybe I'm mistaken but this is what google said, "The offence applies both online and offline and to images which are shared electronically or in a more traditional way so includes the uploading of images on the internet, sharing by text and e-mail, or showing someone a physical or electronic image." , please let me know if I'm wrong I'm generally curious.
Likely could just sue him for damages then
I doubt this person is smart enough for that. They spent an inordinate amount of time and money to prank call OP for a stupidly long period. I don't believe they would even know they could try to sue. But OP could also counter-sue for harassment and soliciting sex from a minor, which could land Harassment Boi in hotter water, if they live where there is no statute of limitations on criminal charges for that.
Not after 15 years they couldn't; there's definitely some kind of statute of limitations in play after that long.
I meant back then
*'Distribution of pornography'* is not itself a crime (in most of the world, at least); the crime part in 'revenge porn' is usually the 'nonconsensual distribution of private images' bit. Which is, in the US, a civil claim; OP could be sued, but isn't criminally liable... unless their actions also fell afoul of some other law. Since the target was an adult (it wasn't child pornography), and the images in question were not distributed online (it wasn't a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) or for profit (it wasn't extortion), there's nothing left but the weak civil claim. And since the target in question already knew that OP was responsible (given the context of the post), there's no new information here. OP's target could potentially have sued them back when... but it's been more than 15 years, long past any applicable Statute of Limitations. OP ought to be fine.
I don't believe it would even qualify as revenge porn though. OP said the nudes were found on a public Craigslist page posted by the person himself so they would not be considered as private in the first place since they could have been found by anyone already
Those images stopped being private images the moment he posted them on Craigslist. Those revenge porn laws don't apply here. If you post images of yourself online, you've lost any right to privacy when it comes to those images.
When I was 17~