Co-Owners of Mugshots.com Charged With Extortion

Someone should make a website just to put their mug shots up and refuse to take them down. Scumbag ducks.
 
IloveTHIS said:
ok, but how is it extortion. Those people dont have a gun to their head forcing them to cough up $400. The site is simply uploading matters of PUBLIC RECORD, but if you want it bad enough($400) they will take it down.

I dont know. I'm sure any minute now someone is going to get all emotional and rage at me for defending assholes. I just dont feel like we should be able to make a legal activity punishable, just because its scummy.

Imagine this. I'm recording out in public and happen to record a person do something extremely embarrassing, lets say pick their asshole. I upload itt because I think its fucking hilarious. That person finds the video, is embarrassed and reaches out to me asking to remove it. I say OK but only if I am compensated a bit, since technically there is zero legal reason for me to take it down. Is that against the law? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Yeah they just have what little public image left completely smeared to the entire world, with those doing the smearing saying "fuck you, pay me." that they might have a chance for a job, a social life, or any hope of rehabilitation.

No thanks...

Can do, and should do, are completely separate morally and legally.

Uncool.
 
InternetHero said:
Can do, and should do, are completely separate morally and legally.
Click to expand...

This is my whole point. I'm not saying they arent scumbags. I'm just saying it gets real weird for me when we try to legally punish someone for doing something as far as I can tell is legal. Just because its trashy/scummy.

Slippery slope.
 
IloveTHIS said:
This is my whole point. I'm not saying they arent scumbags. I'm just saying it gets real weird for me when we try to legally punish someone for doing something as far as I can tell is legal. Just because its trashy/scummy.

Slippery slope.
Click to expand...

I can relate, but I think they have slipped far, far off the edge into the criminal.

If not, we have to trust the legal system to say so, and have confidence in this... and if not, we by all means better enact wise legislation to prevent this kind of blackmail.

Whether of criminals who may be trying to change their lives, or video of an ex girlfriend taking it up her comely dumpster.

None of this is means to publicly humiliate, distort, or vilify, especially for money as in this case.

It either exists under the law, or we should safely assure that it does, full stop.
 
Each person should get 25 minimum. They did a lot of damage to innocent people or just people engaging in victimless crimes.
 
IloveTHIS said:
ok, but how is it extortion. Those people dont have a gun to their head forcing them to cough up $400. The site is simply uploading matters of PUBLIC RECORD, but if you want it bad enough($400) they will take it down.

I dont know. I'm sure any minute now someone is going to get all emotional and rage at me for defending assholes. I just dont feel like we should be able to make a legal activity punishable, just because its scummy.

Imagine this. I'm recording out in public and happen to record a person do something extremely embarrassing, lets say pick their asshole. I upload itt because I think its fucking hilarious. That person finds the video, is embarrassed and reaches out to me asking to remove it. I say OK but only if I am compensated a bit, since technically there is zero legal reason for me to take it down. Is that against the law? I dont think so.
Click to expand...
I think your example might be blackmail. Not sure, maybee @panamaican or @alanb might know for sure.
 
MicroBrew said:
I think your example might be blackmail. Not sure, maybee @panamaican or @alanb might know for sure.
Click to expand...
Well if it is and I'm wrong I'll admit it but I just dont get that. How can it be blackmail if it is completely legal for me to leave the video up, and I'm only taking it down because the money offered is worth more than my want for the video to stay up.
 
IloveTHIS said:
This is my whole point. I'm not saying they arent scumbags. I'm just saying it gets real weird for me when we try to legally punish someone for doing something as far as I can tell is legal. Just because its trashy/scummy.

Slippery slope.
Click to expand...
Until Obama outlawed it, you'd probably defend Westboro Church protesting soldiers' funerals too, right?
 
IloveTHIS said:
Well if it is and I'm wrong I'll admit it but I just dont get that. How can it be blackmail if it is completely legal for me to leave the video up, and I'm only taking it down because the money offered is worth more than my want for the video to stay up.
Click to expand...
Here is the Oxford dictionary definition:

The action, treated as a criminal offence, of demanding money from someone in return for not revealing compromising information which one has about them.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/blackmail
 
FascistDictator said:
Until Obama outlawed it, you'd probably defend Westboro Church protesting soldiers' funerals too, right?
Click to expand...
and there it is, someone getting all emotional like a bitch just because I raised a question
 
Swing said:
That is some serious bullshit. They charged $399 to get one's info de-published. Who knows how much time and money these jackasses cost people? Considering the potential influence this site had on people's livelihoods, I wish they'd get something like 10 years, but It looks like that depends on the use of force. Unfortunately it seems like they'll only get 3 years.
Click to expand...
They'll meet some of their former "clients", possibly.
 
IloveTHIS said:
Look I'm not saying these guys arent assholes, but if the photos and criminal records/charges are public info, how are they doing anything ILLEGAL?

If they are just publishing the pictures and charges but not making any claim of guilt, how is that wrong? Just because you are cleared of the charges that doesnt make the public records of your arrest illegal to publish.

if I'm wrong on this by all means inform me
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at it:

Back when the internet was first picking up speed. A guy started registering the domaines of famous people (PaulSmith.com). He would then contact Paul's representatives and say "I own your domaine name. Give me $10,000 and it is your's."

So, a couple of people fought this. In particular, I think Warren Sapp sued the guy.

The judge stated that what the guy was doing was against the law. After all, he was profiting off of Warren's name/likeness without Warren's permission. So, Warren won the lawsuit.

I assume, in a legal sense, this is the same thing.
 
MicroBrew said:
I think your example might be blackmail. Not sure, maybee @panamaican or @alanb might know for sure.
Click to expand...
IloveTHIS said:
Well if it is and I'm wrong I'll admit it but I just dont get that. How can it be blackmail if it is completely legal for me to leave the video up, and I'm only taking it down because the money offered is worth more than my want for the video to stay up.
Click to expand...

As I understand the definition of extortion, it's when you demand money based on a threat to do something, including harm to someone's privacy or reputation.

I think this would probably meet the criteria if the entire purpose of the mug shots website is to create pressure to force people to use the removal website. If the mug shots website was being done as a public service (like those pedophile websites) then they'd be fine.
 
Last edited:
Swing said:
That is some serious bullshit. They charged $399 to get one's info de-published. Who knows how much time and money these jackasses cost people? Considering the potential influence this site had on people's livelihoods, I wish they'd get something like 10 years, but It looks like that depends on the use of force. Unfortunately it seems like they'll only get 3 years.
Click to expand...


it's an interesting legal case because they can claim that they are offering a public service allowing employers and residents to have peace of mind with new employees/neighbors, but the $399 fee is excessive. i think if they charged $20-$50 removal fee, they'd be able to get away with it without the extortion charge.

any sherlawyers on here care to provide some insight?
 
Fluffernutter said:
I'll take a stab at it:

Back when the internet was first picking up speed. A guy started registering the domaines of famous people (PaulSmith.com). He would then contact Paul's representatives and say "I own your domaine name. Give me $10,000 and it is your's."

So, a couple of people fought this. In particular, I think Warren Sapp sued the guy.

The judge stated that what the guy was doing was against the law. After all, he was profiting off of Warren's name/likeness without Warren's permission. So, Warren won the lawsuit.

I assume, in a legal sense, this is the same thing.
Click to expand...


hmmm, i don't think that case would be a precedent for this case, because in your scenario the individual creates a website using another persons likeness, but in the current situation, the mugshots are part of public record.
 
LogicalFighting said:
it's an interesting legal case because they can claim that they are offering a public service allowing employers and residents to have peace of mind with new employees/neighbors, but the $399 fee is excessive. i think if they charged $20-$50 removal fee, they'd be able to get away with it without the extortion charge.

any sherlawyers on here care to provide some insight?
Click to expand...

It's hard to imagine that it is a public service when they advertise (with threats) how to remove your name from this list. Removal from the list would surely be against the principal of creating awareness and by having a fee so vastly in excess of any kind of administrative cost it demonstrates they are attempting to profit from this rather than cover costs. I would also question how much time they spend generating awareness vs how much time they spent attempting to collect 'fees'.

Not a lawyer, but fuck them.
 
Neph said:
It's hard to imagine that it is a public service when they advertise (with threats) how to remove your name from this list. Removal from the list would surely be against the principal of creating awareness and by having a fee so vastly in excess of any kind of administrative cost it demonstrates they are attempting to profit from this rather than cover costs. I would also question how much time they spend generating awareness vs how much time they spent attempting to collect 'fees'.

Not a lawyer, but fuck them.
Click to expand...

that makes sense
def. fuck them,


but what if they said they collate all mugshots as a public service and offered only to remove the ones that didn't end in a conviction for an administrative fee, then technically they would probably be able to operate legally?
 
I'm cool with this as long as the government doesn't take any action against @mugshotbaes







 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,597
Messages
55,429,753
Members
174,775
Latest member
shawn_bogart

Share this page

Back
Top