3 ms·

I find this very hard to understand - doesn't freedom of the press ensure that I can post whatever media (in the public domain) that I like? If I were posting

by jMyles 8y ago

I find this very hard to understand - doesn't freedom of the press ensure that I can post whatever media (in the public domain) that I like? If I were posting public domain photos of a city park, and running a market wherein people were able to pay to have them removed, is that the same thing? If not, this seems like an implicit assumption that a mugshot is a form of punishment / humiliation. And if that's so, isn't that the injustice here?

URSpider94 8y ago
I'm sure it will be an interesting case, wouldn't be surprised if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. However -- there are clear laws making it illegal to demand money to not speak/publish information (i.e. blackmail). I expect the defense will argue that they are not publishing the information, they are merely amplifying it by making items of public record more available.
- jMyles 8y ago
  This seems to be distinct from blackmail in a clear cut way though - in this case the information is already published, and the market is for removing it. In other words, it isn't a secret at the time of the transaction.
  - URSpider94 8y ago
    Here's a really interesting article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Note that in the DC statute discussed in the article, it refers to "publicizing an asserted fact". One could argue that repeating the fact that the mug shot exists in a different forum is an act of publicizing. In this day and age, publication is increasingly a matter of degree -- everyone's a publisher, if you count Twitter and Facebook. It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ...
    - jMyles 8y ago
      > It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ... Haha... wow, such a good synopsis of the state of media today. Yeah, this is a good argument. It also suggests, though, that criminally relevant distinctions between blackmail and publication are strained.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
No. This is very, very clearly set up for the sole purpose of extorting money out of the people who's mugshots they publish. There is no other reason for this site to exist.
- jMyles 8y ago
  Yes, it's a horrible and odious enterprise. That's not what's in question here.

by jMyles 8y ago

URSpider94 8y ago

I'm sure it will be an interesting case, wouldn't be surprised if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. However -- there are clear laws making it illegal to demand money to not speak/publish information (i.e. blackmail). I expect the defense will argue that they are not publishing the information, they are merely amplifying it by making items of public record more available.

jMyles 8y ago
This seems to be distinct from blackmail in a clear cut way though - in this case the information is already published, and the market is for removing it. In other words, it isn't a secret at the time of the transaction.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Here's a really interesting article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/06/it-is-actually-difficult-to-define-blackmail/?utm_term=.db9992a7008f https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Note that in the DC statute discussed in the article, it refers to "publicizing an asserted fact". One could argue that repeating the fact that the mug shot exists in a different forum is an act of publicizing. In this day and age, publication is increasingly a matter of degree -- everyone's a publisher, if you count Twitter and Facebook. It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ...
  - jMyles 8y ago
    > It would still be blackmail, I think, if you threatened to take someone's tweet and put it on the front page of the NY Times unless you receive a lifetime supply of M&M's and Diet Coke ... Haha... wow, such a good synopsis of the state of media today. Yeah, this is a good argument. It also suggests, though, that criminally relevant distinctions between blackmail and publication are strained.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

No. This is very, very clearly set up for the sole purpose of extorting money out of the people who's mugshots they publish. There is no other reason for this site to exist.

jMyles 8y ago
Yes, it's a horrible and odious enterprise. That's not what's in question here.