4 ms·

That’s some despicable behavior on the ex-boyfriend’s part, but $1.2 billion? Does anyone involved in this case have any actual expectation that the ex-boyfrien

That’s some despicable behavior on the ex-boyfriend’s part, but $1.2 billion? Does anyone involved in this case have any actual expectation that the ex-boyfriend is capable of paying that in his lifetime? Is he a billionaire? Can someone explain to me the possible reasoning behind such a massive sum?

defrost 3y ago
It sets a precedent in law: Brad Gilde, a lawyer for D.L., said that he did not expect the full $1.2 billion to be paid out, but that he hoped it would serve as a deterrent for others. The message is that unless you're well north of a few billion, Texas will make revenge porn perpetrators hurt financially.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  Exactly. And if you are well north of a few billion, the next jury can determine that in your case the penalty should be one trillion.
squokko 3y ago
It sends a message to people that unless you're Elon Musk you'll get fucked over if you try this.
- mosselman 3y ago
  In a way I feel like it makes a mockery out of it. It is such an unrealistic figure that I doubt he’ll end up paying anywhere near it and if that is the case, what is the purpose of the number? It is like saying you have to serve 300 life sentences. That is just 1 and everyone knows it. “Be quiet now or you will get another 50” “oh nO, nOt 50 mOrE”
  - squokko 3y ago
    In US law, each case sets precedent for the cases that come after it. This is now a damages figure that will be referred to by other lawyers. Imagine if a corporation does something like this, the way eBay was terrorizing a couple? Their damages are now in the billions rather than the hundreds of thousands.
  - rlpb 3y ago
    I felt like that when I initially read this. But now, after reading some of the other comments, I think I see where they're coming from. I now see it more like "You destroyed someone else's entire life; the damages caused by that is essentially unlimited, so you will pay them unlimited damages. Give them all your money for the rest of your life." I'm not sure I agree with the principle, but I do see the point and it does make sense as a figure for me now.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  No, this has no info on how someone like Elon would be punished if they did this.
nine_k 3y ago
It sounds a bit lake these double or triple life sentences.
- DoItToMe81 3y ago
  The point of multiple life sentences is so if one is successfully appealed, they need go to through the whole bureaucratic process again to appeal another. This is quite different.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Why apply reason when you can use emotion instead?
- 9dev 3y ago
  What would reason look like in this case?
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    Personally I think this should be a criminal matter not a civil one. The small part that is civil is the actual damages. Like measurable material damages. The criminal law system exists to protect non-material things, the civil to deal with material damages. So you should go to criminal court for your mistreatment as a person and civil for your material losses. Make sense? Civil damages in this case should be limited to things like lost income, lawyers costs, the effects of damage to her credit history, return of money stolen, compensation for the time required to deal with unnecessary BS, maybe the cost of some therapy. This would also be much safer for everyone, from the victim to the accused: * Currently there is no reason to assume he will stop. He's not in prison and have nothing to lose right? If he were in prison that would make continuing quiet difficult. But he isn't. * And there is no reason to think he is guilty either, since he's not actually been tried in criminal court and it isn't clear if he even had a lawyer. Yet his life is ruined (rightly or wrongly who knows?).
    - thebigjewbowski 3y ago
      I like this punishment — the damage has already been done, now he’s going to pay for it. Of course he isn’t going to have, or ever earn, $1.2B but the court can garnish his wages. The compensation to the victim will enrich her life to a degree. If the perpetrator was incarcerated all she’d be paid is peace of mind. There’s nothing in this judgement that is stopping her from getting a permanent restraining order or anything. She may already have one. In the US, when someone goes to prison, their life goes to serve private corporations by way of slave labor and exploitation or the prison itself, similarly by way of slave labor. This ultimately costs the tax payer around (IIRC) $50k/year. Similarly, if Steve kills someone in a drunk driving accident and goes to jail for 25 years, the family of the deceased can rest assured that he won’t be on the road any longer but that does little to compensate for the fact that their loved one is gone. Money doesn’t bring them back but a mother or father having died is going to undoubtedly become a financial drain for 95% of people in the country by way of lost earnings, child care, therapy, lost productivity of survivors, etc etc. If instead of working for pennies in prison Steve could be barred from driving for life and instead spend his time doing productive work that earns more than $0.25 and pay a hefty sum in restitution to the victims in perpetuity they’d have the peace of mind that he isn’t driving and also have assistance with their loss.
olliej 3y ago
That they weren’t able to send him to jail where he clearly belongs, so presumably went for some kind of statute driven penalty. I’m assuming there’s a $x per instance cap and it sounds like this abuser is prolific. Maybe he’ll appeal it for something more “reasonable”? On the other hand for crimes like this you have to ask what the financial penalty should be to actually deter every possible perpetrator? For all violations like this where there isn’t loss of assets with objective value, what should the fine be? What should be the fine for sexual assault for instance?
Canada 3y ago
It was decided by a jury. According to the article, after they broke up, he used the security cameras installed at her mother's house in another state to spy on her, he posted her private sexy pics everywhere - on social media, distributed via public Dropbox folder, and uploaded to porn sites. He even made sure to send to her family and friends on social media. While doing this he emails her: "You will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet" So the jury decided to send a message, "you will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to pay off this judgement" and I bet the jury also figured a sum of one billion dollars would result in some articles with his name in them too.
- TheAlchemist 3y ago
  This is the way - very good explanation.
- mcv 3y ago
  So it's mostly a symbolic judgement. If the culprit has no money, this judgement is not going to do much for the victim. Is there any incentive for him not to continue harassing her? He's got nothing left to lose now. (I'm not feeling sorry for him; he should be in prison.)
  - lovich 3y ago
    If someone is at the point where they are making society consider whether it’s worth punishing them anymore because they’d have nothing left to lose, then they already effectively had nothing left to lose. If you want to try and bluff society on acceptable behavior then you should read Vom Kriege and be prepared to fight hard or deal with the consequences. That’s been the reality of any group that’s wanted to overthrow societal standards for good or bad. In this case at least the jury decided payment indicates to people with the resources to actually make peoples lives a mess, that they have ample resources to lose
  - flangola7 3y ago
    No incentive? He may not be in prison today but that is easily remedied if he so chooses.
havnagiggle 3y ago
Consecutive lives in financial jail.
DannyBee 3y ago
It was a default judgement. As a result, there was nobody to oppose it and say "this is too high". If actually challenged, it would not stand. The judge can't really reduce it sua sponte in this case, without someone asking them to (there are cases where there are caps and they will automatically reduce it to the maximum allowed) In this case, it will also become much harder to challenge in a few months if they defendant doesn't do something.

defrost 3y ago

It sets a precedent in law: Brad Gilde, a lawyer for D.L., said that he did not expect the full $1.2 billion to be paid out, but that he hoped it would serve as a deterrent for others. The message is that unless you're well north of a few billion, Texas will make revenge porn perpetrators hurt financially.

credit_guy 3y ago
Exactly. And if you are well north of a few billion, the next jury can determine that in your case the penalty should be one trillion.

squokko 3y ago

It sends a message to people that unless you're Elon Musk you'll get fucked over if you try this.

mosselman 3y ago
In a way I feel like it makes a mockery out of it. It is such an unrealistic figure that I doubt he’ll end up paying anywhere near it and if that is the case, what is the purpose of the number? It is like saying you have to serve 300 life sentences. That is just 1 and everyone knows it. “Be quiet now or you will get another 50” “oh nO, nOt 50 mOrE”
- squokko 3y ago
  In US law, each case sets precedent for the cases that come after it. This is now a damages figure that will be referred to by other lawyers. Imagine if a corporation does something like this, the way eBay was terrorizing a couple? Their damages are now in the billions rather than the hundreds of thousands.
- rlpb 3y ago
  I felt like that when I initially read this. But now, after reading some of the other comments, I think I see where they're coming from. I now see it more like "You destroyed someone else's entire life; the damages caused by that is essentially unlimited, so you will pay them unlimited damages. Give them all your money for the rest of your life." I'm not sure I agree with the principle, but I do see the point and it does make sense as a figure for me now.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
No, this has no info on how someone like Elon would be punished if they did this.

nine_k 3y ago

It sounds a bit lake these double or triple life sentences.

DoItToMe81 3y ago
The point of multiple life sentences is so if one is successfully appealed, they need go to through the whole bureaucratic process again to appeal another. This is quite different.

LatteLazy 3y ago

Why apply reason when you can use emotion instead?

9dev 3y ago
What would reason look like in this case?
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  Personally I think this should be a criminal matter not a civil one. The small part that is civil is the actual damages. Like measurable material damages. The criminal law system exists to protect non-material things, the civil to deal with material damages. So you should go to criminal court for your mistreatment as a person and civil for your material losses. Make sense? Civil damages in this case should be limited to things like lost income, lawyers costs, the effects of damage to her credit history, return of money stolen, compensation for the time required to deal with unnecessary BS, maybe the cost of some therapy. This would also be much safer for everyone, from the victim to the accused: * Currently there is no reason to assume he will stop. He's not in prison and have nothing to lose right? If he were in prison that would make continuing quiet difficult. But he isn't. * And there is no reason to think he is guilty either, since he's not actually been tried in criminal court and it isn't clear if he even had a lawyer. Yet his life is ruined (rightly or wrongly who knows?).
  - thebigjewbowski 3y ago
    I like this punishment — the damage has already been done, now he’s going to pay for it. Of course he isn’t going to have, or ever earn, $1.2B but the court can garnish his wages. The compensation to the victim will enrich her life to a degree. If the perpetrator was incarcerated all she’d be paid is peace of mind. There’s nothing in this judgement that is stopping her from getting a permanent restraining order or anything. She may already have one. In the US, when someone goes to prison, their life goes to serve private corporations by way of slave labor and exploitation or the prison itself, similarly by way of slave labor. This ultimately costs the tax payer around (IIRC) $50k/year. Similarly, if Steve kills someone in a drunk driving accident and goes to jail for 25 years, the family of the deceased can rest assured that he won’t be on the road any longer but that does little to compensate for the fact that their loved one is gone. Money doesn’t bring them back but a mother or father having died is going to undoubtedly become a financial drain for 95% of people in the country by way of lost earnings, child care, therapy, lost productivity of survivors, etc etc. If instead of working for pennies in prison Steve could be barred from driving for life and instead spend his time doing productive work that earns more than $0.25 and pay a hefty sum in restitution to the victims in perpetuity they’d have the peace of mind that he isn’t driving and also have assistance with their loss.

olliej 3y ago

That they weren’t able to send him to jail where he clearly belongs, so presumably went for some kind of statute driven penalty. I’m assuming there’s a $x per instance cap and it sounds like this abuser is prolific. Maybe he’ll appeal it for something more “reasonable”? On the other hand for crimes like this you have to ask what the financial penalty should be to actually deter every possible perpetrator? For all violations like this where there isn’t loss of assets with objective value, what should the fine be? What should be the fine for sexual assault for instance?

Canada 3y ago

It was decided by a jury. According to the article, after they broke up, he used the security cameras installed at her mother's house in another state to spy on her, he posted her private sexy pics everywhere - on social media, distributed via public Dropbox folder, and uploaded to porn sites. He even made sure to send to her family and friends on social media. While doing this he emails her: "You will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet" So the jury decided to send a message, "you will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to pay off this judgement" and I bet the jury also figured a sum of one billion dollars would result in some articles with his name in them too.

TheAlchemist 3y ago
This is the way - very good explanation.
mcv 3y ago
So it's mostly a symbolic judgement. If the culprit has no money, this judgement is not going to do much for the victim. Is there any incentive for him not to continue harassing her? He's got nothing left to lose now. (I'm not feeling sorry for him; he should be in prison.)
- lovich 3y ago
  If someone is at the point where they are making society consider whether it’s worth punishing them anymore because they’d have nothing left to lose, then they already effectively had nothing left to lose. If you want to try and bluff society on acceptable behavior then you should read Vom Kriege and be prepared to fight hard or deal with the consequences. That’s been the reality of any group that’s wanted to overthrow societal standards for good or bad. In this case at least the jury decided payment indicates to people with the resources to actually make peoples lives a mess, that they have ample resources to lose
- flangola7 3y ago
  No incentive? He may not be in prison today but that is easily remedied if he so chooses.

havnagiggle 3y ago

Consecutive lives in financial jail.

DannyBee 3y ago

It was a default judgement. As a result, there was nobody to oppose it and say "this is too high". If actually challenged, it would not stand. The judge can't really reduce it sua sponte in this case, without someone asking them to (there are cases where there are caps and they will automatically reduce it to the maximum allowed) In this case, it will also become much harder to challenge in a few months if they defendant doesn't do something.