4 ms·

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

by 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.
- Canada 3y ago
  Yes, of course he's probably not going to pay much of anything, but now she can have some payback by making his life suck for a while.

by Canada 3y ago

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.
Canada 3y ago
Yes, of course he's probably not going to pay much of anything, but now she can have some payback by making his life suck for a while.