Websites should be free to host user generated content provided they're not intending to host illegal content. Taking reasonable steps to remove illegal content

Websites should be free to host user generated content provided they're not intending to host illegal content. Taking reasonable steps to remove illegal content is only part of that. If the illegal content hosting is the public premise of the site, then that's proof of intent. For me, the distinction is pretty clear. Reddit doesn't allow subreddits devoted to child porn, for example, and I think that's reasonable. I don't think laws should be applied retroactively, but normally they aren't, and that certainly isn't what happened in this case. The fine was related to a civil case, and the criminal proceedings seem to be related to hacking activity. Bear in mind that although revenge porn wasn't covered by criminal law until recently, it was always covered by civil law. These photographs count as copyrighted content. According to the Jezebel article, the website owner refused to take down photos even when issued with a DMCA takedown notices. As I understand it, that means the owner was breaking civil law. So it's not really fair to paint him as a law abiding but sketchy businessman. He broke the law, but he got away with it by targeting vulnerable people who didn't sue him because it would have been public, embarrassing and expensive. Revenge porn isn't a good thing, on balance. The freedom involved isn't worth the damage done, so I'd be happy for it to be illegal to host. However legislation on this has to be very carefully written to only target revenge porn. You wouldn't want someone getting put in jail for torrenting an amateur porn movie.