It's only natural that the comments here focus on the insane, newsworthy aspect of this lawsuit - that being Tor being listed as a defendant. The other part is

It's only natural that the comments here focus on the insane, newsworthy aspect of this lawsuit - that being Tor being listed as a defendant. The other part is relatively sane, and therefore not particularly germane to relevant discussion here. In general, no-one who creates anything has any real control over what other people use it for. Tor has no control over what the network is used for (it is kind of the point that no-one does!). Sure, you can ask: "please use this software for good, or for awesome". But that's about it, and well, bad guys aren't known for listening to you, or to anyone - which the plaintiff would know very well, because control (or lack thereof) cuts to the very heart of this case. When I sign model releases - though they are not strictly necessary where I am, they help to make sure all participants know the full consequences of what they're doing, and knowledgeably consent to it - I know media cannot effectively be universally de-published. I know that choice is basically irrevocable, and (for example) may well limit some future career prospects because some people vehemently Do Not Like That Sort Of Thing™. It's my free choice to model or not, being aware of all that. That choice was reportedly denied to the plaintiff - and that's absolutely reprehensible, so I wish her the best of luck in going after that 'revenge porn' site if it does what they allege it does. But my heavens I don't think she could have chosen a worse lawyer to represent her if she tried. Tor's just got nothing material to do with it whatsoever. He may as well have sued Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the web. (Please don't tell them that. They might actually think that's a good idea!)