Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted • Hacker News Board

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#31

Post by peteretep » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 4:34 AM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #6

randyrand wrote: post #3

was it hidden in the contract? just curious the extent of the lying.

from the article >plied with alcohol contracts might not matter

... and then told they wouldn’t be flown home, too, if they tried to back out. There are jurisdictions where this would be a rape case.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#32

Post by clSTophEjUdRanu » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 4:46 AM UTC

In the future everyone will know a pornstar and nobody will care

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#33

Post by wruza » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 4:50 AM UTC

Reading through comments I feel like being from completely another world. While an option is to simply stay silent, I struggle to understand how that plot ends up unquestioned by everyone except lawyers. Is it self-censoring in action? Because I feel self-censored.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#34

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 4:52 AM UTC

cheez wrote: post #8

01100011 wrote: post #4

My wife fell victim to this before we met. I'm curious how we'd go about filing a case against the website. I send a message to the FBI a few years ago and never heard anything.

Your wife should probably do it otherwise the FBI is probably laughing at you.

[deleted]

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#35

Post by 1000units » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 5:04 AM UTC

01100011 wrote: post #4

My wife fell victim to this before we met. I'm curious how we'd go about filing a case against the website. I send a message to the FBI a few years ago and never heard anything.

There is a pro-bono organization called SIMP (Statutory Implications for Male Predators) dedicated to taking on these cases specifically where young women have been tricked into working in pornography without proper instruction and disclosure about how these productions will be disseminated and what the full consequences may be for themselves and their loved ones. I consider these people monsters of the worst sort, and I hope they all are crushed under the weight of the law at least as heavily as the cretins behind GDP. My deepest condolences to you and your wife, and good luck.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#36

Post by wmeredith » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 5:07 AM UTC

taxidump wrote: post #28

RKearney wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems to echo exactly what is stated in the article. "They were promised that the footage would go straight to DVD for wealthy buyers in other countries, in particular Australia and New Zealand, where the defendants come from."

They were ok with making porn, just not if someone seen it they knew... Got it.

They were defrauded. Full stop.

I don't understand the smugness in your reply. (Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, this is the internet after all.) But what is remarkable/condemnable about a human willing to do something relatively harmless yet embarrassing for money "if no one finds out"?

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#37

Post by GhettoMaestro » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

wruza wrote: post #33

Reading through comments I feel like being from completely another world. While an option is to simply stay silent, I struggle to understand how that plot ends up unquestioned by everyone except lawyers. Is it self-censoring in action? Because I feel self-censored.

Nah, you're not alone. If a chick gets on camera for cash and the dude is like "don't worry, not a lot of people will see it", the chick is dumb if she really thinks that is the case.

Come the fuck on folks.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#38

Post by GhettoMaestro » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 5:10 AM UTC

sysbin wrote: post #30

Each woman was seeking 2 million from what I've found online. The judgement ended up being a payout of 12.7m sum and that's for splitting between 22 victims with their representation. I wonder how much each person walked away with after their attorneys were paid. I've not witnessed justice in my life but I like to think they will be happy with the judgement even though it's a lot lower than they sought.

In what fucking reality are they entitled to two million shekels for having their tits, asshole, and pussy posted online?

This is a fucking lol-able sham.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#39

Post by lopmotr » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 5:11 AM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #24

This is disgusting. I am sure you can find enough people in the world who would voluntarily do this without coercion. Getting people drunk in another city/state (?) and coercing them to do something else is rape territory, and I hope everyone involved faces criminal justice for that It's strange that the site is still up? I'm not visiting but, but how can there be civil and criminal charges and the site is still up..…

Being sued or prosecuted doesn't automatically mean all your property is seized and business shut down.

Re: Porn site to pay $12.7M to women who didn't know videos would be posted

#40

Post by wmeredith » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 5:14 AM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #3

was it hidden in the contract? just curious the extent of the lying.

The contracts were copy/paste boilerplate bullshit. The women were told the recordings were for wealthy private collectors and would never be widely released. The women were often flown to other states, plied with alcohol, and then told they would only be flown home if they co-operated. These guys are barely a notch above kidnappers, rapists, and sex traffickers.

The stories have been around online for a while, but now they're convicted of this insidious garbage. Do not support GirlsDoPorn.