'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#41

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC

chillingeffect wrote: post #40

btucker wrote: post #27

Bob Garfield (On the Media) interviewed Hunter Moore a few years ago: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/173718-revenge-porns-latest-...

Great link! Only five minutes long, yet very interesting to hear the interactions between the two. I especially enjoyed hearing the interviewer begrudgingly admit that it wasn't just women but also men on the site. He (Garfield) tries desperately to paint Moore as pure evil in every way, but is repeatedly forced to admit that Moore's actions are legal and in line with values of our country's laws (er, our laws until…

Legal does not mean good or right, of course. The guy is still a complete scumbag, emotionally broken at some point in his early development I imagine.

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#42

Post by throwaway092834 » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 3:53 PM UTC

billpg wrote: post #14

I don't see this as a free speech issue. If you want to put a website with pictures of yourself naked, that's fine by me. You do not get to make that decision on my behalf.

Certainly it's a free speech issue if I took the picture of you, because you were naked in front of me?

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#43

Post by lettergram » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 3:57 PM UTC

This article seems pretty concluded. For one, it doesn't seem like they are charging anyone for the revenge porn site, rather they are charging him as an accomplice in "hacking" peoples emails. Worse yet, they then bring in the $250,000 fine imposed by the court for defamation and that has nothing (or seemingly) nothing to do with the current case at all.

In other words... what the hell is this article about?

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#44

Post by at-fates-hands » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 4:30 PM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #5

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the latest legal setback for Mr Moore, who was ordered in March to pay $250,000 (£170,000) in damages for defamation resulting from a civil lawsuit. I may have misunderstood, but didn't this $250k fine originate largely due to the UGC on the website?

AFAIK users didn't actually upload content to the site. They submitted it and then Mr Moore or someone else posted it. I'm also pretty sure he wouldn't honour take down requests.

Yup and in some cases, he spread the photos to other revenge sites after getting take down requests.

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#45

Post by loucal » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

The last tweet he posted is hilariously ironic...

IIRC, for years he actually used to make videos ridiculing girls who tried to get their pictures taken down and admitted to ignoring all takedown requests publicly so I'm surprised he lasted this long with the nature of what he was doing.

Also do a quick search for his name and 'anderson' he had an interview on anderson cooper that just makes him look and sound like an actual child.

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#46

Post by chilldream » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #2

Should it be illegal to operate a website that hosts user-generated content, some of which is illegal, if you take reasonable steps to remove the illegal content when informed of its existence? The answer is pretty clearly "no." But this position becomes more difficult to defend when the entire premise of the website is based on illegal content. Something like e.g. if YouTube was originally named ShareMusicIllegally.…

This is but a handful of data points, but a lot of the rumblings I've heard about this whole trend have been coming from lawyers who take a specific interest in protecting free speech. This includes Marc Randazza, who was mentioned in the article. This also includes Ken White at Popehat, who has an entire tag devoted to IsAnybodyDown (a knockoff of Moore's site that added more crimes into the bargain). There's definite danger of a badly-drafted law going over the line, but it seems that it's possible to prevent the stalker-enabling crap on these sites without damaging actual speech.

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#47

Post by pbhjpbhj » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 4:59 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #13

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #2

Should it be illegal to operate a website that hosts user-generated content, some of which is illegal, if you take reasonable steps to remove the illegal content when informed of its existence? The answer is pretty clearly "no." But this position becomes more difficult to defend when the entire premise of the website is based on illegal content. Something like e.g. if YouTube was originally named ShareMusicIllegally.…

In the European Union storing personal data like that has been illegal for many years.

I think you miss the point. It may be illegal but nonetheless someone can upload your personal information to Flickr or a Google Hangout or a Facebook page.

The question is whether that makes Facebook, say, culpable.

Safe-harbour laws apply in USA, I don't think we have anything similar in my country.

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#48

Post by yarou » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

This sets a dangerous precedent. Soon there will be laws written that you cannot criticize the policies of the federal government on a website. And so on. I would gladly defend this guy, even if he is a scumbag.

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#49

Post by tlrobinson » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #23

josephlord wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make it not a free speech issue. It is a free speech issue but one that we come down on the restricted speech side of things. It is just that it one of the issues that illustrates that some limits on free speech are appropriate and correct. Once that is acknowledged the tricky discussion of where that line should be and how it should enforced come into play.

Is it not copyright infringement? You post my pictures without my consent, I send a takedown notice, you refuse, I call the FBI.

IIRC the rationalization he used was that the person who uploaded the photos, not the subject, was the copyright holder because they were the photographer, thus there was no copyright infringement. I don't know how he verified that, if at all.

Now, hacking into email accounts and stealing photos is another matter...

Re: 'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

#50

Post by zequel » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #2

Should it be illegal to operate a website that hosts user-generated content, some of which is illegal, if you take reasonable steps to remove the illegal content when informed of its existence? The answer is pretty clearly "no." But this position becomes more difficult to defend when the entire premise of the website is based on illegal content. Something like e.g. if YouTube was originally named ShareMusicIllegally.…

Usually I agree with the whole slippery slope angle but I don't think you want to hang your legal hat on THIS case.

Wait for a more redeeming party and case imo, there's value in having some sympathy for the defendant. These are the defendants you're looking for.