San Diego man guilty in 'revenge porn' case

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Los Angeles Times

San Diego man guilty in 'revenge porn' case
By Tony Perry contact the reporter

Revenge porn website not only 'sleazy' but also illegal, San Diego jury finds
February 2, 2015, 5:39 PM

A 28-year-old San Diego man was found guilty Monday of operating a "revenge porn" website that included naked and sexually explicit pictures of women posted by angry ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands..
Kevin Christopher Bollaert posted the pictures and then charged women from $300 to $350 to have the pictures removed, prosecutors said during the trial in San Diego County Superior Court.

A jury found Bollaert guilty of multiple felony counts of identity theft and extortion.
Women testified that the pictures had created embarrassment and stress that affected their jobs and their families. But Bollaert's attorney had argued that while the website was "sleazy," it did not violate the law.

The state's revenge porn law, a misdemeanor, became effective Oct. 1, 2013, after the conduct for which Bollaert was charged.
Prosecutors said that Bollaert created a website that allowed the anonymous posting of nude and sexually explicit photos. The website required that a person posting a picture include the subject's name, location, age and Facebook profile.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-revenge-porn-verdict-20150202-story.html

[rpannier]

1. Extortion was the first thing that came to me

[shenmue]

2. Oh yeah

Blackmail is not legal.

[cstanleytech]

3. Yup his own business model is what sunk him. Now he might have been safe

if say he had required people to pay to have the photos published rather than pay to have them removed.

[Journeyman]

4. I wonder if this will be overturned on appeal for being "ex post facto". . .

From the article:

The state's revenge porn law, a misdemeanor, became effective Oct. 1, 2013, after the conduct for which Bollaert was charged.

<snip>

Prosecutors said more than 10,000 images from California and other states were posted between Dec. 2, 2012, and Sept. 17, 2013.

Sleazy as his conduct is, it wasn't illegal when he committed his foul deeds. Good to know there are laws in place to protect everyone from such predatory behavior. Because even if his conviction doesn't hold, it serves as a highly visible warning to others who may be tempted to establish any similar site.

[jeff47]

11. He wasn't charged under the new law.

He was charged with old-fashioned extortion for charging the women to remove the pictures.

If he had charged for people to post the pictures, he could not have been charged. That's why the new law was written.

[Journeyman]

12. Good to know. . .

Thanks for the explanation.

[Orrex]

5. It's a shame that they're restricting Bollaert's freedom of speech like this.

Pretty fucking ghastly behavior. Any word on his sentence? The article says that he hosted about 10K pictures. If he charged $300 to $350 to have them removed, I'd say that $3.5M is good for starters, plus punitive damages.

Also some hefty jail time seems appropriate. What's the standard sentence for extortion and identity theft?


k/r

[Orrex]

6. Also, now that I think of it

Are they charging the assholes who uploaded the pics to the site in the first place?

[cstanleytech]

8. They cant it wasnt a crime at the time. With the new they probably could but thats assuming the law

isnt thrown out by a court for some reason.

[Orrex]

9. Ah, thanks.

I'm sorry to hear it, but I think you're correct.

[2naSalit]

7. Can individual

civil suits be filed by the victims too? I think the best thing for this POS is a looooong time behind bars.

Isn't extortion, especially this kind, a felony?

[cstanleytech]

15. They can try to sue but again it may or may not work.

And yes extortion is a crime which is how they nailed him, if he hadnt asked the women for money to remove the pics they couldnt have charged him with it.

[2naSalit]

20. Given the tentative nature

of bringing civil suits against this guy, I wonder if the victims can bring suits against the providers of the photos.

Just wondering.

[cstanleytech]

22. OF course they can, you can sue just about anyone for almost anything but

winning such a lawsuit is a different issue altogether and in cases like this its hard to say since the people involved usually have given consent to be photographed and or videotaped and that places a huge hurdle for them to overcome in such a lawsuit.
Though it would be a different story if say the pics or videos were stolen or taken with say a hidden camera.

[Hoppy]

10. It would not be ex post facto if he is charged with extortion.

[progressoid]

13. Hope to see more of these scumbags taken down.

[MillennialDem]

14. It's sleazy as hell and revenge porn should be illegal (and I'm glad it's starting to be), but is

this extortion by law?

I'm not trying to be advocate for the jerk at all, but if he emailed them and said "I'm going to post this nude / xrated photo/video of you unless you pay me $x" that seems like extortion to me - but if he just posted the pics and the women asked (ie they contacted him) for them to be removed and he said he would remove if they paid $x, isn't that a business transaction rather than extortion?

[marble falls]

18. No, just because the threat wasn't explicet, it doesn't mean it wasn't implicit.

[MillennialDem]

19. Fair enough. Thanks

[IronLionZion]

16. Before you embark on a journey of revenge,

dig two graves.

Vengeful people are the worst. I would think their hatred and bitterness would be its own form of punishment.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Great quote (nt)

[marble falls]

17. This was quick justice, this defendant was slime squared.

[cstanleytech]

23. "this defendant was slime squared." Oh I agree 100% there. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

24. For all the headlines, the revenge porn law was not a charge

This business model is also being used for several mugshot sites.