The Student Room Group

Revenge porn site creator jailed for 18 years

'Sky News'
A man who posted thousands of sexually explicit photos of victims on a "revenge porn" website has been jailed for 18 years.

Kevin Bollaert, 28, was convicted in February of running a website that hosted more than 10,000 explicit photographs.

The website - ugotposted.com - was launched in December 2012, enabling photos to be posted without the subject's permission.

Bollaert, of San Diego, ran a parallel site - changemyreputation.com - that then charged individuals up to $350 (£235) each to remove the pictures.

Unlike other revenge porn websites, where photos are anonymous, ugotposted.com required the poster to include full details of the subject.

Bollaert's parents pleaded for leniency, insisting their son was remorseful. However judge Gill called Bollaert's conduct "outrageous".

Mr Harris said Friday's sentence "makes clear there will be severe consequences for those that profit from the exploitation of victims online.


http://news.sky.com/story/1458469/revenge-porn-site-operator-jailed-for-18-years

What a horrible man profiting from the exploitation and humiliation of other people in the most extreme way. It's people like this who drive others to suicide. I'm glad to see the US taking a hard line on this. I wonder how he would be sentenced under UK law.

What do you guys think?

Scroll to see replies

Justice has been served.
He deserves it
Very immoral, and his actions could have caused all sorts of damage (and even suicides). But I really don't know how illegal this is. I don't think a person has a legal right to request a photo of themselves be removed from a website.
He shouldn't have done this but **** that absurd sentence. Rapists do less time.
Original post by Reluire

What a horrible man

Summed up perfectly. It's bad enough that he put it online. However, to then exploit people financially is just sickening. He got 18 years and he deserves all 18 years of them because as you rightly said, things like this can push people over the edge and I bet there were people worried sick and having sleepless nights because of this mans actions.
Ah you beat me to it!

I read a few comments on Facebook about this, and I was disgusted to see so many people (mostly women in fact) saying that his sentencing was too harsh!

Ridiculous! I feel as though he deserved what he got. Who gave him the right to do what he did? It was completely wrong, he's had such a negative affect on multiple women. Who knows what this may have done to them. It is a shame that he has received a longer sentence than say some rapists or murderers, but that doesn't mean he should get a lighter sentencing! Blame the judges who give those said rapists and murderers less time. It's silly some people think like that...
Reply 7
Original post by elоhssа
Very immoral, and his actions could have caused all sorts of damage (and even suicides). But I really don't know how illegal this is. I don't think a person has a legal right to request a photo of themselves be removed from a website.


Posting explicit photos of someone online without their consent is very illegal. Not only that, but then blackmailing victims for money in order to have their photos taken down is also illegal.


Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
He shouldn't have done this but **** that absurd sentence. Rapists do less time.


You shouldn't compare the sentencing to a rape sentence. Even if a rape sentence is typically less than 18 years, that isn't to say that this sentence isn't just - it might perhaps suggest instead that there is an inconsistency in the legal system. I think Europhile summed up well why this act was so despicable.
it shouldn't be illegal - this is a free speech principle issue which I actually care about objectively; free speech isn't always consequentially good or moral (e.g. we can use our free speech for bigotry or stupidity, but it is objectively fair. if you don't want people having naked pictures of you - NEVER send them in the first place. NEVER be so stupid and naive! but ultimately, if you decide to transfer a naked picture of yourself to someone, knowing full well that they could use it for evil, then you are just as to blame as they are!
Reply 9
Original post by zippity.doodah
it shouldn't be illegal - this is a free speech principle issue which I actually care about objectively; free speech isn't always consequentially good or moral (e.g. we can use our free speech for bigotry or stupidity, but it is objectively fair. if you don't want people having naked pictures of you - NEVER send them in the first place. NEVER be so stupid and naive! but ultimately, if you decide to transfer a naked picture of yourself to someone, knowing full well that they could use it for evil, then you are just as to blame as they are!

Seriously...

Pretty sure it's illegal to post explicit photos of someone online without their consent. I believe the law was changed in England in the past few months.
There's nothing in here about free speech. That scumbag has been profiting off of humiliating woman, deserves every bit of that sentence imo

EDIT: Whoops, it's 'Murica.
In that case idk the law. But that's how it should be
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AdamCee
Seriously...

Pretty sure it's illegal to post explicit photos of someone online without their consent. I believe the law was changed in England in the past few months.
There's nothing in here about free speech. That scumbag has been profiting off of humiliating woman, deserves every bit of that sentence imo


1) I stated "it should be legal", as if I wasn't making a lawyer's argument.
2) yes it is - the communication of digital media (images) is the conveyance of expression. if you allocate images to another person voluntarily, knowing that those images, without a formal contract, may be abused one day, then you've decided that of your own free will, and your remorse should not be a force against the principle of freedom of expression. I'm not telling you that distributing naked pictures is moral, but free speech is a far better principle than the principle that is that the government ought to force us not to convey our expressions, whether moral or immoral. an open and free/uncoerced society is better and more legitimate legally than one that revolves around a nanny state of feeble-minded and child-like adults who want big daddy government to fight their civil disputes for them with the force of the monopoly of force.
Reply 11
Original post by zippity.doodah
it shouldn't be illegal - this is a free speech principle issue which I actually care about objectively; free speech isn't always consequentially good or moral (e.g. we can use our free speech for bigotry or stupidity, but it is objectively fair. if you don't want people having naked pictures of you - NEVER send them in the first place. NEVER be so stupid and naive! but ultimately, if you decide to transfer a naked picture of yourself to someone, knowing full well that they could use it for evil, then you are just as to blame as they are!


That logic is the equivalent of saying to a woman, 'if you don't want to be raped, don't dress provocatively!' No one sends personal pictures with the intention of having them distributed online and being held to ransom. This is a disgusting practice and I don't know how you can even remotely condone it. This is not a matter of a free speech; this is a matter of exploiting personal material for monetary gain in an exploitative and illegal manner. No-one has the right to distribute images without consent, especially when they have been obtained in a manipulative and deceitful manner in which someone's trust has been gained and abused.

Distribution without consent and blackmail are illegal. That's all there is to it.
Reply 12
Too harsh? For ruining so many peoples lives I would have thought it too soft.
Original post by Reluire
That logic is the equivalent of saying to a woman, 'if you don't want to be raped, don't dress provocatively!'


what are you babbling about? rape is coercion/force and dressing is a voluntary form of expression. transfering your naked images is another form of voluntary expression. only a contract would legitimately give the woman the right to stop a man from doing what he wants with an allocated image towards his disposal. either you are mentally challenged for not understanding the nature of coercion and expression, or you are deliberately misunderstanding or misrepresenting me which is pathetic. you have done yourself a huge deal of disrespect by appealing to mis-matches, because now I am going tyo have a hard time taking you seriously or as a fair-minded adult who wants to talk or discuss this seriously.

No one sends personal pictures with the intention of having them distributed online and being held to ransom. This is a disgusting practice and I don't know how you can even remotely condone it.


then these women are simply naive and they should prefer to act more responsibly; I wouldn't even let my eventual wife possess naked pictures of me based on the risks involved, because the risk is far more dangerous than the "harmless fun" of it. if I can think logically like this, why can't these stupid girls?

This is not a matter of a free speech; this is a matter of exploiting personal material for monetary gain in an exploitative and illegal manner.


1) ...which is still a form of free speech. and this *should* "be a matter of what" it quite clearly is. controversial speech is what freedom of speech is all about - why do you think we have free speech? to talk about the weather?
2) ...which I am arguing should *not* be illegal against the principle of free speech
3) free speech shouldn't be negated by hurt feelings. that's where I stand. that's where my rationale will always stand - free speech is the closest thing in politics to something sacred. I value it more than the coercive comfort of others, whom realise they had acted stupidly by protesting *later*, as opposed to not being so stupid in the first place.

No-one has the right to distribute images without consent, especially when they have been obtained in a manipulative and deceitful manner in which someone's trust has been gained and abused.


"without consent"? if I tell someone a secret, yet they spread that secret, does that mean I have the right to sue them? nope. know why? because I never signed a binding contract, and even if it wasn't an incorporated agreement, if I never meant for it to be a binding promise/agreement, then it, by any logic, wouldn't be illegal by any kind of rationality. the law is a black spot on the slate of the logic of freedom of speech. freedom of contract, via mutual assent, ought to be the manner of self-regulation here.

Distribution without consent and blackmail are illegal. That's all there is to it.


distribution without consent of images you, yourself, distribute to another actor, without any legally binding agreements in place, is the distribution of digital property. if you do not set forth terms of property transfer (e.g. a contract) then, sorry, but there's no logic you can deploy which isn't illogical to the argument of freedom of expression. I am not telling you that this isn't immoral. I am telling you that, sometimes, freedom, which is the higher goal, isn't moral. I can be a racist, sexist, fat-ist, homophobic, hateful~ (etc) individual, but my right to self expression would allow me to express myself legally because my speech does not directly or physically coerce or damage other people. concepts (e.g. people memorising a naked photo in their minds) is not direct or physical damage, and even if it did damage a person "psychologically", it is their fault for electing to transfer those images as a rational individual. our government is not a nanny, and/or should not act as such - it should be a protection of individual liberties. the "hurt feelings" of (who are basically) poorly-calculating women do not bear the logic of overriding a fundamental human liberty.
(edited 8 years ago)
Good. And I'm glad this issue is finally being taken seriously.
Reply 15
Oh get your **** togheter people. 18 years? He's going to spend the best years of his life in prison?
Americans are a bunch of hyprocrites. USA is THE country which prizes business over anything. USA is THE country who does not think twice when it comes to supporting wars and killing innocents. USA is THE land of capitalism and this is just an expression of capitalism. Sure what he did what wrong but he is not a ****ing murderer. They could have blocked that ****ing site and had him do social work but no they chose to destroy his life . This is beyond that stupid porn site, this is an expression of the complete lack of freedom US gives his citiziens.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
He shouldn't have done this but **** that absurd sentence. Rapists do less time.

One could argue that rapists also cause a lesser degree of harm.
Original post by zippity.doodah
it shouldn't be illegal - this is a free speech principle issue which I actually care about objectively; free speech isn't always consequentially good or moral (e.g. we can use our free speech for bigotry or stupidity, but it is objectively fair. if you don't want people having naked pictures of you - NEVER send them in the first place. NEVER be so stupid and naive! but ultimately, if you decide to transfer a naked picture of yourself to someone, knowing full well that they could use it for evil, then you are just as to blame as they are!


lol

Free speech is never about this, free speech is about expressing a view, an opinion, not personal information that is not yours.

By your logic, you'd be happy with TSR using their 'free speech' to share your password to everyone in the world? There isn't a formal contract stopping them from doing so, and you have voluntarily typed the password into their server. Surely if the code is the same as the one you use for your debit card, it's only because you were 'stupid and naive'.

Not to mention even without the issue of privacy, it's still illegal, and should be, on many other levels. The photos you take, to begin with, are copyrighted. If it's me who's taking your nude photos, then there may be a debate over whether the right to your image should exist (in some countries, it does); but if it's you who took the photo, and I don't have your consent to distribute it, I can't. By your logic, you can buy a book then just put the whole thing up online for the world to read.

The other layer is that the photos were made for commercial use. This is another level above just the right of distribution. In this case, you're publishing a book you bought and benefitting monetarily from it.

Blackmailing of course is another reason it should be illegal. I cannot see how you can argue yourself out of this.

The fact that they were explicit just added even further complicity to it. You're not exercising free speech, you're actually defaming someone. You're claiming these images as 'porn', which they weren't.
Reply 18
Original post by zippity.doodah
what are you babbling about? rape is coercion/force and dressing is a voluntary form of expression. transfering your naked images is another form of voluntary expression. only a contract would legitimately give the woman the right to stop a man from doing what he wants with an allocated image towards his disposal. either you are mentally challenged for not understanding the nature of coercion and expression, or you are deliberately misunderstanding or misrepresenting me which is pathetic. you have done yourself a huge deal of disrespect by appealing to mis-matches, because now I am going tyo have a hard time taking you seriously or as a fair-minded adult who wants to talk or discuss this seriously.



then these women are simply naive and they should prefer to act more responsibly; I wouldn't even let my eventual wife possess naked pictures of me based on the risks involved, because the risk is far more dangerous than the "harmless fun" of it. if I can think logically like this, why can't these stupid girls?



1) ...which is still a form of free speech. and this *should* "be a matter of what" it quite clearly is. controversial speech is what freedom of speech is all about - why do you think we have free speech? to talk about the weather?
2) ...which I am arguing should *not* be illegal against the principle of free speech
3) free speech shouldn't be negated by hurt feelings. that's where I stand. that's where my rationale will always stand - free speech is the closest thing in politics to something sacred. I value it more than the coercive comfort of others, whom realise they had acted stupidly by protesting *later*, as opposed to not being so stupid in the first place.



"without consent"? if I tell someone a secret, yet they spread that secret, does that mean I have the right to sue them? nope. know why? because I never signed a binding contract, and even if it wasn't an incorporated agreement, if I never meant for it to be a binding promise/agreement, then it, by any logic, wouldn't be illegal by any kind of rationality. the law is a black spot on the slate of the logic of freedom of speech. freedom of contract, via mutual assent, ought to be the manner of self-regulation here.



distribution without consent of images you, yourself, distribute to another actor, without any legally binding agreements in place, is the distribution of digital property. if you do not set forth terms of property transfer (e.g. a contract) then, sorry, but there's no logic you can deploy which isn't illogical to the argument of freedom of expression. I am not telling you that this isn't immoral. I am telling you that, sometimes, freedom, which is the higher goal, isn't moral. I can be a racist, sexist, fat-ist, homophobic, hateful~ (etc) individual, but my right to self expression would allow me to express myself legally because my speech does not directly or physically coerce or damage other people. concepts (e.g. people memorising a naked photo in their minds) is not direct or physical damage, and even if it did damage a person "psychologically", it is their fault for electing to transfer those images as a rational individual. our government is not a nanny, and/or should not act as such - it should be a protection of individual liberties. the "hurt feelings" of (who are basically) poorly-calculating women do not bear the logic of overriding a fundamental human liberty.


I suggest instead of attacking me in ad hominem by suggesting I might be mentally challenged and can't be taken seriously, you attack my argument instead. You have only done yourself a disservice by resorting to mocking me rather than addressing my argument.

I don't think you quite understood. I said the logic was the same, not the nature of the act. You're giving the premise that if one doesn't want something to happen, they should or shouldn't do 'x' because otherwise that thing will likely happen. The amount of rape victim blaming that follows this exact same logic is huge. My point is that you can't criticise people for having been exploited. Just because someone can do something, that doesn't mean they should. The Harm Principle is the best thing to go by here: act as you please so long as you don't harm others in doing so. This is why we have a social contract in society that is based on tacit consent - certain freedoms need to be restricted for the good of society. This kind of abuse would be an example of that in my opinion. Freedom of speech/expression is not a free pass to abuse and infringe upon the rights and dignity of others. This is why we have laws protecting people from hate speech and this kind of crime for example. With your kind of logic we should have no laws at all because they only serve to restrict our freedom of speech and expression.

You shouldn't assume this only affects women either. Men will certainly be victims of this too.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
lol

Free speech is never about this, free speech is about expressing a view, an opinion, not personal information that is not yours.


freedom of expression means the expression of concepts and messages - visual messages (images, clothing pieces, art, media, displays, signals, gestures, etc) send people messages about things; I can send you a pretty picture of a house, signifying, expressively, that this house exists (etc). and if somebody sends you a file and there is no legally-binding promise to not use it, then it *is* then your property. if you give me a music file over the internet without any enforceable anchors or legal strings attached, then how on earth is it still your property when you cannot reclaim it once it's gone and sent out?

By your logic, you'd be happy with TSR using their 'free speech' to share your password to everyone in the world? There isn't a formal contract stopping them from doing so, and you have voluntarily typed the password into their server. Surely if the code is the same as the one you use for your debit card, it's only because you were 'stupid and naive'.


technically I cannot argue with them distributing my account's password if there was a term of the website that expressly stated that this would be a consequence, potentially, of my membership. and I signed an agreement to be on this website. there is no signing of a formal agreement when you send nude pictures. if you were hoping to frame me as a hypocrite, then I'm sorry but you won't succeed - I am true to my values, and you will never find a message from me in all my years/time on this website that contract my libertarian principles.

Not to mention even without the issue of privacy, it's still illegal, and should be, on many other levels. The photos you take, to begin with, are copyrighted. If it's me who's taking your nude photos, then there may be a debate over whether the right to your image should exist (in some countries, it does); but if it's you who took the photo, and I don't have your consent to distribute it, I can't. By your logic, you can buy a book then just put the whole thing up online for the world to read.


did you see the last 2 or 3 messages of mine? I don't care if it's illegal - that doesn't mean this is a closed book on a moral level; that's an argument from authoritarianism - weed is illegal, does that mean I must agree that it should remain illegal? and, again, if you consent to sending that photo and did not create a contract-esque agreement or promise which was intended, reasonably, to be binding, then there is *nothing* you can point to in terms of the law in terms of contractual freedoms to prevent people from misuse. I am arguing that a law against this kind of digital expression is an anomaly in the logic of freedom of speech; freedom isn't always comfortable, it is sometimes brutal and disturbing (e.g. the existence of the westboro baptist church, the KKK, the BNP, the communist party, etc) but it is an objective principle that is a higher good than one based on one's own comfort which is enforced via coercion of the law (because distribution images, without a contract to stop it, isn't force).

The other layer is that the photos were made for commercial use. This is another level above just the right of distribution. In this case, you're publishing a book you bought and benefitting monetarily from it.


I'm using pink floyd's "dark side of the moon" image as my avatar. I didn't get their permission to use it, nor did I (obviously until now) reference them as the owners of this image. do you think I am (or was, at least) acting illegal, in this sense?

Blackmailing of course is another reason it should be illegal. I cannot see how you can argue yourself out of this.


blackmailing somebody with your own digital property allocated to you consensually without a contract regulating the usage of? nope, sorry, doesn't make sense.

The fact that they were explicit just added even further complicity to it. You're not exercising free speech, you're actually defaming someone. You're claiming these images as 'porn', which they weren't.


who rationally can we appeal to to see what is and what isn't defamy? I have had people post embarrassing and unflattering photographs of me on facebook - is that defaming me? how is that different here? the human body isn't suddenly an objectively different concept when somebody takes off their articles of clothing. how many articles is enough? how revealing is too revealing? what about the quality and clarity of the image? it's too relative for a national law to settle - contracts are more suitable to regulate civic disputes like this.

Quick Reply

Latest