Submitted via IRC for SoyCow5743
Websites that publish mug shots and charge for their removal have defeated one lawsuit after the other, claiming First Amendment protection. But that defense to this shady industry may be about to burst. That's because a federal judge, ruling on a lawsuit by several arrestees suing Mughshots.com, just approved a novel class-action. It's one that takes legal advantage of the site's practice of displaying advertising links to paid removal services that the lawsuit claims are owned by Mugshots.com.
US District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of Chicago didn't go so far as to say this vile practice amounted to extortion, as alleged. Instead, she ruled (PDF) that this likely amounted to a violation of the arrestees' right of publicity because the site was using the mug shots as actual advertisements for the paid removal service.
(Score: 3, Informative) by leftover on Sunday October 01 2017, @04:46PM (2 children)
People in mugshots have not been convicted or even charged yet. Public shaming at this point is premature. After conviction is when to let the slings and arrows fly.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday October 01 2017, @05:07PM
Then we need some alterations to public records laws and recognition of the rights of the accused, possibly including keeping it secret when someone has been charged with a crime but found not guilty. I guarantee that level of reform won't be happening anytime soon. And it would sap the energy from events the media likes to cover such as O.J. trial, and sideline figures such as Nancy Grace [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday October 02 2017, @10:57AM
There's a elephant in the room here that everyone seems to be ignoring: why are the mugshots being made available to entities like Mugshots.com?
That is the real problem here, no?