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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30 2017, @02:45PM (4 children)
But but... freedom of information! The public needs to know! Think of the children! Terrorists, think of them too... who else... errr... drunken drivers, them too....
Here's what the judge needs to do: put out a ruling which personally attacks those in charge of these companies by name and surname, address, phone number, etc. Every last bit of info that could potentially be used by anyone for any reason. And the ruling needs to call them out for being sleazebags. The judge should mandate that this information is published on the internet and the first result when any query is submitted to any search engine that could even remotely match these fuckers. Let's see how much these idiots like that.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:48PM (3 children)
People this consumed by cash would just move around or operate from outside of the country if needed.
I notice you haven't argued that these mugshots should not be public. Mugshots.com will win one way or another.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(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?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday September 30 2017, @03:44PM (4 children)
Just put a few <hr>s between the mugshot and the advertising links instead of linking the mugshot to the removal services, maybe change the wording around, and this ruling will be circumvented.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 30 2017, @10:07PM (3 children)
Are these mugshots of convicts or merely arrested people?
These days you can get arrested simply because the cop doesn't like your choice of shoes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday September 30 2017, @10:35PM
I would assume it is everyone, not just convicts, but it could depend on the state.
Florida in particular [wired.com] has a series of Sunshine public records laws that require many forms of public records to be available by request, but PDs seem to just put the mugshots online due to their own policy. (Florida's public records laws may change because the people in charge are getting pissed off at Jeff Gray/HonorYourOath, Joel Chandler, and others.)
People who have been arrested but not convicted or charged could be the most likely to fall for the scam. If you are convicted, you are going to have employment issues no matter what, and are likely to be much poorer when you get out of prison. The straight edge arrestees that are let off the hook are going to be more intimidated by what they find on Google.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Sunday October 01 2017, @05:02AM
In case that bit sounded like hyperbole, here's the actual reaction by the MS-13 gang leaders:
Top MS-14 Leader Warns Gang not to Wear Nike Cortez Shoes as Feds Arrest 3,800 Members [newsweek.com].
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 01 2017, @09:25AM
Yep, and if you get arrested again, the judge will look at that prior arrest, regardless of whether or not any conviction resulted, and take it as proof as guilt.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Saturday September 30 2017, @09:48PM (2 children)
I have no sympathy for the sleaze defendants in this case, but this is another bald faced example of how vigilante judges and prosecutors eschew their supposed blind impartiality and manipulate loopholes in the law when it facilitates their personal desired outcome.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday September 30 2017, @09:59PM
Wit you're blaming the judge here?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday October 02 2017, @12:17PM
The mugshot sites are the ones exploiting loopholes in order to commit extortion.
The judge is merely trying to plug the hole.