Remember Jason Fortuny?

Comments

1
If you are 13 or older you should expect naked explicit pictures of your ass to show up on the internet. this is 2009 America, after all.
2
@2 Jason did his stuff in 2006, not in 2009.
3
Er, I obviously meant @1. I really should wake up.
4
Agreed. He should face that (the fine) and more (much more). As I recall his actions punished/damaged folks who were going about things in the way that is advisable and recommended to make sure that such encounters are as safe for both parties as possible.

His actions may lead to some people resorting to unnecessary risks due to fear of running afoul of the type of deception that Mr. Fortuny perpetrated.
5
Here's a reference to the lawsuit that provides some documentation of the lawsuit and it's outcome:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doe-v…
6
thanks for the link.

The post sort of overplays the import of the court action so far. First, one of his victims sued anonymously. Most courts would not allow that. And when he enforces this judgment somewhere in another state, how's he going to stay anonymous (esp. if everyone watching via internet posts?????)
Second, it's a default judgment. The defendant did not appear and seems to have contested jurisdiction. When you do that, duh, you set yourself up for default judgment. Normal step.
Then when they try to enforce it in another state, like where you have real estate or bank acounts, you get to say "hey! That first court didn't have jurisdiction over me! I wasn't in Illinois! So that default is invalid!
The argument would be, basically, putting up shit on the internet shouldn't expose you to lawsuits anywhere there is an internet, as in Bora Bora or Outer Mongolia. (Now in this case that might not work as there seems to be an intent to harmm someone in Illinois, etc. but it's a legal issue ripe for years of litigation.....)
Third, a suit alleging copyright infringement in this situation is frivolous, "invasion of privacy" is frivolous (when you are reaching out anonymously on the internet you ain't got no privacy), and some kind of weird state claim of "intrusion," well, who knows what that is. Or whether it exists elsewhere. So, basically most of these claims would be tossed if other plaintiffs ever pursue them in similar cases and they certainly aren't any precedent for anyone else in another state.

in sum (a) there is no decision on any merits that the defendant did anything wrong, legally (not speaking morally here) (b) there's no indication even that the judgment will be enforceable in another state and (c) there's no hint it could be a precedent elsewhere.

And more: don't say it's when you mean its.
7
Hey, if you are a victim of this little rat, be sure to put a lean on any property he owns...in case he decides to declare bankruptcy.
8
so ... it is spelled lien .... these types of awards are very hard to enforce, easy to avoid, and, bankrupcy would easily wipe it out

nice try, gives the guy bad publicity, not much else

bet he owns nothing at all, and people like the IRS are in front of the line

in a failed economy, even more worthless - billions of bad debts out there, billions and billions and billions and billions

9
@6: You don't think that the invasion of privacy through publication of private facts claim has merit?

I'm not surprised that Jason's letter failed to sway the court. Essentially, "Waah, poor little me. They knew the risks by responding to an ad on Craigslist, but I had NO IDEA that posting something on my blog for a 'few friends' to see would end up all over the news or Encyclopedia Dramatica. I wasn't trying to be mean, honest!"

What a waste of intelligence.
10
hate to break it to you all - but naked pix are a big, big part of the new wave of on line universal communication - so common and so many in so many formats and places - as to be not a big deal

all the old standards are gone - funny in a way - puritanism is dead, teenagers have killed it - naked is in and OK

some of you older/old people, Dan, will have to get used to it

this standard did not change because of the ACLU or some political wave, just healthy interest of how we look without clothes and an easy way to share that - the internet

in Europe the erosion of the naked taboo is even greater ... no body cares at all

naked is in, the past prohibitions are all falling - parents and prudes better get used to it

BIG THANKS TO THE KIDS IS DUE - AND CHALK ONE UP TO REAL CHANGE
11
@10, what the fuck are you talking about? What do naked pictures of anybody have to do with it?
12
Karma can be a real bitch sometimes.
13
#11
What the fuck .... on a nice Sat., need to mellow out old guy

Just my thoughts ... are you the thought police here on Slog?

Are we being graded by some higher power?

Do you have facebook, want to see you naked.
14
@9

um, am only talking about legal merit, not moral merit, ok?

correcto, talking on the internet to a stranger, you have no privacy in eyes of the law.

As to Jason's letter, the Court did not read it and say "hey Jason! you're wrong!" -- the court gave a default judgment, which means the court said "regardless of whether your position has merit, Jason, you lose because you didn't show up in court!"

Now should you feel this is all wrong, go elect people who will pass a law saying "any communication about kinky sex now has privacy protection, and if someone outs you, you can sue" -- go right ahead and good luck to you.
15
@10, you're wrong. Even with the internet, people still have an expectation of privacy. You're essentially saying that availability of information trumps people's civil liberties, that's total bullshit. Naked pictures, in any format, don't matter... until somebody in a position to screw you over sees them and gets upset.
16
It's amazing that those on his side are just like, "oh well, one can ignore legal ramifications/fines/reality if you truly believe you are right!!!"

WTFFFFF????

Dude owes the government $75,000.

Dude ruined his own name and reputation.

Dude is the laughing stock of the internets.

Dude will never get a job with a company who does even incremental background research on applicants.

Dude has already been sued/fired from a previous employer for ruining a mutli-million dollar programing project

Dude is himself, ruined.

His little fanclub can pump their fists in the air all they want, but Jason Fortuney is paying, and getting fucked by, the Pied Piper -- that which HE INVITED.

Point, laugh, repeat.
17
He's kind of just getting what he deserves. you can't decieve someone on the internet in order to get pictures, and then use those pictures to humiliate people.

If those guys knew they were giving their pictures to Fortuny and knew what he might do with them...he might have a defense.

But, they thought they were giving pictures to someone else, for a different purpose. Collecting pictures and tricking someone? Not really a crime. Collecting pictures by tricking someone and then using the pictures to humiliate them....pretty much harassment plain and simple. Should be an easy court case if everything gets filed right.
18
@13: even on a nice Saturday minimal standards of sense and grammar can be maintained. Your comment doesn't have anything to do with the post to which it is attached, not anything at all. But hey, it's a free country; ramble away.

There aren't any naked pictures on Facebook, BTW. Not for long, anyways.
19
@10

Yeah, you're missing the point.

@18

Interesting comment about minimal standards when taken in the context of Jason Stratham's troll philosophy that online society has no standards, none that mean anything anyway.

revealing article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazi…
20
I wonder if Mr Poe could sue me for pretend propositioning him on slog. It IS illegal, after all.
He's been gone a while. Maybe he's making a case for slog-induced trauma. Hmmmm...
21
@18 Fnarf, you are such a pretentious twat. You parade around this board as some kind of authoritative figure but are mostly just talking down to everyone. Were you a hall monitor in high school? You can let other people have their own thoughts and opinions without being snide or douchey. But hey, it's a free country, douche away.
22
@21: "authoritative" or not, Fnarf was dead-on about 10/13. One of the reasons we like Fnarf, aside from usually being pretty smart, is that he's pretty good at ripping a new one out of the people who try to increase the signal-to-noise ratio here.

Yes, people can "have their own thoughts," but many of those thoughts will be worthy of ridicule. Part of the social function of ridicule is to give people like you an incentive to do some QA on your "thoughts" before posting them for everyone to see. It's a great system, and has worked for centuries.
23
Anna @ 8,

Not a lien, a lean. You know, when two Italian gentleman from New Jersey encourage a person to hastily liquidate their property in order to settle a debt. You know, a lean!
24
@19

Yeah, make that Jason Fortuny. Thanks.
25
It seems like the issue of privacy with regards to pictures of one's self online is going to keep coming up. Would anyone like to propose some rules or methods to make it crystal clear that they are meant to be private?

Is there a way to enforce your rights rather than just assuming your entitlement to privacy?
26
This is #10 - not anyone else.

I think open style non class room discussion is really common.

At the office, in the bar, with my mom and dad. You uptight control freaks, programmed by some weird middle class expectations are the problem.

On a blog, free thinking is cool. Like naked is OK.

Try the 21st century, get out of the 1950ies.

And grouchy bad ass shit is not cool, also bad manners.

Lee, will try to only have "worthy" thoughts, just to please you and the Pope, and the local Mormon Bishop.

Again, nice day, go out and air the farts, esp. you Fnarf, as my worthy grandmother used to say, bless her soul.

John
27
#25 -- there is no such thing as privacy in a modern urban, high tech. culture.

Almost every piece of your life is in data banks all over the place.

Only lacking, likely there are not too many naked pictures.

It is like some people think they are invisible in the city, when, in truth, Alaskan deep woods are the places to be invisible.

Sorry to break the news.

John
28
Repeat NSA several times if you think privacy exists.
29
forget this shit, guys. the memorial gathering for Elswinger is happening RIGHT NOW at Six Arms Pub. i'm heading down there myself. this is much more important than snarking about a loser like jason fortuny. sheesh.
30
@27

Can you see me now? Good.
31
#27
No. I'm about to do a long and torrid tableau with my man, many mirrors in the bedroom, won't be watching strangers ... but .... put the video on the Tube.

Send the link, please. Like your humor and wit.
32
#29

memorial at a pub is great, very Irish, very Stranger, very good whiskey and sweet talks about the dead guy

nice, I did not know him at all
33
hm. I thought fnarf's first comment to 10 was over the top and needlessly aggressive.
34
This guy should be getting rewards from his customers because the people that used the real service, namely, the underage bordillo that was just busted in Kent, are getting hung out to dry.

He was trying to "hurt people a little...so they don't hurt themselves A LOT".
35
@34: Given that the "Craiglist Experiment" wasn't a prostitution ad, but a personals ad, your logic is backwards. Go read up and get your facts straight. The Encyclopedia Dramatica page for this shows you most everybody's responses, many of which appear to be from honest people seeking a little consensual deviancy. He wasn't getting in the way of prostitution, he was publicizing parts of other people's sexual lives who were attempting to engage in what they thought would be consensual of-age non-commercial sex.
36
@john

I think the problem that Fnarf, and others, have with your posts is that they really aren't relevant to this issue at all. Jason Fortuny didn't just put naked pictures of people on the internet, he disseminated a lot of private information, including the fact that these men had answered bdsm ads, along with the photos. A couple of these guys actually lost their jobs, and who knows what other havoc it wreaked in their personal lives. This issue is not about people being prudish, ok? Get the fuck over yourself and go take some more pictures of your cock.
37
John--

Would you agree that Jason Fortuny's "prank" was morally wrong, regardless of the legal merits of the case?

Also, curiousity question, but how old are you? It seems views on privacy definitely vary based on age. Part of it is changing social standards and part definitely seems to be maturity level. I shared details of my life much more freely online in my early twenties and now try to be a lot more discrete.

On the far end of the spectrum, my dad thinks it makes sense for kids to get busted for sexting. I've been working on changing his mind for that since the news coverage started.

38
#36 - SKC, eat shit.

I have never taken a pix of my cock.

And mental constipation is not my problem, but, yours.

One idea flows from another, duh.

Fnarf seems to be hung up on conformity - thinking perhaps we are all in his freshman class on life, Mr. Prof. We're not.
39
ive been thinking a lot about bubbles, okay

bubles should be free to anyone who wants them, free as the wind and rain and grass

im high as shit right now
40
did you ever notice when you say a word a lot of times it loses its meaning?

john. john. john john john john john john john john

naaaaked

is okay
41
39 and 40

you are not high, just fucked up
42
fnarf & elenchos & Will in Seattle all need to get together and have a big buttfuckin' session.
43
It's not whether internet savvy slog commentators think there still privacy left in this world, it's whether judges think emails about sex, naked photos, drivers' licenses, and other personal information given by one person to another are private. And judges are old conservatives who came of age far before the internet. Ask your grandparents if they think sex lives are private matters.
44
remember - some of the judges are old commies...hmmmmmmm
45
#42 - Almost

In my professional opinion, based on my superior education and general state of erudite pretensions ...

That above mentioned trio should be both butt fucking like crazy and doing major rimming as well.

Just the video alone will sell like crazy or win the Hump prize.

I think Will is quite cute by the way, and, hung.
46
Guarantee you "John" is Jason.
47
@6 - You're correct, an Illinois Judge issued the verdict, but please note the Judge sits on a Federal Court --- that's important since Fortuny won't be able to hide behind the argument that he was in Seattle, not Chicago. It's precisely for cases that cross state boundaries that federal district courts were created.

@21 - I think he preferes the label "unofficial cantankerous blowhard."
48
fact @16 "dude owes the government $75,000"? he owes it to the men he injured. who will almost certainly never get it from dude. but agreed. don't know why they bothered. his life is screwed any which way.
49
I heard that Fortuny grabbed all the cash he'd raised for his "legal defence fund" and fled with it to Mexico. Any chance The Stranger could do some investigative journalism to learn the truth of this?
50
And that, Jason, is how the system works.
51
What a sad person... I do think that Jason Fortuny is a jerk, but I can't help but feel bad for him a teensy bit. He seems to have gone awfully far to avoid dealing with the person he's the most angry with: himself. Of course, that being said... he deserves the punishment & I'm surprised that he didn't get charged with more.
52
He could sure use some therapy.