California man gets 18 years for US 'revenge porn' site

[foo_bar]

57. is 18 years a typical sentence for blackmail schemes?

I thought that was a "white-collar" crime, like "oh you're just doing capitalism wrong (by getting caught)". I mean I'm not shedding tears, but the people actually posting this crap seem to be the ones violating consent/privacy boundaries (well, aside from the blackmail stuff.)

In this modern digital age, it is often common for romantic partners, particularly those in long distance relationships, to exchange revealing photos of one another. These photos are often intended for the eyes of the receiver only. But, how can you be sure? What happens if you break up or the other person turns out to be less discrete than you had hoped? Is it illegal for someone to share those photos with others?

Unfortunately, in most states, the answer is “no, it is not illegal to share those photos.” Indeed, posting explicit photos of someone is legal in every state but California and New Jersey. This has led to a small but growing industry of websites that specialize in such unauthorized photographs and videos, often for the purposes of allowing an angry or jilted ex to humiliate their former partner for revenge. Often, the content is even tied to the person's full name, social media pages, home address and phone number, and other personally identifying information. Some of these sites even run a form of legal extortion by which one can buy “reputation protection services” (i.e., pay them a hefty fee and they may take down the photos and videos).

More and more people are falling victim to these acts, and are frustrated to find out that it is not technically illegal. A few states, including Maryland, Wisconsin and New York, are currently looking into outlawing this practice of posting explicit content without the subject's permission, but are facing tough opposition from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. These groups are concerned that such laws, if not narrowly tailored, could run afoul of the First Amendment and have a chilling effect on free speech. Of course, proponents of these new laws counter that sending these types of photos and videos to someone implies only a limited consent, not a license to broadcast the content freely. In an interview with the Florida Times-Union, Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami, equated the problem of limited consent to a credit transaction: "If you give your credit card to a waiter, you aren't giving him permission to buy a yacht.” <...>

Current laws in most jurisdictions hold that website operators are not liable for content provided by others (the primary exception being explicit images and videos of children) unless they are exercising editorial control. As a result, so long as the site operator is not actively creating content, editing the photos and videos, or picking and choosing which ones are posted and which are not, the website is in compliance with the laws of most states and cannot be held liable.

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31560

Wow, so it's basically legal outside of CA (/NJ?) ... always a fine line between extortion and business as usual.