'Revenge porn' website operator sentenced to 18 years

[Suzanimal]

Eighteen years. Don't you feel safer with this guy off the streets? Murders and child molesters do less time.


A 28-year-old San Diego man was sentenced Friday to 18 years in custody after being convicted of operating a "revenge porn" website that included naked and sexually explicit pictures of women posted by angry ex-boyfriends or ex-husbands.

Kevin Christopher Bollaert, a Web developer, posted the pictures and then charged women from $300 to $350 to have the pictures removed. He was convicted in February of multiple felony counts of identity theft and extortion.

Bollaert was ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution to his victims and a $10,000 fine. Bollaert will be allowed to serve the sentence in a county jail rather than state prison under the judge's ruling.

Eight women told Superior Court Judge David Gill how they were victimized by having the pictures appear on the website.

One woman said she received 400 messages on social media after the pictures were shown. She said she was forced to quit college and seek help in a mental hospital.

"It's been so traumatic," she said. "It's a daily struggle to get my life together."

Bollaert did not speak before sentencing, but his parents told Gill that their son was remorseful.

"Sitting behind a computer, committing what is essentially a cowardly and criminal act, will not shield predators from the law or jail," said state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, whose office handled the prosecution.

The state's revenge porn law, a misdemeanor, became effective Oct. 1, 2013, after the conduct for which Bollaert was charged.


Prosecutors said that Bollaert created a website that allowed the anonymous posting of nude and sexually explicit photos. The website required that a person posting a picture to include the subject's name, location, age and Facebook profile.

Prosecutors said more than 10,000 images from California and other states were posted between Dec. 2, 2012, and Sept. 17, 2013.

Court documents include emails to Bollaert's website from women demanding that pictures of them be removed. In the emails, the women say that posting of the pictures left them angry, scared and feeling violated.

One woman emailed that after the pictures were posted along with her name and other personal information, she received phone calls, lewd photos and numerous emails from people "asking to 'hook up.'"

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-revenge-porn-sentenced-20150403-story.html

[tod evans]

Bollaert will be allowed to serve the sentence in a county jail rather than state prison under the judge's ruling.

18 years in county? :eek:

That's cruel!

[Cissy]

He got around $30k and charged about $250-350 to have the information removed. That works out to between 85-120 known victims.

How long of a sentence would you believe would be appropriate considering the number of victims?

[tod evans]

He got around $30k and charged about $250-350 to have the information removed. That works out to between 85-120 known victims.*

How long of a sentence would you believe would be appropriate considering the number of victims?

"His victims" is really a stretch there toots...

These broads are not "victims" in any way shape or form.

The fellow sentenced provided a venue for their ex's to post photos, if capturing an image digitally, or on celluloid for that matter, is a crime then there's bigger issues afoot than some girls ass being exposed.

Way I see it this fellow who has been sentenced and fined is the "victim" here not some girl or guy who is now ashamed about their past behavior...

Using the theory of victimhood professed every cocaine user could hold Merck Pharmaceuticals liable for their habit and any resulting humiliation....:rolleyes:

[Cissy]

The 85-120 people did not consent to the violation of their privacy or their dignity. Some lost their jobs over the matter; others were disowned by their families.

The man therefore committed real harm and needs to make restitution.

If an exboyfriend of your wife/girlfriend decided to lash out at her by posting her private photos on such a site, and accompanied her personal information with the photos, how many men asking your wife for her number or finding out where she worked or repeatedly contacting her would it take for you to believe she had been victimized by a criminal?

If the site was run by a police officer permitting other officers to shame spouses/significant others by posting nude photographs, would you also defend it?

[phill4paul]

18 yrs. Cost to taxpayers....@ $600k. I fail to see how this is "justice" for the victims. Although he caused mental anguish to his victims he is not a physical menace to society with the need for removal. I would rather a much shorter prison sentence followed by structured financial restitution, as he is able, to the victims and community service that involves helping out battered women's shelters. Possibly running/updating web presence for these shelters.

[tod evans]

The 85-120 people did not consent to the violation of their privacy or their dignity. Some lost their jobs over the matter; others were disowned by their families.

The man therefore committed real harm and needs to make restitution.

If an exboyfriend of your wife/girlfriend decided to lash out at her by posting her private photos on such a site, and accompanied her personal information with the photos, how many men asking your wife for her number or finding out where she worked or repeatedly contacting her would it take for you to believe she had been victimized by a criminal?

If the site was run by a police officer permitting other officers to shame spouses/significant others by posting nude photographs, would you also defend it?

First off if it was my ol' lady whose pictures were posted the site host and whoever gave them the pictures wouldn't have to worry about kops and law suits, like me she'd handle it herself, and God help 'em...

Now as to your question about kops running a similar site on the public's dime, they should at minimum be fined, fired and neutered, probably flogged and drawn and quartered too.........BUT, if they were running the site on their own time/dime and not in any way using public resources in their venture they should be afforded the same freedom to have irate women and their loved ones kick their ass as anyone else.

See I'm not saying this type of behavior isn't wrong or even offensive to some folks what I'm saying is this is no place for laws/kops and courts....

[Suzanimal]

18 yrs. Cost to taxpayers....@ $600k. I fail to see how this is "justice" for the victims. Although he caused mental anguish to his victims he is not a physical menace to society with the need for removal. I would rather a much shorter prison sentence followed by structured financial restitution, as he is able, to the victims and community service that involves helping out battered women's shelters. Possibly running/updating web presence for these shelters.

I don't think jail time is appropriate but financial restitution to the victims is reasonable.

[Cissy]

First off if it was my ol' lady whose pictures were posted the site host and whoever gave them the pictures wouldn't have to worry about kops and law suits, like me she'd handle it herself, and God help 'em...

Now as to your question about kops running a similar site on the public's dime, they should at minimum be fined, fired and neutered, probably flogged and drawn and quartered too.........BUT, if they were running the site on their own time/dime and not in any way using public resources in their venture they should be afforded the same freedom to have irate women and their loved ones kick their ass as anyone else.

See I'm not saying this type of behavior isn't wrong or even offensive to some folks what I'm saying is this is no place for laws/kops and courts....

Fair enough.

[phill4paul]

How is this any different than police publishing booking information/photo on their website and destroying someones reputation, possibly causing loss of employment, mental anguish etc. prior to trial? How many victims have had their lives destroyed by the state? Will restitution and imprisonment of the perpetrators be forthcoming for these victims?

[pcosmar]

Couple thoughts come to mind.

First.. this guy ran a website that served images.. He did not produce those images.

How many of these girls posed for those images?
If they are exhibitionists,, and they posed.. they are not victims.

And what of the persons that gave the images to a web site in the second place?
That seems to be the only "guilty" party to my thinking.

[tod evans]

I don't think jail time is appropriate but financial restitution to the victims is reasonable.

By whom?

Surely not the fellow running 1's-n-0's.....

If one can realistically view these women (people) as victims then logic quite clearly points to their ex's as the ones who have aggrieved them..

The only reason the DA went after Mr. Website is for headlines, this song-n-dance had nothing to do with payback or restitution for these people who most likely consented to having the pictures taken.

[Suzanimal]

Both of you make good points.


Couple thoughts come to mind.

First.. this guy ran a website that served images.. He did not produce those images.

How many of these girls posed for those images?
If they are exhibitionists,, and they posed.. they are not victims.

And what of the persons that gave the images to a web site in the second place?
That seems to be the only "guilty" party to my thinking.


By whom?

Surely not the fellow running 1's-n-0's.....

If one can realistically view these women (people) as victims then logic quite clearly points to their ex's as the ones who have aggrieved them..

The only reason the DA went after Mr. Website is for headlines, this song-n-dance had nothing to do with payback or restitution for these people who most likely consented to having the pictures taken.

I can absolutely agree with that statement.

[Natural Citizen]

How is this any different than police publishing booking information/photo on their website and destroying someones reputation, possibly causing loss of employment, mental anguish etc. prior to trial? How many victims have had their lives destroyed by the state? Will restitution and imprisonment of the perpetrators be forthcoming for these victims?

This is actually a really great comparison.

I never understood why people take pictures of themselves nekit and all, though.

[Suzanimal]

This is actually a really great comparison.

I never understood why people take pictures of themselves nekit and all, though.


Young, stupid, in love...





:o

[phill4paul]

By whom?

Surely not the fellow running 1's-n-0's.....

If one can realistically view these women (people) as victims then logic quite clearly points to their ex's as the ones who have aggrieved them..

The only reason the DA went after Mr. Website is for headlines, this song-n-dance had nothing to do with payback or restitution for these people who most likely consented to having the pictures taken.

And I agree with you on this point. I think where he ran afoul of the law was the extortion attempt. Had he not done that I wonder if there would even have been a case.

[Suzanimal]

And I agree with you on this point. I think where he ran afoul of the law was the extortion attempt. Had he not done that I wonder if there would even have been a case.

They also got him on identity theft.:confused: I don't understand that charge.

[oyarde]

Both of you make good points.





I can absolutely agree with that statement.
Yeah , Tod and Pete are correct .

[oyarde]

[QUOTE=Natural Citizen;5830390]This is actually a really great comparison.

I never understood why people take pictures of themselves nekit and all, though.[/QUOTES] Stupidity.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[presence]

Unless there was explicit model rights, I don't see a crime at all, even then its just breach of contract.

You don't want your nekkid picture shared with the world, then don't strip and pose.

If you don't care who sees you nekkid... feel free.

If you expect compensation, do it with a contract.

[presence]

Some lost their jobs over the matter; others were disowned by their families.

These are personal issues that could be resolved in a myriad of manners without pity me, nanny state come save me.

Don't do stupid shit and you don't get shitty karma.

[thoughtomator]

How is this any different than police publishing booking information/photo on their website and destroying someones reputation, possibly causing loss of employment, mental anguish etc. prior to trial? How many victims have had their lives destroyed by the state? Will restitution and imprisonment of the perpetrators be forthcoming for these victims?

the police booking photos weren't voluntary

other than that, not much

[Natural Citizen]

the police booking photos weren't voluntary



Oh, yeah. Duh. I didn't think of that. They aren't voluntary.

[dillo]

Do photographs require 2 forms of consent? Is it legally possible to consent to a photo being taken but not shared?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Cabal]

He got around $30k and charged about $250-350 to have the information removed. That works out to between 85-120 known victims.

How long of a sentence would you believe would be appropriate considering the number of victims?

None.

Perhaps restitution should be owed. But imprisonment on the tax payer's dime? Why?



I wonder how much demand there'd be for a website outting the slimy individuals who post "Revenge Porn" (a Slime-Shaming website). A website that potentital dating partners could check to get background on the type of people they're thinking of dating (nake it searchable for dating profiles). A website that divorce lawyers could check; or potential employers. Link their slime-shaming entries to their dating profiles, their job-search profiles, and other social media outlets. Just seems like the logical next step.

I suspect it'd generate quite a bit of traffic if it could be done well. And where websites are concerned, traffic = money.

[Cissy]

Couple thoughts come to mind.

First.. this guy ran a website that served images.. He did not produce those images.

How many of these girls posed for those images?
If they are exhibitionists,, and they posed.. they are not victims.

And what of the persons that gave the images to a web site in the second place?
That seems to be the only "guilty" party to my thinking.


Responsibility comes into play here. Whether the images were taken with or without consent, the recipient of the photo has a moral obligation to do the right thing---return the personal item or destroy it and move on to find a healthier relationship.

The onus is on the person in possession of the photo to do the right thing---not in blaming the subject of the photo, assuming it was taken with the subject's consent.

In a healthy relationship, both parties must be willing to trust each other.