Skip to comments.Texas Women Sue X-Rated Revenge Website
Posted on 01/24/2013 11:06:04 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
FORT WORTH (CBS 11 NEWS) Sexy pictures, taken for private purposes, are finding their way online.
The website, described as a revenge porn site, is posting explicit photos submitted by men seeking revenge on their ex-girlfriends.
But a group of Texas women may get the last laugh, after filing a lawsuit against the site.
Hollie Toups, 32, says she stopped breathing for awhile when she found semi-nude pictures of herself on the site. Toups went from being a modest teachers aide in Beaumont to an unintended porn star, after an ex-boyfriend posted explicit photos along with personal information.
I was at a store one day and somebody was like hey youre the girl from that website, says Toups.
Toups and 25 other women are suing the website and its owner, who has a fictitious address in Richardson.
I am very confident I will find that person, says John S. Morgan, plaintiffs attorney. It really touched my heart the amount of emotional devastation every one of these women have suffered.
The lawsuit comes after the women say the website refused to remove the photos unless they paid a fee.
I thought that was outrageous that they had to gall to ask me to do that, says Toups.
Its not hard to track down unsuspecting women who had nude and sexually explicit photos through Facebook and other social media.
CBS 11 News found dozens of women in North Texas on the site, and one who says her father alerted her she was a revenge porn victim.
It was humiliating I didnt want to go anywhere I started questioning peoples politeness was it genuine how are you doing or was it in the back of your mind I saw you on that site, says Toups.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.
Local attorney Victor Johnson says the lawsuit could be difficult to pursue if websites operator can prove its a bulletin board and that they have no control over the content.
Life must be tough if you're stupid enough to post nekkid pictures of yourself and then complain when others post those same pics.
I would have to see the pictures to determine if it’s porn or not.... : )
Let’s see.... Time to photo shop some pics of Hillary Clinton with Helen Thomas! I will leave this one to the imagination!!!!
I think you’re misreading a very poorly written sentence from the article.
The women didn’t post anything. They posed for sexy pictures for their boyfriends, then after the relationships ended, the boyfriends got revenge by posting the pictures.
If the owner was going to charge a fee to have the pictures removed, then it could be argued that the site was not a bulletin board since the owner had control of the content and could remove the photos!
Tsk, tsk. It’s hard to feel sorry for these women, being so unsavvy about modern technology AND romantically inept. I’m not getting preachy about pre-marital sex, nor am I oblivious to it, but these women need to realize that nude photos shared with a man who is not their husband requires a lot of trust...probably more trust than that person has earned.
“Local attorney Victor Johnson says the lawsuit could be difficult to pursue if websites operator can prove its a bulletin board and that they have no control over the content.”
For a lawyer, ANY lawyer to make that statement instead of pursuing a law suit on behalf of these women tells me there is no legal action that can be taken.
“...went from being a modest teachers aide in Beaumont to an unintended porn star...”
Don’t. Take. Pics.
Your body is eyes only. Nobody takes pictures unless you want to be a porn star. Not your boyfriend, not your girlfriend, not the love of your life, not your husband.
You would think people would have learned by now NOT to pose for "sexy" pictures that involved any degree of nudity.
Still, there is also an added problem that even some women that didn't intentionally pose for pictures ended up having some taken of them when they were unaware that a bf was snapping photos or recording. It's sleazy, but it does happen.
If the owner is using a fake address for his site’s registration, his registrar can take down his site. That’s a major ICANN no-no.
There is evidence in the fact they can charge fees to remove material that, on the surface, indicates they are a managing website operator.
I once worked with a young woman whose husband had gone overseas to do contract work, and he asked if she'd send him some "glamour shots." She granted his request and then was mortified when she found out that he had shared them with the guys. I guess the trust issue wasn't insurmountable as she went on to have a couple of kids with him, but to say she was angry at the time would be an understatement.
Is semi-nude kinda like semi-pregnant?
Some of them might discourage male excitation...But the lady still doesn't want her nude pix out
Imagine this narration as read by David Attenborough.
“In the human species, the female attracts interested males by putting on a colorful display. In fact, she is compelled to do so, with some females adopting an almost comically gaudy appearance. Others go in the opposite direction, by shedding clothing as if they intend to mate just then.
“For their part, the inclination of the male humans is to gaze at the females much like hungry lions gaze at gazelles.
“It does not even matter to the males if the female is alive and standing in front of them, or is just a depiction of a female. They, likewise, cannot control their compunctions.
“But this gives females a unique opportunity to shed their garments exclusively for still or video photography. An activity that far too many females realize afterwards, was a demonstrably bad idea.”
You are correct - stupid enough to take such photos for “boyfriends”.
That stuff is suppose to stay private - and for your HUSBAND. But since the morality of human beings is as fallen and corrupt as it has become - nobody keeps anything special and in the right place.
Sorry - I have NO sympathy. Decisions have consequences.
...one who says her father alerted her she was a revenge porn victim.
This one gave me a chuckle. Gee, I wonder how he found out. ;-)
This happened to Susanne Sommers regarding an old boyfriend and a playboy spread.
I don’t believe she had recourse, but she may have signed something so I dunno...
Like it or not once you send an image to someone there is always a risk that the photo can go online. Online images never die, sexting is so stupid I don’t know y people do it.
Ladies, if you don’t want naked pictures of yourself on the Internet, don’t voluntarily take naked pictures of yourself.
Nude pictures taken without a persons knowledge should be treated as a felony. Of course, that will put half the government in jail.
I’m sure it doesn’t apply today, but there was an old rule, “If you EVER plan on going into politics, never allow yourself to be photographed with a drink in your hand.
Would that happen to be the famous “Right On” photo? Google it, but NSFW.
This is funny... The lawsuit lists the site... texxxan.com
Most of the pics are taken by the women themselves using their cell phone camera and a mirror! Too funny as the lawsuit has increased the publicity of the site which is now crashing due to so many visits!
Add Janet Reno,
Voilà, un ménage de trois Gorgones terrible!
My eyes, my eyes!
They should sue for insult.
There is no limit for the amount that can be sued for in an insult case.
They should also name the “boyfriend” as the target.
If these women win this lawsuit, FreeRepublic and other online forums will be targeted and probably be lawfared into closing down in the near future using this ruling.
So all you stupid fools should consider the hypocricy in cheering for these women.
True. There is a thread around here somewheres from a few years ago where some fool in Europe phoned for a whore.
When said whore showed up - - it was his dear little daughter.
One of the guys from the office told me. ;)
Kind of reminds me of that scene from the second "Lethal Weapon" movie - the one where the man invites all his friends to see his daughter in her televised commercial. :-O
Toups proved already willing to be a porn star, when she provided the photos to an audience of one (her then-boyfriend). That doesn't excuse what the now-ex has done with the photos, but it shows that she wasn't always the "modest teacher's aide" that she now claims to be.
HA! good enough for the nfl.
“one who says her father alerted her she was a revenge porn victim. “
What is dad doing looking at porn?
I went on the website to review the pictures. SOMEBODY had to do the research.
If this woman took the pictures and sent them to her boyfriend then she would have a copyright complaint given she never gave permission to use the pictures elsewhere. She didn’t. Her boyfriend apparently too a lot of pictures of her. I may be wrong, but I don’t think she has a valid cause of action.
If I ever saw something like that....with those two in particular....I would, with great haste, rip out my eyes and pour bleach into the sockets. Then blow my brains out so I'd never have to remember that I ever saw such an abomination.
Possibly it was somebody who knew the family, and was more comfortable telling the dad.
Psssst — over heer — you wan to donload feelthy picture, senior?
So when the pictures were taken, was she being a porn star or a modest teacher's aide?
Sorry, but everybody should know by now that if there are nekkid photos of you, they'll wind up on the Internet. Except of me... There are bidding wars to keep nekkid photos of me from being seen, and they just won't let me post them!
The legal issue isn’t so much copyright as it is invasion of privacy. The website can’t commercially exploit her image without her permission. Same reason Girls Gone Wild lost its case - they weren’t getting model releases from the girls.
If you are stupid enough to hand out nude (or semi-nude) photos of yourself, you are too stupid to be a teacher.
Yeah - I read that and thought AAAWWWWKWAAAAARDDD!
I don’t know why you people stick up for these women. Women need to get what’s coming to them! Look at the percentage of people that put the Bu__hole back in office, women! They need to pay what’s coming to them!!!
Okay, after looking at the complaint I see the tort is under “Texas law.” Apparently there’s no statute or it would have been listed.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
A common law right to privacy exists under Texas law. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973). The Texas Constitution guarantees the sanctity of the home and person from unreasonable intrusion. Texas State Employees Union v. Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 746 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Tex.1987).
The elements of a claim for invasion of privacy are
(1) The defendant intentionally intruded on the plaintiff’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs; and
(2) The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex.1993).
When assessing the offensive nature of the invasion, courts have required that the intrusion be unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted. Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Tex.1973).
The issue as i see it is that there’s no intrusion as the property at issue wasn’t the girl’s property.
Again, I may be wrong
Have you seen bathing suits gals wear?