this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
27 points (77.6% liked)
Pop Culture
203 readers
1 users here now
News and discussions about celebrities, whether they be actors, musicians, social media influences, politicians, or anyone else of reasonable renown, as well as other cultural issues.
Rules:
-
No hate speech, personal attacks, harassment, doxxing, bullying, etc. are all strictly forbidden.
-
Posts must directly relate to Pop Culture in some form. Memes are acceptable if they are not excessive. Moderators have discretion and will work with community members to determine when such content becomes excessive.
-
AI-generated articles, pictures, and videos are prohibited. This does not preclude posts about AI, so long as it is about pop culture.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, it ain't child porn by any legal standards I'm aware of in the US.
I'm amazed the suit wasn't dismissed out of hand because he has no actual damages
Here is the decision. Relevant part:
Whether or not the photo caused damages is what the trial is for. A lawsuit being unlikely to win at trial isn't grounds for dismissal. The defendants moved for dismissal because the plaintiff waited until he was 30 years old to sue for damages, which the initial judge agreed was too long. The appellate judges decided that since the image has been republished as recently as 2021, plaintiff has grounds to a trial since the recent republishing could be what caused the alleged damages.
My opinion is that the plantiff is just looking for settlement money. American trials are expensive for defendants even if they win. It's often cheaper to settle out of court than to go to trial and win a slam dunk case.