Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eridrus | Hacker News Reader

It feels weird to view this case as a primary Section 230 issue rather than looking at the fact that the DA did not prosecute this case and took a plea deal.

Civil trials have a lower burden of proof, so it's unsurprising the plaintiff is seeking a remedy here, but the core issue seems to be that we are unable to prosecute this case as the criminal matter it clearly is.

View on HN

They were facing up to 93 years in prison for the rape and obscene content distribution charges and the prosecutor agreed to a plea deal of one year probation, 100 hours of community services, and an agreement to cease posting content to social media. People have gotten worse sentences for simple marijuana possession. Sometimes the criminal justice system makes absolutely no sense to me.

I presume the issue here is that the DA did not believe they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that this was assault and not a model regretting she did a porn shoot.

It vaguely sounds like they had an OF that did a bunch of these shoots, and presumably the DA didn't manage to get any other girls on record saying they were assaulted (how hard they tried etc is unclear).

Citation needed on being a criminal matter (in the case against the content provider). I mean I guess the only real definition of something being a criminal matter, is if there's litigation and court rules in favour of plaintiff. Second best definition is if someone opens a criminal case, at least then there would be a contention that it's a criminal matter.

In this case neither happened so there's no source to backup that claim. I wouldn't be surprised to see a criminal case being opened against a publisher/alleged publisher for dissemination of a criminal act, but I do think it would be dismissed eventually.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com