405
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

A Texas woman was awarded $1.2 billion in damages last week after she sued her former boyfriend and accused him of sending intimate images of her to her family, friends and co-workers from fake online accounts.

The woman, who is identified only by the initials D.L. in court documents, sued her former boyfriend, Marques Jamal Jackson, claiming he had psychologically and sexually abused her by distributing so-called revenge porn, a term for sexually explicit photos or videos of someone that are shared without consent.

The couple started dating in 2016 and were living together in Chicago in early 2020 when they began a “long and drawn-out break up,” according to the lawsuit. D.L. temporarily moved to her mother’s house in Texas and Mr. Jackson began accessing the security system there to spy on her, the lawsuit said.

In October 2021, the couple officially ended their relationship and D.L. told Mr. Jackson that she no longer wanted him to have access to what the lawsuit described as “visual intimate material” of her that she had allowed him to have while they were a couple.

Instead, he posted the images on several social media platforms and websites, including a pornographic website, and in a publicly accessible folder on the online file-sharing service Dropbox, the lawsuit said. He identified her in the material, using her name and address, and images of her face. He created fake social media pages and email accounts to share the material with her family, friends and co-workers, including by sending them a link to the Dropbox folder. On the social media pages where he had posted the images, he tagged accounts for her employer and for her personal gym.

The lawsuit says that this was still happening days before the complaint was filed in April 2022.

Mr. Jackson also used D.L.’s personal bank account to pay his rent, harassed her with calls and text messages from masked numbers, and told her loan officer that she had submitted a fraudulent loan application, the lawsuit said.

In a March 2022 email to D.L. cited in the lawsuit, Mr. Jackson said, “You will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet.”

Mr. Jackson could not be reached for comment. It was not clear if he had a lawyer.

He also did not appear in court on Wednesday, when a jury in Houston ordered him to pay $200 million for past and future mental anguish and $1 billion in punitive damages.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] pizza-bagel@kbin.social 112 points 1 year ago

Man fuck these comments. He explicitly said he wanted to ruin the rest of her life. He intentionally posted them with her full name and address, endangering her. And to ruin her chance at getting/keeping a job. Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life, at least there's a cap on UNLIKE WHAT HE TRIED TO DO TO HER!

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Most of the disgusting comments are at least being criticized directly. Can’t silence the fuckheads, but you can appreciate other people dunking on them, at least

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 19 points 1 year ago

Dude does deserve to have his wages garnished for the rest of his life

I agree.

However, if he made 100k a year and had to pay all of that, his life would have to last 12 million years. Just seems like some of the maths here is a bit off. But maybe I just don't understand the American justice system.

[-] pizza-bagel@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean we do multiple life sentences or life + so many years so I don't see why the same logic wouldn't apply when the penalty is monetary. It's a super high number to ensure he's paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It's intended as a warning.

I mean how much money can you put on the price of someone's life, safety, or missed future potential earnings? I think it was just a huge number to "ruin the rest of his life" as he attempted to do.

For example, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. The coffee was so hot it melted that lady's skin together. And this was an ongoing issue that McDonald's had been warned of several times and didn't listen. So while the lady was just trying to get her medical costs covered, the jury awarded an additional $2.7m in punitive damages because McDonald's didn't listen. Punitive damages are literally money as punishment.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s a super high number to ensure he’s paying the rest of his life, even if he suddenly comes into a bunch of money. It’s intended as a warning.

Yes, I get that. Still I find it a very strange, even macabre. I made the point in a couple of other comments, but got no useful replies so far.

It seems to me this guy was basically convicted to living at "minimum wage" or at least some minimum that can't be taken from him, so he can cover his basic needs.

So he is convicted to being poor. Nothing else. But, like there is actual poor people with a very similar standard of living, that did nothing wrong. It just doesn't seem fair. How shitty must it be, as a poor person, that your neighbour is there only because he was convited to have your shitty live?

Also, what if he was already super poor before that and he won't come into any fortune. What money are you even gonna take from him? Does that mean if you're already poor you can just publish revengeporn, because what are they gonna take from you?

Like, if you're poor ... what is the "warning"? That they make sure you gonna be poor forever? Chances are that would be the case anyway.

Also, what incentive does this guy now have to actually contribute to society by doing anything more than the minimum he needs to afford?

[-] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Would the situation be any materially different if he had been convicted for $100.000, short of winning the lottery or inheriting a large sum? The fact that he made it his mission to ruin an ex's life then didn't show up to court tells me he's not exactly the kind to have a legal high-paying job. Regardless of the exact monetary amount the consequences would have been the exact same, the difference is purely symbolic.

The American Justice System is broken, yes, but this particular case is hardly the best example of it. As an outsider looking in, I find it more troubling that you still have the death penalty, the whole "plead guilty or don't get fair representation from your public defender" thing, over-incarceration, for-profit prisons, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Anissem@lemmy.ml 91 points 1 year ago

He’ll be paying that off for a while

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Sounds like he was charged in absentia, so more symbolic than anything, sadly. I hope she gets some money though.

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 40 points 1 year ago

Yeah. Sadly, the quote “If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, it’s your problem; if you owe them a billion, it’s their problem” applies here too. Hopefully she bleeds him dry and maybe some prison time too.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

His wages will be garnished forever. He's been sentenced to destitution forever. He'd be better off just leaving the country.

[-] JoBo@feddit.uk 25 points 1 year ago

I'm hoping he's a US citizen so he won't be able to avoid paying US taxes anywhere he goes without also getting a new identity and going into permanent hiding. As long as his life is destroyed far more comprehensively than his attempt to destroy hers, I'm happy.

Well done that jury. This is not just about a very large settlement, it's a very newsworthy settlement. It's impossible to measure the impact on crimes that don't happen but I reckon there will be a fair few potential perpetrators of this sort of crime who might just manage to get a fucking grip because of this. And a fair few victims who find a way to exact an entirely justified revenge on those who fail to grow the fuck up anyway.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Hillock@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't say he is sentenced to destitution. Wage garnishment is capped at 25% of disposable income. And you keep a minimum of 217.5 per week (30 hours of minimum wage a week).

A 25% pay cut certainly hurts but depending on his income he could still have a decent life.

The amount is ridiculous but even a more reasonable sentence around 500k-5mil would probably not change anything for his situation. Most people wouldn't pay that off in their lifetime at 25% of income.

[-] Backgammon@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago

Iirc the 25% cap really only ends up applying if you have more than one active garnishment. Individual garnishments are generally 10% of gross. Maybe there are exceptions where one can go up to the full 25% of disposable, but it's rarely the case.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He would have been better off not trying to ruin her life and put her directly in harms way.

Putting up naked pictures of someone with their name and address? This is a man who wanted her raped or dead.

Fuck your sympathy for him having consequences for his own actions.

[-] JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[-] Limeey@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

Hardly - he has an SSN. Any job that pays taxes he’ll be garnished. Even if he manages to hide his identity with a fake ssn, his life as it was is ruined. Definitely a form of justice considering he literally was trying to ruin her life through these actions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

While the ex-boyfriend does deserve strict punishment for sure, $1.2 billion dollars is absurd and it's annoying to see revenge porn get more punishment than corrupt businessmen that have ruined many more lives.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

The problem is not the he got a laughably high fine, it's that the others don't. I think something in the hundreds of thousands would be more appropriate for a private individual. I expect an appeal to reign that in some, if filed.

[-] TemporaryBoyfriend@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 year ago

Dude doesn't sound like the kind of guy who has $200 million. Or could ever earn it in a lifetime.

[-] JimmyDean@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

This is effectively making him pay for it, quite literally, for the rest of his life. Imo that sounds like a more severe punishment than if he were actually rich enough to pay all at once and just end it early.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] charonn0@startrek.website 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

$200 million for past and future mental anguish and $1 billion in punitive damages

NB: Texas caps punitive damages to $750k.

[-] satanmat@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Yep. And that’s rough. BigOilCorp 750k is lunch money. So that’s just shit.

Sure it’ll crush this guy though…

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

So 200.75 million. Still not bad

But still, largely symbolic

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] electrogamerman@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

As a german, I always find amusing when americans are scared of not being able to find a job because they have nude photos online. Meanwhile I have practically seen all of my colleagues/family naked either at the job showers, sauna or nudist parks and beaches.

[-] burleyguy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Special interest groups for the U.S. porn industry propagating shame on the amateurs to boost professional porn sales. 😋

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] vis4valentine@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

Fuck that guy. Deserves to have his life ruined. That just karma.

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

This hopefully serves as an effective deterrent to any potential sickos out there.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 7 points 1 year ago

How exactly is it a deterrent?

I mean, the guy clear doesn't have or will ever have $1.2 Billion or anything even close. So clear he won't actually be paying almost all of this. It's like threatening to take something away you don't have in the firstplace?

So what is the actual punishment then?

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

They can take a chunk of every penny he earns for the rest of his life.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What if he is already poor and just getting by. You literally might just be taking pennies from him.

I guess it's a form of punishment that favours the poor for a change?

[-] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

He'll just work at a bar for cash under the table and tips.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 4 points 1 year ago

Right? Like, that's just how many people get by anyway. That seems like a shitty punishment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] foggianism@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Although he may not be able to pay 1.2 bil in damages, he surely can and will give away a lot of his paycheck to her. It's like alimony turned up to eleven.

[-] theKalash@feddit.ch 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And that is it? Like you don't go to prison for failing to pay your fines?

So he basically got sentenced to living on minimum wage for life? That doesn't sound that bad and certainly makes the 1.2 billion number quite pointless.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] nl4real@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Guy tried to ruin his ex's life and got Uno Reverse Card'd, lol.

[-] Ikaros@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Im pretty sure he can file for bankruptcy. Everything he owns will be gone but he can start fresh.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
405 points (97.6% liked)

News

23287 readers
3483 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS