There is a new and disturbing industry that has sprung up: publishing mugshots of people and then charging to have those pictures taken down. One individual in the article below, Jaclyn Lardie, paid hundreds of dollars to remove the mugshot from a college drinking arrest only to have the picture appear on other sites. States have moved in to try to legislate protections. While invented in its standard form in 1888 by Alphonse Bertillon (shown here), it took the Internet to make a rather shady business out of the millions of mugshots generated in criminal arrests great and small.
Various websites have also sprung up to help people deal with such embarrassing pictures. It has become a cottage industry as people find themselves in the post-pay-post cycle.
There is a class action against sites like Justmugshots.com where plaintiffs are alleging a violation of the right to privacy in the use of their images for profit without their consent.
In today’s Internet age, these pictures come back to haunt people when they are searched in Google. Seven states — Georgia, Illinois, Texas, Utah, Oregon, Colorado and Wyoming — have passed laws to curtail the practice but Marc Epstein, a lawyer for Mugshots.com, told Fox News that such laws are unconstitutional.
That does present an interesting question. This does look like protected speech to me. This is a government publication that is available to the public. These photos are routinely published by the media and on sites like this one. Of course, these sites just published all mugshots, which reduces the newsworthy element. However, they can claim that they are a popular resource to people searching stories and personal investigations. Sometimes such unknown individuals later become newsmakers for good or bad.
The laws and lawsuit pit free speech advocates against consumer protection advocates in a difficult conflict.
A typical statute (out of Texas) focuses on sites charging more than $150 “or more or other comparable value” to remove such pictures. On one hand, the law creates useful requirements of posting contact information for people to use to challenge the accuracy of such photos. However, the creation of a new crime for such postings raises difficult free speech issues in my view. There is an obvious good-faith concern over extortion when these sites are all too willing to take down photos for a price. That cuts against the notion that they are creating a public resource and service. Moreover, these sites can fold in claimed administrative costs like salaries to argue that they are not making a profit. The line drawing presents some interesting and difficult questions.
Source: ABC
But what would we do without the gossip from Smoking Gun? I would not know what Lindsey Lohan was up to. I think you can charge a reasonable fee to take the photo off your site, however, if I ran such a site, I would be doing a disservice to my viewers if I did.
bigfatmike, my example was hypothetical as indicated by my use of the word, say. You make it sound like your response is somehow valid for all hypotheticals, even including free speech.
I do agree that they should not be able to charge money to take down mugshots. There are millions of sites that stay afloat by advertising revenue, alone. Mugshot sites should be able to, likewise, if the marketplace supports them. In this way, I do believe they would be viable.
We are all prone to self-serving. We want a free pass for ourselves while we hold celebrities, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and priests accountable. I just don’t understand why we cannot rise above the “self” in today’s society, this constant, relentless stand for double standards in every facet of our lives, its demand seemingly related directly to affluence and income. If we are not vocal for this dual standard, then our silence all too often votes for it, too.
Sorry if I come across offensive but I just don’t have any tolerance whatsoever for dual standards. Politics has over sensitized me.
“Samantha, In both Nazi Madison and NYC the mayors want to make it ILLEGAL to ask an employee applicant if they have a criminal conviction!!”
Nick.-That’s not true. There is no legislation that outright BANS an employer from conducting a criminal background check. You’re talking about “ban the box” laws. Ban the box laws don’t prevent an employer from conducting a criminal background check. They prevent an employer from asking the question on the initial application. An employer can certainly conduct a criminal background check later in the process. The theory behind the legislation is that lazy employers use it as a screening device without inquiring into the nature of the offense, how long ago it occurred, or whether it is related to the job.
For example, in a non “ban the box” state, a 34 year-old man who was convicted of underage drinking would have to check the box “yes” next to a question that says “have you ever been convicted of a crime?” I’d think we’d all agree that an underage drinking conviction has little to no impact on whether you can do a job 15-years in the future. The only thing ban the box legislation does is make an employer do an individualized assessment of the conviction. That’s it. It does NOT require an employer to hire people who have been convicted of a crime.
The only way to stop this is for police to quit releasing the photos. Once in the wild, you will never get them all taken down.
It is simpler than that. Prevent businesses from charging to remove the photos.
Without that revenue most sites will probably close up.
A few may convert to legitimate background check businesses, but they would be unlikely to present the photos publicly – who then would pay for the service.
Samantha, In both Nazi Madison and NYC the mayors want to make it ILLEGAL to ask an employee applicant if they have a criminal conviction!! My advice to any employer, whether the applicant answers YES or NO, is to hire someone to do a background. You want to know if this person is a criminal and also if they are litigious, bankruptcy prone, restraining orders[civil], etc. If the person has not lived many places you can do your due diligence usually for $200 or so. It is money well spent. I do this for friends, gratis.
If the county jails required each mugshot to only be provided after a written public disclosure requrest is made per inmate these sites would disappear rather quickly.
What some folks around these parts have done to get some revenge against the newspaper publisher is to take his photo and insert it in a news mugshot article about a local pedophile arrest and insert the publishers name in there instead of the alleged arrestee. Then we print it out and post it in the bathrooms at the newspaper office, the post office, the police station, the bus station, at some bus stop stations and at the publisher’s church. So the publisher of the newspaper is now out there wrongly accused. Just like some of the guys who are out there on his newspaper wrongly accused. Do it in your own town. It should not just stay in Vegas.
Let’s say you’re contemplating a new investment. The guy or gal pitching you is a convicted felon, but you have no way to know because mugshot sites are now illegal. Where does that leave you? Sure, you can hire a private investigator to do your due diligence, but why should you have to? Why are you denied the same public information that a private investigator is not? If you’re in the business of contemplating multiple investments daily, through multiple persons, you cannot do due diligence without huge costs, amounting to thousands and tens of thousands of dollars over time. Even if you’re going to buy a used car, boat or RV, you shouldn’t have to hire a private investigator to know the background of the person who’s holding his hand out for your money. Personally, if someone is dumb enough to get a DUI, I’m in favor of doing whatever it takes to shame them from killing someone on the roadways. In another time, when we all had lived in villages, everyone knew the personal history of everyone else. I just don’t see why overpopulation should warrant an exclusion. Society is already way too deceptive. Just look at Washington.
“Let’s say you’re contemplating a new investment. The guy or gal pitching you is a convicted felon, but you have no way to know because mugshot sites are now illegal.”
These sites would be useless for your stated purpose because 1) they do not publish on conviction but on arrest 2) they are in the business of removing photos not maintaining them.
If you actually depended on such a service you would likely be misled anytime you interviewed anyone with enough money to pay to have their photo deleted.
These services are useless for the public service of informing the general population regarding violators.
I have had many clients suffer the harm of these sites and a local news publication for sale containing “mug shots” in our area.
In my jurisdiction, the arrest photos are available to the public at local law enforcement for a fee. This is very troubling when requested by the media after an arrest and publication. These photos are of an arrest and criminal allegation only. They have not be convicted of any offense at this early stage of the criminal process. I find this offensive and troubling. We have a limited expungement process in KY for certain crimes, but the damage has already been done. It is shameful.
There are similar websites that publish criminal records, which are public info. I absolutely understand the anger people have w/ this. These sites will take down your record for a fee. However, as I have said many times, to very intelligent, urbane people who just don’t get it. The genie is out of the bottle. As w/ video surveillance, if it’s public, it’s not private. That’s the fact, jack. It is a brave new world. You can thank Al Gore you invented the internet and is trying to save the world from Global Warming.
Bigfatmike-Great point re “commercial speech”…I’ve seen the people that run these sites try and claim they are performing a “public service” by posting these sites as it allows people to find out information on potential employees, neighbors, etc. Crap. They are looking to extort people for money.
The other problem with mughsots is that they happen after an arrest, not a conviction. Anyone of us could be wrongfully arrested and then have our mugshot out on the internet for the world to see. It’s not the same thing, but the U.S. EEOC makes a BIG distinction between the use of “arrest” records vs. conviction records when making employment decisions: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm
“This is a government publication that is available to the public.” Perhaps its time to re-evaluate if it should be? The modern damage of keeping mugshots public record is much more real than it was in the pre internet age.
“That does present an interesting question. This does look like protected speech to me. This is a government publication that is available to the public.”
It seems to me this is commercial speech that can and should be regulated.
I don’t see any expressive issue at all. They have a business model of presenting something embarrassing and charging to remove it.
It cries out for regulation.
But beyond that there is the issue of privacy and public records. We need to rethink how the state handles personal information for individuals.
We require the state to protect proprietary information for businesses. Why not for individuals.
Clearly individuals have an interest in how their personal information is handled.
Sure there is some complexity. But we need to rethink how the state controls and releases personal information, and the appropriate uses for the information when it is released.
Creepy sites.
There are better things to do with websites besides extortion.
Add this. Just posting photos of yourself or family members can be risky.
Anyone can pull the picture, Photoshop it and re-post it as an ugly mug shot.
Try Googling your own name: “XYZ pictures” and see what pops up.
The claim of these sites to be providing a public service is a large steaming pile of that famous barnyard product.
No one should be fooled into thinking this is a “service.” That is, unless one considers it a “service” to the site owner’s bank account. Under these circumstances it is not a free speech issue as much as a high tech blackmail scheme. I know a few people whose mug shots are posted, most of them for DUI or some other minor offense such as failure to pay a fine. Some of those pictured are now deceased, but the site owners still want to be paid to take them down.
Additionally, the information provided may result in deadly consequences, not only for the person whose mug shot and personal information is posted, but family members as well. Here is an example in the news story linked below:
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/25441672/supremacist-couple-plead-guilty-to-killing-union-co-sex-offender-wife
In the age of everyone carrying a camera and a voice recorder nothing is sacred. While the net opens up avenues never before available to explore and learn, its darker side punishes people for a lifetime for having human moments.
Mugshots.com has a sleazy extortion like business model, but it isn’t much different than sites that post sexts of exes, or photo sites that upload all types of personal moments. Police have dash cams, cities have traffic signal cameras. You can be tracked any number of ways and the consequences can be harmful if made public..
While friends and family can forgive those human moments, the corporate and security states have much longer memories and are not as forgiving. A less than flattering digital trail can cost someone much grief and substantial lost income.
Is your digital life your property or the property of the public/state? While it may be a free speech issue, it seems also to be a freedom to extort issue.
The thing I have an issues with these website and mags, they post those pictures before the person is convicted. They give great detail where the person lives and to the phone number. To have to pay these people to take down or not publish your mug shots for profit is called extortion. I hope the publishers lose this battle.
What gives the right to the police to release them. Make them like medical records.
The digital age and a new form of extortion. Sounds like a crime to me. Just like money I am not sure this activity is free speach it looks, sounds and smells like extortion.