submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [M] 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
[–] 115 points 3 years ago (2 children)

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!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 91 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    He’ll be paying that off for a while

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 3 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 49 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago*

    Agreed. I'm guessing it's written in law something like $100,000 per download or something, and it got downloaded a lot.

    It financially ruins him for life and sends a strong message though, which is presumably the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 40 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 3 years ago* (4 children)

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

    NB: Texas caps punitive damages to $750k.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 23 points 3 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

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

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›