There seem to be two distinct issues here: the fact that these websites publish mugshots, and the fact that they solicit payment to remove the pictures and information.
The first issue is clear, at least to me: this is public information and they have a right to republish it, like it or not.
On the second issue, I don't understand why this is not extortion. Obviously this is because my understanding of what constitutes extortion is faulty. Can any lawyers here explain?
1. We already have a court-system that's _suppose_ to be giving out fair punishment for crimes. Adding another "fine"(pay to get mugshots removed) to it I don't think is needed.
2. What happens if I start re-publishing mugshots? And then another person? And then another? How many fees is this person suppose to pay to stop it?
3. More likely than not, the person who's mugshot is online is probably not rich. Probably needs all the money they can get. Having to spend it on getting mugshot-copies removed from online I think is terrible, like kicking someone when they're down.
4. And finally, this is my biggest issue with this by far. It is assumed the person who got arrested actually deserved it. I, personally, have nearly zero faith in the American law enforcement and criminal system. I think it's almost completely corrupt and extremely bias towards certain groups. So the fact that people who've already been unfairly victimized by a broken system, once again having to pay X number of person(s) to get it removed from the internet is just plain unethical.
Here's why I don't think it's extortion. Imagine you have a neighbor that hates bicycles. You agree to stop riding yours if she pays you $100,000. Is that extortion? Obviously not: you have the right to ride your bicycle regardless of whether or not your neighbor likes it, and you have the right to sell your professional services (not riding a bicycle, in this case) to whomever you like.
(Perhaps she wants to sell it to a like-minded buyer, and you're therefore devaluing the property. Too fucking bad, right?)
A problem that I could see the mugshot sites running into is that they imply guilt, when the mugshots were only for arrests. Intentionally misleading someone seems a lot like libel.
I'm pretty sure you could find yourself in trouble with the law if you (or a friendly intemediary) were advertising Not-Riding-a-Bicycle-as-a-service whilst riding your bicycle in a manner which whilst technically not violating any laws about use of the roads, was clearly intended to induce them to pay up.
I think even many of the most ardent defenders of free press would take exception to a newspaper whose business model consisted of charging people not to write about them. Especially if they provided a bare minimum of factual information and then invited users to "tag" the photo with "suggested" terms like "scary, wtf, wino, beat-up", like one of the websites linked from the article.
> Several legal experts interviewed for this article said seeking money to remove mug shots from the Internet does not qualify as a crime such as extortion, since extortion requires a threat ahead of time to post the image unless the mug shot subject pays.
> "Wow - it does seem to come pretty close to the line," Robert Weisberg, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said upon learning about such sites. "I'd say it skirts the line but may stop just short. (It) depends on how a reasonable person would perceive this in terms of fear."
That definition of extortion is wrong. Extortion is when you threaten to commit a crime unless paid. Blackmail is when you threaten to publish information unless paid.
Pro tip: offering to sell the only copies of a photograph is not a threat to publish.
Well, it's blackmail, not extortion (extortion is threat of a normally illegal act, like breaking your legs, blackmail is threat of a normally legal act, like telling people that you are cheating on your spouse).
The first issue is clear, at least to me: this is public information and they have a right to republish it, like it or not.
On the second issue, I don't understand why this is not extortion. Obviously this is because my understanding of what constitutes extortion is faulty. Can any lawyers here explain?