I'm no lawyer either but I'm under the impression publishing someone's email was a no-no.

with that picture he posted initially, assuming that he didn't get formal permission to publish it. (Fat chance, heh.) Of course, the rights holder would actually have to sue him explicitly for anything to come of that.

Anyway, looks like a case that'll probably be pretty hard to defend in court. The damages claims alone could prove to be quite staggering.

http://www.anywebcam.com/

aren't boasting 3+ million members for nothing:

Total Members: 3,102,900
New Today: 1,893
New Posts Today: 968
Gallery Entries Today: 60

Exhibitionism + voyeurism are on the loose almost everywhere these days.

But at least AWC seem to have their privacy act together.

And yes, I cordially agree that a Sicilian Bowtie might seem quite adequate a piece of garment in this case ...

Ehm, for the unaware: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sicilian+Necktie :)

Why did he do that?

Everyone knows what dogs men are.

First, it can be argued that the e-mail exchange had an expectation of privacy. This is akin to inviting a house guest over and using a hidden camera on them while they take a shower. The expectation of the e-mail sender is that the e-mail was being sent to who they said they were and that the contents would remain private.

Second, this would make him responsible for any and all damages to the individual. This includes loss of job and any emotional distress caused to marriages, relationships, friendships, and other social consequences the publication of the e-mails would cause.

Finally, he had no right to publish the images. Not only are the images not his property, but the e-mailer should be given that expectation of privacy. But the biggest issue he could fall into is the fact that posting nude images online without proper 2257 documentation is illegal. You can't post nude images online in the US without proof that the individual is 18 years of age or older. A single offense could be a fine of $25,000 and up to 5 years in jail.

It's one thing to block out the names and faces of the individual to prove a point or draw attention. I think when you do it out of malice to hurt individuals, you are stepping over the line. If he picked on the wrong guy, he could be signing checks over to someone the rest of his life. Or even worse yet, he could be praying his insurance policy is up-to-date.

or just some narcissistic jackass desperate for attention? in this situation i'd much rather have all my fingers and toes than link juice.

i'm on the same page with DG and MrTurner - every redneck fiber of my body tells me this guy should be on the phone with his insurance agent. and be hyper-vigilant for anything that sounds like that banjo music from "Deliverance"....

i went to read Fortuny's actual posts, and i couldn't believe how lightly he seemed to be taking it:

So, if my last post gets me killed, reply here with what you'll say at my funeral. You may think I've gone too far. But I say I haven't gone too far enough!

later:

Okay, so last night was a total bust! No angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. No harassing e-mails or phone calls. I haven't even received a notice from LJ Abuse! Do you have any idea how disappointed I am? This is such an internet letdown.

and he seems super stoked that he's getting press coverage for this - NYT, Wired blog, etc. wouldn't that just exacerbate the situation, making any potentially homicidal subjects of this "experiment" that much more enraged?

Wht's up w/ the toast?

That's just a great picture of toast. Makes me hungry.