[Sue74]

Mugshots.com and Arrests.org are ruining people's reputations. Can someone track down IP addresses and sue other's who tag and comment? This sounds like a lot of time and money. And these sites charge money to remove records. But can the person who was arrested sue another person for commenting?

[smoothy]

Well, if they cared about their reputations... they wouldn't have done the things that got them arrested in the first place. And incidentally, as has been mentioned in the news and other comments elsewhere... none of this information is private and its all a matter of public record. So neither of them are ruining anyone's reputations. The people that committed the crimes did that all themselves.

These people should be putting their energy towards better pursuits than trying to sue people to get a buck or two they never earned in the first place.

Besides.. the commenters have first amendment rights.

[Sue74]

That's what I thought. If it were me (and it isn't), I'd quickly get the record expunged and pay the fees to have it removed from Google, FB, Mugshots, etc. Expensive, yes, but to spend time and money and threats to sue someone for commenting while not correcting the behavior that led to the arrest... well, you know.

[AK lawyer]

That's what I thought. If it were me (and it isn't), I'd quickly get the record expunged and pay the fees to have it removed from Google, FB, Mugshots, etc. Expensive, yes, but to spend time and money and threats to sue someone for commenting while not correcting the behavior that led to the arrest... well, you know.

The point is that if the posting is true, you cannot sue for expungement or for damages. It would be wrong for you to threaten suit when the treat is empty.

[ScottGem]

There was an episode of Major Crimes (on TNT) recently where someone was running a web site that posted racy pictures of a wife that were on her husband's stolen laptop. The owner of the Web site that posted the pictures was running a scam where he collected a fee to remove the pics, then they popped up again on another site that also charged a fee to remove them and so on. Sounds like this may be a similar scam.

But the bottom line is it is not illegal to publish the truth. If the record being displayed is factual and the comments are either factual or opinion, there there are no grounds for a suit.

[AntC]

How much more can someone's reputation be harmed other than having been arrested and their mugshot published?

[ScottGem]

How much more can someone's reputation be harmed other than having been arrested and their mugshot published?

I believe the issue was not so much the public record that was posted as it was the comments added by users.

[AK lawyer]

True, but normally comments are not understood as alleging any more facts than are originally posted. Thus they would not be defamatory. If a commenter were to add additional "facts" (I.e.: "I also happen to know that this person also did such-and-such.") that were untrue and which further impugn the character, the commenter could in theory be sued for defamation.

[AntC]

I understand, Scott. I just meant that if you have had all that info published, how much more damage could any kind of "comment" do.

[joypulv]

I see 3 legal issues.
First is the legal, public access to criminal records. Newspapers have been doing this for as long as there were newspapers.
Second is the comment. You can sue for defamation, but have to prove what damage was done and how much it cost you monetarily, not easy to do. Impossible if it's a comment on a criminal record.
Third is the publishing of pictures/words that were private and no permission was given. That can be treated as theft, just as the computer was, and when a fee is charged to remove them, that can be treated as extortion.