Revenge Porn's Latest Frontier

Friday, December 02, 2011


Hunter Moore is the creator, an amateur pornography site with an insidious social networking component. Users submit naked photos of other people and include links to the naked person's social networking page, ensuring that the photos will be unmissable in their targets' Google results. Moore talks to Bob about his site and his lack of ethics.

Comments [67]


This guy got smacked with a $250,000 defamation lawsuit- and lost. Kharma comes around:

Mar. 10 2013 09:53 PM

Update: IAU redirects to an anti-bullying site that tells the story of buying that domain and the aftermath. The site owner does not say how he found out about IAU.

Mar. 08 2013 08:34 PM
Rex Latchford from Undisclosed Location, Earth, Milky Way

The comments are more interesting than the interview was.

Also, in many cases, more disturbing.

Mar. 06 2013 04:07 PM
Joan from NYC

As I listened, I wondered why this interview happened at all. A few million people listening had no idea this was going on. Why the free publicity?

Nov. 19 2012 08:19 AM

I am also disappointing in the way the interview was conducted. I wondered for a moment if there was something wrong with my radio and if I was still tuned to NPR. It was not very professional.

There are millions of scumbags on the internet. Hunter Moore is a scumbag and those who post on his site aren't much better. That doesn't justify deviating from professional journalism and attacking a guest, no matter how offensive he may be.

Nov. 17 2012 10:56 PM

I love Hunter omg I creep it all the time sorry not sorry

Apr. 28 2012 03:24 PM
on the front range from Helena, Montana

I don't understand where the people outraged with Garfield are getting the outrage. This guy has such contempt for the social networks and that sea of humanity--so trusting, so, so stupid--who just want to "hurt themselves," by putting themselves on Facebook. It's a naked look at an internet pornographer and bully who traffics in vulnerability, which means he's a notch or two above the pedophiles but doesn't have the integrity of the average pornographer. He could have redeemed himself by displaying even a little intellectual honesty about what he does, but he's got the power, the money, and plenty of people willing to flatter him that he's not a sociopath, he's just smarter than everyone else. What I loved about Bob's interview was that he gets Hunter Moore to flay himself intellectually. Painful, yes, but hey, Hunter, it's open season on creeps.

Mar. 13 2012 01:12 PM
keirra levier

Wow I cant believe someone would make a website that would degrade individuals without them knowing. Even though he is protected by the Amendment rights there should be some type of action to where the website is illegal. And for the creator of the website should be embrassed to know that people who are exposed can commit violent behaviors and to others. If he can create an website like this then he can be creative and create something thats not cruel to the human race. He need a realty check quick!

Mar. 05 2012 07:10 PM

Facebook won't permit me to post this link because it has isanyoneup listed on it. Weird.

Feb. 23 2012 12:33 AM
Dahvie Vanity lover

Internet porn is disgusting. Hunter is basically busting them and letting the whole world see as revenge. I think that is genius because if I saw my daughter or son on there, I'd thank him for punishing them in a way that may be disgusting, but is revenge. :)

Feb. 20 2012 09:44 PM
SyndicatedNews from Florida

Why is this narcissist pornographer allowed to keep this site up? And why is such a respectable radio station such as WNYC airing it? I am so disappointed.

Why haven't the police gone into this man's server and arrested him already?

Feb. 07 2012 08:24 PM
joe b

This guys is just BEGGING for a takedown. What an idiot.

Jan. 20 2012 01:16 PM
cbs from SLC

I missed last weeks show, so I went back to hear some of the interviews being played.

This was, easily, one of the most unprofessional interviews I have ever heard from you guys or from anybody else. It was really hard to listen to. I cringed as Bob lost composure and threw a tantrum towards the end.

Yes, Hunter is a bad person. Yes, the website is bad and most people would agree with you. Yes, you missed a huge opportunity to ask some interesting questions to really understand what goes on behind phenomena like this.

I was much more interested in the reason behind the depravity than I was in your sanctimonious (yes, just like you mentioned on the show today, it was) posturing. The posturing got in the way and I feel like I need to take a step back from the podcast for a while.

I'm very unhappy about this interview, and you should be as well.

Dec. 24 2011 05:24 PM

The interviewer is sounded very biased in this interview. Smh.
#Hunter Moore.

Dec. 12 2011 09:47 PM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

I kept thinking of my dying ex, a wonderful woman who remained a close member of our family, and how I would've felt if someone had ever published compromising photographs of her. Revenge is such a fleeting motive.

Dec. 08 2011 05:53 PM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

Bob brings out the mean in me.

Dec. 08 2011 05:43 PM
Beth from Chicago

Re: Is anyone
I'm actually really surprised that so many listeners wrote in defense of Moore's site. Bob Garfield sounded quite restrained to me -- especially when Moore admitted that many of the pictures posted were done so by men that their former partner's have restraining orders against, and when he didn't bother to point out that Moore was doing to other people's sisters and mothers what he would never dream of doing to his own (seriously, its like Moore was too dense to have even considered that).
The Facebook comparison does not hold up because this site exists solely to provide a forum for revenge, while FB has broad (nearly infinite at this point, applications). And its particularly harmful because it exploits our culture's double-standard, hurting women much more than it hurts men, giving angry, psychotic, and/or abusive men opportunities to hurt women.
Moore says that he is not hurting people, that they hurt themselves. He may not be doing the hurting, but he has created a forum for men to maximize the hurt that they can inflict upon their exes, amplifying the damage that they could do on their own (by, say, posting it on their own FB page, or emailing it to everyone in their email list). By allowing them to do it anonymously, its a space whose sole function is to broadcast damaging expressions of hate directed at specific individuals. I'm not advocating that the site be legally banned, but it should be condemned. Garfield barely scratched the surface in terms of pointing out its harm.
My only problem with this report is that it made people like me curious, I wanted to go to the site to see if it really was all that bad. And before submitting this, I did check to make sure that I was correct in my assumption that the users posted anonymously.
I regret that I participated in increasing the site's web hits.

Dec. 08 2011 05:34 PM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

This was far worse than a waste of valuable air or pod time . It was an advertisement and Garfield & the rest of you should be ashamed of it. Who did Bob defame there? Not his sister or his mom, I guess.

Must be the PBS equivalent of "sweeps".

Dec. 08 2011 05:18 PM
Jan from Laredo, TX

Garfield got trolled. It's clear that Moore is a sleezebag, but he's an honest sleezebag. Garfield interviewed him as if he was trying to pin Moore down as a hypocrite, but Moore couldn't have been more honest with his answers. A better line of interviewing would've been to directly ask him if he saw himself as an evil person, and delve into the psyche of someone who is obviously unaffected by the repercussions of otherwise reprehensible behavior. The question of whether he would post pictures of his mother or sister was absurd.

Moore is a bad person but that was clear for anybody to see. Instead of wasting a segment being judgmental, it would've been infinitely more interesting to try to understand the thinking of a person so blatantly devoid of human empathy.

As it was, the interview was the equivalent of trying to convince Charles Manson that he's not a very good person. Everybody knows he's not, he knows he's not, and he doesn't care.

Dec. 08 2011 03:12 PM
Da Bad Ass from Brooklyn

I loved the sly triptych of Paul McMullan and Hunter Moore's psychopathic views on privacy capped with the Pew study on teens actually views on privacy.

McMullan's casual, just doing my job attitude, could be (almost) excused by his life long exposure to the British journalism trade, but Moore was an example of pure, nihilistic evil. Also, Moore's interpretation of U.S. copyright law seems to have come from The People's Court. I hope he's saving some of that money he makes running the site and throwing parties. He's going to need it.

Dec. 08 2011 12:12 PM
Scott Straker from Toronto, Canada

Congrats to Bob for conveying his contempt for this despicable man without saying anything overtly rude. I disagree with those to take issue with this feature's bias. If Bob had condemned Hunter Moore without giving him a chance to respond, they'd have a point; as it is, Bob gave him all the space he needed to show us in his own words what an amoral hypocrite he is. By all means people should be free to make money by whatever means the law permits; but likewise, people of conscience like Bob should be free to condemn their actions. Bravo, Bob.

Dec. 08 2011 10:15 AM
AnusBandito from youranus

Bob no show butthole. We no care.

Dec. 08 2011 06:05 AM
Roderick from mars

Hunter had an interview with a fat orange cat?

Dec. 08 2011 06:01 AM

Moore is repugnant and I thank Bob Garfield for expressing the disgust I felt when I heard this interview.

Dec. 08 2011 03:20 AM
Andrew N

Yes, Mr. Garfield could have been a little less obviously hostile, but his questions were right on target. Exposing the logical fallacies and lack of empathy from Mr. Moore should have been (and was) the most important point of the story.

I do not see how any reasonable person can say that someone who willingly provides a platform inherently meant for the purpose of harming other people can be morally blameless.

Dec. 07 2011 09:46 AM
RC from NH

Yeah, Bob did shame this dirt bag, Moore, and Bob didn't disguise his disgust very well, either.

But Moore deserves to be shamed. What's funny is that Moore didn't seem to realize that he was being shamed.

Dec. 07 2011 09:40 AM

1. This Hunter Moore is a reprehensible, Hell-bound creep.

2. It saddens me that several OTM listeners are more bugged at Garfield's contempt than on Moore's lack of morals. Maybe those listeners are fans of this damnable site

Dec. 06 2011 03:56 PM
SJ from Minneapolis

What a one-sided interview that was - Mr. Garfield clearly disliked Hunter Moore and his website, and it was readily apparent in his pointed questions. I listen to NPR to avoid the slant that I hear in most other media sources, but this interview would be more at home on FOX News than anywhere else. There have been many other interviews with individuals who are *far worse* that Mr. Moore, but the interviews have always been even-keeled and demonstrated a lot of journalistic integrity; I have never heard anything from NPR being so filled with attack, even more shameful that it was from On The Media. And lastly, closing the interview with "We're done here"? Shameful.

Dec. 06 2011 01:23 PM
Kelsi from WV

Yeah, let's all blame Hunter Moore for the people out there who are too stupid to keep their naked bodies concealed. If you don't want people to send your nudes to Hunter, don't send them to other people.
Also, why would Hunter post his sister or mother on isanyoneup? It is his site, so obviously he can choose whether or not to post people. If you had your own website, whatever it may be about, you wouldn't post stuff that you didn't want to see on there. I'm sure if Hunter's sister, mother, or anyone close to him for that matter, had their nudes posted online, he would tell them they were only doing it to themselves.
He wouldn't act like they were innocent. No one makes other people send these nudes. People choose to, and they know the chance they are taking.
So get over it.

Dec. 06 2011 01:10 AM
Andrew Karre from St. Paul, MN

Internet-age irony. I can't easily link to this story on Facebook because Facebook is blocking

Dec. 05 2011 09:20 PM

I am normally very pleased with the reporting from OTM, however, I was not particularly happy with how the reporter treated the owner of the website. It was clear from his tone and questions that he held the site and its owner in contempt. It doesn't seem proper to invite and publicize this website if you are going to treat the guest with such disrespect.

You may disagree with the content but at least be respectful to the guest that YOU invited to speak.

Dec. 05 2011 07:56 PM

After being repulsed by Hunter Moore I came away with 2 positive notes at the end of this interview. First, it's clear from his defensive, childish tone that he knows what he's doing is base and hurtful. Second, this type of creep, and those who submit to his site, are in the minority in our society.

Dec. 05 2011 07:06 PM
Christopher from Portland, OR

Interesting parallel between this guy and the phone hacking guy.

They are both correct in the sense that the public consumes this stuff (tabloid infotainment based upon dubious prying practices and pictures of real naked people) so they're both just fulfilling a need in a market system. But they both seem to believe that this absolves them of any ethical or basic human responsibility.

Of course, they are hardly alone in that belief.

Capitalism trumps everything. What a great species we've turned out to be.

Dec. 05 2011 05:51 PM
Pete Gussert from Chicago

Mr. Moore-
What makes your family an exception? You have absolutely no soul. Pray you I never find photos of anyone close to you. Your girlfriend or sister perhaps?

Dec. 05 2011 03:37 PM

I suspect that it's just a matter of time before Mr. Moore is assaulted or possibly killed and I won't shed a tear when it happens.

Dec. 05 2011 01:34 PM
Andre' Delbos from Bluffton, South Carolina

If Mr. Garfield is so contemptuous of his interview subject, why does he bother to interview him? The broadcast alone amounts to free publicity for Mr. Moore's website and if BG finds the website so objectionable, as seems apparent not only by his questions but the tone of his voice, why was air time given to the subject at all?
I would contrast this interview with the one immediately preceding in the broadcast of the "News of the World" reporter Paul McMullen. Arguably, both are disreputable characters but while Brooke Gladstone's questions were pointed her voice didn't quite drip with the same disdain.
Please allow the listener to draw their own conclusions without unecessary editorial comment.

Dec. 05 2011 05:05 AM

Dear lord some of you people are morons. The site has been up for over a year. People have tried to sue him and failed. Get over it. The blame does NOT need to be place on Hunter Moore. Let's talk for a second about the people who SUBMIT the photos to the website. He does not go out searching for these pictures. It is not his fault that people are seeking revenge or trying to hurt others. They make that decision themselves the second they decide to submit someone to his website.

Also, I'd like to point out that a majority of the photos on the site are SELF SUBMISSIONS. What is your moral/ethical stance on those instances?

Here's the thing- don't take a nude photo of yourself in this day and age if you don't want it to surface at some point. This is 2011. This is not the 60's, the technology mixed with all of the people dumb enough out there to take/send these pictures will surely end up with these results. If it weren't Hunter Moore doing this it would just be someone else.

I'm glad that all of you have a face and name to pin the blame on but how about you older generation folks who are upset with the site do one thing- Raise your children better...they obviously have issues or a need for attention if they are out there sending naked pictures to multiple people and from what I've seen people do in their nudes they proooobably could've used some more guidance from Mommy and Daddy growing up!!!! Get over yourselves!

One more thing, thanks for promoting the site :) #NBHNC

Dec. 05 2011 04:10 AM

I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me how Hunter Moore's posting of other people's private content is any different from this website or, say, the Anderson Cooper show.
A site or a show makes money by broadcasting appealing content that is interlaced with shout-outs to sponsors. With television its commercials, internet its usually pop-ups or ads on the side of the page, and with this site its the Overbrook Foundation and the Jane Marcher Foundation. Is it not safe to say that On The Media and Anderson Cooper capitalize on Hunter Moore in much the same way that Moore capitalizes on people's nudes? The only difference I see is that Moore is voluntarily appearing on these shows whereas the naked girls (and we should all be directing much more attention to the fact that its the girls that complain and not the guys) have not volunteered. If that's the case this is a legislative issue not an ethical one and trying to publicly demonize Hunter Moore is the opposite of what his critics should be doing. Why? Because at the end of this interview Bob says 'is anyone up dot com,' spreading Hunter's site to OnTheMedia's entire viewership.
When a newscast discusses a war it is profiting from that war--ethics and intent are secondary.
Bottom line: thanks to the Overbrook Foundation, the Jane Marcher Foundation, On The Media, and Bob Garfield is now that much more well known.

Dec. 05 2011 01:22 AM

If you don't want naked photos of yourself on the internet, don't take them.

If it wasn't Hunter Moore, it'd be someone else.

Dec. 05 2011 12:29 AM
Andrew Kilian from 59840

This guy is morally bankrupt. He's unable to see or at least admit to the obvious hypocrisy of being perfectly willing to victimize one person, but not another simply because of filial relation.

In regards to the people posting these revenge pics; I have pics of my first ex, but even though it ended horribly bitter and acrimonious I would never even think of injuring her by posting pics. Beyond the point of it being unfair to her who gave me these pics born out of intimacy I would be a monster for doing it and I have no desire to be a monster.

Dec. 04 2011 10:41 PM
chris from Missouri

Who advertises on this site? How does this make money? i'd love to know who to keep my money out of the hands of.

Dec. 04 2011 06:42 PM
WhatNow from Charlotte

I am glad I was a child of the 60s not that I did anything that would get passed around but if I had it would only be known to a handful of people. Just as people on his site may regret having taken the picture Mr Moore may find his past will haunt him. Since he has made himself a public figure with his site he should not be surprised if his family shows up in some pictures on some site.
I have no problem with people becoming billionaires but when it is done with the attitude I don't care about hurting you as long as I make money then you are lost. That goes for CEOs and Wall Street types. You can have those jobs and do good or evil. Your actions speak louder the size of your bank account.

Dec. 04 2011 05:13 PM
R K from Madison, WI

People who bemoan the stupidity of the general public use that stupidity as a crutch to justify their own unethical and morally repulsive behaviors. To me, Hunter Moore's response here was tantamount to saying that if you walk down a dark alley you're likely to be stabbed. And since he doesn't see someone else stabbing you, I guess he'd better do it, or else how would you learn your lesson about how you shouldn't walk down dark alleys?

TL;DR: Hunter Moore is kind of a sicko.

Dec. 04 2011 04:40 PM
Maggie Thompson

Jon and MrJM are, as I understand current copyright law, absolutely correct. If I send you a photo (or you buy, say, a painting), I do not give you the copyright to that photo (or other art) unless there is a signed agreement from me that I am transferring the copyright to you. The copyright remains with the person who created the image unless it is signed away.

Dec. 04 2011 04:39 PM

Long time listener, renewed donor. It's segments like this one profiling Hunter Moore's capitalization of scorned lovers' desire for vindication/vengeance that make me so glad to be in the audience of NPR. Agree with many others that Bob Garfield's restrained handling of Mr. Moore does much to raise ethics issues in this brave new world, certainly for this listener. Thank you.

Dec. 04 2011 03:48 PM

I found this piece distressing, but I was comforted and entertained by Bob's delivery throughout. I do wish Bob had called Moore out on his ridiculous dodge when he recategorized the photos in question as all coming from women who sent them to "random strangers" rather what we had just been told they were, or many of them: photos taken by or for a trusted boyfriend, perhaps even at the boyfriend's urging.

Moore's answers were often close to gibberish, as in the example above. I think he was genuinely refusing to acknowledge some of the implications in Bob's statements or questions, but in some cases I think the things Bob was getting at were completely beyond him. And as someone else pointed out, he did have his copyright law wrong.

Dec. 04 2011 03:46 PM
Virginia from Portland, OR

You handled this interview well! "Unbiased reporting" doesn't mean you let contradictions, unformed thoughts and the shady motivations of an interview subject slide. Nice job.

Dec. 04 2011 03:41 PM

Hunter Moore appeared shocked and disgusted when asked if he would post naked photos of his mother or sister - if I was his parent or sibling I would be disgusted and disheartened over the realization that I could raise or be related to such a sad excuse for a human being.

Totally disagree with Raven's statement that Hunter is not responsible for the content of his site. Making a profit may be a foundation of capitalism but when I was obtaining a business degree many years ago part of any business person or organization's agenda was a responsibility to the public to handle its business in a socially responsible way - saying Hunter is not responsible is an easy cop out for his sad and shameful way of making money.

Dec. 04 2011 11:01 AM
Lori from Montclair, NJ

Thank you, Bob Garfield, for handling this professionally - you showed great restraint. I understand the complaints about the "free advertising" aspect but I think cultivating awareness about these type of sites far outweighs that concern. Nearly 30% of young people report some level of participation in "sexting", so it is critical that we educate them about the potential consequences. I hope a lot of parents were listening!

As for Mr. Moore, he is playing with fire and he will eventually get burned. This man has no moral compass. You have to wonder who would date HIM?!?

Dec. 04 2011 10:59 AM
Evan from Santa Monica

@Adreana (happy to see someone from Long Beach on here!):

A recent article on The Awl about Moore raised the question about how he knew that the people were at least 18, and it said that it was the only time during the interview that he was serious. He apparently uses some different systems and a photo investigation system to try to make sure that everyone that he posts is 18.

He says that he has also worked with law enforcement agencies when someone has submitted photos of someone under 18.

The Awl story is here: I thought it did a better job of presenting Moore and trying to understand him than this interview did. Yes, some people actually seem to enjoy having their photos posted.

I'd have to wonder if Bob decided to not raise this question, lest it get in his way of denying Moore any moral credibility during the interview. I don't normally mind when Bob editorializes during his interviews, but I thought this case was too much. No one benefitted here, even you Bob--it's not very hard to be superior than someone like Moore, even without the obvious contempt you conducted the interview with.

Dec. 04 2011 10:54 AM
Michael Klein from Brooklyn, NY

I wonder if Google and other search engines can be persuaded to place Mr. Moore at the bottom of their searches, or may omit him altogether. Mr. Moore's victims should certainly sue him. If they win, they could force him into bankruptcy and shut him down.

Dec. 04 2011 10:51 AM
Kevin Dole

Is this website tasteless and tacky? Yes. Do people post these pictures on their own on their social media? Yes. All he's doing is repackaging. He should be ashamed of himself.

But the interview itself was nothing more than a poor attempt at an ambush, trying to shame him. You people just wanted to try to kick him in the shins, your objectivity had been left at the door. This wasn't news, nor was it informative. This was emotion based opinion "journalism". This wasn't on par with MSNBC or FoxNews; I'd put it just a hair above Jerry Springer.

Shame on Mr Moore, and Mr Garfield.

Dec. 04 2011 10:51 AM
GS from NYC

Bob Garfield was remarkable in the interview with Hunter Moore. In particular his restraint in the final exchange, i.e. letting Moore's indignant reaction to being asked "would you post naked images of your mother or sister on the site?" hang in the air, without pointing out to Mr. Moore the obvious: that women exposed on his site might just be someone's mother or sister.

Dec. 04 2011 10:47 AM
Evan from Boston

I was absolutely disgusted by Hunter Moore and was left disturbed by this interview.

I am continually impressed however by Bob Garfield. If it were me on the other end of that interview, I don't know what would have happened. The question Bob asked about posting Hunter's sister or mother was spot on.

Please tell me there is a mass movement of people trying to shut this guy down.

Dec. 04 2011 12:15 AM

Somebody please sue the bejeesus out of Mr. Moore and his company.

The person who took a photo may not own the photo after giving it as a gift, but the author of the photo does continue to own the copyrights. Per the Copyright Act, copyrights can only be transferred by a signed writing. And every time Mr. Moore or his company copies or distributes a photo in which they do not own or have license to copy and distribute said photo, that is a violation of the copyright act. Furthermore, since neither Mr. Moore nor his company took said photographs and they received the photographs from someone else, they are already on notice that someone else owns the copyrights to the photos. Ignorance is no defense to their actions.

In civil suit, one can recover damages and profits of the infringer or statutory damages ranging from $750 to $30,000 per violation and even as high as $150,000 per violation if the infringer has the requisite intent.

Dec. 03 2011 04:59 PM
Appalled Listener from Indiana

Sick. Why was I listening to this? How could this young man possibly describe what he is doing so shamelessly, with so little regard for anyone but himself, suck lack of conscience, so little respect for other people. Social ethics and respect for privacy? What are those? Disgusting little punk. There are certainly laws being broken here.

Dec. 03 2011 04:47 PM

I can't decide if this guy or the News of the World reporter is worse.

But it's interesting that they both use the same excuse that they are giving people what they want.

Dec. 03 2011 04:32 PM
XYZ from Boston, MA

I am so appauled by this young man, Hunter Moore, and his web creation that it's hard to articulate my thoughts. I'm a regular guy, age 43. I know little about constitutional law, I'm not an academic, but I know enough about being a human being to recognize when something is clearly wrong/unjust.

This sight and it's purpose does nothing but contribute to the world's hurt, human pain and suffering. Like being a drug pusher, Mr Moore provides a service for people who "hurt themselves," then he "just makes a profit off of it." Shame, ridicule, embarrassment, anger, revenge, etc ... contributing on a global and cultural level to these feelings is not likely to lead Mr Moore to a vocation of fullfillment, joy, and community. Rather, the nature of his work drags us all down toward incivility and dis-integration. I wonder if Mr Moore's family and his friends are proud of him for being the founder of a website that posts thousands of private, naked photos of mothers, sisters, brothers, and fathers from around the globe (as long as their not his family)?

Bob & OTM staff, I sincerely appreciate (though I am aghasst at Mr Moore's endeavor) your work in bringing stories like this out into the light of day. This was likely not a pleasant assignment / interview.

Dec. 03 2011 03:15 PM
Robert from Boston

Pathetic. This interview only gave free advertising to an awful website. Garfield's public shaming of this boy was pointless. Which listener needed guidance to understand the moral implications of this website. But where is the media when politician's lie and the public can't tell? Pointless.

Dec. 03 2011 01:50 PM
Adreana Langston from Long Beach, CA

I was very disappointed by this interview because I felt there were two questions that BEGGED to be asked that Bob did not ask. A) How can Hunter Moore verify that at the time the photos were taken the people in the photos were 18 and above. Even if the photos are sent in annonymously, there is no law that protects Moore from distributing child pornography. I've met a lot of 16-year-old girls with 22-year-old bodies.
B) How can Hunter Moore verify that the people sending in the photos are really the rightful owners of the photos? How does he know that the people sending in the photos are not thieves of cell phones or laptops on which they found the photos? Recently a man was arrested for hacking into the e-mail accounts of female celebrities. Among the stolen digital items found on the man's computer were nude photos of Scarlette Johanson taken from her hacked Gmail account. Is there a law that protects Moore from trafficking in stolen photos?

Dec. 03 2011 10:42 AM

Mr. Moore's interpretation of copyright is incorrect. The person taking a picture of him- or herself retains the rights to the photograph even if a copy of the photograph is given to someone else.

It is no different from a magazine that retains the copyright to an photo that it publishes within an issue that it sends to a subscriber. The subscriber has a right to that copy of the image, but the subscriber does not have any copyrights in that image.

There is money to be made by taking this clown to court.

-- MrJM

Dec. 03 2011 10:34 AM
Benjamin from Carlisle, PA

It is true that Bob's interview was not "even-handed." In a way, it put Hunter Moore up in front of the public to be shamed. However, I have a weakness in my heart for irony that crosses over into poetic justice. It was all the more affective because the subject was so totally deaf to the irony. Sometimes "fair and balanced" must give way to moral truth. My only complaint is that I think Mr. Moore is simply too easy of a target, which gave the interview of whiff of exploitation on Bob's part. This guy is trash that feeds on trash. But did he deserve an interview?

Dec. 03 2011 10:01 AM

Journalists are people too. The ethical ones try to get to the unbiased truth as unbiasedly as they can. Sometimes the truth of their own opinion slips out, and as long as it doesn't twist the subject into propaganda I'm fine with it.

This interview revealed to me that Hunter Moore is ethically conflicted. This made him human and not totally detestable.

Hunter Moore is a sad element in our society. One who profits from a field he knows, on some level, is reprehensible (If he wouldn't want his sister or mother on his site...knowing other people's sisters and mothers are on his site exposed for the entertainment and ridicule of others...deep down he knows he is in the wrong.)

He's just a speck of the dark matter that makes up much of our universe. Although I feel I should apologize to Dark Matter, as it's not known how negative a force it really is. The negative force of Hunter Moore and his ilk is more of a known.

Dec. 03 2011 08:41 AM

I agree that the tone of the interview was off. part of sounded like objective questioning and part like heavy-handed opinionating...when the interviewer asked about the site owners mother or sister (a justifiable question) i feel like a follow up pointing out that even though HE wouldn't want to see it doesn't mean his 'customers' wouldn't, which was much of his defense against his responsibility for the content..

Dec. 03 2011 08:08 AM
Richard Grayson from Brooklyn

This is a horrible site, but I was more offended by Bob's high-handed sanctimony during this segment. Bob, I admire you, but you sounded like a tool here.

Dec. 03 2011 07:35 AM

Raven, I must respectfully disagree. The very fact that Mr. Moore has created a platform and is profiting off of it is what makes his actions, by my standards, inexcusable. Is the argument 'someone else will do it anyway' an excuse for despicable behavior like selling drugs or trafficking children? I don't think it is. I understand that this type of behavior, posting pictures like this, will go on regardless of who does it; but that does not give those who do it a pass. It may be legal, but it is unethical in my opinion.
I agree that the real issue is that people need to be aware of their actions and sending nude photos of oneself over the internet is stupid. But people make stupid mistakes all the time; that is how we learn. However I think that Mr. Moore's site goes too far, once pictures hit the web, there is no getting them back.
Mr. Moore is not just holding up a mirror. He is holding up a mirror and cashing a check.

Dec. 03 2011 04:32 AM
Raven from Atlanta, GA

I am very disappointed in the way that this interview was conducted. I usually like this show because it makes me aware of what the media is and what it does. I realize that everyone and everything is biased but as a listener I have come to expect more reporting rather than judgement. Hunter Moore created a platform and is not responsible for his content any more than Mark Zuckerberg is responsible for the content on facebook. If he can make a profit from the stupidity of others then good for him because making something out of nothing and making a profit is the foundation of capitalism.
The real issue here is that individual people need to be aware of the consequences of their actions because we live in a world of social media and internet connected smart phones and the people that are stupid enough to take naked photos of themselves and then send them to other people have to live with the unintended as well as the intended consequences of that action.
All Hunter Moore does is hold up the mirror. It is not his problem if people do not like what they see.

Dec. 02 2011 10:55 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.