💀 Horrorcow Nicholas Robert Rekieta / Rekieta "Law" / Actually Criminal / @NickRekieta / "u/Early-Leopard-8351" - Polysubstance abuser, child doser, dog killer. "Lawtube pope" turned zesty Dabbleverse Redditor streamer. Swinger "whitebread ass nigga" who snuffs animals and visits 🇯🇲 BBC resorts. Legally a cuckold. Still not over his ex Aaron. Wife's bod worth $50.

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

It's been posted in one of the threads. I don't know what source the poster had for that information. The complaint carefully avoids making any statement about who took the photo and I absolutely believe the polycule know its origin.

Yeah, I've asked two or three times about it and haven't been pointed back to that. I'd assumed it was a pic he took when with her or she took and sent to him but people keep saying group message. But Signal =/= necessarily group message. Maybe he took it with her phone then she sent it to him. Or was one she'd had from some time before or taken professionally and sent to him*. Still nothing saying it was a group message.

* And if it was from the series of lingerie pics she posted to Locals - but nude instead of in lingerie, that would support that she did have a different sense of privacy about a fully nude photo vs a suggestive one.

I suspect that the sort of case required to strike down that law will have to involve a publisher, media company or journalist being charged under the law for unintentionally showing a fraction of a nipple without consent.

The Court in Casillas: "Second, a defendant must “intentionally” disseminate the image. Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 1. This mens rea requirement means that a defendant must knowingly and voluntarily disseminate a private sexual image; negligent, accidental, or even reckless distributions are not proscribed. This specific intent requirement further narrows the statute and keeps it from “target[ing] broad categories of speech.” Muccio, 890 N.W.2d at 928."

I assume you're talking about a poorly executed edit job/intent to obscure sexual bits, or missing something in the background or something similar, which would not meet the specific intent requirement as interpreted by the MN Supreme Court.

How does this impact legal pornography and sharing of nudes on platforms with hundreds of people?

Commercial use (porn, or just topless in an rated movie, etc.,) is exempted from the law. That's in the statute and noted in Casillas.
Sharing with hundreds of people is clearly lowering the argument for a perception by a disseminater that the person pictured had reasonable expectation of privacy; wholly different than sharing with an intimate or small intimate group. It's contextual.

If you give photos to a site in Minnesota that does photo sharing and you don't have a literal established chain of consent to every photo and every person, someone could come back and file charges against you that you don't even know. Even if you don't know the person and had no ill intent toward them, you are still criminally liable.

Yes, that's the point: don't share nudes of people when you reasonably should know the person doesn't consent. And I would argue that consent is an affirmative act, not the inverse, if the person of the pic hasn't themselves posted it publicly.

And again, it's contextual, about the sharer and the subject. The less you know who the person is or where it came from, the stronger your argument that it wasn't reasonable for you to know they didn't consent. And if it was already posted by the person publicly, they obviously had no expectation of privacy. But if you know they didn't consent, duh, or if you know them or that the place you got it was exploiting a private picture, then you know.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

The funniest scenario would be that Nick himself took the photo of Kayla, and then Kayla sent it to Aaron.

It's not only the funniest scenario, it's also the likeliest by far now that it's been confirmed by Keanu to not be a selfie.

They've probably been doing things like that for years at this point.

Who do you think took their bottle pictures?

Unless someone comes forward and offers to pay Aaron’s legal bills to fight the harassment charge, I think he’s just going to plead out. He was just complaining the other day about how behind he was on making money for the month, and now he’s been forced into an involuntary hiatus. There’s no way he can afford to fight anything.

If you listen to his show, a big part of it is that he resents being a streamer and really wants to go back to being a small market radio host. I think this would be the end of his dream of getting back on the airwaves. That likely also influences his decision-making.

 

[AltisticRight]

Signal is not exclusively used by perverts and drug dealers.

Correct, sometimes they happen to be BOTH a pervert and a druggie.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

If you listen to his show, a big part of it is that he resents being a streamer and really wants to go back to being a small market radio host. I think this would be the end of his dream of getting back on the airwaves. That likely also influences his decision-making.

He was probably making a lot more money on Youtube. Radio pays nothing nowadays.

 

[HackerX]

Nick somehow getting a contempt charge from someone else’s criminal trial would be hilarious, but I sadly doubt we will ever get to this point

Idk. Several years ago, I couldn't fathom him getting to this point. Anything is possible!

Imagine being so absolutely brain-charred from cocaine that you think admitting to being a cuck is a win somehow.

The cuck will seethe and cope about it all being untrue until there's video evidence of another man railing his wife. Even then, he'll claim the video is altered.

I'm still amused and amazed by how tightly Crackets managed to integrate a fucking meme of a sex toy into his online identity, to the point that it's basically the main unofficial alias for him. You don't see that every day.

But the balldo is FUNNY. You're just a weird prude.

So if Nick and Kayla are super duper monogamous, would it stand to reason that Nick took the picture and sent it to Aaron?

"Hey man, wanna fuck my wife?" *Sends pic* It's all so awful.

 

[Major]

I was wondering exactly about this. It sounds impossible. Because when you get to the bottom of the logic chain, sharing of "legal" pornography would be ok, but what about pirated, would that void that consent?

I believe Nick knows very very well what he is doing here and that he and his panel friends must have discussed this law in particular and that he is intentionally abusing the open-endedness to go after Aaron.

laws are written sloppily and then the courts decide amongst themselves what they really mean in pactice. Typical politician horseshit

 

[Strix454]

The Court in Casillas: "Second, a defendant must “intentionally” disseminate the image. Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 1. This mens rea requirement means that a defendant must knowingly and voluntarily disseminate a private sexual image; negligent, accidental, or even reckless distributions are not proscribed. This specific intent requirement further narrows the statute and keeps it from “target[ing] broad categories of speech.” Muccio, 890 N.W.2d at 928."

I don't completely agree. The standard is set within the law such that the person should "reasonably have known". Setting that as the standard can be used to proscribe negligent, accidental or even reckless distributions. The innovation by the MN Supreme Court was in allowing a law that was narrow in the speech that it applied to but incredibly broad in its reach in that area of speech. Other states have better versions of this sort of law. I would consider Minnesota's version to be a badly written outlier nationally.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I was wondering exactly about this. It sounds impossible. Because when you get to the bottom of the logic chain, sharing of "legal" pornography would be ok, but what about pirated, would that void that consent?

I believe Nick knows very very well what he is doing here and that he and his panel friends must have discussed this law in particular and that he is intentionally abusing the open-endedness to go after Aaron.

I think you give Nick way too much credit. The situation is simple: Aaron sent a nude picture of Kayla to someone. He didn't ask if it was okay, they had had a break, and he sent it (unsolicited, mind you) to another person. Adding in insult, he did it live online, which tbh makes an argument for the harassment piece, which is defined as having a substantial adverse effect on the victim's safety, security, or privacy, bc though Geno didn't show the pic, Aaron made it known he had a nude pic and had just cavalierly shared it with another man. That's a step beyond even just sending it to Geno privately.* But at minimum, Aaron's actions appeared to meet the plain language of at least the gross misdemeanor language, so they filed a complaint.

* I think the circularity in the harassment definitions in MN statutes is highly problematic: Compare 617.261 and 609.748: for a harassment restraining order (609.748 ) a single instance of nonconsensual dissemination of a private image constitutes harassment, but in 617.261, GM nonconsensual dissemination does not have to include harassment, though intent to harass (cause the adverse effect) elevates the potential charge to a felony. So you can get an HRO for "harassment" by doing an act that specifically does not include "harassment."

 

[prolapsed_cranium]

Hope Aaron insists on a jury trial.

They would be far less likely to convict him imho.

They'll convict once they see this is a bunch of degenerate White Trash

 

[Jungle Strike]

They would be far less likely to convict him imho.

Aaron's already unlikable per se, once the prosecution has the opportunity to stack the jury with wahmen or white knights in conjuction with Aaron's casual misogyny and Kayla's waterworks, that will seal his fate.

Unfortunately he will likely plead out, which would be the sane course of action but he could cause a lot of damage to Nick (via his ego & public image) by having the Qover's discreet communications entered into evidence.

 

[Mr E. Grifter]

"nude sharing" can become very dangerous under a law like this. Because it requires for every subject and every photograph submitted some form of verified identity and explicit release to publish the photos. If you give photos to a site in Minnesota that does photo sharing and you don't have a literal established chain of consent to every photo and every person, someone could come back and file charges against you that you don't even know.

This is doubtful, the statute isn't just about whether you have consent, but whether you have a reasonable belief that consent was given.

If someone sends a nude to me they received from someone else, I could argue that bereft of any evidence to the contrary, I have every reason to think this nude was shared with consent.

Personally, I don't like the way the MN law is written, but I think the idea revenge porn laws are a problem is well overblown. As far as I am aware they're fairly well tested in courts in multiple states and countries.

The specifics of the law as far as internet sites is contradictory. The law explicitly says that section 230 protections apply but then says of the person distributing the image: "the actor maintains an Internet website, online service, online application, or mobile application for the purpose of disseminating the image"

This isn't contradictory.

The protections in section 230 are for sites like X, or KF, so that the sites owners aren't going to be held liable for what is posted on this site. That way if I go and post a bunch of defamatory stuff on X you aren't able to sue Elon Musk.

However, if you host a site, create defamatory content and publish it on that site, then you are still potentially liable. Just like Elon Musk would be potentially liable if he called someone who saved a bunch of children a pedo.

 

[Strix454]

He was probably making a lot more money on Youtube. Radio pays nothing nowadays.

Aaron would pay to be on the radio. He is mentally living in the early 2000s along with rest of (former) compound media crew and the extended "dabbleverse". All of them have a radio-centric boomer mentality and don't understand that the days of the radio "shock jock" are long gone. Even more so the days of the rural minnesota radio shock-jock doing morning & afternoon drive time programming,.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

If someone sends a nude to me they received from someone else, I could argue that bereft of any evidence to the contrary, I have every reason to think this nude was shared with consent.

No you can't. That would assume that consent to distribute stays attached to the image and no subsequent person can be held accountable when they cannot have reasonably assumed that they personally had consent.

I would think consent stays with the person it was given to, not the picture it was given for.

The basic assumption here is that all sharing of nude pictures by someone other than the person in the picture is only legal when consent for the action is given.

Which I think is actually a fair standard that works in the real world.

[EDIT] Sharing something your buddy sent you would amount to being reckless, gathering all those pictures in one big folder and uploading it on pornhub would not be. There are nuances to this in my opinion.

 

[JustStopDude]

I have more respect for the grifter televangelists than I do Nick Rekieta

I don't know man. Pat Robertson used donations for the Rwanda genocide to fund using 700 Club planes to move blood diamonds out of Africa.

And Liberty University, holy shit that is a weird black hole of kinky sex, crazy dirty money in the Bush Whitehouse, etc. A private university had a deal to provide aviation fuel to the US Air Force at an insane markup for taxpayers.

Nick wishes he could have pulled scams like this.

 

[demicolon]

 

[Sam Losco's Wife]

https://youtu.be/3Hdf6oJTjvI?t=7349

Nick made this a legal fact!!

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

If Aaron had been sent a photo with a wardrobe malfunction and Aaron forwarded it to Geno, EVEN IF HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY REALIZE WHAT WAS SHOWING IN THE PICTURE AT THE TIME, he could plausibly have still been in the same situation as he is now for allegedly sharing a full nude!

Except that the MN Supreme Court has said otherwise. I agree with @Strix454 that this is a lot of lifting by a court to stretch "intentionally," to knowing the pic was of an intimate area of the body, but they said what they said.

It goes to reasonable doubt, which is all Aaron needs. Whether the polycule existed or not, whether it was exclusive within the four of them, etc, all of that matters.

They can't just brush off how the photo came to be in Aaron's possession.

It's clear she sent it; that's in the complaint. And rereading the complaint seems clear she sent it to their group. But there were just 4 people in that group, not 400, and it was 4 people in some kind of complex intimate relationship(s) (even if just very close friends, or two swinging couples, or whatever). No one else was in that group.

And IF they had the auto destruct feature on/ no idea if that can be changed individually, but it doesn't matter - if that was the agreed setting it's clear anything sent was meant to be private and unshareable, and IF that's the case, Aaron absolutely knew she didn't consent to further dissemination.

If someone sends a nude to me they received from someone else, I could argue that bereft of any evidence to the contrary, I have every reason to think this nude was shared with consent.

If you argued that you'd be doing too much, and also too little. The statute requires that the sharer knew or reasonably should have known that the subject did not consent. Not quite the same as requiring reasonable belief they did.

The question is the starting reasonable assumption, which varies depending on circumstances. If your friend sends you a picture of his wife who is divorcing him while calling her a whore, and then you re-share, it's a bit hard to rebut that you should not reasonably have known she didn't consent. If you find some random's nude on an image-sharing site and know nothing about these people, then showing you reasonably should have known of nonconsent is harder. And within that situation, facts still matter: if it's clearly a peeper shot of the mayor's Orthodox wife, you are closer to reasonably knowing no consent; if it's a random selfie by whomever, you are very far away from "reasonably knowing the subject didn't consent" (though if there's a text overlay saying "for your eyes only - don't you dare share!!!!", you're in a less-good position, though probably a stretch). Examples aren't perfect, and again there's very little out there in MN on this, but I threw them in to illustrate the standard and that it is drafted in a way that should be highly fact- and relative relationship-specific.

 

[northstar747]

He is basically a late 80's televangelist. The sex scandal, the drugs, the hubris...it's all there.

The stream where he was denoucing ron toye, gave me that vibes and soured me on him.

 

[Heed Not]

It's year of the World Wide Web +34 now. Revenge pornography laws shouldn't exist unless the photograph or video has  produced without your consent. People married to high-profile (relatively) individuals that are sending extramarital lewd photographs should have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor should anyone sending nude photographs over electronic communications. Kayla's a 40-something year old woman, not some high schooler that's more hormone than grey matter doing something stupid.

 

[Henri Barbusse]

The Court in Casillas: "Second, a defendant must “intentionally” disseminate the image. Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 1. This mens rea requirement means that a defendant must knowingly and voluntarily disseminate a private sexual image; negligent, accidental, or even reckless distributions are not proscribed. This specific intent requirement further narrows the statute and keeps it from “target[ing] broad categories of speech.” Muccio, 890 N.W.2d at 928."

What would reckless distribution mean here? That seems like a very vague wording unless there's an established meaning.
Though I think it's not going to trial. Both the state proving it rose to the level of a felony and Aaron proving he has reasonable expectation that sharing the image was allowed have enough obstacles in the way that meeting halfway with a plea deal on gross misdemeanor seems sensible for both parties.

I don't know man. Pat Robertson used donations for the Rwanda genocide to fund using 700 Club planes to move blood diamonds out of Africa.

And Liberty University, holy shit that is a weird black hole of kinky sex, crazy dirty money in the Bush Whitehouse, etc. A private university had a deal to provide aviation fuel to the US Air Force at an insane markup for taxpayers.

Nick wishes he could have pulled scams like this.

And that's why you have to respect them more than Nick. When they grifted, they grifted bigger than Nick and had more long-term success.