A model on OnlyFans avoided being sent to jail when she was sentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
CONTENT WARNING: This article refers to intimate image abuse and family violence.
An OnlyFans model avoided being sent to jail for continuing to sell intimate videos after the man she made them with withdrew his consent for her to use them.
The woman, who is legally unable to be named, sold images on OnlyFans, an online subscription website popular with sex workers.
She started a relationship with a man before they filmed about six sexually explicit videos together and took a number of intimate photos.
They agreed she would sell these videos on her OnlyFans page.
However, after their relationship ended earlier in the 2020s, the man demanded that she remove the photos and videos of him from her page, as well as from any other storage location.
“I ain’t getting rid of s-t. Hope you realise you f-d with the wrong b-h,” she told him.
She then continued to sell the videos for several months.
In the decision by the ACT Magistrates Court, published on Monday (28 April), Magistrate Ian Temby said the man had withdrawn his consent for the woman to use his image when he told her to take the photos and videos of him off her account after their relationship ended.
The magistrate stated that the woman shared multiple videos of the man with at least two people through her OnlyFans account, which depicted a high level of intimacy and featured the man in a recognisable manner.
He said the woman’s “persistent posting” of the man’s intimate images on her social media platforms made him “feel harassed and menaced”.
The woman pleaded guilty to one count of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
Her lawyers argued that any reputational harm to the man must be “lower”, given his previous consent to distribute the images.
Magistrate Temby accepted the prosecution’s argument that the man’s earlier provision of consent did not mitigate the offending, but he also said the man’s prior consent did inform the nature of the harm he was likely to have suffered once he withdrew it.
“His is a different experience to someone who, for example, made an intimate video only for private use but had their partner share the video publicly,” he said.
“It is certainly not the case that, just because a person has previously consented to their intimate images being distributed in the past, they cannot suffer harm once they withdraw their consent for the distribution of the images.”
Magistrate Temby said it appeared the woman was at least partly motivated by animosity towards the man and a desire for retribution when she continued to share the images.
“It is clear that she did not want to do anything that he told her to do,” he said.
He accepted that the woman was the victim of family violence perpetrated by the man, but said there was limited evidence of the nature and extent of that violence.
For instance, he said the man had gone to the home of one of the woman’s family members and thrown paint stripper over a car at the property. The man had also filmed the woman going into a police station.
The woman was convicted and sentenced to over five months’ jail, which was fully suspended for her to complete a 12-month good behaviour order.
If this story has raised any concerns for you, 1800RESPECT, the national 24-hour sexual assault, family and domestic violence counselling line, can be contacted on 1800 737 732. Help and support are also available through the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre on 02 6247 2525, the Domestic Violence Crisis Service ACT 02 6280 0900, the Sexual Violence Legal Services on 6257 4377 and Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call Triple Zero.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
