"[if] TEXXXAN did not exist their [sic] would most certainly be something else in its place."

You know, other issues aside, that's a really, really lousy argument. I can just see a trial about a mob hit: "Your honor, it would be grossly unfair to convict me of murder - there had to be 10 other guys in line to whack that asshole. He was history anyway!"

As far as the case goes, I'd say that GoDaddy is in the clear; they're providing a service and can't be expected to be judge, jury, and executioner for every piece of content on their servers. The site's operators - well, I don't know how they arranged things, but often the question is: Even if their content was entirely user-submitted, were they actively encouraging a specific kind of verboten stuff (copyrighted music, say, or photos such as those described here).

I don't, however, think that the site's visitors should be penalized. While they may have encouraged the site's contributors, they didn't actually do the deed; holding them accountable opens a can of worms. Also, if I were to see a site like that, my immediate assumption would be that it was fake - largely due to it clearly being such a bad move to put up such pictures of people without their permission! (I'm inclined to wonder if any of the women were actually under 18; does that change the operators from mere sleazebags to being filthy pedophiles who should have their nuts burned off with an acetylene torch? Hmm...)

I find it depressing that people seem to think that having the bad judgment to allow photos to be taken of yourself somehow absolves those exploiting the photos of responsibility, or makes it unreasonable of the victims to seek redress. An individual's exercising bad judgment doesn't suddenly make them fair game for all and sundry - if that were the case, then fraud wouldn't be a crime, as you could make an argument that fraud victims by definition used bad judgment.

Additionally, the potential harm to the victims (as I've pointed out in other similar stories) is quite severe - certainly out of proportion to the misguidedness of their actions. Women are (hypocritically) held to different standards than men by society; a man who screws everything that moves is a bad-ass player but the women he beds are sluts and idiots. The repercussions for them are much worse than for even the men who might be in the same pictures.

Not only that, I see plenty of people suggesting that the victims 'had it coming' (or similar) due to their bad judgment in allowing the pictures to be taken; one could make a fairly compelling argument that the site operators had equally-bad or even worse judgment in building a business *based* on those pictures. By that logic, they've got it coming, too - but oddly, I only see the women being questioned for it...

Finally, yes, as an individual you do have certain rights in this regard, and a civil court is precisely the place to exercise them (or attempt to). That's what civil courts are for: For those who are unreasonably (but not criminally) harmed by others to seek redress. I'm not familiar with the precedents or details of the law as far as this goes, but to me it seems like precisely the kind of situation where it makes sense to get involved.

You realise of course that posting the website has resulted in a Thursday afternoon DDOS as 4 billion Reg readers check for hot totty in Texas?

Paris... for obvious reasons.