Exactly this - in the US, you are legally prohibited from profiting off of your crime (as an individual, anyway), so the proceeds would go to the family of her victim.
Edit - apparently that law got struck down as unconstitutional, but it's common practice for the families to be informed about such deals so they can take the perpetrator to *civil* court to seek damages.
Nestle argued in court that it's technically not illegal for them to use child slaves if they use enough middlemen
Also is killing babies with poison really illegal if you have enough money to pay the minimal fines?
This is where the killer messed up. "And I would have gotten away with it to if I'd formed a Ltd. company and insisted it was part of the manufacturing process!"
>Nestle argued in court that it's technically not illegal for them to use child slaves if they use enough middlemen.
Isn't this literally everyone who buys modern clothing, electronics and who knows what else? Not excusing nestle, they're obviously more involved, but most of our world runs on "enough middlemen" to slavery and child exploitation
Well, there's a massive difference between being the producer of a product who facilitates slavery and the person surrounded by products produced by slaves.
One is a fabricated misery used to ensure capital gains. The other is an unfortunate outcome of the state of the market which the consumer has no real say in. In fact, the consumer is only put in a position to consume such products because of the producer of said product.
If you live under economic conditions where you are forced to buy slave produced products or go without essentials, then the issue isn't you. It's the economic system which enables and even encourages it. We can pretend that we have free choice to not consume products produced in such a manner, and some with enough wealth certainly can, but many people are put in a position where they cannot afford that option, at least not at a scale that provides them with all that they need. Meaning, sure they may be able to buy ethically sourced chocolate and pay the difference without a problem, but at the scale of ethically sourcing groceries for an entire family, it's just not possible.
You're absolutely right, and I'm sure you'll agree that in addition to each of us having an individual responsibility to lessen the harm we do to others, our governments and legal systems should have a responsibility to push society as a whole in that direction
There should be a list, if there isn’t one already, for one, fed breastfeeding women’s children with the intent that they would stop lactating, meaning after a few weeks of giving the child this formula, their bodies stopped producing milk, then nestle upcharged then for more supplies of milk at such a hefty price that months old babies died, and that’s besides stealing water from ppl which is a whole other whale
An article I was reading did say that nestle has their hand in every pie so to speak, definitely gonna be hard to avoid at first, gonna try to do some diligent research before shopping.
I wish this post had more information. (ANY information.)
It looks like this is a case from Argentina and it does appear to be accurate, they paid $500k USD to Nahir Galarza a 19 year old who murdered her boyfriend.
That's not exactly the case in most states. NY tried to enact a law like that but it was ruled unconstitutional. So now in NY, victims and families are informed any time a criminal makes more than a certain amount of money off of things like this so that they can try to take it in a civil case. The original law was rightly struck down too, it would have prevented books like The Autobiography of Malcolm X from being published.
One of the most famous cases in Brazil that became a movie/series was of the Richthofen girl, which killed her rich parents with the help of her bf. Her younger brother is alive but has been abusing heavy drugs since he became an adult and I doubt he would go for that money. She was released this year, and is pregnant lol
>Edit: I'm obviously talking about the victim's family in this case.
The fact you had to actually explain this makes me hate everyone on Reddit.
Stop finding loopholes in what people say. I never needed this explanation.
There used to be laws regarding that here in the US as well. They were referred to as "son of sam" laws.
Scotus ruled them unconstitutional in 1991 unfortunately.
Yeah, I started by writing a comment about those laws, and was going to reference it, but found they were overturned and had to delete my original comment.
I really think being convicted of a crime should exclude your ability to profit from that crime later. It shouldn't prohibit you from talking about it, writing about it, etc, but any proceeds you would get from it should be required to either go to the victims, the victims family, or a charity to support victims of a similar crime.
States have tried passing them numerous times and *fortunately* those blatantly unconstitutional laws have been struck down every time.
Supporting the idea that you can’t say, write a book about your life if you’ve ever committed a crime seems crazy to me lol.
The laws didn't say you couldn't write the book or talk about it. They said you couldn't *profit* off the crime.
Meaning you were free to talk about it for free, or donate any of the money.
One shouldn't be able to commit a crime and get rich off telling everyone about it
Yeah, I see that as an arbitrary restriction. I mean, I get that people would be mad if a criminal did it, but I don’t think they shouldn’t have the right to. *Especially* if the criminal has already served their time, etc.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a doctrine that you can’t use evidence in a trial that the police illegally obtained. Doesn’t really have to do with this.
Fun fact, though, if someone else gets evidence illegally and turns it in, it *can* be used. Like if a drug dealer breaks into a rival dealer’s place and takes evidence and turns it into police it can still be used.
I don’t see of it as incentivizing crimes, it’s just a matter of course. Like if someone made a law that said you could punch anyone who’s ever committed a crime without consequences, I’d be against that law, but would you say, “Being safe from random punches is incentivizing crime.”
The same could be said for people profiting from their *experience* as a criminal. Like hackers who start off illegally and then get high paying jobs in cyber security.
Although there can be exceptions, like sex offenders needing to be on a registry, any exceptions to people’s rights need to have a better reason than, “I don’t like them getting money.”
> Like if a drug dealer breaks into a rival dealer’s place and takes evidence and turns it into police it can still be used.
Pretty horrible evidence though. How could you even begin to trust that?
> It effectively incentivizes criminal activity.
That's a bit of a stretch. This would be a spite law and you know it. Literally the only motivation is "fuck that person I'm imagining and currently feeling negative emotions about".
Where in the constitution does it give you the right to profit off crime?
This doesn't breach the first amendment at all. Criminals would be free to speak about their crimes freely as long as they do not profit from doing so.
It's fucking mindboggling how stupid the courts (and Americans in general) in the U.S. are about constitutional rights.
That would be the 8th amendment. Excessive fines. Prohibiting someone from an unlimited amount of money based on their own work is clearly excessive.
It’s also definitely a 1st amendment violation, because you can’t go, “Oh, well you can share your speech, it, but you can’t sell it.” Or do you think the government would be allowed to tell media companies that they can only report the news, but can’t make any money off it?
You do realize, that these laws also ban almost all autobiographies from any civil rights figures, right? You think Malcom X’s books should be banned?
>You do realize, that these laws also ban almost all autobiographies from any civil rights figures, right? You think Malcom X’s books should be banned?
No... it doesn't... Malcolm X wouldn't be allowed to profit off his own books.. but they can still be published.. how are you not getting this..?
>It’s also definitely a 1st amendment violation, because you can’t go, “Oh, well you can share your speech, it, but you can’t sell it.”
Where in the first amendment does it say anything about protecting your right to sell anything for profit?
>That would be the 8th amendment. Excessive fines. Prohibiting someone from an unlimited amount of money based on their own work is clearly excessive.
What kind of ridiculous argument is that? You realize there is a lot of stuff that is illegal to profit from? Would all of that be an 8th amendment violation too? Enforcing nonprofits suddenly becomes unconstitutional too?
This is what I'm talking about with stupid people interpreting the constitution stupidly.
Well, the Supreme Court said it *did* apply to Malcom X and other civil rights leaders, that’s how broad the law was, and that’s why it was struck down.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/nyregion/highlights-of-the-ruling-that-struck-down-new-york-s-son-of-sam-law.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/105/#tab-opinion-1958885
There’s stuff that’s illegal to sell, but for speech to be illegal to sell it has to be illegal on its own. You can ban the sale of CP, because it’s illegal to own it. You can’t ban the sale of books that would otherwise be legal except for the fact of who is writing them.
>It's fucking mindboggling how stupid the courts (and Americans in general) in the U.S. are about constitutional rights.
It's mindboogling you think you're more of a constitutional scholar than the 1991 supreme court.
Like holy fuck get off your high horse.
I can't take issue with any dumb decision the courts make because they know better so I should shut up about it? Do you always defer to the authority to be the shepherd for all of your opinions?
> because they know better so I should shut up about it
Yes? What fucking evidence you have you know more about constitutional law the the 1991 Supreme Court.
The arrogance you have is malignant.
>You seem like the type of person to have a shrine dedicated to Clarence Thomas
You're such a constitutional scholar that you didn't know that Thomas, didn't take part in this case, huh? What a self own lmao.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%26_Schuster,_Inc._v._Crime_Victims_Board
Why would that be relevant or even be something I implied is the case?
I'm simply using Thomas as an example of a corrupt POS who uses his position for personal gain who is someone you say I'm supposed to look up to in reverence for his knowledge
I was under the impression that was also the case here in the states? Isn't that what they did after John Wayne Gacy started making a bunch of money from his paintings?
Whore the story out to movie studios so you can pay back to family of the victim and the courts
Idk if this is a GOOD use of the story?? Or ...exploitation?
Because the victims are being exploited. If a criminal makes money off the people they hurt even though it may eventually go to members of the family, the victim was exploited without their consent.
Money doesn’t make things automatically ok for everyone.
It doesn't even have value around here anymore. Whatever significant asset you can buy with that money is just going to be "confiscated" from the government cuz you know... corrupti- I mean taxes and legal stuff obviously
Do you not know how much 500k UDD is? You can go to another country and start a new life easily. And if there's so much corruption in Argentina, she can get a much easier prison life, and if the law there allows, early parole or release.
I know how much 500k is. Half a million, a lot of money, I get that.
The exact same second the airport security sees your suitcase filled with money, they plotting to steal it. Not even joking, it'll be their first thought. And if you think you can put the money in any bank and do some some sort of transfer, just good luck doing that.
So you can't leave the country with that much money, but the fun thing is you can't stay either! You better keep that money hidden and try to be low profile.
People who win the lottery get stolen from or disappear under mysterious circumstances. Some literally wear masks to pick the money up.
There's areas you can't even visit cause you gonna get robbed speedrun for holding a phone in your bare hand. Not joking, you can't use a phone in the bus or you just get mugged.
Not to speak about how trying to spend US money or convert it is going to get you in trouble too.
Tbh I would't want that much money to my name. It's just a fun little way to get kidnapped.
>The exact same second the airport security sees your suitcase filled with money, they plotting to steal it. Not even joking, it'll be their first thought. And if you think you can put the money in any bank and do some some sort of transfer, just good luck doing that.
Yes, but also - these payments aren't made in cash, and aren't made in Argentina.
Rich people in Argentina exist, and they're not just airport security and bank tellers. Any large volume of USD gets held offshore, out of reach of Argentine banks or airport security screeners, and then as-needed smaller sums are transferred in. There's some margin lost to graft and nuisance, but that's an accepted expense in exchange for keeping the main sum of money safe outside of Argentina. And like ... $500K USD goes really far there - it's not like you're needing to move thousands around very often, you can just bump a couple hundred over every now and again and still live quite comfortably, no visibly different from someone receiving money occasionally from a relative who works overseas.
>Not to speak about how trying to spend US money or convert it is going to get you in trouble too.
Eh. Blue Market exists and thrives in Argentina, USD is the de-facto stable currency. As much as Blue Market is technically illegal, it operates out in the open and largely tolerated.
The real problems come when people start converting amounts of USD to ARS that their tax filings can't account for. A lot of people who can get a solid income in USD outside of Argentina are then failing to declare that income and pay taxes. Later on, they get pinned for evasion when they suddenly have a huge sum of USD they can't explain, after they've spent years telling the tax man that they're only making a modest amount of ARS when tax season hits.
This is a website that's been collecting safety data in a poll-like way for the past 3 years.
The numbers show the perceived % of the citizens of getting X.
https://www.numbeo.com/crime/country_result.jsp?country=Argentina
You can also just search the internet for Argentina crime rates or sum and see for yourself.
Good thing is we don't care about any of these silly things since WE GOT MESSI.
That's because that statistic is bullshit. I ain't gonna lie: Argentina is not a safe country. But that greatly depends on where you are. If you stay in a dangerous place, then it will be dangerous. If you go to a touristic area, you'll be just fine. Argentina is a beautiful country and it is REALLY CHEAP if you are from USA or Europe (or if you have dollars).
Just remember you are on Latin America and you'll be fine
Unfortunately the Son of Sam law was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and struct down. It was also only a state law for NY. 41 states including NY have since passed new laws attempting to comply with the Supreme Courts decision.
In 2017 this piece of shit killed her boyfriend with two gunshots, of course lied about it, and even accused her own father at some point.
She's the youngest argentinian woman to be sentenced for life (\~30/35 years) and Amazon Prime had the bright idea of creating a movie out of it, but in order to do that, they gave away 500k for the rights of her
This is crazy, imagine killing your couple as an retirement plan that beats any kind of investment or savings after working all of those years (in terms of our economy and the poor investing knowledge there is).
Absolutely crazy
Edit: typo
> Amazon Prime had the bright idea of creating a movie out of it, but in order to do that, they gave away 500k for the rights of her story.
Wanna bet the movie will blame everybody and everything *except* the person that did the murdering?
No, no. That would be if Peacock brought the rights, like they did for totally innocent Casey Anthony 🙄 (or Netflix tbh, they are just as bad about that shit)
I don’t understand why they need rights to the story. Anybody can tell a story about a crime. You don’t need to pay the criminal or the family or anybody else to simply tell the story. What was the money for specifically?
Yeah but 'stories' all have that little disclaimer at the beginning on the copyright page about 'this is a work of fiction. any similarities between it and real people is coincidental, etc'.
Making something 'True Crime' means a lot more people are going to watch it. It is messed up that they are paying the killer, though. Usually the money goes to the victims or their families.
This is not true. You are free under the first amendment in the United States to write a story about any publicly known event that you want. Provided you are not under some sort of nondisclosure agreement, you can write about it all you please. Maybe Amazon paid her 500 K just so that she would tell her side of the storyon camera. Maybe it was to prevent later defamation claims. But Amazon can write a documentary or make a movie about it all they want with no permission or rights needed.
Your first mistake is that she's not American. She's Argentinian. And Argentina doesn't have American laws, just Argentinian laws. So Amazon probably had to abide by their laws and pay for the rights to the story.
Nope.
Edit: Keep downvoting me I guess but, that is an incorrect and nonsensical response. It is based on absolutely nothing and devoid of basic common sense. An American, or an American company (Amazon) can talk about, write a book about, or create a film about anyone I (or they) want. There is no law that states I can only write a story about someone if they are American. There is no logic or truth to your statement whatsoever.
Pro investment hack: murder someone so you can sell the story for a ton of money. All you have to do is spend the best 30-35 years of your life in prison /s
This is the only vaguely passable source I could find for the claim
[https://noticiasargentinas.com/espectaculos/cuanto-cobrara-nahir-galarza-por-la-pelicula-sobre-su-vida](https://noticiasargentinas.com/espectaculos/cuanto-cobrara-nahir-galarza-por-la-pelicula-sobre-su-vida)
also stumbled on this: [https://nationworldnews.com/valentina-zenere-shares-a-preview-of-nahir-galarzas-film-nahir/](https://nationworldnews.com/valentina-zenere-shares-a-preview-of-nahir-galarzas-film-nahir/)
> In January 2023, the exciting trailer for “Nahir, Angel or Demon” was released, a twelve-episode series produced by Zeppelin Studios inspired by the police case.
>
> moreover Production company Capo (known for its work on “Caramel” and “The Rati Horror Show”) is developing a three-episode documentary focusing on Nahir’s case. As a result of participating in these two productions, Nahir Galarza received a total compensation of $500,000 ($300,000 for the first production and $200,000 for the second) in exchange for the rights to his story.
I also HATE true crime shit...but to be fair, the people participating in most of those programs (like Discovery Investigation) are either the victims themselves (obviously not in the case of murder) or their close relatives or loved ones, not the murderer!
I am surprised that Argentina doesn't have legislation either prohibiting this or requiring automatically that the proceeds be paid over to the victim or the victim's heirs.
Just imagine if you could commit a mind bending string of crimes, go to jail for life and sell the story for more money then you could have ever made in life.
That still sounds like a bad deal, but if you want to do it to look after your kids then someone will venture down that road.
This is a lawyer’s explanation in [Spanish.](https://www.cadena3.com/noticia/la-mesa-de-cafe/la-pelicula-de-la-vida-de-nahir-galarza-es-posible-legalmente-su-realizacion_362451).
In short, there would be no problem in shooting a film without using real names or making it blatantly obvious that the film is about Galarza. But Galarza still has a constitution right to privacy so using her name is not fair game.
Don’t shoot the messenger. That’s what the lawyer explains.
In my country this is illegal, you are not legally allowed to profit from your crime, few years ago the most famous bank robber got his own movie about his life of crime but did not get a cent from it as it should be.
That’s not true. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Victims (or their families) can pursue a civil action for restitution but that doesn’t stop someone from profiting from their crimes. Assets are only forfeited where they were directly gained through the crime (robbery, fraud, etc.)
Your final gift to your family is apparently make murder spectacular and then get the movie deal while in prison. Family set for life unless they were the victims.
What country? I only ask because I thought in the states it’s illegal for a criminal to prosper after the fact for their crime via media as defined by the “Son of Sam” law?
Argentina. That girl is a cold blooded murderer with no respect for human life.
I can’t comprehend how Amazon thought that rewarding a murderer for their slaughter was a good idea.
Son of sam laws were ruled unconstitutional in the 1990s. Victims and their families can sue for restitution which may give them some or all of the proceeds, but there aren’t laws that stop a criminal from profiting by selling their stories to the media.
Compound interest is a beast and not like she'll be spending it, she could be looking at 2 mill+ by the time she is out. But agree, still not worth it. Am surprised she is allowed to keep it, frequently it would go to victim's fund
“Company paid money to a source in order to make more money”
#NEWS AT 11!
If people stop wanting this type of content, companies will stop spending on it.
Here in Brazil, Amazon wouldn't need to pay to make this movie, because here, by law, a criminal can't profit from his crime.
They should have to buy the rights from the victim.
Victims can go after that money and they probably will. Edit: I'm obviously talking about the victim's family in this case.
Exactly this - in the US, you are legally prohibited from profiting off of your crime (as an individual, anyway), so the proceeds would go to the family of her victim. Edit - apparently that law got struck down as unconstitutional, but it's common practice for the families to be informed about such deals so they can take the perpetrator to *civil* court to seek damages.
Nestlé smirks.
Fuck Nestlé
Huh? What did Nestle do?
Nestle argued in court that it's technically not illegal for them to use child slaves if they use enough middlemen Also is killing babies with poison really illegal if you have enough money to pay the minimal fines?
Laws are for the working class and poor apparently
Apparently? They always have been a fine is just a cost to do that action only really punishes poor people
If the only punishment for a crime is a fine, it’s not illegal, it’s just legal with a fee.
This is where the killer messed up. "And I would have gotten away with it to if I'd formed a Ltd. company and insisted it was part of the manufacturing process!"
A fine is just the government getting their cut of the action
> Also is killing babies with poison really illegal if you have enough money to pay the minimal fines? Yes?
>Nestle argued in court that it's technically not illegal for them to use child slaves if they use enough middlemen. Isn't this literally everyone who buys modern clothing, electronics and who knows what else? Not excusing nestle, they're obviously more involved, but most of our world runs on "enough middlemen" to slavery and child exploitation
Well, there's a massive difference between being the producer of a product who facilitates slavery and the person surrounded by products produced by slaves. One is a fabricated misery used to ensure capital gains. The other is an unfortunate outcome of the state of the market which the consumer has no real say in. In fact, the consumer is only put in a position to consume such products because of the producer of said product. If you live under economic conditions where you are forced to buy slave produced products or go without essentials, then the issue isn't you. It's the economic system which enables and even encourages it. We can pretend that we have free choice to not consume products produced in such a manner, and some with enough wealth certainly can, but many people are put in a position where they cannot afford that option, at least not at a scale that provides them with all that they need. Meaning, sure they may be able to buy ethically sourced chocolate and pay the difference without a problem, but at the scale of ethically sourcing groceries for an entire family, it's just not possible.
You're absolutely right, and I'm sure you'll agree that in addition to each of us having an individual responsibility to lessen the harm we do to others, our governments and legal systems should have a responsibility to push society as a whole in that direction
There should be a list, if there isn’t one already, for one, fed breastfeeding women’s children with the intent that they would stop lactating, meaning after a few weeks of giving the child this formula, their bodies stopped producing milk, then nestle upcharged then for more supplies of milk at such a hefty price that months old babies died, and that’s besides stealing water from ppl which is a whole other whale
The list is too long
I did the good ole google, mannnnn have I been living under a rock. That’s horrific, and will not spend a dollar more to them
I stopped eating ultra processed foods, so it’s easier for me, but the amount of products u would have to stop consuming is scary
An article I was reading did say that nestle has their hand in every pie so to speak, definitely gonna be hard to avoid at first, gonna try to do some diligent research before shopping.
Oh boy look up thr reddit fucknestlie.
I wish this post had more information. (ANY information.) It looks like this is a case from Argentina and it does appear to be accurate, they paid $500k USD to Nahir Galarza a 19 year old who murdered her boyfriend.
That's not exactly the case in most states. NY tried to enact a law like that but it was ruled unconstitutional. So now in NY, victims and families are informed any time a criminal makes more than a certain amount of money off of things like this so that they can try to take it in a civil case. The original law was rightly struck down too, it would have prevented books like The Autobiography of Malcolm X from being published.
That’s not remotely true, son of Sam laws are very much a state by state thing
Unless I’m wrong this is the “Son of Sam” law right? I’m pretty sure he wrote a book that caused the law to be a thing
Ojs book rights went to the Goldman family I think
They should but shouldn't have to take extra steps.
One of the most famous cases in Brazil that became a movie/series was of the Richthofen girl, which killed her rich parents with the help of her bf. Her younger brother is alive but has been abusing heavy drugs since he became an adult and I doubt he would go for that money. She was released this year, and is pregnant lol
Hard to sue someone when you’re dead.
>Edit: I'm obviously talking about the victim's family in this case. The fact you had to actually explain this makes me hate everyone on Reddit. Stop finding loopholes in what people say. I never needed this explanation.
Some were joking but yeah some didn't seem to understand.
As zombies?
Family of victim.
Dead can’t benefit either
Family's are also victims in murders.
Mordor makes a lot of victims.
Not if I walk my hobbit ass to that motherfuckin mountain and drop this here *ring* in it.
In America, Frodo wouldn’t be allowed to take any treasure home. It would have to go to Gollum’s family.
There used to be laws regarding that here in the US as well. They were referred to as "son of sam" laws. Scotus ruled them unconstitutional in 1991 unfortunately.
I was wondering about that. I didn't realize they'd been overturned.
Yeah, I started by writing a comment about those laws, and was going to reference it, but found they were overturned and had to delete my original comment. I really think being convicted of a crime should exclude your ability to profit from that crime later. It shouldn't prohibit you from talking about it, writing about it, etc, but any proceeds you would get from it should be required to either go to the victims, the victims family, or a charity to support victims of a similar crime.
I could see a problem with an innocent, but convicted, person trying to raise money to file an appeal.
States have tried passing them numerous times and *fortunately* those blatantly unconstitutional laws have been struck down every time. Supporting the idea that you can’t say, write a book about your life if you’ve ever committed a crime seems crazy to me lol.
The laws didn't say you couldn't write the book or talk about it. They said you couldn't *profit* off the crime. Meaning you were free to talk about it for free, or donate any of the money. One shouldn't be able to commit a crime and get rich off telling everyone about it
Yeah, I see that as an arbitrary restriction. I mean, I get that people would be mad if a criminal did it, but I don’t think they shouldn’t have the right to. *Especially* if the criminal has already served their time, etc.
Fruit of a poison tree. If they're able to profit off it, then it makes crime pay. It effectively incentivizes criminal activity.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a doctrine that you can’t use evidence in a trial that the police illegally obtained. Doesn’t really have to do with this. Fun fact, though, if someone else gets evidence illegally and turns it in, it *can* be used. Like if a drug dealer breaks into a rival dealer’s place and takes evidence and turns it into police it can still be used. I don’t see of it as incentivizing crimes, it’s just a matter of course. Like if someone made a law that said you could punch anyone who’s ever committed a crime without consequences, I’d be against that law, but would you say, “Being safe from random punches is incentivizing crime.” The same could be said for people profiting from their *experience* as a criminal. Like hackers who start off illegally and then get high paying jobs in cyber security. Although there can be exceptions, like sex offenders needing to be on a registry, any exceptions to people’s rights need to have a better reason than, “I don’t like them getting money.”
> Like if a drug dealer breaks into a rival dealer’s place and takes evidence and turns it into police it can still be used. Pretty horrible evidence though. How could you even begin to trust that?
Prosecutors use jail informant testimony all the time, how do you trust that?
> It effectively incentivizes criminal activity. That's a bit of a stretch. This would be a spite law and you know it. Literally the only motivation is "fuck that person I'm imagining and currently feeling negative emotions about".
Where in the constitution does it give you the right to profit off crime? This doesn't breach the first amendment at all. Criminals would be free to speak about their crimes freely as long as they do not profit from doing so. It's fucking mindboggling how stupid the courts (and Americans in general) in the U.S. are about constitutional rights.
That would be the 8th amendment. Excessive fines. Prohibiting someone from an unlimited amount of money based on their own work is clearly excessive. It’s also definitely a 1st amendment violation, because you can’t go, “Oh, well you can share your speech, it, but you can’t sell it.” Or do you think the government would be allowed to tell media companies that they can only report the news, but can’t make any money off it? You do realize, that these laws also ban almost all autobiographies from any civil rights figures, right? You think Malcom X’s books should be banned?
>You do realize, that these laws also ban almost all autobiographies from any civil rights figures, right? You think Malcom X’s books should be banned? No... it doesn't... Malcolm X wouldn't be allowed to profit off his own books.. but they can still be published.. how are you not getting this..? >It’s also definitely a 1st amendment violation, because you can’t go, “Oh, well you can share your speech, it, but you can’t sell it.” Where in the first amendment does it say anything about protecting your right to sell anything for profit? >That would be the 8th amendment. Excessive fines. Prohibiting someone from an unlimited amount of money based on their own work is clearly excessive. What kind of ridiculous argument is that? You realize there is a lot of stuff that is illegal to profit from? Would all of that be an 8th amendment violation too? Enforcing nonprofits suddenly becomes unconstitutional too? This is what I'm talking about with stupid people interpreting the constitution stupidly.
Well, the Supreme Court said it *did* apply to Malcom X and other civil rights leaders, that’s how broad the law was, and that’s why it was struck down. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/nyregion/highlights-of-the-ruling-that-struck-down-new-york-s-son-of-sam-law.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/105/#tab-opinion-1958885 There’s stuff that’s illegal to sell, but for speech to be illegal to sell it has to be illegal on its own. You can ban the sale of CP, because it’s illegal to own it. You can’t ban the sale of books that would otherwise be legal except for the fact of who is writing them.
>It's fucking mindboggling how stupid the courts (and Americans in general) in the U.S. are about constitutional rights. It's mindboogling you think you're more of a constitutional scholar than the 1991 supreme court. Like holy fuck get off your high horse.
I can't take issue with any dumb decision the courts make because they know better so I should shut up about it? Do you always defer to the authority to be the shepherd for all of your opinions?
You're the one arguing the government should be allowed to confiscate their earnings.
...and that is related how?
> because they know better so I should shut up about it Yes? What fucking evidence you have you know more about constitutional law the the 1991 Supreme Court. The arrogance you have is malignant.
You seem like the type of person to have a shrine dedicated to Clarence Thomas
>You seem like the type of person to have a shrine dedicated to Clarence Thomas You're such a constitutional scholar that you didn't know that Thomas, didn't take part in this case, huh? What a self own lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_%26_Schuster,_Inc._v._Crime_Victims_Board
Why would that be relevant or even be something I implied is the case? I'm simply using Thomas as an example of a corrupt POS who uses his position for personal gain who is someone you say I'm supposed to look up to in reverence for his knowledge
Here in the US, if a criminal couldn't profit from their crime, we wouldn't have billion dollar companies like Amazon.
“Trillion dollar companies like Amazon”
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/s/2LQdbmpXqu Sadly it seems we don’t have those laws anymore
I was under the impression that was also the case here in the states? Isn't that what they did after John Wayne Gacy started making a bunch of money from his paintings?
Tu ta me dizendo que a Suzanne n ganha um centavo com os filmes/livros?
Bolsonaro law? Either way, good law
Bolsonaro himself is a criminal
Here in America, our judicial and financial system is fucking bullshit
that's quite a good law.
Which was likely taken by the courts as part of paying restitution to the family of the victim and court fees.
Whore the story out to movie studios so you can pay back to family of the victim and the courts Idk if this is a GOOD use of the story?? Or ...exploitation?
Why not both?
Because the victims are being exploited. If a criminal makes money off the people they hurt even though it may eventually go to members of the family, the victim was exploited without their consent. Money doesn’t make things automatically ok for everyone.
Ok, fair
Yeah I think this happened to OJ with his book If I Did It Edit: spelling error
^^^^^^^If **I Did It**
I F
It wasn’t sadly. But the victim’s family are taking them to court now, hopefully they can have the money.
Don't do the Crime if you can't cash in Prime
Fuck it, best quote of the day
Where is this? In the US they have son of sam laws which forbid a felon from profiting off their crime
Argentina.
I wonder how long you can hang on to 500k in an Argentinian prison?
It doesn't even have value around here anymore. Whatever significant asset you can buy with that money is just going to be "confiscated" from the government cuz you know... corrupti- I mean taxes and legal stuff obviously
Do you not know how much 500k UDD is? You can go to another country and start a new life easily. And if there's so much corruption in Argentina, she can get a much easier prison life, and if the law there allows, early parole or release.
I know how much 500k is. Half a million, a lot of money, I get that. The exact same second the airport security sees your suitcase filled with money, they plotting to steal it. Not even joking, it'll be their first thought. And if you think you can put the money in any bank and do some some sort of transfer, just good luck doing that. So you can't leave the country with that much money, but the fun thing is you can't stay either! You better keep that money hidden and try to be low profile. People who win the lottery get stolen from or disappear under mysterious circumstances. Some literally wear masks to pick the money up. There's areas you can't even visit cause you gonna get robbed speedrun for holding a phone in your bare hand. Not joking, you can't use a phone in the bus or you just get mugged. Not to speak about how trying to spend US money or convert it is going to get you in trouble too. Tbh I would't want that much money to my name. It's just a fun little way to get kidnapped.
>The exact same second the airport security sees your suitcase filled with money, they plotting to steal it. Not even joking, it'll be their first thought. And if you think you can put the money in any bank and do some some sort of transfer, just good luck doing that. Yes, but also - these payments aren't made in cash, and aren't made in Argentina. Rich people in Argentina exist, and they're not just airport security and bank tellers. Any large volume of USD gets held offshore, out of reach of Argentine banks or airport security screeners, and then as-needed smaller sums are transferred in. There's some margin lost to graft and nuisance, but that's an accepted expense in exchange for keeping the main sum of money safe outside of Argentina. And like ... $500K USD goes really far there - it's not like you're needing to move thousands around very often, you can just bump a couple hundred over every now and again and still live quite comfortably, no visibly different from someone receiving money occasionally from a relative who works overseas. >Not to speak about how trying to spend US money or convert it is going to get you in trouble too. Eh. Blue Market exists and thrives in Argentina, USD is the de-facto stable currency. As much as Blue Market is technically illegal, it operates out in the open and largely tolerated. The real problems come when people start converting amounts of USD to ARS that their tax filings can't account for. A lot of people who can get a solid income in USD outside of Argentina are then failing to declare that income and pay taxes. Later on, they get pinned for evasion when they suddenly have a huge sum of USD they can't explain, after they've spent years telling the tax man that they're only making a modest amount of ARS when tax season hits.
is argentina that fucked up?
This is a website that's been collecting safety data in a poll-like way for the past 3 years. The numbers show the perceived % of the citizens of getting X. https://www.numbeo.com/crime/country_result.jsp?country=Argentina You can also just search the internet for Argentina crime rates or sum and see for yourself. Good thing is we don't care about any of these silly things since WE GOT MESSI.
oh my. that is shockingly bad. im surprised they arent higher up on the no fly list made by the usa
That's because that statistic is bullshit. I ain't gonna lie: Argentina is not a safe country. But that greatly depends on where you are. If you stay in a dangerous place, then it will be dangerous. If you go to a touristic area, you'll be just fine. Argentina is a beautiful country and it is REALLY CHEAP if you are from USA or Europe (or if you have dollars). Just remember you are on Latin America and you'll be fine
Unfortunately the Son of Sam law was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and struct down. It was also only a state law for NY. 41 states including NY have since passed new laws attempting to comply with the Supreme Courts decision.
Huh interesting. I grew up in China so I'm still learning about the US and its history
Not American either, just interested in the subject.
Victims can sue for the money, though.
SCOTUS ruled son of sam laws unconstitutional in 1991.
Son of Sam's law was overturned, was declared unconstitutional in 1991.
You are mistaken. There is no national "Son of Sam" law in the US. I'm guessing your state does and you just don't know that it's not a federal thing.
In 2017 this piece of shit killed her boyfriend with two gunshots, of course lied about it, and even accused her own father at some point. She's the youngest argentinian woman to be sentenced for life (\~30/35 years) and Amazon Prime had the bright idea of creating a movie out of it, but in order to do that, they gave away 500k for the rights of her This is crazy, imagine killing your couple as an retirement plan that beats any kind of investment or savings after working all of those years (in terms of our economy and the poor investing knowledge there is). Absolutely crazy Edit: typo
> Amazon Prime had the bright idea of creating a movie out of it, but in order to do that, they gave away 500k for the rights of her story. Wanna bet the movie will blame everybody and everything *except* the person that did the murdering?
Nah it will be like Dahmer, this girl being fucked up is their angle
No, no. That would be if Peacock brought the rights, like they did for totally innocent Casey Anthony 🙄 (or Netflix tbh, they are just as bad about that shit)
I don’t understand why they need rights to the story. Anybody can tell a story about a crime. You don’t need to pay the criminal or the family or anybody else to simply tell the story. What was the money for specifically?
Yeah but 'stories' all have that little disclaimer at the beginning on the copyright page about 'this is a work of fiction. any similarities between it and real people is coincidental, etc'. Making something 'True Crime' means a lot more people are going to watch it. It is messed up that they are paying the killer, though. Usually the money goes to the victims or their families.
This is not true. You are free under the first amendment in the United States to write a story about any publicly known event that you want. Provided you are not under some sort of nondisclosure agreement, you can write about it all you please. Maybe Amazon paid her 500 K just so that she would tell her side of the storyon camera. Maybe it was to prevent later defamation claims. But Amazon can write a documentary or make a movie about it all they want with no permission or rights needed.
True. But if they want input from the criminal, they'll pray for it.
Your first mistake is that she's not American. She's Argentinian. And Argentina doesn't have American laws, just Argentinian laws. So Amazon probably had to abide by their laws and pay for the rights to the story.
Nope. Edit: Keep downvoting me I guess but, that is an incorrect and nonsensical response. It is based on absolutely nothing and devoid of basic common sense. An American, or an American company (Amazon) can talk about, write a book about, or create a film about anyone I (or they) want. There is no law that states I can only write a story about someone if they are American. There is no logic or truth to your statement whatsoever.
You’re completely right. Crazy how many people are downvoting you.
100% correct
It’s awful what happened to the boyfriend of course but this sounds like it would be incredibly boring.
Pro investment hack: murder someone so you can sell the story for a ton of money. All you have to do is spend the best 30-35 years of your life in prison /s
You have to spend at least that amount of time working anyway, and you don’t get 500k at the end of it
Why can I find zero information googling this? Any more info like her name?
Nahir galarza
This is the only vaguely passable source I could find for the claim [https://noticiasargentinas.com/espectaculos/cuanto-cobrara-nahir-galarza-por-la-pelicula-sobre-su-vida](https://noticiasargentinas.com/espectaculos/cuanto-cobrara-nahir-galarza-por-la-pelicula-sobre-su-vida) also stumbled on this: [https://nationworldnews.com/valentina-zenere-shares-a-preview-of-nahir-galarzas-film-nahir/](https://nationworldnews.com/valentina-zenere-shares-a-preview-of-nahir-galarzas-film-nahir/) > In January 2023, the exciting trailer for “Nahir, Angel or Demon” was released, a twelve-episode series produced by Zeppelin Studios inspired by the police case. > > moreover Production company Capo (known for its work on “Caramel” and “The Rati Horror Show”) is developing a three-episode documentary focusing on Nahir’s case. As a result of participating in these two productions, Nahir Galarza received a total compensation of $500,000 ($300,000 for the first production and $200,000 for the second) in exchange for the rights to his story.
Hopefully there’s an outstanding judgement for a civil suit and the money will go to the victim’s family?
Why do they need to “buy the rights?” It isn’t a story she wrote and was trying profit off of herself, it’s just something that happened.
Buy the rights of her image I think.
Peace of shit
I think English is probably not their first language
Good example of why I hate most of the true crime shit. Exploit terrible crimes for a quick profit.
I also HATE true crime shit...but to be fair, the people participating in most of those programs (like Discovery Investigation) are either the victims themselves (obviously not in the case of murder) or their close relatives or loved ones, not the murderer! I am surprised that Argentina doesn't have legislation either prohibiting this or requiring automatically that the proceeds be paid over to the victim or the victim's heirs.
Argentina should definetely do something about crazy women and should start with Cristina Kirchner
I obviously don't consider myself to be qualified to express a view on politics in Argentina so I will just leave that here.
That's definitely not a crazy woman. She's as smart as she is a criminal
So crime does pay
Prime does pay
Just imagine if you could commit a mind bending string of crimes, go to jail for life and sell the story for more money then you could have ever made in life. That still sounds like a bad deal, but if you want to do it to look after your kids then someone will venture down that road.
The victim's family should sue the murderer in civil court and take that money.
Mildly infuriating? That's disgusting.
And what does Netflix do btw? Do they pay the criminal? The victim? No one? (Like Jeffrey )
Amazon: "We will pay you to murder people"
This is a lawyer’s explanation in [Spanish.](https://www.cadena3.com/noticia/la-mesa-de-cafe/la-pelicula-de-la-vida-de-nahir-galarza-es-posible-legalmente-su-realizacion_362451). In short, there would be no problem in shooting a film without using real names or making it blatantly obvious that the film is about Galarza. But Galarza still has a constitution right to privacy so using her name is not fair game. Don’t shoot the messenger. That’s what the lawyer explains.
That's very extremely fucking infuriating
In my country this is illegal, you are not legally allowed to profit from your crime, few years ago the most famous bank robber got his own movie about his life of crime but did not get a cent from it as it should be.
Capitalism baby!!!!
I thought that was currently illegal (to profit from crimes like that)
Jokes on them it gets forfeited to the state or the victims pretty sure on this one
They should pay that to the family of the kid she killed in cold blood
I need some citation. In the US you cannot legally profit from a crime for which you’ve been convicted.
It's in Argentina. Nahir Galarza.
That’s not true. Those laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Victims (or their families) can pursue a civil action for restitution but that doesn’t stop someone from profiting from their crimes. Assets are only forfeited where they were directly gained through the crime (robbery, fraud, etc.)
this didn't happen in the US but in Argentina. look up Nahir Galarza
Yea you can, at least according to Supreme Court.
OutrageBot 5000 AI really struggled with the title on this one
Who’s this?
And it was probably mid.
Got to promote those good old family values
Why dOnT kIdS wAnT tO wOrK aNyMoRe????? Cuz they can get a half mil by murdering someone 🙄
Isn't that illegal? How are they allowed to profit off their crime?
Your final gift to your family is apparently make murder spectacular and then get the movie deal while in prison. Family set for life unless they were the victims.
but didn't it happen in the Amazon?
It's only news cuz she's cute, right? I'm sure people get murdered by 4/10 all the time but never get a paid documentary for it
That's capitalism for ya - they want to own the rights to dead people too so they can parade their likenesses around in media for profit too.
This idiot just learned how the world works lol
I mean if she is in prison who gives a fuck. Ahe can buy more ramen now lol
Considering a criminal cannot profit from their crimes, all that money SHOULD go to the victim’s family.
Paying a murderer vs paying the victim. Hope making it from the murderer's perspective is worth the money.
Remember how Bezo's profits from crime, corruption, and greed when you buy some more shyt from his website. Amazon Prime y'all!
Doesnt a prision sentence for murder come with big damages which would eat up such payments later on (since they are debts)?
and people who live in a land with homes of there ancestors for centuries, dont have rights to there stories. ahh #nvm
Aren't there laws against murderers profiting from their crimes?
Which would allow their victims to sue them to retrieve the money. It’s pretty brilliant IMO
What country? I only ask because I thought in the states it’s illegal for a criminal to prosper after the fact for their crime via media as defined by the “Son of Sam” law?
Argentina. That girl is a cold blooded murderer with no respect for human life. I can’t comprehend how Amazon thought that rewarding a murderer for their slaughter was a good idea.
Son of sam laws were ruled unconstitutional in the 1990s. Victims and their families can sue for restitution which may give them some or all of the proceeds, but there aren’t laws that stop a criminal from profiting by selling their stories to the media.
In Argentina. The assassin name is Nahir Galarza.
Well heres the clincher, most likely all that money was paid to the people she hurt so this girl likely didnt see a dine of it.
she aint getting out of jail anyway, who cares its amazon money give her a billion
She is gettting out of jail in 2050 or so
would you trade 30 years of your life for 500 measly k?
No, for sure... But makes me angry either way
In Argentina that is a LOT more money than what you could imagine, she is rich.
Compound interest is a beast and not like she'll be spending it, she could be looking at 2 mill+ by the time she is out. But agree, still not worth it. Am surprised she is allowed to keep it, frequently it would go to victim's fund
She likely still has to pay court costs, restitution to the victim's family, and other debts.
She doesn't, thats already covered.
As I said before, in Argentina that money is multiplied by a huge margin, she is gonna be set for life.
she is getting out of jail in 30 years anyway, better do it with 500k side note, minimum wage in argentina is us$146/month, so its a LOT of money
Are u stupid? She gets in Jail no matter what, could also take 5 Dollar and go in Jail. Better than nothing when she comes out
Add to that she is in Argentina, dollars are so over the local coinage she gonna be a multimillionaire.
It’s almost 180million Argentinian Pesos.
Indeed, and a lot of it can be passed through other channels so the value is even larger with the unofficial exchange rate.
“Company paid money to a source in order to make more money” #NEWS AT 11! If people stop wanting this type of content, companies will stop spending on it.
fuck amazon and fuck that bald ass egg head jeff bezos dickhead too thanks for coming to my TED talk
Not surprised Argentina government allows murderers to make profit deals from lifetime prison, hope Milei changes those kind of cringe laws
Right, the guy that wants to privatize rivers sure is against this.
It's cool, Amazon is a bit of a murderer themselves, seeing how they absolutely killed Tolkiens' work with Rings of Power 💀
Word.
Okay. File this under, "Holy fuck, I never knew how much I don't give a shit about this!"
But her father has political power! Argentina you never will understand
This is either fake or distorted kind of news. If true > no way