How did they get away with making films like Bumfights? How did the founders of Bumfights and Indecline videos get away without being charged? They literally make money from their website which shows videos of them instigating fights and doing graffiti. Not only that but they seem to go after people with disabilities and homeless, wouldn't this by itself count as a hate crime or some form of discrimination or distribution of obscene material? According to wikipedia, Ryan McPherson now has a warrant out for his arrest but this was for something he did in 2014 in Thailand. Wikipedia seems to imply that they don't even know the real identity of some of the producers, like Ty Beeson who was on Dr.Phil before getting kicked off. Obligatory rant: these people are the scum of the Earth.
They didn't "get away with it". According to a July 29, 2006 article in the San Diego Union Tribune: Two producers of the infamous “Bumfights” video were jailed yesterday, more than three years after pleading guilty to staging illegal fights between homeless people. Zachary Bubeck and Ryan McPherson were taken into custody after Superior Court Judge Charles W. Ervin reaffirmed a 180-day sentence he issued in February 2005. Bubeck, 28, and McPherson, 23, were originally sentenced to perform community service work instead of serving jail sentences. However, they failed to do so and then lied about it, prompting Ervin to revoke their probation. Both men unsuccessfully appealed the judge's decision. [...] The two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of conspiracy to stage an illegal fight. In June 2003, they were ordered to perform 280 hours of community service work. It looks like their convictions were for violation of California Penal Code Section 412. There were other charges that didn't stick: Previously, a judge dismissed felony charges of battery and soliciting a felony in connection with the production of the video. And on the civil side: Earlier this year, the four producers settled lawsuits filed by three men who appeared in the video.
No. Causing someone "pain and suffering" is not against the law; it is merely one kind of damages that can be awarded when someone has done something that is against the law. You may, for instance, endure pain and suffering from a car accident or shooting, in which case you could collect damages for your pain and suffering after proving that the other party committed the torts of negligence or battery, which are illegal. But if you were enduring pain and suffering from the last episode of Lost, you could not collect damages for your pain and suffering because it is not against the law to write a crappy finale. So in your case, cannot sue for pain and suffering based simply on the existence of a secret audio recording. North Carolina allows secret audio recordings, and it does not make exceptions for audio recordings that hurt someone's feelings. But to go beyond your explicit question, there still remains the possibility that you could pursue a legal action. If the other party used that recording in a way that violated the law, that might give rise to a tort that would support an award of damages for pain and suffering. If they publicly distributed a recording of themselves having sex with someone, that might constitute the tort of public disclosure of private facts. If they edited the recording to make it sound like someone had said something that they had not and then gave it to someone else, that might be grounds for a libel action.
Legally, they can kick you out for any reason that isn't illegal discrimination. They can't kick you out for being black. They also can't kick you out for being white. But they can kick you out for not liking your face. Now the question is: Who can kick you out? The store owner obviously can. Anyone who is given the authority by the store owner can. Actually, anyone with the apparent authority can kick you out. However, everyone other than the store owner has been hired to work towards making profits. If throwing you out is bad for business, then whoever did it would have to answer to the store owner. So the ex-friend can't go to court for throwing you out, but they might get into trouble with their boss about it. PS. I interpreted "kicking out" as saying "Please leave our premises. If you don't leave then you will be trespassing and I will call the police", not actually kicking the person with your foot which would be most likely assault.
The probable answer is right there in the article: the Kim Dotcom case has been a PR coup but a legal disaster. Mr Dotcom has not, at this time, been jailed and it may have become apparent to US and NZ law enforcement agencies that he probably never will be! It is really, really easy to accuse someone of committing a crime; it can be really, really hard to prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. So after initiating a case that has turned out to be a total disaster, why would you expect them to do the same thing a second time?
If the ability to get a Pannini is conditioned on buying paper towels for money, then he isn't really selling paper towels for $2 and the Pannini for free, he is really selling a package consisting of paper towels and a Pannini for $2, so it would probably still be illegal. The phrase lawyers and judges use to talk about attempts to create loopholes like this one is "too clever by half", which means: "Shrewd but flawed by overthinking or excessive complexity, with a resulting tendency to be unreliable or unsuccessful."
Suppose you want to pay for your son's college tuition with cocaine sales proceeds. You hire your son as an actor in your miserable movie and pay him $90,000 for doing so. The movie is produced by a corporation that you don't have to 1099 when you give it money. The corporation treats the money in as a loan which isn't income to it and doesn't have to report the lender to anyone. The son has the money (after paying income tax on it) and can pay for college for the year. The movie company and son don't appear to be doing anything other than being incompetent movie producers and lousy overpaid actors unless you know the big picture. The money has effectively been spent in a way that conceals its illegal origins and makes it look legitimate. Ergo, money laundering.
...due to the international registration of multiple domains to generate ad revenue by recycling stories across sock puppet networks, giving the impression of multiple, independent companies. None of that is illegal on its face. Internet domains are freely registerable by anyone, anywhere (with the exception of some laws in some nations that restrict such Internet-related activity), and registered privately or publicly, and websites can be hosted anywhere. Writing articles and "spinning" and copying articles (even if that writing is sales gibberish in broken English) among the same copyright owner is legal, and using the same design and layout for a network of sites is legal. The formation of multiple, related companies and shell companies to give the impression that companies are separate and independent is legal (again, with the exception of some business and corporate laws in some nations that restrict such activity). These are all common business practices. Some business practices may appear to be unethical - trying to fool customers in order to make money and get clicks and sell ads. And what you may be feeling is that such activity is unethical. And that's OK. But feeling that they are unethical doesn't make the practices illegal. Many common activities that are considered to be unethical are illegal; but not all. Buyer beware. One way some of that activity may be illegal is if those articles are factually incorrect and promote quack medical treatments, are financial scams requiring payments, are gambling sites or promote other clearly illegal things. But then you get into the complexity of exactly how they are illegal, which jurisdictions are involved, and on and on.
Yes The Prosecutor for the local jurisdiction could formally file charges. No complaint by Rock is legally required, and given the video evidence available, Rock's testimony might not be as essential as a victim's testimony often is. But if Rock were to testify that the fight was staged, and no real assault occurred, the case would probably fall apart. That would not be good for the prosecutor's reputation, and might well be a reason not to proceed without a clear statement from Rock. See also: &quot;Pressing charges&quot; - is it needed to bring a charge?