Model Dani Mathers Faces Criminal Charge Over Fat-Shaming Snapchat Photo
The 2015 Playboy "Playmate of the Year" was charged with misdemeanor invasion of privacy.


Los Angeles model Dani Mathers, Playboy's "Playmate of the Year" for 2015, has been indicted on criminal charges over a photo of an older, nude woman Mathers took in a gym locker-room and allegedly shared on Snapchat. The Los Angeles city attorney's office announced last Friday that Mathers, 29, was charged with one count of misdemeanor invasion of privacy.
She is accused of secretly snapping a photo of the naked 70-year-old woman in an LA Fitness shower-area in July and posting it to Snapchat with the comment: "If I can't unsee this then you can't either." LA Fitness officials somehow saw the snap, and reported it to Los Angeles police.
Mathers does not deny taking and sharing the photo, but she says it was meant to be sent as a private message and not to be posted publicly. She has since apologized on social media, sharing an apology video on Snapchat and writing on Twitter: "I'm sorry for what I did… I need to take some time to myself now to reflect on why I did this horrible thing. Goodnight."
"Prosecutors often use invasion of privacy charges against peeping Toms and people who conceal cameras to take sexually suggestive photos of women," the Los Angeles Times noted. "But legal experts said this marks a rare time authorities have brought charges against someone over photos making fun of someone's weight. It comes amid growing awareness and outrage about 'body-shaming'—particularly common on social media."
Despite the spin about body-shaming and the use of Snapchat here, however, there doesn't seem to be much that's novel about it. Mathers' motivation may not have been sexual and her intention may not have been to share the photo to a mass audience, but both are likely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. Like any peeping Tom, Dick, or Harry, she still captured an intimate image of someone without their knowledge or consent, in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to share it with one or more individuals. This would seem to fulfill the requirements under California's invasion of privacy statutes, so long as it can be shown that Mathers acted "with the intent to invade the privacy" of the woman of whom she took and shared a nude pic.
Thomas Mesereau, Mathers' attorney, defended her by saying that a) the woman did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fitness-center shower area and that b) Mathers "never tried to invade anyone's privacy and never tried to violate any laws." But, again: she secretly took a picture of an old lady who was just trying to shower after a workout and then tried to share it with at least someone. I'll buy that Mathers didn't know she was breaking the law, but not that her actions can be construed as anything other than a conscious choice to invade someone's right to privacy.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles law-enforcement is actively stoking the impression that this isn't about old-fashioned privacy rights but some new-fangled effort at eradicating "body shaming." Announcing the charges against Mathers, City Attorney Mike Feuer said it was important that city officials send a message about the "painful, long-term consequences" that can come from making mean comments about people's physical appearances. "Body-shaming is humiliating," said Feuer. "It mocks and stigmatizes its victims, tearing down self-respect and perpetuating the harmful idea that our unique physical appearances should be compared to air-brushed notions of 'perfect.' What really matters is our character and humanity."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She learned it from following @realDonaldTrump, okay?
I volunteer to handle her house arrest and administer her soankings.........personally.
soankings
soakings and spankings?
And then... the oral sex!
You are in grave danger.
"Soankings," combination of soakings and spankings?
Excellent.
I think he means he will flagellate her with Robbie's hair.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles law-enforcement is actively stoking the impression that this isn't about old-fashioned privacy rights but some new-fangled effort at eradicating "body shaming.
I was fine right up to this.
Yep. I was about to mock the LA Times for framing it this way until I realized they were just parroting the prosecutors here...
Do you or anyone else have the picture that got her in trouble?
Asking for Crusty.
She's the Playmate of the Year? For real?
She sure has a yuge mouth.
+1 hotdog eating contest
Kick her out of bed!!!
That's for when two producers have a sword fight in her mouth.
Eeeewwwwww!
/ Winona Ryder
I believe that pic is Steven Tyler in his Halloween costume. That is not a handsome woman.
Seriously. Did Playboy get bought out by MAD Magazine or something and I missed the news?
Having went googled her name, the image that ENB chose was probably the worst one available.
*Big mouth shaming*
Careful with this because lots of NSFW images can be found.
Was thinking she was the love child of Steven Tyler and Mary Tyler Moore...or at least the painting of MTM in the Draw Me A Pear episode...
She's the Playmate of the Year? For real?
I can't read the story and look at her fact without thinking about young kids pulling the tips of their noses up and making pig noises to make fun of someone.
Seriously, with that look, she looks she should be picking fights in a Cantina on Tatooine
why Playboy no longer has nudes...they've run out of pretty women in Chicago.
she should be picking fights in a Cantina on Tatooine
+1 death sentence on 12 systems.
Are you suggesting that she didn't actually win, and that the vote was rigged?
Apparently playmates aren't what they used to be. Is Hugh Hefner going blind or something?
Careful. You might be ugly shaming. Hence, it is illegal.
A city attorney said this?
He's only doing the law gig until he gets his big break.
Became a lawyer because he was too dumb to be a waiter?
Waiters have to give good service to make money.
Phasing out TIPS in lieu of a flat, "Living Wage!one!!!1!!," a la Euro-landia, is becoming the rage in the USA.
Announcing the charges against Mathers, City Attorney Mike Feuer said it was important that city officials send a message about the "painful, long-term consequences" that can come from making mean comments about people's physical appearances.
Since when is prosecution about intent or even the law on the books. It's about winning, and Max Headroom there is going to win, even if he has to appeal to the zeitgeist and not the statutes. Which he doesn't.
Nobody g-g-g-gives a shit about p-p-p-p-privacy anymore. Framing it as a b-b-b-b-body shaming issue is t-t-t-the only w-w-w-way to guarantee a w-w-w-win.
Ethics of the photo aside, we actually have agents of the state wanting criminal penalties for "making mean comments"?
Then again, the Thought Police at Harvard are already in place even though the targets of the comments took them far better than the admins did.
The body-shaming aspect of this seems totally unrelated to any criminality. It's entirely about invasion of privacy.
Also, she is 70 years old and at least at the gym. Pretty awful thing to do, regardless of whether it was actually meant to be public or not.
No kidding. She looks like a photo negative of Guy Penrod.
Samwell Tarly hit hardest.
NO SPOILERS
Hodor!
Dani should not have any children with Mick Jagger.
/body shaming
Or Steven Tyler. If she did it would just be a giant mouth.
I don't like the sound of that.
She's got the dyed-blonde hair and fake boobs that Hugh loves.
Click me, bro.
Wouldn't...rolls eyes!
Look dude, if we wanted people to have the bodies that God intended, we wouldn't have killed Him.
If being an asshole was a crime, then everybody... hmm...
... uh, except, it seems that being an asshole is NOW a crime in these U.S.S.A.
"so long as it can be shown that Mathers acted "with the intent to invade the privacy" of the woman"
"Not Guilty" /Comey
(fast-forward to making a melodramatic, self-flagellating viral-apology-video and initiation hashtag campaign; the cure to all social-media scandals? Moar social-media pimping)
Rote confession; show trial; then Warty's dungeon one would imagine.
*shifts nervously in seat
If this Playboy woman did what they claim, she's a creeper just as much a criminal as someone who photographs an attractive girl in the shower and posts it on HotCoeds.com.
The prosecutors should do their jobs without being headline whores about it or pretending they're on a noble crusade to defend unattractive people. (although I can see the personal incentive for most prosecutors to wage such a crusade - by which I mean prosecutors are ugly and have saggy tits, and that's just the male prosecutors)
Also = that is always what i imagined Stephen Tyler's daughter *would* look like, rather than the actual (and quite smoking) one.
gives new meaning to the term "knob gobbler", don't it?
No, the definition is still the same, just a new foto entry.
So would the victim get anything out of this, or just the state?
You heard the City Attorney, what really matters is our character and humanity, not filthy lucre.
ENB chose that picture on purpose.
*checks earpiece*
I'm being told that this was the best available photo.
Will the Clown terror never cease?
City Attorney Mike Feuer said it was important that city officials send a message
I think "sending a message" via prosecution is a violation of the equal protection clause.
So people do have reasonable expectations of privacy in a locker room? Shackford must be clutching his pearls at the thought.
Shackford has come out in favor of people being allowed to take photos in locker rooms without the subjects' permission? I must have missed that.
Or is this more tranny-panic?
I just think he would be shocked at the idea that people have a legal expectation of provacy in such places.
Oh, how cute, you have adopted his penchant for ad hominems.
So explain why you think he believes don't have some expectation of privacy in these places.
What ad hominem? I asked a question to clarify what you were talking about. Since you took it personally, I'll take it as a "yes".
I usually feel disturbed by people's acceptance of state coercion. But compared to all the people who accept it on other topics, the casual acceptance of criminal punishment for MAKING FUN OF SOMEONE in the comment section of that LA Times piece is by far one of the most disturbing examples I've ever seen. Pretty much every single one of them practically thinks that woman should be sentenced to years of imprisonment. Their only complaint about the whole thing is that she might not be imprisoned long enough.
And make no mistake, they're only upset about her taking a picture because she did it to be mean to someone they feel protective of. If someone they found socially undesirable had their picture secretly taken and mocked they wouldn't bat an eye.
Principals, not principles.
I mean it was definitely an invasion of privacy to take her picture without consent, but you're absolutely right that the outrage is because it's someone they find socially desirable.
You shouldn't be able to post a photo of a semi nude or nude person anywhere without the persons permission. A reasonable consequence is in order.
With a face like that you got nuthin to laugh about.
No wonder Playboy is eliminating nudity from their magazine.
Only with a shovel.
that is always what i imagined Stephen Tyler's daughter *would* look like, rather than the actual (and quite smoking) one.
Seriously. Mendel got it wrong. By a lot.
I am presuming Liv's mother was such an ethereal beauty that his genes could not overcome hers.
Or the other (obvious, yet unspoken) possibility: STEVEN TYLER IS NOT THE BABY'S FATHER!
/Maury
Was the woman who was in charge of Anthony Weiner's twitter account?
It's a misdemeanor as it should be. Nothing to see really.
Didn't Erin Andrews just get awarded 55 million dollars for something very similar? Hmmmm.
Yeah but she hot doe...
Maybe we should burn her face with acid like the Taliban do. Can you even think of anything more PC than that?
Not a very good photo of the "Playmate of the Year"
when body shaming" is made a crime in California, then she can be prosecuted for that "offense" under those laws. This DA will have to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this woman's provace WAS invaded.... (I think it was from this account..... had she taken a photo of some naked "hottie" and posted that with a comment something like "wish more women looked this good....." it would be....)
I think the staff at LA Fit were correct in taking action. THEY have an obligation to protect the privacy of their clients/customers. Interesting that it were THEY who notified LE, not the woman whose privacy was invaded.
That's what struck me as well. This is an invasion of privacy situation. But gosh! Popular narratives are just so tempting to tap into! Virtue signaling at its worst.
How gross can you be though- ageism and profoundly shallow. Let's see how good she looks at 70. She's going to be hating every wrinkle, every sign of aging her body experiences that in and of itself is a self imposed sentence.
Vanity sucks.