Marines United 3.0 Group Admin Says He Started Group To Catch Original Leakers

Marines United 3.0 Group Admin Says He Started Group To Catch Original Leakers

The Marines United 3.0 Facebook groups, as previously reported, have kept on sharing sexually explicit images of servicewomen, even with a government investigation currently ongoing. Yet a man claiming to be the administrator of one of the controversial groups with that name claims it was all part of a setup where he hoped to end up catching the original perpetrators.

In an exclusive interview with the New York Post, 43-year-old Tim Luckey, a resident of Medford, Minn., said he had launched his version of Marines United 3.0 several weeks ago, as he felt affected by the massive leak of nude pictures from the original Marines United Facebook page.

“I made my page with the intent to report people for posting those things,” said Luckey, who joined the Army in 2002, yet wasn’t able to complete basic training.

“I am totally against any kind of sexual assault against men or women, it gets my blood boiling. I don’t think a sexual assault against anybody is welcome for any frickin’ reason.”

Talking about why he had still gone ahead and posted compromising photos of military women while encouraging others to do the same, Luckey said that he did this in an attempt to behave “like a troll.” He added that he ultimately became unsatisfied with how others weren’t able to post a substantial amount of content.

“I didn’t know how these other pages were able to share nude photos. I saw that and said, ‘Let’s give it a shot.'”

On Wednesday, Tim Luckey was notified by Facebook that he was in violation of the platform’s community standards on nudity and was given a 24-hour ban for these violations. He decided to shut his Marines United 3.0 group down after Facebook sent him a second message, and after the New York Post reached out to him for the interview, which was published yesterday.

In all, Luckey wasn’t able to report anyone to Facebook for posting nude photos of Marine Corps servicewomen. He added that he doesn’t have any regrets over taking the unorthodox route of trying to set up people by posting photos, then by encouraging them to post more images of their own. He added that as a civilian, he believes he cannot be prosecuted by the U.S. military.

“I guess it’s kind of two-faced, but I don’t know these people. I don’t know anybody on that page. I never invited anybody to that page. It wasn’t secret for a reason.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Beast‘s own investigative report took the publication to another man supposedly running a Marines United 3.0 Facebook group – a former Marine named Cody Fielder. He was quoted as saying that he has “no regrets” about sharing a drive containing the nude photos of several victims. Fielder also posted a brief message accompanying the launch of the new public drive, while also admitting to the Daily Beast that he takes no responsibility for what people upload to the drive.

“I don’t regulate (the drive) and I don’t go in it because I don’t really have the time. It took me a week just to make it, but whatever is on there is just what the Marines posted in there.”

When it comes to whether he thinks he’s doing something wrong or not through the administration of his own Marines United 3.0 group, Fielder added that “that’s not for me to decide.”

Additionally, the Marines United 3.0 group isn’t the only one of its kind serving as an offshoot of the since-shut down Marines United group, which Facebook pulled from its site in January. According to the Daily Beast, there are “at least” 17 smaller groups with a similar theme that may have shared compromising photos.

As these two new revelations from two people running separate invite-only Marines United 3.0 Facebook groups are making the rounds, the Defense Department is reportedly looking into “hundreds of Marines” who allegedly posted lewd photos on the first Marines United group page, the New York Post wrote. The Marine Corps has also updated its policy on social media use, allowing more leeway for officials to prosecute and mete out punishments to service members thought to be involved in “questionable online activities.”

[Featured Image by Anthony Correia/Shutterstock]

Comments