The Admission That Anchors the Case

In a recorded LustCast interview, Paul Mulholland explains how he hunts for former performers:

“I often have to look for other scenes in which they are in, or try to do some like facial recognition stuff to find them… and then, once you find them, now you have to find their legal name, and then you have to find their phone number.”

Taken at face value, this is a biometric de anonymization workflow followed by direct to home contact. It targets people who used stage names, left the industry, or expressly did not want to be found.

• Persistent contact despite reluctance: “I know she does not like to hear from me, but I still insist on contacting her.” (1:13:51)
• Declared carceral outcome: “I am not taking any stories outside of porn until Facial Abuse is shut down, until at least a few of them are in prison.” (1:20:34)
• Ideological alignment: “A lot of my allies are anti porn to varying degrees.” (48:19)
• Evidence gaps: “I have no direct evidence” linking a death by suicide to any shoot (25:37); “I do not have a legal opinion” on a key source (1:08:10)

These are not stray slips; together they describe means, motive, and method: a surveillance style identification process, aggressive pursuit of reluctant subjects, and a pre declared goal to shut targets down and put people in prison.

Why Facial Recognition and “Insistent Contact” Breach Journalism Ethics

Mainstream journalism ethics require minimizing harm, acting independently, and being accountable and transparent. Mulholland’s approach conflicts with those duties in three concrete ways:

1. Privacy and dignity: Using face matching to pierce pseudonymity in adult work exposes people to foreseeable harms such as doxxing, harassment, and employment loss. Adult performers are a stigmatized group; ethical reporting demands heightened sensitivity, not heightened intrusion.
2. Autonomy and trauma: “I still insist on contacting her” (1:13:51) is the opposite of trauma informed practice. When a subject signals discomfort or refuses contact, continuing to press creates a risk of harassment and re traumatization.
3. Proportionality and public interest: High intrusion methods should be a last resort, justified by a compelling and immediate public interest and accompanied by robust corroboration. Here, the record includes admitted uncertainty, no legal opinion on crucial testimony, and a stated activist goal. That fails any proportionality test.

The Tool: PimEyes and Its Track Record of Abuse

The “facial recognition stuff” Mulholland references aligns with PimEyes, a reverse image search engine marketed as a way to “protect your identity.” In practice, PimEyes has been:

• Sued under biometric privacy laws in Illinois for scraping people’s photos without consent.
• Criticized by civil society groups for enabling stalking and harassment.
• Exposed in investigative reporting for helping users identify sex workers and vulnerable individuals against their will.

For adult performers, stage names and professional boundaries can be obliterated by a single upload. Photos meant for controlled and consensual distribution become tools for harassment and doxxing. When Mulholland admits to using “facial recognition stuff,” he ties his reporting directly to one of the most widely criticized surveillance tools of the modern era.

Advocacy First, Journalism Second: The Coordination Trail

• Commits to an outcome: shut down the studio and secure prison terms (1:20:34).
• Acknowledges anti porn allies (48:19).
• Is cited by Felicity Feline as an active partner: “Paul and I compare notes” within a coordinated push to pressure payment processors: “We are emailing the billing companies… keep pushing until they stop processing them.” (44:20; 45:55; see also 1:12:30 “If we can get Visa to drop them, that is game over.”)

This is an activist choke point strategy, not reporting. When the investigator co plans de platforming while simultaneously covering the targets, independence is gone. At that point the story becomes a campaign update.

The Record on Proof: Speculation, Insinuation, and Anonymity

• No direct causation evidence: He states he has no direct evidence that any death by suicide was caused by a shoot (25:37).
• Missing expert review: He concedes he did not obtain a legal opinion regarding a key source (1:08:10).
• Anonymous or unwilling sources: Long running difficulty securing on the record cooperation, while continuing to pursue people who did not want to engage.
• Self minimizing prevalence: He estimates “five to ten percent” of videos show red flags to him (1:30:26), while acknowledging some performers reported professional treatment and no assault.

Despite these gaps, the interviews lean on emotive conjecture and causal insinuations. In legal and journalistic terms, that is assertion without admissible proof.

The Doxx Adjacent Risk: Linking Identities and Homes

Publishing specifics like scene brands, race, state of residence, and health status while claiming to protect identity can enable reverse identification. Combined with an on tape admission of facial recognition hunting and “finding their legal name and phone number,” this raises clear doxxing concerns. Ethical reporters take steps to reduce linkage risk; Mulholland’s method increases it.

What Standards Compliant Reporting Would Look Like

• Necessity and proportionality tests before any high intrusion method. Avoid facial recognition unless there is a specific and immediate safety risk and no alternative.
• Trauma informed outreach: opt in contact, honor silence, and stop after refusal.
• Corroboration: contemporaneous records, independent witnesses, and qualified experts. Separate allegation from verified fact.
• Independence: disclose and avoid coordination with activist groups and de platform campaigns while reporting on them.
• Right of reply: give targets a fair chance to respond. Publish methodology and a corrections policy.
• Pre publication legal review for intrusion, defamation by implication, and privacy exposure.