A day after suffering a big legal setback in the body-shaming case against her, Playboy Playmate Dani Mathers lashed out at the haters Tuesday on Twitter, declaring, “I’m pretty upset and hurt too.”
Mathers, who’s currently facing an invasion of privacy charge for allegedly photographing an elderly woman in the shower area of her gym and posting it on Snapchat with an insulting caption, also threatened to block users if they can’t be “a positive influence on the world.”
“Let me make this clear… my page(s) aren’t for comments that bring people to the brink of suicide, nor are they for your hatred,” Mathers wrote Tuesday.
“I understand that I’ve upset a lot of you, but we’re at a point, 1 year later, where I’m pretty upset and hurt too,” Mathers added. “If you aren’t here to Be a positive influence on the world then I will block you.Call it cowardice, call it what you want. I won’t watch it anymore.”
Mathers also re-tweeted a number of messages expressing support for her, including one which read, “I’d bet some were genuinely upset, but I suspect most people were using the situation as a selfish way to get a rush of moral superiority.”
Mathers’ Twitter jeremiad took place a day after a judge handed the Playmate a big blow in the case against her, denying both Mathers’ motion to dismiss the charges and her motion to continue.
Mathers is accused of secretly photographing a 71-year-old nude woman in the shower area of her L.A. Fitness gym and then posting it with the mocking caption, “If I can’t unsee this then you can’t either” via Snapchat.
Since allegedly posting the photo in July, Mathers has been banned from L.A. Fitness gyms and fired from her gig at Los Angeles radio station KLOS, where she appeared as a regular on the station’s morning show.
In November, Mathers was charged with one count of invasion of privacy, which carries a sentence of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
In February, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office scoffed at Mathers’ request to have her sentence deferred, stating that Mathers “does not qualify nor merit such leniency.
The city attorney cited Mathers’ perceived lack of remorse in its argument.
“Defendant petitions the court for diversion … however, she does not qualify nor merit such leniency. Her post-crime behavior is indicative of the fact that Defendant has never shown remorse for her behavior and therefore she should face the consequences of her cruel and criminal act,” the city attorney contended.