"Revenge Porn", outlawed in California. Is this a First Amendment Issue or not?

This shouldn't be in the realm of criminal court.

I would guess most of revenge porn is directed at women as men don't get the same stigma from "doin' it" as women do(Although I'm sure there are some directed at the down low men in same sex relationships).

Either way, unless the video was taken without the consent of the partner, a law like this shouldn't be passed. If they were going to go this route it should be entirely civil with no money going to government. To me this just sounds like another law to make money and create more "sex offenders".

Not only that but it sounds like they are stamping everything as "revenge" porn. So I guess now an under the table boyfriend will get sent to jail for outing a "hypocritical" family man that continues to pass anti-gay legislation.

I hope ACLU sues on behalf of whoever first gets caught up in this mess.

If you don't want revenge porn then don't make sex videos/pictures with someone.

reply to post by GrantedBail


This was done by using photoshop to a friend's daughter several months ago.

That perp's question, since he got a visit from her family, is how do you define "freedom of assembly" ?

Some times things are best handled by the friends and family.
The law just gets in the way.

reply to post by GrantedBail

I don't care about someone's record on this issue.

That's a very scary thing to hear anyone say these days. Once upon a time we didn't know what we do now to know why that should be so scary.

Take civil forfeiture. When that first became 'the thing to do' in a major public way? Heck.. Who could possibly argue the logic? It was for drug kingpins and major traffickers. Only. Nothing wrong there, right? Someone with millions upon 10's of millions from the illicit trade shouldn't keep all the riches to retire to after prison, right?

It was several years ago now that I heard Portland was trying out (and may have made permanent) the policy of civil forfeiture of the cars of men frequenting prostitutes. Yeah... Slippery Slope doesn't touch that. It was a cliff with a 1000ft drop.

Now this is literally saying that photos you did and may still have had 100% every legal right to own and display to others ....while TERRIBLE judgement, morals and ethics, can be a criminal offense worthy of taking your freedom and property for, equal to any other crime committed in society.

Is showing a dirty picture equal to other crime? ...or is it worthy of having your own pants sued clean off for? (I'll take Option 2 for $100 in a free nation)

reply to post by OrphanApology

Not only that but it sounds like they are stamping everything as "revenge" porn. So I guess now an under the table boyfriend will get sent to jail for outing a "hypocritical" family man that continues to pass anti-gay legislation.

That is an outing that can be done by journalists.

The fines cover the cost of criminal process. At a thousand dollars I highly doubt anyone is going to be making any money.

It is an assault as far as I am concerned and has already been codified into criminal law statutes.

At common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

I don't care about someone's record on this issue.

That's a very scary thing to hear anyone say these days. Once upon a time we didn't know what we do now to know why that should be so scary.

Take civil forfeiture. When that first became 'the thing to do' in a major public way? Heck.. Who could possibly argue the logic? It was for drug kingpins and major traffickers. Only. Nothing wrong there, right? Someone with millions upon 10's of millions from the illicit trade shouldn't keep all the riches to retire to after prison, right?

It was several years ago now that I heard Portland was trying out (and may have made permanent) the policy of civil forfeiture of the cars of men frequenting prostitutes. Yeah... Slippery Slope doesn't touch that. It was a cliff with a 1000ft drop.

Now this is literally saying that photos you did and may still have had 100% every legal right to own and display to others ....while TERRIBLE judgement, morals and ethics, can be a criminal offense worthy of taking your freedom and property for, equal to any other crime committed in society.

Is showing a dirty picture equal to other crime? ...or is it worthy of having your own pants sued clean off for? (I'll take Option 2 for $100 in a free nation)

edit on 2-10-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

In some places they use forfeiture to steal from people that haven't even been convicted of crimes.
This government is nothing more than a mafia written into law now. You could write hundreds of books on the crimes of the government toward it's own people.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I have a post right underneath yours. While not in response it is responsive.

I don't see any argument here, you have the right to free speech, not the right to post pictures of others, please show me anywhere in the constitution it states you have the right to post photo's of others, it does not, of course photography did not exist at the time of writing, but hey.

When such pictures are taken, as they often are between lovers, there is normally a mutual understanding that the pictures will be kept private, in effect a mutual contract of what those pictures are to be used for, and a contract is legally binding. I have some such pictures of previous lovers, I would not dream of posting them on line, but then I guess honor has no meaning any more, I always believed a man's word was his bond, I can see this is not the case for a lot of people posting here, I guess I should not be surprised.

It's all well and good saying "well you shouldn't of done it in the first place" if you are in a loving relationship you tend to trust that person. I really can't understand why people want to defend others for being nasty, vindictive people? The first amendment was not designed so people could harass others, it was designed so that people could talk about the government, be critical of said government or people in power without the fear of persecution, such as those who before the revolution talked out against English policies were charged with sedition, it was not granted so people could be persecuted, it was to prevent persecution.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Why wouldn't there be laws against this.

It seems like it is common sense.

reply to post by AlienScience


Lets keep making new laws for the people who refuse to except the consequences of their own idiotic actions.
Makes sense to me.

thesaneone
reply to post by AlienScience

 

Lets keep making new laws for the people who refuse to except the consequences of their own idiotic actions.
Makes sense to me.

It's a privacy issue. Just because someone shares something private with someone doesn't grant them permission to make it available to the world.

The only reason I can think of someone being against this is because they support it or enjoy it.

I thought revenge porn happened when a guy complained about
his wifes cooking ?

reply to post by signalfire


Then it's not revenge porn but peeping. Difference.

reply to post by AlienScience


See that's your problem you only think one way.

Like I said on page 1 if you make a video then watch it one time then erase it if not then it is your own dumb fault.

We don't need new laws we need more common sense.

reply to post by AlienScience


It's called personal responsibility and a nanny state. You should know better than to do something like this, and if you don't shame on you. The government should not be there as your moral compass to defend your stupid actions.

reply to post by haarvik


"Personal Responsibility" and "Nanny State" code words *(edited)

What about the personal responsibility of those that would assault others based upon the trust built within an intimate relationship? It is the actions of those lacking in "personal responsibility" that some people need protection from.

You want to post nudes of yourself by all means do so.

I notice that you are a male and less likely to be a victim of this type of persecution.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Hmm...interesting situation.

This ought to also mean that images taken of you without either your knowledge or consent, especially compromising images, cannot be used or published.

I'm sure the MSM will be very pleased to hear that any images they wish to print, will have to have consent from the photographee.

Same thing...isn't it?

In fact, it's likely an ex-girlfriend, boyfriend or spouse gave consent to film or photograph them at the time the images were made...they effectively gave consent to be imaged.

I would argue that is a hell of a lot more consent than the average citizen gets to give the Government when we are imaged up to 500 times a day by CCTV.

If the publisher of the video or images had consent to film, and the filming equipment is their own property...they own the video and it's content...even if that content is compromising.

If the filmer had promised the video or images would never be made public as a means of gaining consent to film, then that's another story. A verbal contract had been made, and by publishing the resultant images or film, the filmer would be breaking the contract that was made with the subject of the images.

But this ruling has wider implications than just the blushes of a man or woman with their pants down.

Remember folks, if you don't want your nakedness plastered all over the world...don't allow your partner to image you...regardless of their promises..talk is very cheap indeed.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Gender has no bearing. Beliefs have no bearing. I am independent. Shows how little you actually know. Once again, and if you don't understand I will assume you have no morals. If you don't do it, then it can't be shown. Personal responsibility at it's finest. If you want to be perverted and have nudie pics taken of yourself, right or wrong really doesn't play into it. You consented. Do I agree with someone posting it? No. But then again I have enough common sense not to have them taken in the first place. If you are depending on the state to protect you from your own stupidity, then I'm sorry but you are apparently to ignorant to be on the loose in the open.

reply to post by GrantedBail


And this is where I lose respect for you, we are all having a nice debate then when someone does not agree with you you go straight for the teabagger name calling.

reply to post by haarvik


Consider this:

Someone is in a 15 year marriage. During the course of that marriage with jointly held equipment images are taken for the personal pleasure of those involved. It is something that is done in the privacy of their home and with the complete expectation that it is for their viewing fun only. These images are stashed away with all the other play toys.

Years down the road, a nasty divorce ensues where their property and children will be fought over and litigated. Both spouses are hurt and angry over whatever their issues are.

One spouse decides to attack the other by posting said images in an attempt only to harass, humiliate and intimidate the other.

What is the problem with having a consequence that would deter this type of behavior?

What do morals have to do with play time?? I am not sure I understand what you are implying??


On edit: Sorry about the name calling. I was out of line.

reply to post by thesaneone


You are right. That was wrong. I am going to edit it if I still can. Bad form on my part.