It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Harassment" refers to a broad number of behaviors that are subject to both criminal punishment and civil liability. On the criminal side, states have a wide variety of criminal laws forbidding harassment in many forms, including general harassment crimes as well as specific forms of harassment, such as stalking and cyberstalking.
Criminal Harassment versus Civil Harassment
Criminal harassment should not be confused with how "harassment" is often used in contexts such as workplace discrimination lawsuits. Federal and state laws ban discrimination against certain types of people in certain situations, such as at work or in housing decisions. In these non-criminal contexts, the victim can sue the harasser in a private civil lawsuit, alleging that the harassment constitutes discrimination.
On the other hand, criminal harassment is usually confined to state law. States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety.
- See more at: criminal.findlaw.com...
PrinceDreamer
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.
PrinceDreamer
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.
Restricted
reply to post by SadistNocturne
Just another casualty of the Me Generation. There is absolutely no honor among people these days. A man's word used to be his bond. I miss the old days.
Now, nothing is either sacred or private.
AlienScience
reply to post by GrantedBail
Why wouldn't there be laws against this.
It seems like it is common sense.
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.
AlienScience
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.
GrantedBail
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.
GrantedBail
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?
GrantedBail
Your girls are young. I betcha you change your mind later on since it is normally females who are victimized. You need look no further than the Steubenville High School case to find a reason to perhaps agree with the law. That didn't even include consensual behavior but you can see how this law most likely has provisions for these types of incidences as well. This stuff goes on in college as well when our children are legally adults.
SadistNocturne
AlienScience
reply to post by GrantedBail
Why wouldn't there be laws against this.
It seems like it is common sense.
No. Common sense is to not allow it to happen to ones self in the first place.
- SN
SadistNocturne
AlienScience
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.
Show me *one* place where privacy is actually protected by law.
I'll wait.
- SN
GrantedBail
Ok. I think it is an assault but legally it is criminal harassment.
"Harassment" refers to a broad number of behaviors that are subject to both criminal punishment and civil liability. On the criminal side, states have a wide variety of criminal laws forbidding harassment in many forms, including general harassment crimes as well as specific forms of harassment, such as stalking and cyberstalking.
Criminal Harassment versus Civil Harassment
Criminal harassment should not be confused with how "harassment" is often used in contexts such as workplace discrimination lawsuits. Federal and state laws ban discrimination against certain types of people in certain situations, such as at work or in housing decisions. In these non-criminal contexts, the victim can sue the harasser in a private civil lawsuit, alleging that the harassment constitutes discrimination.
On the other hand, criminal harassment is usually confined to state law. States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. Not all petty annoyances constitute harassment. Instead, most state laws require that the behavior cause a credible threat to the person's safety or their family's safety.
I congratulate you on your use of Findlaw!!!!
However, there is a broad difference between reading, understanding, and utilizing a law.
Then, there's also counter claims.
Then there's also sometimes a little thing called a jury.
And it goes on, and on, and on.
Plain and simple. This is not a situation that requires a new law. It is a situation where people have to be able to, as adults, accept responsibility for their actions.
If no potentially embarrassing photos are taken, and no potentially embarrassing photos are given, they cannot be misused.
- SN
GrantedBail
reply to post by SadistNocturne
That is why the offense was codified into California law. Now, there is not going to be a statute of limitations, it is just against the law to post identifiable nude pictures of someone that has not given permission.
It is a good thing.
AlienScience
SadistNocturne
AlienScience
reply to post by GrantedBail
Why wouldn't there be laws against this.
It seems like it is common sense.
No. Common sense is to not allow it to happen to ones self in the first place.
- SN
So what you are saying is that a husband and wife should never be a bit risqué and explore and have a little fun by a few naughty pictures sent to each other throughout the day? Or maybe make a little video for fun?
And if they do, and something happens and they get divorced...then the other person is within their rights to take that private information and send it out to the world?
Are they also allowed to hand out their spouses Social Security Number, just for revenge? How about their bank account information? After all, if they shared these private details with their spouse, it is their own fault...right?
AlienScience
SadistNocturne
AlienScience
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.
Show me *one* place where privacy is actually protected by law.
I'll wait.
- SN
Just one?
HIPPA.
GrantedBail
reply to post by SadistNocturne
Don't make me laugh. Everyone is an expert until your kids reach about 14-15 years old. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I hope you remember that statement a few years down the road. LOL
Lysergic
Kim kardashian woudlve never had a career had this been implemented sooner.
LOL
Way to go California, fixing the issues that matter... woooo, such a great use of resources.