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.

 

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

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


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.

- See more at: criminal.findlaw.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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.


I agree!!! Posting a picture someone gave you online is not something to be protected as "Free Speech"


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.


oral contract

n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. The main problem with an oral contract is proving its existence or the terms. As one wag observed: "An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on." An oral contract is often provable by action taken by one or both parties which is obviously in reliance on the existence of a contract. The other significant difference between oral and written contracts is that the time to sue for breach of an oral contract (the statute of limitations) is sometimes shorter. For example, California's limitation is two years for oral compared to four for written, Connecticut and Washington three for oral rather than six for written, and Georgia four for oral instead of 20 for written.


Everyone wants to be a victim. Nobody wants to accept any form of responsibility for their actions.
I genuinely feel bad for the person who had this done to them, I truly do.

However, you know a stove is hot when it is on, so you don't touch it. If you ever do, even by mistake, you learn not to do it again.

This is a case with a very flimsy standing. VERY FLIMSY. Do I think the person who gave the photo to the other person "authorized" this? Do I think they "wanted" this? Absolutely not. Do I think common sense and degree of expectation come into play here? Yes.



- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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.



Thank you.


- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

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



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

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.




HEY!!! Yet ANOTHER person who sees the light!!! Woooohoooo!!!


You deserve a cookie!!!


- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

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



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

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.


Well, as men, we all have our inner beauty. It can be photographed, and it can be published without our approval.

You just lost about 20K points by pulling the "but you're a man" card.


Sorry.


- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

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?



And Prince Charming will come and rescue you from the tower!

No, really!

There's a happy ending to EVERY story!

No, really!

Wait...no....not really.



- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

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.



Yepp, they are young!


And you know what, they come from pretty fine genetic stock, if you ask me. Both I and their mother are of above average intelligence and we are also well versed in a little thing called "common sense".

Oh, and btw, we do two things...A) we talk to our children and teach them valuable life lessons and B) we teach them that nothing happens just because they are a girl...but, rather, because of *consequences*...



- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   

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?



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

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



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

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.



Fantastic!!!! How does it feel to live in a state that refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of the individual where a situation could have been controlled or avoided altogether?

I'll bet it feels GOOOOOD....

To quote Mr. Waters....


Mother's gonna keep you right here under her wing.
She wont let you fly, but she might let you sing.
Mama will keep baby cozy and warm.
Ooooh baby ooooh baby oooooh baby,
Of course mama'll help to build the wall.



- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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?



How are those apples and oranges, btw?



I hear they're in season!



Oh, and BTW...most divorces are nasty.....so, my advice to you for a bad situation that just got exponentially worse.....If you did something that you are potentially SOOOOOOO worried about....take steps to prevent said spouse from doing it in the first place.

Is it possible, yes chuckie, it is!!!





- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

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.


Textbook way to respond out of context...I applaud you!

Now, since you need to have things spelled out, go and find a law on the books that guarantees you the right to privacy as it applies to this situation.


California, the Fruit&Nut&Nanny state, does not apply with it's new law.




- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

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



Yepp, you're damned right. Intelligent children with common sense who are able to see scenarios like this for what they are. Stupid. Silly. Preventable.





- SN



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

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.





Hey, you know, everyone laughed at me and made fun of me for being fat when I was a kid....

you know what? There oughta be a law against that! Why? Because it's called HARASSMENT.

Yes, let's make a law.

Let's make a law for every single thing that occurs to this precious little snowflake that they don't like or appreciate.

Oh, and lets not forget the bubble wrap. Musn't expose baby to anything dangerous, now should we.

Oh, and along those lines, cut her internet access.




- SN




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join