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

'Revenge porn' outlawed in California
Fines and jail sentences may be imposed on people who post naked photos of their former partners without permission

California governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their former partners.

The bill, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanour to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 (£620) fine.

Link

Recently similar legislation was rejected in Florida because of free speech concerns. The ACLU was against the legislation as well.

IMO the law would actually give grounds for those that have been victimized an easier way to seek compensation on a civil level and perhaps preclude people from doing something so obviously vindictive.

Surely, there will be the "slippery slope" argument and I can see that side completely. However I find it to be more of an invasion of privacy issue than one of free speech. Certainly some of us have made photographic records with others but those were meant to be private, and I think that the expectation of privacy does play here.

Well it is the other persons body.. But there is a reason why they call it REVENGE porn, maybe cuz they did something that made it well deserved? I know it can't be the case for all but hey.

If you are stupid enough to trust someone with nudes of you, well you deserve what ever happens.

It's called the consequences of your own actions, and it's not governments job to protect you from that.

The TV show 'The Newsroom' had a show on about this recently.

The 'revenge' scene was epic. I ended up replaying it three or four times, just to watch it again.

I suggest any gentlemen who have ever thought of posting pictures of their exes on line to watch it and learn.

reply to post by GrantedBail


What a waste of tax payers money.

People make videos for one reason, the rush from doing something taboo not because of love.
If you are willing to have sex on camera watch once and see how silly we actually look and then erase it if not then you are just asking for trouble.

I think there absolutely should be laws about this....and they absolutely SHOULD NOT be in the criminal or penal code. They should be in civil law. However, nothing seems worth doing for a photo-op these days unless dire threats of prosecution and prison can be tossed in.

Defamation and/or Slander is like this, I think. A very thin line between free speech and victimizing another person. That's probably why those are also concepts in civil and not criminal courts.

It's a VERY scary thing when the line between civil and criminal procedure is blurring like this. *VERY* scary. The two systems exist side by side for very good reasons.

reply to post by hknudzkknexnt


I am going to disagree with you here. There are tons of people that are malicious and vindictive after a break-up. Having been through two divorces I can attest to this.

And addressing the post below you: I have had two long term marriages and yes we took pictures and video. I would venture to guess I am not alone on this board.

If you don't want the wrong people to see you naked, then don't let people take naked pictures of you.

It's not hard.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Interesting topic....

I would never do something like that personally. Typically I just destroy them or ignore them.

That said, and as you said re: Slippery slope, I agree. I understand that not all civil suits are worth the effort and many would be symbolic if nothing else, but there are too many what if's that can become problematic.

im all about freedom but in this instance i cant say i have a real problem with this law..i wouldnt consider posting up nude pics or revenge porn of a former mate to be free speech..more of goof thing to do in trying to hurt someone(part of free speech..i dunno?)
be carefull with what you film as thing between people can go sideways

I thought you needed a signed model release before you could post pictures of folks who were not celebrities and in the public eye. Maybe one of the photographers here will chime in on this?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Hello Wrabbit,

The article indicates that to proceed against a perpetrator on a civil level is met with great difficulty.

It is a misdemeanor, so it is highly unlikely that anyone would ever do any jail time. Certainly, I don't see these cases clogging up the courts. I would think that the law would serve as a deterrent more than anything else.

I am sure there will be legal challenges.

Or maybe, someone has some pictures of some Democratic legislators

I get your argument, however on this issue I see it as a societal protection. Someone's life could really be upended as a result of someone just being cruel.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Then don't have nude pics or nude video taken. Really quite simple. If you don't do it, then there is nothing to post. Period.

If you are stupid enough to do it, then shame on you. Take some responsibility for your life.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Oh, I agree about the damage this can do. I agree entirely there. It's a bit off, but not by much in that teenager who was driven to suicide by the mother of another girl through a phony online identity. That happened in Missouri and was sure an attention grabber. She got off too easy too, IMO. However....That's where I think the line needs to be.

Harm in a relative sense ..and injury or death as a result of the damage done. Two very different things, IMO.

If you say someone is a filthy child molester and has no business showing their face in public, while you put up posters of them for all to remember? Well...if you're RIGHT..you may or may not hear from an attorney. You shouldn't. If you're WRONG? I think you'd be lucky to still own your own home and car by the end of the lawsuits.

Now...If, in that SAME case, you didn't just put up posters to inform but added a few words to them..like "WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE". Or "BOUNTY FOR CAPTURE OR REMOVAL". Now we're out of civil court and it'll be badges with bracelets coming to say hi, not a deputy serving notice to appear.

Same here..... Should just popping photos you may well have been given OR had right to within the bounds of a trust relationship be a CRIME to do something with? NO... Not in my view, on JUST that. It needs more done and actual tangible injury in a real world way ...otherwise? Civil Court isn't easy, but it isn't supposed to be....lest everyone sue everyone else on everything that happens. It's the right place tho, in my humble thoughts.

Permanent record of arrest and process through the criminal system should NEVER be a casual thing on a 'well, it sounds good' basis, like the thinking on this seemed to be in California.

The way I see it, and probably a judge with half a brain, if the material exists then at some point you gave consent. Being mad at someone doesn't rescind that consent.

reply to post by GrantedBail


The best "revenge" porn was showing up at a wet t-shirt with a buddy and seeing my ex on stage with her new boyfriend sitting two tables over. Talk about awkward. For them!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I don't care about someone's record on this issue. If you publish private photographs of others without their permission it ought to be against the law. It would be different if someone was sexting or electronically sharing their photographs. I think under the current climate there would be no expectation of privacy.

However, things done on an intimate level with the understanding that it is between two people, to me is a contractual agreement. BUT, the ramifications of violating that contract should be criminal when the results could harm someone irreparably, and that harm includes causing someone to commit suicide. The assault is the same, just with a different outcome.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Then don't take the pictures. It really is that simple. If they don't exist, then they can't be published. See how that works? It's called personal responsibility, which is something sorely lacking in our society.

reply to post by haarvik


Don't be a dik, I think is my moral.

haarvik
reply to post by GrantedBail

 

Then don't have nude pics or nude video taken. Really quite simple. If you don't do it, then there is nothing to post. Period.

If you are stupid enough to do it, then shame on you. Take some responsibility for your life.

edit on 10/2/2013 by haarvik because: (no reason given)

You realize there are people out there (men) who will take video and photos surreptitiously and without the other person's knowledge, right?