61 Comments

  1. I hate to be this person, but you’re dead wrong (and so is everyone else) on the First Amendment “issues” here.

    It’s fairly well established in law that two types of disclosures— (1) when someone records you without your
    knowledge and publishes it (intrusion of solitude) and (2) when a person publicly discloses private facts that aren’t of the public concern (public disclosure of private facts)—are actionable and not protected by the First Amendment.

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Modern_tort_law)

    As to the person who you’ve quoted here who talks about the squeaky clean politician, he’s wrong also. Disclosure of private facts of public figures, or of private facts that may be of public concern, is not covered under privacy law and has long been held as a permissible disclosure of private information. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States#Public_disclosure).

    As for the First Amendment merits of revenge porn, First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh does not think that courts would find that nude photos non-consensually distributed would be considered protected speech (http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/10/florida-revenge-porn-bill/). For my part, I do not see the expressive value of revenge porn at all and am incredibly skeptical that it should be protected speech. Perhaps a naked drawing or cartoon rendition of your ex-partner, but not photos of them without their consent and with identifying information.

    Emily Bazelon, who is no censor by any means, seems to think that the CA bill is too narrow, but I’m not sure that I agree. I think that in order to protect First Amendment concerns, the caveat of intention to harm must be in there, BUT the law also excludes photos that the subject took of him/her self, which is also problematic. She also covers some of the many reasons why civil procedures are not enough (you usually have to show monetary damage, and what teenager is gonna be able to show that?) (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/revenge_porn_legislation_a_new_bill_in_california_doesn_t_go_far_enough.single.html)

    To be honest, I am still up in the air about whether or not I think revenge porn should be criminalized, but that largely has to do with my distaste for fining people and putting them in jail. But I do not think that is enough to say it shouldn’t. Too many people are in jail for victimless crimes, and that is wrong, but revenge porn does have victims, and there has to be some recourse for them. I am unconvinced that civil procedures are enough to rectify this harm.

    • contrariant

      As a semi-professional photographer of 30 years I’ve restricted my shooting of portraits to “family friendly” because women who were neighbors, coworkers, and casual acquaintances would request one for mom and one for their boyfriend/hubby. I’m not a prude but it was uncomfortable.

      My advice is to refrain from posing nude, and videotaping sex is beyond dumb unless you’re doing it for the money and expect publication.

      As to the law, I hold copyright on every photo I take. Publication requires a model release, and without that it’s a violation of civil law called a tort. Your X might be vindictive but a media site is there to make money, and the financial liability should be enough to put an end to unauthorized publication.

      • fuzznarf

        Yet, if they take the picture and give it to you, or are willfully engaging in a video recording with you, there is no expectation of retaining ownership. It is yours and, as any other picture sans nudity would be, is your property to publish as you see fit. The easiest solution is to not take nude pics. But people don’t actually want to take any personal responsibility for their own decisions.

    • BrotherWill

      Perhaps you should take a look into Copyright laws and fair use. If a woman takes a nude pic of herself then gives to someone else, then it is that other persons property and they can do with it as they like. If she doesn’t want it displayed publicly then she needs to have them sign a contractual agreement or better yet, don’t take the pic.

      • Actually, if you’re going to argue a copyright issue here, giving someone a picture to view is distinctly different from the rights to distribute that picture. This is the reason why Napster got slammed in court. You DO NOT have the right to distribute someone else’s photo without their permission under copyright law.

        Sorry, bro. Try again.

        • Brad

          Just because it’s the “law” doesn’t make it moral. Intellectual property rights are bogus, in my opinion. No owns the rights to thoughts, ideas, words, music, seeds (Monsanto), recipes, etc – no matter how many lawyers and government officials tell me so. Laws should be based on morality, not what some elitist cock sucker decrees.

          And, if someone is given a picture they have every right to distribute it. Copyright laws are fucking bullshit. They slow progress, stifle innovation, and protect companies from the market. People like you make me sick, with all you bullshit legalize.

          • Brock Heubusch

            I would agree with you but I think an important distinction needs to be made in the vast grouping of stuff you’re talking about.

            Art is common property and should be distributed freely as such. No issue there.

            Ideas, concepts, products, technology? Haha, no way. You totally de-incentivize everyone from doing anything if they don’t stand to gain something from it.

          • Autarch

            I think you’re conflating copyrights with patents. From a libertarian perspective, patents are illegitimate because they cover things which are not created, but rather discovered. For example, when I discovered that framistats can be manually calibrated when their quantum flux field is suppressed with gamma rays, I invented a machine to facilitate the process.

            The design of the machine is my creation, so people should not be allowed to sell it (depriving me of sales) without my permission. They are, however, free to design their own gamma ray suppressors, using scientific principles I discovered.

            On the other hand, the book my brother and I are writing would not exist without our efforts, so unlike the principles of framistat calibration, it is, from a moral perspective, our property.

            Mark Read Pickens

          • KoreyAusTex

            I own the rights to my image, that isn’t bullshit. It keeps people like you from profiting of it. Why do you think college football players are starting to copyright their own image? You just sound angry and it’s probably is not about this issue.

        • BrotherWill

          And the saying goes “Possession is how many tenths of the law”? Thats right, nine. Good luck arguing that one. You have every right to distribute your property as you see fit. So back to square one, better off not taking the pics. And FYI, that is not why Napster got slammed in court. It was for distributing material that was specifically copyrighted and specifically not distributable without written permission.

          So sorry sis, Try again.

    • Bryan Clyne

      As was already stated, there are already multiple laws under which revenge porn can fall under, depending on the state and circumstances. For example, if the woman is unknowingly taped, that is illegal. If the woman knows she was taped, then she has trusted her partner to not disclose the tape. If it ends up on a website, the partner betrayed her trust. Depending on the circumstances and state laws, the partner may or may not be punishable for this offense. If the partner cannot be punished, then the woman must take responsibility for the risk she took in making the video, and accept the consequences. In addition, you are wrong in saying that revenge porn doesn’t fall under the first amendment. Essentially, all actions and speeches that are not in violation of a law are protected by the first amendment. Ergo, if it is found to have not violated *any* laws, it is protected under the first amendment, regardless of how tasteless it may be. If this wasn’t the case, the westboro baptist church would not be able to perform the tasteless acts that they do. In addition, there are civil procedures to deal with such things. You view them as not being ‘enough to rectify this harm’. Keep in mind that as long as the video was not taken without knowledge and consent of the ‘target’, the woman who was harmed knew that a pornographic video was being made, and either knew of the risk of it winding up on the internet and ignored it, or was too ignorant to understand the ramifications of her actions. While you can argue that there are other factors, such as being pressured to make a video that you don’t want to make, the law is cut and dry. Simple cases of peer pressure are not enough to absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

  2. Tory

    This article is a joke. We, the “voters”, have no right to see Congressmen’s “nude selfies”. If they are accidentally leaked, it was an accident and should be treated as such. To think that is grounds to invade his privacy and ruin his career is shameful. A lot of the victims might not have the time or money to pursue a personal lawsuit–and they should only be compensated when their is “damage”? There will never be a case of revenge porn that doesn’t damage the victim. Just because they didn’t get fired for the pictures doesn’t mean they haven’t suffered emotionally or have faced subjugation from family or friends. This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with protecting people who are unwillingly and embarrassingly exposed by others. Again, this article is a joke.

    • fuzznarf

      It wasn’t an accident. It was carelessness. To say it was an accident is to say it just happened out of his control. We know this is not the case. It was NOT an accident.

      • Tory

        whatever dude, if you think it’s your business to see someone’s nude pictures there isn’t anything I can say that’ll change your mind. good luck

        • fuzznarf

          I never said it was my business,…dude. i said it was not an accident. Anthony Weiner made it EVERYONE’s business when HE posted it on HIS, and a follower’s PUBLIC twitter feed. And when a do-gooder politician like Weiner feels the need to micromanage peoples’ lives, it becomes even more of my business when he is shown to be a dirtbag hypocrite.

        • Bryan Clyne

          We have the right to know anything we want about any publicly elected official. Now, it may not be legal to post *anything* about a public figure, and someone posting something illicit may face civil or criminal charges, but we have every right to know anything we want to about our elected officials. Exposing incriminating information is called whistle blowing. In addition, as another poster mentioned, we have every right to know when someone who wants to micromanage our lives is a complete *hypocrite*.

  3. Jonathan Michael Bierley

    ANYONE who is a victim of ANY crime has the right to file civil charges and criminal charges! To validate this article by saying that someone should have the ability to only file civil charges is moronic!

  4. Disqus

    this is idiocracy. First, person “A” creates video of h-self having sex with someone else, then creates fake account somewhere under name “B”, and posts h-own video “on behalf of” B. and now what – B goes to jail ?

    • Casey McCarty

      Therein lies a real problem to making this a criminal proceeding instead of a civil one– the time and cost to investigate, which may involve tracking down IP info from hosts, etc. means that to prove that it is indeed the suspected ex-lover responsible for posting the image is going to cost us plenty in prosecution for what is essentially a civil wrongdoing. If we fail to do that type of investigation, then we could just as easily have revenge-revenge porn: post your own pic then make your ex’s life a living hell trying to defend the charges. As the article mentioned, there are several other criminal offences that could apply should the wrongdoing rise to that level of harm.

  5. PeterDarker

    If it’s actual sexual behavior displayed (i.e. sex or even simulated sex acts) then it is against federal law as per 18 USC 2257. If it’s only nudity, then it falls under property rights. Did she take it and send it to him? Did he take it with his camera with no verbal negotiations (“Don’t show this to anyone”)? All depends on what you can and can’t prove.

    • Andrew Luttrell

      And a American friend also tells me that in 4 states at least; it is legal to have sex with your horse; That tells you more about Government and the absurdity it creates when writing the LAW, and the absolute absurdity that is Law.. Just deluded rubbish., written and enacted by deluded idiots.

    • Autarch

      Don’t you mean both parties?

      From your link: “California prohibits telephone monitoring or recording, including the use of information obtained through interception unless all
      parties to the conversation consent
      (California Penal Code Sections 631 & 632)

      Mark Read Pickens

  6. Jaime

    This turns a lot on who takes the picture. It is more easily argued that a person who consensually poses nude will not be able to overcome the copyright abilities of the photographer in ability to display the work. The invasion of privacy tort may still stand possibly – it’s going to depend on the jurisdiction because that issue is more specific to state law than the broader federal copyright claims/abilities.

    • Andrew Luttrell

      I would
      have asked the obvious question , what are the psychological processes at work
      here that anyone would actually photograph or video record such acts in the
      first instance; regardless if it is consensual
      or non consensual ; or if it is reported
      to be armature pornography ; Causal and effect ; If such publications are in existence,
      then the effect of such depictions will
      always be a risk ; They now exist ; that’s is the only reason I would have asked
      the question for why they exist? And your good point Jaime ; Who do you trust?

          • Luke Murray

            Haha, is finding new words in your dictionary and figuring out how wrongly you can use them a past time of yours?

          • Autarch

            The term is “pastime,” not “past time,” which would mean something entirely different.

            Pastime: (noun) something that serves to make time pass agreeably; a pleasant means of amusement, recreation, or sport: to play cards as a pastime.

            Mark Read Pickens

  7. Justin Hogan

    Don’t want naked pics of yourself on the internet? Don’t get naked in front of a camera. Self preservation and common sense are dying arts.

  8. Andrew Luttrell

    What happened to the natural notion of love is between a Woman and a man? and no other perversion is entertained; Love , Married , Family , we grow .That is what makes it SPECIAL, And it is Natural , ; what needs to be investigated is the Control mechanism that had depleted our natural instincts; Sex is a major control factor based on each individual interaction with each other , Perverted and ends in catastrophic consequences. Now you know.

    • Autarch

      What’s “perverted” in one person’s eyes is “natural” to another. As long as everyone involved consents, who else has a right to judge?

      Mark Read Pickens

      • Luke Murray

        ???What’s “perverted” in one persons eyes is “natural” to another as long as everyone consents, who has a right to judge????

        KILL THE PEDOPHILLE!!!

        • Autarch

          Multiple exclamation points and all caps don’t make a point more compelling.

          Who was discussing pedophilia? I believe Andrew Luttrell was referring to gay sex between consenting adults as “perversion.”

          Why would you think this refers to someone too young to give informed consent (too immature to understand consequences of his actions)?

          Mark Read Pickens

          • Luke Murray

            I am discusing you as being a pedophille!
            Pedophille is someone that has sex with someone under the legal age and has nothing to do with being “informed” or not.

          • Autarch

            For the record, I am a heterosexual male, only interested sexually in adult females. Your assumption I am a pedophile is completely out of line.

            The term “pedophile” (or “underage”) ought to refer to an adult having sex with a prepubescent child.

            If by “underage,” you mean the age of legal consent, in the United States it varies state by state. A man having sex with a sixteen year old in Nevada would be legal, whereas the same couple having sex in California would be illegal.

            Incidentally, until you brought it up, no one was discussing pedophilia, because it was completely irrelevant to sex between adults.

            Mark Read Pickens

          • Autarch

            Also, if you see a red squiggly line under a word as you type, it almost certainly means the word is misspelled, such as “pedophille,” which is spelled “pedophile.”

            My spelling is weak, so I constantly refer to Dictionary.com.

            Mark Read Pickens

          • Luke Murray

            My point was that pedophilles have been caught trying to use the same excuse to defend their behaviour. “it’s all naturall”.. “as long as everyone involved consents…”

          • Autarch

            Do you seriously not see a difference between prepubescent children too immature to understand consequences if their actions and adults who do understand consequences?

            Several years ago, I spent a few weeks assisting in care of a 37 year old woman, with the mind of a three-year-old. It’s a terrible thing to go through life without it, but she was clearly unable to understand consequences of sex, something immediately obvious to anyone who met her.

            She, just as with a child who is too young, was clearly unable to give informed consent.

            How is this not obvious? How is your point relevant to sex between consenting adults?

            Mark Read Pickens

    • Luke Murray

      Umm since when is marriage “natural”?
      Name one other animal on earth that has a notion of marriage, single relationships that last a life time or entertains “love” (when it comes to sex/procreating) and I’ll shut up about this topic forever!

      • Autarch

        Gibbons, Swans, Black vultures, French angelfish, Wolves, Albatrosses, Termites, Prairie voles, Turtle doves, Schistosoma mansoni worms, and Bald eagles all mate monogamously for life.

        Given their limited language skills, it’s probably unrealistic to expect marriage ceremonies.

        Mark Read Pickens

          • Autarch

            Actually, it disproved your point.

            You said if “one other animal” could be named that has “relationships that last a lifetime” you would “shut up about this topic forever.”

            I named twelve, yet here you are again.

            Mark Read Pickens

      • Andrew Luttrell

        I am not
        sure of the extreme definitions that you offer ; You fail to realise that
        Animals act on instinct , They do not rationalise or reason , what or why they do, so you may realise the floor in
        your notional definition of Natural.

        I am with certainty
        you have a Mother and Father, just as they have a Mother and father, etc ; That’s
        obvious I thought. You were not
        conceived in a paddock somewhere,

        What people
        do in their own bedrooms is their business , and any other judgement of values is not
        entertained .

        But to suggest
        that Every individual person ought to be subjected to someone else notion of
        life in search of the self Gratification and the almighty orgasm as standard , archetypical
        of Human behaviour ; Is absolution of extreme
        nonsense.

        You do not understand how People rationalise and
        reason to achieve an Objective to secure food, accommodation, friendships ,
        comfort etc; That is Natural Human
        Behaviour juxtaposed to Animal behaviour. There is a standard.

        • Luke Murray

          Haha are you suggesting that humans are animals that act out of reason and not instinct?
          I guess that’s why things like rape and murder is just something that exists in our imagination, huh?

          • Andrew Luttrell

            I am not sure again- You waffle in the most extreme and have very little understanding of anything , If you wish to make a point that is rational, then it is that you are not articulating it very well Luke . You reply is not rational and it may well denote your instincts. other than that , its pointless.

          • Luke Murray

            If you are not sure wether rape and murder can be instinctual or not then you are a very dangerous person to be around.

          • Andrew Luttrell

            I can be sure of one thing at least Luke , You have not a clue about anything, other than proficiency in extreme nonsense., Irreverent and utter nonsense.

          • Autarch

            Does this have anything to do with the fact that pedophiles have gathered in huge herds, instinctively roaming the land in search of victims?

            With any luck, they’ll blunder into equally large herds of rapists and the two groups will neutralize each other. (Rapists act solely on instinct too, you see.)

            If you just learn to think the way Luke does, this will all fall into place.

            Mark Read Pickens

          • Andrew Luttrell

            Hheheheeheh Luke and thought ; hmmm , That would be an interesting Topic, Natural thought uselessness or instinctive uselessness ,? hehehhehe , I could imagine him writing essays on it.

          • Autarch

            If rapists commit crimes “on instinct,” rather than volition, then, by definition, it means they are not responsible for their actions. Anyone believing that is far more dangerous than those who believe people are responsible for their actions.

            Mark Read Pickens

          • Autarch

            I just meant it’s easy to appear smart at the expense of someone else, if the “someone else” in question is as incoherent as Luke.

            Mark Read Pickens

          • Autarch

            Do you seriously expect us to believe rapists are acting “on instinct?” Do you not believe rapists plan their crimes?

            Some combinations of recreational drugs don’t mesh well.

            Mark Read Pickens

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.