Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the drawing-lines dept.

Government 328

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a thought-provoking article at TechDirt: "My own representative in Congress, Jackie Speier, has apparently decided to introduce a federal 'revenge porn' bill, which is being drafted, in part, by Prof. Mary Anne Franks, who has flat out admitted that her goal is to undermine Section 230 protections for websites (protecting them from liability of actions by third parties) to make them liable for others' actions. Now, I've never written about Franks before, but the last time I linked to a story about her in a different post, she went ballistic on Twitter, attacking me in all sorts of misleading ways. So, let me just be very clear about this. Here's what she has said: '"The impact [of a federal law] for victims would be immediate," Franks said. "If it became a federal criminal law that you can't engage in this type of behavior, potentially Google, any website, Verizon, any of these entities might have to face liability for violations.' That makes it clear her intent is to undermine Section 230 and make third parties — like 'Google, any website, Verizon... face liability.'"

cancel ×

328 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Freedom of Speech? (5, Interesting)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#46666007)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...

However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...

Re:Freedom of Speech? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666055)

It is freedom of speech, much like many other things that are found to be illegal based on other grounds. Soon I bet, there will be so many laws against USA websites, that nobody is going to want to risk hosting their website inside the USA.

This basically is requiring all content to be moderated before being available to the internet community, there goes a huge chunk of the internet.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666663)

It requires no further laws. When you attack someone publicly with the intent of defaming their character, they are one good lawyer away from owning your testicles and anything else they can get in a tort tart. Not to mention how easy it would be to just milk a jury and judge in the case they accidentally beat you to death with a tire iron, and wind up with a sickly small sentence.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (3, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#46666057)

The main court case in People vs Larry Flynt is about the right to mock public figures, in that case Jerry Falwell. It had nothing to do with pornography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Re:Freedom of Speech? (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 5 months ago | (#46666135)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...

However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...

Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666213)

Other's freedom to do what, exactly? Decide what I can and cannot do?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666363)

Other's freedom not to appear on porn sites if they never consented to it.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666621)

That's not freedom, that's power.

I agree that you need power to have freedom, either directly (using force yourself) or indirectly (having someone else use force) but there is still a difference between the concept of freedom and the concept of power.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 5 months ago | (#46666677)

Nope, You don't have that privilege. It is a clear violation. You amend the constitution first. After that, knock yourselves out.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Interesting)

grahamsz (150076) | about 5 months ago | (#46666723)

The problem is that generally, in the absence of any other agreement, the photographer owns the copyright to the image and can give that image to whatever site he or she chooses. In certain situations they might not be able to accept payment for it, but exhibiting their work is really their right.

If you are letting a partner take images of you then you are, without any further agreement, letting them do what they choose with that image.

Within current law, the only reasonable way to solve that is to have a contractual agreement in place first that allows you to recoup civil damages from the other party if they use the image in a way that you don't expressly consent to.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 5 months ago | (#46666725)

You are attempting to claim the freedom to control others in actions that do not phsyically affect you but purely are the disruption of the false morality of behaving privately in a manner you claim publicly not to participate. Whose problem is it really when your private morality does not match the public reality that you claim, especially when very likely you attack others for having a public morality that matches you private morality.

Seriously think about this folks, should a family politician that claims homosexuals be fined and imprisoned or in any other way prejudiced against be allowed protection under law when caught photographically 'in flagrante delicto' with some of the same sex or should that image be legally published and that politician publicly ridiculed, how many regular two faced folks need to bear the adult responsibilities for their actions to ensure politicians and others are held to account. How many of those who cry foul the loudest ran around ridiculing others in similar situations just as loudly.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46666405)

Judging by these kinds of posts, I'm guessing a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths. No wonder libertarianism is so popular here.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (-1, Troll)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 5 months ago | (#46666477)

All you do is judge. H8er.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46666217)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...

However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...

Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.

That's a nice shitty little cliche to teach high school kids but it's not true at all. The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never. The fact that it happens all the time doesn't mean my rights legally have stoppign and starting points, it means the government is broken and is illegally shitting on me.

What's next? You're going to tell me about the "social contract"? Hint - there is one social contract - the law.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 5 months ago | (#46666349)

The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never.

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#46666365)

Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?

We all are. US Supreme Court Justices, for example, aren't the only people who swear to uphold the US Constitution.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46666421)

Uphold != interpret

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#46666453)

Indeed, upholding is broader than interpretation since in the latter case, you don't actually have to do anything, if you decide something is incompatible with the US Constitution.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666441)

I am so utterly sick of people appealing to authority figures' interpretations of the constitution and acting as if it's the be-all-end-all. You do know that these authority figures can later contradict themselves or be utterly wrong, right? Would you say that they're right even if they interpreted the constitution in the most utterly ridiculous ways, such as that the first amendment actually gives the government the power to punish anyone they want for speech it doesn't like?

If not, then why bring up such an irrelevancy? Appealing to authority figures is not going to change my opinion, and I doubt it would change his.

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

[...]

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." -Thomas Jefferson

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Nephandus (2953269) | about 5 months ago | (#46666623)

Nope, they just lied...or they're illiterate, which should get any such judges removed. You can't rule "no law" means "ban whatever they feel like". Otherwise, they can rule the Constitution allows martial law then ignore everything forever. No further rulings necessary unless they're just get bored and want to be silly.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666679)

Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?

There is no constitutionally appointed authority on the constitution. John Marshall claimed that for the court in Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Freedom of Speech? (5, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | about 5 months ago | (#46666431)

The first amendment guarantees that my speech (c)an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never.
Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity? Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement? ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war

Oh yeah, the First Amendment supports your right to do any or all of those, and a pig buzzed me at Mach 3 yesterday.
Hint - there is one social contract - the law.
Hint 2 - you obviously know nothing about that.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (-1, Flamebait)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 5 months ago | (#46666467)

Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity?

I think you should be free to do all of that.

Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement? ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war

And it's absolutely disgusting that all of these things are not considered egregious violations of free speech rights. Seriously, even if you want free speech to be at least partially restricted, how can you support this utter bullshit?

Oh yeah, the First Amendment supports your right to do any or all of those, and a pig buzzed me at Mach 3 yesterday.

Perhaps you should read the actual first amendment, rather than the text written in invisible ink that authoritarian judges added to it.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46666595)

Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity?

I think you should be free to do all of that.

So you fully support what Senator Joe McCarthy did? Peoples lives were ruined over this kind of shit. And you really think that's fine? If someone takes out a full page add in your local newspaper with you face and declares you to be a pedophile, you think that's alright?

Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement? ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war

And it's absolutely disgusting that all of these things are not considered egregious violations of free speech rights. Seriously, even if you want free speech to be at least partially restricted, how can you support this utter bullshit?

I'll agree with you regarding the verbal challenge of an officer. Even speaking out during a time of war, to a point. But shouting down a person who has been detained for questioning is interfering with a police investigation andis a stupid thing to support. You really believe that it would be alright to interrupt a judge in a courtroom during proceedings? Are you 12? Or just mentally ill?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46666757)

Right to be a dork +1. Losing the argument too = priceless. Go pound sand.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666709)

I don't recall signing this "social contract".

Let's be real, the law is not a "social contract" at all. It's simply some rules decided by a very limited number of people I must obey. I can't refuse to sign your "social contract". If I don't agree, I'm put in a cage or killed. I'm nothing but a slave.

But at least, I'm aware I'm a slave. Are you?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46666745)

++++++++++++++

(and expressed masterfully well too!)

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46666473)

Problem is that if 2 consenting adults engage in the taking of pictures, they are owned by both people.

Don't want your pictures posted, dont take them.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#46666691)

Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.

So far, virtually all the discussion on this topic has centered around the rights of the victim. I apologize for responding to you personally, but you have the most visible post continuing the "wrong" discussion here. :)

The problem here has nothing to do with whether or not we should condemn the concept of "revenge" porn, but rather, whether a website should bear liability for content posted by a third party. That should scare the hell out of all of us, liberal or conservative, pro-porn or feminist, rich or poor.

Look beyond porn for the implications of this - Should Amazon bear criminal liability for allowing a joking review that says "this blender turns lead into gold" to remain? Should Yelp need to fact check every single review of some rat-trap motel or suffer liability for defamation? If a blogger dares to criticize Italian or French judges for their sham of a legal system, should Wordpress' CEO (or given what I just said, Dice's CEO) go to prison? And those don't even get into the issue of search engines, where literally everything on the internet can show up - Do we really expect Google to bear the burden of making sure no one has posted something incorrect or illegal on the entire internet?

If so... Goodbye, Internet (at least in the US - Which still effectively means "Goodbye, Intenet"). Section 230 means more than a loophole for pesky websites to intentionally look the other way - It makes the entire concept of public participation in a shared discussion possible.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 5 months ago | (#46666221)

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

In the Larry Flynt case the naked women were deemed to be adults who allowed their image be taken and printed. He likely did the paper work for releases, and photographed the women overtly and with full knowledge that the images would be published. Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint. A negative ruling would have meant that an adult women, or in the case of hustler many men, would no longer be able to expose herself or be penetrated for compensation.

So the cases are not really comparable. In revenge porn the images may not have taken overtly. In revenge porn the woman might not have agreed to have the images spread beyond the local area. Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.

So to be clear if a person arranged to video themselves masturbating or having sex with partner(s) that are aware the video is going public, then stopping that would be a violation of free speech, but otherwise not. If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses. In both cases, this is not acceptable, and the former is is not only because of age issues.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about 5 months ago | (#46666293)

Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint.

Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...

it might a violation of copyright

Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal. But we already have laws against copyright violations (if any), so why the new bill?

If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses.

My argument is that, generally, whatever can be legally seen (and peeking into a dressing room is illegal), can also be legally recorded (and the recordings subsequently published). Any laws to the contrary violate the First Amendment.

Freedom of Participants trumps Picture Owner (0)

trims (10010) | about 5 months ago | (#46666459)

Except the 1st doesn't trump the 4th.

Within your own house (or other private area), you have a right to control access to allow for a reasonable level of privacy.

That is, allowing you to walk into my home does NOT automatically give you the right to record everything you see there. As the owner, I retain my personal rights to everything there; your rights don't trump mine, because this is MY private space. This also applies to actions within that space with respect to the guest: the homeowner does NOT automatically gain the right to record the guest WITHOUT permission.

Similar protections apply to all places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists: bathrooms, private hotel rooms, etc.

A minor level of Prior Restrain is perfectly reasonable here - that is, the owner must show PROOF of permission for photographic reproduction, since the possible harm from an illegal post outweighs the benefits of unfettered postings. That is, documented permission from the participant is NOT an onerous burden on the poster, and, in fact, protects the participants' 4th and 1st Amendment rights, which, in this case, are reasonably seen as being greater than the picture owner's.

Re:Freedom of Participants trumps Picture Owner (2)

hondo77 (324058) | about 5 months ago | (#46666569)

So, would "simply" (can of worms, there) expanding Section 2257 Regulations [wikipedia.org] a bit do the trick?

Re:Freedom of Participants trumps Picture Owner (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 5 months ago | (#46666813)

... the homeowner does NOT automatically gain the right to record the guest WITHOUT permission.

If that were true, then "NannyCam" footage would be inadmissable. Different states have different laws that carve out specific places where recording is not allowed—most forbid recording in bathrooms, for example—but as a rule, if you're in someone else's home, you should generally assume that you have little or no right to privacy.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46666651)

Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint.

Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...

it might a violation of copyright

Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal.

Paparazzis can publish those photos because they are of public figures. They cannot do the same to people who are not public figures. Just as some asshole doesn't have the right to publish sex photos of his ex, because she (if the cases we're discussing) is NOT a public figure, and does have an expectation of privacy.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666303)

Question: what's the difference between sharing secrets your partner told you and releasing a video your partner gave you? Aren't those videos "secrets" too? Or is the big difference the medium? Is there any? Can I be enlightened?

Captcha: Observe

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666639)

"Is there a difference?" - Duh? - Just ask yourself, which one would you use as a masturbation aid?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1, Interesting)

FuzzMaster (596994) | about 5 months ago | (#46666311)

Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.

If it's a copyright issue, the DMCA already empowers the copyright holder to have the violating images taken down. So, no new law is needed to address this.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 months ago | (#46666615)

It is the photographer who owns the copyright, not the subject.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

grahamsz (150076) | about 5 months ago | (#46666627)

Except on cases where the vengeful partner took the pictures and also owns the copyright

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 5 months ago | (#46666321)

Well on my other three hands I suppose that when an action takes place in front of others that it is very hard to consider it private at all. For example doing something in front of a photographer might really tend to bring into doubt that privacy applies in any way. Even taking the film to a store to have it developed makes it public.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

mjr167 (2477430) | about 5 months ago | (#46666425)

If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses. In both cases, this is not acceptable, and the former is is not only because of age issues.

Actually... Upskirting is apparently currently legal. [cnn.com]

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 5 months ago | (#46666567)

A law was passed making it illegal in that jurisdiction in the next day or so.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46666223)

There is a fine line between free speech and slander.

At the very least I'd put in a safeguard where you'd have to prove that the entity you claim is trying to display you negatively is actually really trying to do so. I.e. Google has no interest to show your naked pics you handed to your ex in secrecy. Your ex does.

If anything, make people liable for releasing naked pics of people they have no right to release. So you better guard those naked pics of your lover well.

Because else, all I'd have to do to evade that law is to post the pics of my ex on some board and wait for the various sex sites in countries that don't give a fuck about what Mrs. Congresswoman barfed up pick them up and display them.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about 5 months ago | (#46666227)

What is speech? I think that's making any argument you'd like for or against something, the establishment, other ideas, the man, etc.

I think requiring the sign-off of all parties for pornographic videos (or any any other really where privacy is a reasonable expectation) might not be a bad idea.

But maybe it can be generalized. Say video of a person is captured in a changing room at some dept. store, the security guard takes it to try to sell it to a magazine because he thinks it's a famous person, it gets printed/put on the web. Should that be allowed? Now, think, that perhaps even if it was a celeb, they should be afforded the same protection as well?

I think perhaps it can be generalized to situations where the person expects privacy, video should not be released unless it's in the public interest (you catch the President discussing how the NSA can break into private homes to get documents) or for other criminal matters (politician taking bribes, adult trying to lure kids in a van, whatever).

Isn't there a line that protects both free speech and human dignity?

Given how small cameras and microphones have come, our freedom of speech has slammed into our rights to be safe and secure in our own homes, and lastly our own persons, our bodies.

Just like disallowing someone to yell fire in a theater, you are not actually imposing on free speech in a significant way, (I can still argue that it can be allowed, or that fires in theaters are a problem, etc), I don't see how allowing for human dignity will impose on free speech here.

I can see how a law will do that, but only if we try to be staunch and try to resist at all costs. This debate has been long in coming. We should participate and be instrumental in crafting something reasonable instead of letting a draconian law pass that merely uses a legitimate issue for the legislators' and their handlers' own ends.

What do we have to lose out on? A quick laugh at Star Wars kid where we got a few seconds of enjoyment at the cost of years of this kid's life and psyche, and other misfortunates like him? Where's the free speech in that?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 5 months ago | (#46666353)

Obviously free speech does mean some pain and suffering as part of that freedom. America is supposed to be a melting pot so we ignore the screams when the lobster hits the boiling water. South beach in Miami has hundreds of topless girls on the beach and about 20 miles north of that is a nude beach. Obviously some women would strongly object to being filmed or photographed naked or topless . But guess what! It's a public beach and they are in public view. It is none of their business who films them. Silly as it sounds some girls get upset if the wrong guy looks at them. We all have to be willing to take credit for what we do.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 5 months ago | (#46666251)

And without any additional context, you could argue that child porn or horse porn is also perfectly legal, due to free speech. Fortunately, free speech only goes so far in terms of justifying certain actions.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666279)

WTF is wrong with horse porn?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666281)

I agree. Freedom of Speech wins again.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (2, Insightful)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 5 months ago | (#46666295)

Porn is not speech any more. The Supreme Court now says money is free speech and corporations are people. Being that i am not a corporation I suppose that now I am not a person and therefore laws do not apply to me at all.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 5 months ago | (#46666433)

Porn is not speech any more.

Tell that to Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Farrah Abraham or any other of our very famous revenge porn stars with their sex tapes custom-built for the teenage audience.

Where would any of these sluts be if it wasn't for their 'revenge porn' boyfriends? Oh right, sucking **** just as depicted. Okay yes I agree let's make these awful things federal offenses. Can we prosecute the whores who star in them too? Please?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46666765)

Political posturing +2. Actual substance, 0. You should run for office.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666317)

Posting an amendment is boorish bullshit, depending on terse 200yo language to cause FUD.

ALL RIGHTS come with limitations. That includes the 2nd amendment, too.

Do you have a right to incite a riot? That's just speech, just like your example is "just porn".

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

alen (225700) | about 5 months ago | (#46666319)

Larry flynt used paid models who knew what they were doing, most of the time

revenge porn is posting pics of normal people who didn't give their consent to post private photos for everyone to see and some people to make money off them

Re:Freedom of Speech? (2)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 5 months ago | (#46666539)

The freedom of speech referred to (presumably the one in the US Constitution) allows freedom of *political* speech.

Other forms of speech have been regulated -- slander, shouting fire in a theater, calls to insurrection.

I am not for Rep. Speir's bill in any way, but one can't hide this kind of despicable speech behind the first amendment.

OTOH, making websites who do not or cannot control content responsible for same seems likely to be struck down by the courts, if passed, and unlikely to find much support among lawmakers.

As for Ms Frank: She sounds like a terrible harridan, the kind of subhuman individual who should be locked up for good and the key thrown down her throat. As Steven Colbert would say, "The worst person in the world today."

So sue me, ma'am, please: I got a friend who's a lawyer.

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666021)

From the way you summarized the article, you seem to oppose it. Why not make websites that advertise revenge porn liable for being a part of the system that ruins peoples lives? If a site is just using the pictures as regular porn without knowing their source, that's one thing. But advertising "come see hot revenge porn" is vile behavior.

Re:Good! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46666235)

Because else my next revenge webpage hails from Somewhereelsistan. Good luck with your *snicker* laws.

Make the PERSON releasing the pics liable. Not the webpage. It's ridiculous to try to play whack-a-mole with sex pages.

Re:Good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666753)

There is no such thing as real "revenge porn".
I won't believe it until someone provides a link to the porn and a link to the relevant lawsuit demanding it be taken down.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666787)

Well then you will remain willfully ignorant. Or you could search google news.

Potential for disaster (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666031)

There are an uncountable number of ways this could go, but it seems to me that the potential for huge problems stemming from how dangerously close the bill gets to free speech issues is large.

This is a REALLY bad idea (-1)

rs79 (71822) | about 5 months ago | (#46666045)

You'd have to be blind as Ann Franks to not see this.

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (2)

kamapuaa (555446) | about 5 months ago | (#46666133)

You're confusing Anne Frank and Hellen Keller jokes.

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (4, Insightful)

gnupun (752725) | about 5 months ago | (#46666153)

This law is kinda like:

"If you run with scissors and hurt someone it's okay to criminalize and sue the scissor manufacturer."

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about 5 months ago | (#46666269)

Since the law has not yet been drafted, it's kinda hard to say what it's like. But it appears to be the intent to make it a criminal act to upload revenge porn to a website, and to expose the website to some liability for uploaded content.

So I'd say it's more like suing a website for your ex uploading embarrassing pictures of you.

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666719)

So basically a step behind (ahead?) of how we already make firearms out to be the "bad guy" instead of the people using them unsafely.

Actually, its a great idea (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46666487)

..for those that make the rules...

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46666675)

You'd have to be blind as Ann Franks to not see this.

Yeah, it sure was dark in that attic.

And it's Ann Frank, not "Franks".

Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (0)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46666063)

Rights always get adjusted when they get abused in a way that hurts people consistently.

And revenge porn only exists with the intent for jerkbags to hurt people emotionally.

Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?

This is a no-brainer. Revenge porn is an abuse of trust.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (3, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 5 months ago | (#46666095)

Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?

You don't become a criminal for doing that.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666513)

Actually in many places you do become a criminal as you can be prosecuted under hate speech crimes.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666547)

On many countries calling someone, be it online or not, those specific insults will land you in jail. Don't be jealous, soon enough that will come to you. That is, unless sane people fight back. But we know that won't happen.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46666701)

On many countries calling someone, be it online or not, those specific insults will land you in jail. Don't be jealous, soon enough that will come to you. That is, unless sane people fight back. But we know that won't happen.

FUCK YEAH! You gotta fight... for your right... to be a BIIIIIIGOTTTTT!

I think that one was on "License to Ill".

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46666619)

My post had several sentences and you want to pick at that one which is ok. But the aggregate point I was making is that "revenge porn" is similar to stalking and exists only to cause emotional distress to the target.

Are you ok with that point at least?

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666127)

Rights always get adjusted when they get abused in a way that hurts people consistently.

And if you read anything other than the headline, you might realize that the people that are losing out here are companies that provide services, such as Google, simply for linking to a site where users can post something illegal. Pretend someone posted something illegal on Slashdot. Both Google and Slashdot would be facing federal criminal charges; not the user that broke the law. Seriously, think.

And revenge porn only exists with the intent for jerkbags to hurt people emotionally.

And this should make it illegal because...?

Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?

Lots of things aren't socially acceptable, yet are perfectly legal. What's your point?

This is a no-brainer. Revenge porn is an abuse of trust.

My ex lied to me. Constantly. And the one before that cheated on me. Those things were an abuse of trust. Should they be locked up in federal prison for abusing my trust?

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46666207)

Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?

Sure, if you belong to either one of those groups then it's perfectly a-okay to use those terms. Not only that, but it's encouraged and in some cases glorified.

Uh (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 5 months ago | (#46666305)

Uh, yeah, there's a big difference between people of a group reclaiming a word, and other people using the word to shit on them.

Re:Uh (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46666371)

Uh, yeah, there's a big difference between people of a group reclaiming a word, and other people using the word to shit on them.

Since neither word was either a positive, not sure why someone would want to reclaim it in the first place. Then again, this is the same way that it's a-okay for blacks to call whites cracka...with no ramification. Of course I can carry on with examples, but I'm sure you can draw plenty from your own mind.

Re:Uh (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 5 months ago | (#46666391)

Except that there isn't. Saying "it's okay he's black" is just as goddamn racist.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 5 months ago | (#46666789)

"This is a no-brainer. Revenge porn is an abuse of trust." This is a MASSIVE assumption. If you allow someone to record you in intimate acts, you have no one to blame but yourself. Free Speech trumps hurt feelings for 'lapses of morality'. Dont want to have a sex tape leaked? dont agree to be filmed.

Responsibility? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666159)

Yes, because all revenge porn was initially created without him/her knowing. We ALL know that, right? I have to wonder, though. Why is it that so many of those picture-sets/videos show the so-called victim smiling, facing and sometimes even holding the camera?

If you decide to share your nudes with your partner, yes, they might very well end up on the net. If you can't live/deal with that, don't take them.

Re:Responsibility? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46666255)

I think they do it due to that silly notion people call "love". I've heard that condition makes people do stupid things, maybe Congress should make a law against it.

It would not be much more useless than this one.

What a waste of taxpayer $$ (2)

Asshole55 (3556323) | about 5 months ago | (#46666225)

Congress is very good about sprinting these stupid bills up to get voted on, esp. when they're coming up for re-election. Doesn't matter which party you like, they're all the same. They suck at issues that are difficult and try to enact stupid shit like this.

More laws from our ignorant leaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666243)

Sure wish there was a requirement for anybody in decision making government positions to have at least an elementary understanding or science and technology as well as how it applies in real life.

Re:More laws from our ignorant leaders (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46666267)

Personally I think a Congressman should get one unenforceable law free. Everyone can make a blunder if you ask me. The second he proposes or votes for, and he's a goner because he has definitely shown he's unfit to tell a good law from a dud. And people who can't do that are clearly unfit to make them.

You mean fake revenge porn? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666253)

Is there actual real revenge porn out there? From what I have seen it's all been fake (ie. porn stars).

Re:You mean fake revenge porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666637)

This.
If revenge porn was real there would be lawsuits flying all over the place.
Those very same lawsuits would be enough to deal with the situation.
We don't need to legislate every type of porn.
Maybe those Japanese train rape videos need to be criminalized?

Just get a tattoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666289)

Just get a tattoo of a trademark (like a sports team logo). If anyone publishes a vid as revenge porn, you can get it taken down for IP infraction. I kid you not.

Unconstitutional (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46666307)

Congress has no constitutional authority to criminalize any form of publishing.

But... (1)

sootman (158191) | about 5 months ago | (#46666475)

... what about the fact that about 95% of "revenge porn" is fake -- just staged to look that way and then sold to people who like the idea? Take a look at gfrevenge . com (purposely not made into a link; absolutely NSFW) and let me know if you think there's one piece of actual revenge porn on there.

Youvines (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666491)

Good news

Vines [youvines.com]

You cant legislate morality. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#46666505)

It will only to serve to restrict your rights when you least expect it.

Support this, i hope it bites you in the ass, soon.

Interesting idea (2)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 5 months ago | (#46666565)

Here's an idea from Todd Knarr, a commenter on the TFA web page:

:

"It might be better to criminalize, not the hosting of such material, but the solicitation of such material. Revenge-porn websites tend to make it clear they want you to post images and videos without the permission of the people in them. So, criminalize solicitation of posting of material without the permission of the people shown in it, and the demanding of payment to take such material down when the request to take it down comes from a person shown.

Re:Interesting idea (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 5 months ago | (#46666699)

Do that and watch them try to use it to take out every torrent site in existence.

Just another posturing politician (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about 5 months ago | (#46666573)

This potential law is fated to fail.
Frankly, I doubt it was ever intended to succeed.
Politicians do stupid things that make stupid people think they are actually doing something.
I plays well with the hoi polloi.

The supreme court has struck down similar laws, this one is DOA

Small Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666589)

As a cop I've seen many rape victims. I have also seen a few women who have claimed rape in order to cause problems for their ex-boyfriend/ex-husband/client. Usually it's easy to tell the difference between these categories, sometimes it isn't.

Now imagine the scenario where a woman gives someone permission to take photos, these are published, and then she claims they were not intended to be published. Or she has access to someone else's computer, publishes photos from that computer, and then claims it was a felonious act by the computer owner. Unlike rape, which usually leaves some physical evidence, there is none here. There's just the word of the complainant, no evidence required.

I'm not supporting revenge porn sites. They are vile and heinous places. However, personal relationships, particularly intimate ones, often end up with the people involved willing to to do almost anything to get back at someone they think wronged them. It would be a bad law that allowed someone with a grievance to point the finger at another person and have them convicted of a sexually-related felony without evidence beyond the complainant's word. The victim would likely be required to register as a sex offender and his whole life would be ruined.

There are enough problems caused by bad laws already, let's not add to them.

Surprised this isn't UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46666597)

I'm honestly surprised it isn't us that is doing this stupidity.

No doubt the UK will do it next week. Most likely spearheaded by another ignorant moron like Claire Perry.

A simple way to avoid the speech issue (1)

Khashishi (775369) | about 5 months ago | (#46666685)

One way to effectively accomplish the same thing without affecting freedom of speech is to assign copyrights of an electronic image where a naked person is the primary focus of the recording to the naked person. Then it becomes a copyright issue and not a free speech issue (that is, if you don't consider copyright to be a free speech abrogation!). This shouldn't affect normal porn since the actor would presumably agree to assign the copyright over to the business or photographer for a fee.

Now, sex acts would probably constitute a joint work, and would be fair game for either party to publish (although royalties, if existing, would be shared), but that means that one party would have to be willing to upload emself to the revenge porn site. Fine, if you wanna do that.

So, if I were ... (1)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 5 months ago | (#46666733)

If I were to call Prof. Mary Anne Franks a skanky cunt with progressive derangement syndrome exacerbated with fascist tendencies she could have me arrested?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>