Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites 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.'"
Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.
Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.
Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.
LK
I would think that simply requiring a signed & notarized release form to release video/photographs of individuals nude and/or engaged in sexual acts would reduce the amount and viciousness in many cases of these revenge videos and those who upload them, and the damage they often inflict on women whose biggest crime was choosing to trust a sleazy and heartless SOB.
I see no need to pass legislation which impacts basic civil rights. There are already numerous legal precedents and laws/regulations on the bo
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure about the constitutionality, but as far as right to contract and private property rights go, if said pornographic images were given under the express condition that they not be distributed, a violation of the contract would constitute a case for fraud. Of course, most people would make such an arrangement verbally, making it harder to prove in court. Ultimately, though, people need to be accountable for their own actions: if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, be careful about how you give it out and to whom. As bad as revenge porn is, unprincipled government intervention to fix the problem will almost certainly be worse.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, be careful about how you give it out and to whom.
if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, don't pose for pornographic photos in the first place. The whole point of a photograph is to capture a moment in time for later viewing.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's legal. I'm allowed to exploit you. Freedom of Speech!! Small government!!.....Ignore the man behind the curtain I paid to have laws changed in my favor."
We've made the mistake of conflating morality with legality in our society. By trying to outlaw everything that the masses feel is wrong, we remove personal responsibility from individuals to self govern. "It's legal," as we appear to agree, is poor grounds for deciding if something is moral or good. What we need is a return of principles, of private property rights, and the protection of such things. As I've stated before, revenge porn in many circumstances, is almost certainly a cas
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
The closest non-horrible way to do it I can think of would be codifying the right to privacy and control of personal images/data when it comes to publication for mass consumption. It wouldn't hurt people taking photographs in public, news crews, or similar because of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. It's plain on its face that someone has a reasonable expectation that pornographic images given to a then-sexual partner are expected to be for that individuals consumption alone, whereas you have no reasonable expectation not to show up briefly walking past a news camera.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Excellent point, but one that has been generally tested in the past under the DMCA "Safe Harbor" provisions [chillingeffects.org]. Generally speaking, this issue has only come to light in situations where a website was hosting copyright-infringing content posted by a user. The Safe Harbor provisions basically said "you aren't responsible for manually screening all content on your website, but if a user posts infringing material and the copyright owner sends you a 'DMCA takedown notice' then you must act swiftly to remove it." Ob
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, not okay.
Re: (Score:2)
That is to say, unless you're
Re: (Score:3)
Character is how people perceive you, it is not fact. If your "good" character is based on lies and a negative truth comes out and destroys that percep
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uphold != interpret
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you don't actually have to do anything, if you decide something is incompatible with the US Constitution.
Not trying to be obtuse but I don't understand this. If I decide that the Income Tax is incompatible with the constitution, am I no longer liable to pay it?
Very interested because if the answer is "yes" then I need to e-mail my accountant before April 15.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Not the SCOTUS. They assumed that power for themselves with Marbury v. Madison.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment guarantees that my speech (c)an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never. ,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
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?
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: (Score:2)
(and expressed masterfully well too!)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That reply is so deliciously content-free.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should read the actual first amendment, rather than the text written in invisible ink that authoritarian judges added to it.
Our legal tradition didn't start with the Constitution and you understanding of it can't start there either.
This is really important: The Constitution was not written in a vacuum.
I'll say it again: The Constitution was not written in a vacuum.
Long before the Constitution and its Amendments were conceived, there was this thing called "common law."
Slander, libel, and threatening immediate bodily harm were already illegal.
The 1st Amendment was never intended to legalize such behavior.
We know this, because the guys who authored and debated the Amendments had voluminous written correspondences on the matter.
Your approach to the Constitution is like a layman reading the Bible,
without any historical context and proclaiming "I understand the word of God."
You don't. Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong. Please don't misinform others.
Re: (Score:2)
Our legal tradition didn't start with the Constitution and you understanding of it can't start there either.
That is irrelevant. The government is supposed to follow the constitution. Following random crap that doesn't have anything to do with it is a sign of a broken system and makes the constitution useless. But then again, with the TSA, the NSA surveillance, constitution-free zones, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, etc., we already know our system is broken.
You don't. Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong.
Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong, because you read text in the constitution that does not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
If the first amendment was not intended to legalize such behavior, then they should not have written it in the way that they did. Simply put, if you want it another way, stop appealing to authority figures and fix the damn thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahahahahahahahhaha! Wow! Good one. No one has ever been as original and intelligent as you.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other's freedom not to appear on porn sites if they never consented to it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 c
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Uh. No. Revenge porn is about publicly humiliating an ex for breaking up with you by showing them naked and/or engaging in sexual activity. Where is the false morality? Its not like the average victim of revenge porn is advertising she's a virgin. Most will admit to having previous p
Re: (Score:3)
Your forget that the law is equally applied, can't protect the gullible and 'not so innocent' without protecting the politician. So are politicians entitled to hide the sexual peccadillos whilst publicly attacking others or not, chose one in all in, the law is the law. If you think politicians give a crap about the gullible 'not so innocent' you well are totally gullible and very likely 'not so innocent'.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but law equally applied is letter of the law, newsworthy is only an opinion
Welcome to planet earth, where all law is subject to opinion.
More realistically how about just you and yours are protected and everyone else is newsworthy.
You do realize we already have a couple hundred years worth of society grappling with these questions, right? There's a lot of case law too.
No jury in the country would have any difficulty discerning a typical modern revenge porn site from a genuine news article. (For starte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths
That would be consistent with the population at large; 20% authoritarian followers, 5% social dominators according to Altemeyer [umanitoba.ca].
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by these kinds of posts, I'm guessing a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths.
Welcome to Slashdot.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is disgusting, but the original poster replied to a further post about how this can be abused and that is why he opposes it.
Suppose you have a legit porn website. Someone uploads some porn with an exwife masturbating as an example. The divorce lawyer finds it and guess what? You are sued for revenge porn and now need to pay $5 million dollars to this women you never met so she doesn't have to work and go shopping off your retirement.
When laws come out like this whether laws that say the right to face your accuser does not apply in rape, or banning child porn, or implementing sexual harassment laws all have adverse consequences.
For example lets say you have a daughter who is 16 and filled with hormones. She takes a pic of her breasts and uploads them to her boyfriend. CHILD PORN MANUFACTURER! Her life is now ruined forever.
Or about how if you have a drink with a woman from work on a saturday and you get too friendly. Your boss can be liable for a hostile work environment even off the clock and can loose his business.
Be carefully what you support based on emotion. Going to far and the lawyers will find something to be used to the extreme.
I am so darned split with the right to refuse gays service in Arizona for example! I find it deplorable to oppose gay marriage! People should have any right.But I want to start a business. I have every darn RIGHT to refuse service for ANY reason. I own it! Lets say someone was costing me more than I was making. Or makes an unreasonable offer which is below cost. I refuse. Now I get to be freaking sued as I later find out the customer is a lesbian. Just freaking great!
I hate lawyers with a passion and trivial lawsuits. So I fit in this camp with less is better until we get real tort reform.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...
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?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
As the owner, I retain my personal rights to everything there; your rights don't trump mine, because this is MY private space.
Nope. As the owner (legal occupant of record, not owner for rented leased places), you have the right to ask them to leave, and "force" them to leave, and no more. If they take out a camera and start recording things, you may not "stop" them, assault them, take their camera, or any other such action. You may revoke their invitation, and not much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A law was passed making it illegal in that jurisdiction in the next day or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except on cases where the vengeful partner took the pictures and also owns the copyright
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Revenge porn is 99% of the time pictures taken by a significant other during a relationship and then spread after the breakup or taken by the victim themselves and distributed to the significant other for their (ahem) personal use.
Voyeurism and hidden camera shots are illegal in almost every jurisdiction, in fact one of the few that wasn't just changed their law after a guy was acquitted. You are building a straw man talking about these already illegal actions. Much like all the other strawmen in this threa
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 am
Re: (Score:3)
'However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...'
It's not about free speech. It's about not respecting someone else's privacy. It's about breaking an implicit trust.
Tell you what, if it's OK to post the pictures I say it should be mandatory that the real name of the person submitting them should be posted right alongside the image, in order that women everywhere could know who to avoid.
Potential for disaster (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
What a waste of taxpayer $$ (Score:2)
You mean fake revenge porn? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there actual real revenge porn out there? From what I have seen it's all been fake (ie. porn stars).
But... (Score:2)
... 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.
You cant legislate morality. (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Do that and watch them try to use it to take out every torrent site in existence.
Just another posturing politician (Score:2)
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
A simple way to avoid the speech issue (Score:2)
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 woul
So, if I were ... (Score:2)
Revenge Porn Extortion (Score:2)
I'm not really surprised that pro-piracy Mike Masnick is also in favor of revenge porn extortion.
Is this currently legal? (Score:2)
Is this currently legal in the united states - posting porn photos of people on websites without their consent?
If no, why is a new law needed?
Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Are you ok with that point at least?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
FUCK YEAH! You gotta fight... for your right... to be a BIIIIIIGOTTTTT!
Exactly. People should be free to express their opinions, bigots or no. You have to fight for your rights. I know I don't want random people deciding that certain opinions or words are outright banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Except that there isn't. Saying "it's okay he's black" is just as goddamn racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
First, that's entirely wrong. Your argument is premised on the concept that if you consent to one thing - e.g. making a sex tape - you consent to everything that can possibly be done with it. That's not true. Consent can be as narrow or broad as the consenting person wants. If you let me borrow your car, you're not necessarily consenting to let me rent out your car to my friends for use in a demolition derby. Consent to one thing is not consent to everything.
Second, your argument is an attempt to discourage people from making sex tapes. What are you, asexual? And if so, then why is this an issue you're concerned about? Shouldn't you be off not-masturbating somewhere? The rest of us would prefer that people make sex tapes, happily and in full confidence that their privacy will not be abused and their narrow consent to make a sex tape and share it with one or two people will not be broadened by some douchebag into consent to have it broadcast online.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing Anne Frank and Hellen Keller jokes.
Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
This law is kinda like:
"If you run with scissors and hurt someone it's okay to criminalize and sue the scissor manufacturer."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Actually, its a great idea (Score:2)
..for those that make the rules...
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
It's not willful ignorance. It's actually a legitimate question. From everything I've read, there are roughly two types of revenge porn:
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.