[JohnKreese]

A bill that would criminalize "revenge porn" — nude or sexual photos, generally of former wives or girlfriends, posted online by an angry ex — could pave the way for other states to adopt similar laws, putting perpetrators in jail for six months if convicted a first time, and up to a year for repeat violations. The bill, already approved by the California Senate, is expected to go to the state Assembly as soon as this week, despite concerns from some lawmakers and experts who fear it could curtail First Amendment rights.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/reveng...8C11022538

Of course, only former wives and girlfriends are mentioned as victims. Watch it guys.

[aphelion]

Cool, now if you're in a relationship and decide to put pictures of the both of you online, you have to document and save conversations where she approves of it going up.

Furthermore, now you can't give her access to your email since now she can sign up for a site, upload her naked business, then blame it on you.

[aphelion]

I mean, yes, revenge porn is a pretty sleazy thing to do unless THE BITCH DESERVES IT for some serious shit. But now codifying it into law is going to open up a whole new can of worms, none of them good for men.

[BortimusPrime]

Women sure seem to be clawing their way towards a legal precedent for being able to withdraw any sort of sexual consent after the fact.

[Architekt]

I'm fairly sure putting any pictures of a person where they are identifiable as the main subject online without their consent is already illegal... What is the point of this law?

[MrXY]

(09-03-2013 09:59 PM)Architekt Wrote:  

I'm fairly sure putting any pictures of a person where they are identifiable as the main subject online without their consent is already illegal... What is the point of this law?

Australia must have some strange laws

Are you saying it's illegal for me to put up a pic of me and my friends drinking beer unless I get their prior consent?

That definitely not the law in the US

Depending on state law you can probably be sued civilly for putting up nude pics of a past girlfriend when she had an expectation that they would be private, but this law makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment to do so-that's not the case anywhere in the US to my knowledge which is why this is a news story

[Architekt]

It may just be when used for commercial purposes, but I'm not terribly familiar with public image laws...

[WanderingSoul]

Revenge porn is fucked up, but I'm against the government making so many laws. They can, and will, be used in ways not originally intended.

What happens if your computer or email gets hacked and they end up online? Are you held responsible? How can they prove you did it, or how can you prove you didn't do it?

Maybe your retarded 12 year old cousin finds them and sends them to his friends and they end up online?

What if the girl is 17, and you just turned 18, and they end up online through no fault of your own, but originated from your computer? Are you now looking at a child pornography distribution case?

I wonder how many cases will we see of some nasty cunt sending her ex boyfreind photos with some other cock in her mouth, and then him CCing those photos to her friends and family?

In that case the girl should also be charged with some type of sexual harassment, though of course that would probably not happen.

[Sp5]

"My laptop got stolen."

[Nolecbo]

As long as Sydney Leathers goes to jail we know this is being applied equitably.

[Celtic]

It seems we are intent on enforcing the legal principle that women are never responsible for any of their actions. If they hadn't had the picture taken they never would be in that situation.

[2Wycked]

The 1st amendment is getting whittled away, piece by piece

This is how obsessive compulsive personality disorder works. I am sure that some of you players have had a boss, a girlfriend maybe, who takes legitimate moral stands and twists the situation around resulting in oppressive, rule-based worlds.

Take this proposed law. Uploading nude pictures of your ex is inappropriate, but is it criminal? It certainly would bring you potential civil violations, but criminal?

First off, it isn't a huge problem. Leave it Californian politicians to pull stunts like this when the economy is in the tank. Still, what they are doing here is taking what is a legitimate moral/ethical issue and blowing it out of proportion - which is classic OCPD behavior.

Unable to understand the world beyond pure black and whites, they seek to felonize actions that, in reality, shouldn't even be a crime. The reality of social media, cameras on every phone and all that is people will film and takes pictures of you and post it around the web without your consent or take consensual photos and use it against you if you piss them off. Criminal laws will do little to stem this, unless, of course, the punishments are so dis-proportionally severe it makes it completely crazy to engage in the behavior criminalized.

What society should do - and won't - is stop being so damn judgmental. So some random man or woman films sex with their partner and it leaks onto the web - so what? We all fuck (besides IRT), so what really is the scandal? The fact you can see it? Sure, but you know damn well if people are dating or whatever they are going to be fucking this day and age.

[Architekt]

I wonder what would happen if monetary compensation was no longer a part of the legal system

[bacon]

Dont we already have a thread for this story?

[soup]

Don't make porn if you don't think it will be online in the future.


Or, move to a state where it ins't illegal to take pics of people/

[germanico]

Yeah, I think its a shitty thing to share nudes of your ex, but six months for that? Thats bullshit.

[lurker]

(09-03-2013 11:56 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  

The 1st amendment is getting whittled away, piece by piece

This is how obsessive compulsive personality disorder works. I am sure that some of you players have had a boss, a girlfriend maybe, who takes legitimate moral stands and twists the situation around resulting in oppressive, rule-based worlds.

Take this proposed law. Uploading nude pictures of your ex is inappropriate, but is it criminal? It certainly would bring you potential civil violations, but criminal?

First off, it isn't a huge problem. Leave it Californian politicians to pull stunts like this when the economy is in the tank. Still, what they are doing here is taking what is a legitimate moral/ethical issue and blowing it out of proportion - which is classic OCPD behavior.

Unable to understand the world beyond pure black and whites, they seek to felonize actions that, in reality, shouldn't even be a crime. The reality of social media, cameras on every phone and all that is people will film and takes pictures of you and post it around the web without your consent or take consensual photos and use it against you if you piss them off. Criminal laws will do little to stem this, unless, of course, the punishments are so dis-proportionally severe it makes it completely crazy to engage in the behavior criminalized.

What society should do - and won't - is stop being so damn judgmental. So some random man or woman films sex with their partner and it leaks onto the web - so what? We all fuck (besides IRT), so what really is the scandal? The fact you can see it? Sure, but you know damn well if people are dating or whatever they are going to be fucking this day and age.

CA can try all it wants to pass an unconstitutional law, but we know it's not the end arbiter.

[thegmanifesto]

(09-03-2013 09:59 PM)Architekt Wrote:  

I'm fairly sure putting any pictures of a person where they are identifiable as the main subject online without their consent is already illegal... What is the point of this law?

I'm fairly sure that littering on the beach is already illegal, so what is the point of outlawing cigarette smoking at the beach for littering reasons?

Such is life in The California Police State.

[uni]

Already Paris Hilton has done it several times, that after she filmed herself sucking cock of her ex boyfriends, she made millions of dollars and became famous because of the video recordings.

She lied that the video recordings were published by someone else and not her.

Now with this new law, any american woman can put in jail easily
absolutely ANY man she wants to:

There are only 5 simple steps:

1. she gets for few days in a relationship with him. Poor guy will think that
he is in heaven.

2. she sends to him naked pictures. he will be very happy.

3. she says we are no longer together. he will be surprised

4. then she puts her pictures all over internet and gets celebrity status for it

5. then she deletes all evidences and blames it on the ex...
the innocent guy goes to jail, and she cashes millions of dollars
from the scandal just like Paris Hilton did repeatedly

[Therapsid]

So, there you go. California's governor just signed the "revenge porn" bill.

Quote:

California governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that could punish distributors of "revenge porn" with up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill, brought by Republican senator Anthony Cannella and passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature, makes California the second state to allow criminal prosecution of people who distribute photos or video of a lover or ex-lover online to humiliate them. While some lawsuits have been brought against sites whose policies — offering to take down photos for a fee — were arguably extortionate, this law would make the act of posting photos itself potentially illegal.

The bill, SB 255, essentially expands California's "Peeping Tom" laws, which prohibit people from secretly recording or photographing people in a state of undress. Under the new law, the misdemeanor will apply to anyone who takes intimate photos or video of someone with the understanding that they will remain private, then distributes them "with the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional distress." The only other state with a similar law, New Jersey, classifies the act as a felony.

The ACLU initially objected to the bill under free speech concerns, but the group later said that it had not made a decision on whether to officially oppose it. Besides First Amendment questions, it's questionable how well the new law will address the problem. As written, it applies only to photos or videos taken by the offender, not any that are sent to them — which is, at least anecdotally, a much bigger problem. The "emotional distress" language also leaves a lot of room to object, and as with sexual assault or harassment cases, it's likely that plenty of accusations will end up being classified as "he said, she said." But for victims, there's now at least a legal framework to work within.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/2/479419...ecomes-law

I see. So the ACLU originally responded in a way consistent with the organization's past support for unpopular free speech, but then wimped out. We can imagine the phone calls from feminist donors warning the ACLU that they'll withdraw support.

It's also pathetic that New Jersey already has a law like this.

How do you determine if the intent is to humiliate someone? Why, you convict them of a thought crime of course. Goodbye First Amendment.

[Bolthouse]

So its legal for those mugshot sites to plaster your mug in its ugliest and most vulnerable state if you're arrested, yet posting consensual photos is not.

By the way, when your case is dismissed or you're found not guilty, your ugly face remains at the top of Google when your name is searched.