'Revenge porn' outlawed in California

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

'Revenge porn' outlawed in California

Associated Press in Sacramento
theguardian.com, Wednesday 2 October 2013 03.34 BST

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

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

"Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims," the bill's author, senator Anthony Cannella, said in a statement. "Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/02/revenge-porn-outlawed-california

[MattBaggins]

1. Good

[Heidi]

2. Thumbs up!

[bemildred]

3. Good. That has nothing to do with free speech. nt

[jberryhill]

4. Yes, Anthony Weiner never intended those pictures to be public

[fitman]

5. About time

I did not realize how rampant sexting pics was with younger people. ...I'm 51 and work out at a university gym and the younger guys pass around naked pics of girls they know on their cell phones there like it's going out of style....

When will women realize when they send a naked pic it get's sent to all the guys friends?

[seabeyond]

6. and you as a grown man, setting an example, tell these boys it makes them a POS

to be doing this. not about the girl trusting the boy, but about a boy that gets to puff his chest at this fake machoism passing the picture to other boys.

we need our men to teach our boys. somewhere along the way, our boys have become confused what a man is. a law alone is not going to do it.

i taught my boys that it is as much their job speaking up to peers as not doing.

[fitman]

7. I tell them how it was when I was growing up in the 70's and early 80's

..the dating scene, how we would ask each other out, how people would meet before the 'net...how much better it was. When men were men and women were women- as in how we respected each other is what I am referring too.

I have gotten to know many of the guys fairly well and nearly all say they wish they experienced the time period and they know the relationship breakdown between men and women is out of control and broken.

[seabeyond]

9. thank you for taking the time with these boys. i raised two. my husband is right there with you

and we have discussed this repeatedly. our boys want it. our girls need it. we have to few adults putting in the effort. and i totally agree the kids today and not happy with what they see as their norm and wanting something different.

as all this manifested, which would be the now 20 somethings and a little older, everything went out of control. the teens today see the harm that came to the 20 somethings. something the 20 somethings did not have, being on the front line. i am seeing the teens today thinking a little clearer. knowing the do not want what the decade ahead of them has.

thanks. that is all we can do, help the young out with knowledge and reason. too many will listen for us to give up on them.

[Skittles]

147. LOL

"slut shaming" was rampant back then, just not as "viral" as it is now

[fitman]

161. NO where near as common as today.

Not even close..dating and male/female relationships were way more civil back then..

[NightWatcher]

8. as long as they don't outlaw Pity Sex, I'll be ok

[lillypaddle]

11. LOL

[fitman]

14. I'm married..what is sex?

[NightWatcher]

15. I'm married and the only sex I get is doggie style

I whine, shake, and beg. She rolls over and plays dead.

Every once in a while she takes pity on me.

Thank you, I'll be at the Ramada Inn at the airport Yuck Yucks in Newark tomorrow.

[Whiskeytide]

17. My wife and I have nothing...

... but oral sex. We pass each other in the hallway, and she says "screw you", and I say "screw you too".

We need a smilie playing a drum - "bahdumbump!"

[Warren DeMontague]

25. There is the ever-popular "rimshot" graphic

[rocktivity]

26. You're welcome

rocktivity

[dogknob]

94. We have one.

[Whisp]

61. o yuk, you must be a real pistol in bed.

[Scootaloo]

151. Rusty, prone to jamming, and barred from upscale establishments?

[Fla_Democrat]

164. Snub-nose?

[Whisp]

168. there's something about load and discharge there too

but I'd have to pour bleach in my mind's eye.

[Supersedeas]

167. what an explosive retort

and your bedside manner?

[seabeyond]

18. wow, a little subthread of the husbands sexist little joke at the wifes expense. really, if none

of you are getting it, you might address what youa re doing wrong. isnt this so cute. the same old, forever diss to the wife.

cute

[inch4progress]

20. Keep it balanced. Both sexes are guilty of this and showing "revenge pics"

or boasting about their "hot new lover" with photo evidence.

[seabeyond]

22. i see three husbands being disrespectful to their wives. and you are demanding i be balanced.

i am addressing what is right in front of my face.

[inch4progress]

27. I see men making fun of themselves, and joking about their relationships

[seabeyond]

34. yes. the poor besotted man that doesnt get it any more cause he married is not a diss

on the woman, but the man. right.

[sibelian]

92. Oh, good Lord...

WHEN are you going to get over yourself?

Never, obviously.

Well there's no need for me to see anything you write. You're a one-trick pony.

goodbye,

S

[seabeyond]

166. you want me to feel bad, pointing out sexism on du. not gonna happen. ignore is your friend.

[inch4progress]

100. No its not? He has the right to vent, Its healthy and normal as long as he isn't being abusive.

My husband bitches about the same thing,And guess what, he is right! I'm the type of person who would rather read a book than romp in the hay. I understand his frustration partly because he has that "drive" and it's natural. I'd much rather him vocalize it than keep it inside and hidden building up waiting to burst out in the form of some tantrum over something completely trivial. It gets confusing when people are mad about one thing, but complain about something that really doesn't matter. Often it can be difficult to pick up on the real issue if he never alludes to it. Sometimes keeping stuff like this in can be dangerous for couples! Anger can come out in negative ways, and that is NEVER EVER A GOOD THING.

Now I'm not trying to be mean at all, and call me a dickhead if you like, but well.....no I won't ask you anything personal in here, but if you need to vent you can email me, about whatever. You can mail me just to curse at me, or scream, or talk something out if you like. I'm just getting the vibe.........well I know how you feel.........OK?

[seabeyond]

103. your profile says peter, male and does not go with your post. and i gotta ask, who are you?

you get a vibe? pm and rant?

[inch4progress]

107. I'm gay.

Like I said, it might be immature, but it's healthy. If you want to rant or whatever message me. I do understand your frustration, I just learned to ignore and/or sometimes appreciate this shit from my husband.

[seabeyond]

108. thank you.

i knew that was a possibility, still had to ask. with what we are talking.

appreciate the clarification.

[inch4progress]

109. Naturally, you deserved it considering the context. I Shudda mentioned it in early post or profile.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Humor is usually exaggeration built upon a foundation of truth.

So to some degree, you can be sure they actually believe that crap they just posted.

I would also bet they would never say such a thing to a stranger in front of their wives. Why? Because it's highly disrespectful.
A thin cover of anonymity doesn't make it more respectful.

[inch4progress]

101. I don't see it as disrespectul. It becomes disrespectful when they quit using humor or worse

QUIT USING WORDS. Naturally it would be more productive to sit down with their wives and talk the issue out, see if they are meant to be together, which means are they living up to their expectations of each other?

We are human, we er, but I've seen much worse, ABUSIVE stuff. Maybe it's immature, childish etc, but it's still pretty harmless.

[LanternWaste]

118. do you contend that racial jokes too, are "pretty harmless?"?

"It becomes disrespectful when they quit using humor or worse..."

What then, is the precise and relevant difference between what you stated, and racial jokes? Or do you contend that racial jokes too, are "pretty harmless?"?

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Yes, a joke about marital sex is the exact same thing as a racist one.

Sort of how picking your nose is totally just like serial killing.

[BainsBane]

131. Would you joke about your wife's sexual practices online?

They weren't jokes about martial sexual practice generally, but about their own wives. I'd be pissed off if I were one of the women in question.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. My wife is many things, but humor-impaired isn't one of them.

Trust me on this.

[BainsBane]

138. I do trust you on that

and I also know I've only seen you speak in glowing terms about her. I don't believe you would say that sort of thing about her online, even if it were true. You are defending something I don't believe you would do in a million years.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. I understood it to be a joke, and not a terribly mean-spirited one at that.

Like if I said "I support Gay Marriage, I think everyone should have equal rights to be miserable"... does that mean I really think being married is misery? No, I'm just making a slightly worn out joke.

Indeed, now, sometimes "it's just a joke" is used to defend or explain egregious, hateful shit, but then again sometimes it is just a joke.

Beyond that, this subthread has diverged wildly from the topic of the OP, which I think is an interesting and legitimate one, because there absolutely should be legal recourse for anyone who has this (nude pictures posted without their consent) done to them.

[BainsBane]

142. Hey, I wrote an OP in support of gay marriage

on those very grounds. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022573069

I certainly agree with you on revenge porn. I still haven't seen you say anything that wasn't completely flattering about your wife, and I don't expect I will.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Well, if I joked about my lousy sex life, no one would believe me.

I mean, clearly.



I just took it to be sort of played out Borscht belt "take my wife... please!" type stuff. Not the top of the humor food chain but I didn't take it at face value, either.

I think those marriage sex jokes are tired because I actually think -presuming, obviously, one finds the right person- that stuff just gets better. In my experience the main impediments to a vigorous and enthusiastic married sex life tend to wear footie jammies and figure out how to pick door locks at a disturbingly early age. If I've joked about married sex, it probably was saying something like how now just hearing the spongebob theme song is a turnon.

Married people with kids, will understand that one.

[BainsBane]

144. I think you are confirming the other point I made

that got fitman so agitated.

[Warren DeMontague]

145. Not sure which one, but if it's the point that no gender has a monopoly on sex drive or lack thereof

I agree.

I know married couples where the man is totally not interested and the woman is. There are no broad generalizations to be made in that regard.

[fitman]

24. Pleasssee

Lighten up...it old harmless marriage banter...btw..the hallway sex joke I have heard from a woman coworker.. and I have heard plenty of these style jokes from the 12 women I work with ..heard them all..I just laugh.. Your head would spin what jokes come out of their mouths..

I'm going to show these two jokes to my wife tonight..she will laugh over them and email them to her female friends.....and yes we have regular sex...

Some people are just wound too tight.. jeesssh.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. "...just not with each other!"

[rocktivity]

35. Sexist? No, both those jokes are poking fun

at marital sex in general.


rocktivity

[seabeyond]

36. yes. at the womans expense. the cultural conditioning that the man is all that sexually

and the woman never wants sex. stereotype that our society keeps fed for the power structure that dismisses womens sexuality out of hand.

a non reality that men do take to heart, that does damage in many ways.

but wtf, right? cause it is fun for men to be all that and make women less than that. i get it. i do.

[fitman]

46. It's not a sterotype

Many women don't have the same sex drive when they get older especially after menopause as they did when younger..fact.

I romance my wife with emotional foreplay 24/7..tell her everyday what she means to me, leave her little notes, I keep myself very fit and neatly groomed... been married 22 years.. MY WIFE IS MY BEST FRIEND!!!

BUT...

While we still have sex it's no where the frequency when we were younger. TBH I wish for more sex but she does not. It's not a deal breaker with me..would never leave her over it or ever cheat on her.. I just accept it and make jokes about it as do most married men.

My wife admits her sex drive is not what it was-menopause hit her hard..she has tried a few things to no avail..an yes she truly loves me..it's called old age creeping in..

Most of my male friends my age are going through the same thing...the good guys accept it and make jokes about it..The cad's and dipwad's divorce their wife over it.

Don't know what your age is but if you are 50+ and still have the same sex drive you did as a 20 year old your are not the norm (I'm not saying this in a bad way ...you have a lucky hubby)

I know plenty of women who still love their husbands and desire them but admit their sex drive is not what it was. It is what it is..

[seabeyond]

47. so, this is your reality and not really a joke, which was suggested from the being. not seeing

where i am suppose to lighten up here. a joke, lighten up. not true. ok, ya true and are dissing mate but wtf, .... lighten up.

hmmmm

[fitman]

49. The good guys

accept it and joke about it..the bad guys cheat or divorce their wives over it.

[seabeyond]

50. wow. why dont we take it one step further. wtf... now lets tell the jokes about old mens ED

really. lets...

and the women that can just dismiss there old hubby that cant get it up any more and the women that "suffer" silently. wont that be a hoot?

[fitman]

55. As I said

I work with 12 women and they joke about men all the time...I don't get offended....many of the jokes are very funny..

..and where have you been under a rock? women joking about men's ED and performance issues and size of their member have been around forever and very common.

And I'll go one step further... a women get's sexually mutilated and it's a tragedy on the news(as it should be)..a man get's castrated and it's turned into a joke on every news/comedy channel..


Spare me..

[seabeyond]

57. where is the joke? you told me it was true. and you are stoic sucking it up and

staying married.

words matter

[BainsBane]

58. Women's sex drives are every bit as strong

If our partners are good at it.

[Whisp]

62. That is true.

If the man treats the woman like a place just to masterbate, no wonder she doesn't get excited about lovemaking. Go figure! lol. some big dumb going on here.

[fitman]

69. Partially true but not always

Some women are frigid and some lose their sex drive as they age. ..just as some men are asexual and some men are just plain lousy at sex..

Don't throw all men in the same box if their wives stop having sex with them.

[seabeyond]

74. why are men asexual and women are frigid?

[fitman]

76. In my view a asexual man is frigid

Never heard of a term for a frigid male before tbh. ..so i used asexual.
But yeah I guess you could say there could be frigid men.

[seabeyond]

77. of course. that would be the societal condition we talk about and how one is a diss

and one is not. how acceptable it is, that there is not much thought about it.

maybe they are both simply asexual, instead of the demeaning term we use for women.

[fitman]

79. Ok you are right on that one

[seabeyond]

80. sigh...

it is not even the "right" part, it is the open minded i respect so much. it always makes me pause. thanks.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. ...so the guy says to the genie, "No, No, I didn't ask for a 12 inch PIANIST!"

oh, sorry, wrong punchline.

[fitman]

67. LOl that too...

[BainsBane]

68. You chose to expose yourself

So now we know.

[fitman]

70. yep you caught me

[fitman]

73. Kinda hypocritical are you??

Why is it always the guys fault? A women loses interest in sex with her husband because he is lousy in bed but it's not her fault if she loses interest due to menopause and age....and yes women lose interest in sex due to those two factors no matter how good hubby is in bed...fact.

Not all women are sex machines like some of the women here.

[BainsBane]

75. Hypocritical?

I didn't insist men had low sex drives. I simply made a point of observation. You broadcast your wife's lack of interest in sex and want to assume that applies to all women by nature of biology. The fact is it does not.

[fitman]

78. I never said my wife has a lack of interest in sex

..her sex drive has diminished due to menopause and she clearly admits to it. She literally hit a brick wall. She even went to her doc to see what could be done but did not want to take hormones. ( We still have sex usually once per week and she truly enjoys it.)

And I never implied all women lose their sex drive due to menopause but a lot do.

[BainsBane]

82. If you don't want comment

You should refrain about talking about intimate matters on a public message board. When you do, you get what you get.

You tried to make a sweeping point about women in general:

Many women don't have the same sex drive when they get older especially after menopause as they did when younger..fact.

What you think is a "fact" is not.

[kurosagi]

65. Do you really believe that was the intent...

...or are you a Republican mole that is in here to make feminists look bad?

I think you're just assuming too much of those guys. Most of the jokes that come out of my mouth are at my own expense, so I don't think it is too much to think that of these guys, too.

[seabeyond]

66. almost 3 yrs on the board, 15 posts and you find me to call out. yes, i think the intent

is clear, though i think it is possible they did not think it thru. hence, doing as skinner says, educate. so that the boys may think it thru and see the potential for hurt, in a number of ways.

and no, i do not think there is a single reasonable way you can say it is a diss on the man, and not at the expense of the woman.

[Squinch]

96. Seriously? You walk in here and accuse someone of trolling? Enjoy your stay.

[kurosagi]

104. No

I made it clear in the bottom that there was just too much assumption going on, rather than trolling.

[kurosagi]

105. Sorry about my wording

I am at work and my mind is distracted. I should not have implied that anyone was coming across as trolling, especially with my lack of posts.

[Squinch]

106. So delete it.

[Squinch]

153. Guess you're not really sorry at all, then. Because your wording is still there.

[caseymoz]

48. I heard two wives digging at their husbands

in the same way last night, and they were in apparently solid, happy marriages.

No, it isn't sexist. Marriage is, and males and females need a sense of humor to survive it.

Now, it can and does cross into sexism and cruelty, but as far as I'm concerned, denial-of-Sex-jokes, or married-sex-is-so-boring jokes aren't it. Especially-- and I don't know this-- when it might be exactly the problem the spouse is experiencing.

[seabeyond]

51. or, as the poster now admits it is their reality, little digs and get to say....

lighten up, for appearance sake, you know. cause they might just dump the dude and find a man that can take care of them.

[Lurker Deluxe]

83. I know better ...

but WTH!

Men are tile .. lay them right and you can walk on them for years.

A man dies and goes to heaven and meet the maker and asks him about women, why did you make them so curvy? So that you would like them. Why did you make them so soft? So you would like them. Why did you make them so gullible? So they would like you.

How many men does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One ... men will screw anything.

Husband: "want a quickie?"
Wife: "As apposed to what?"

Sometimes jokes is just jokes. People use them to show affection, and to release tension when speaking about subject matter that makes them uncomfortable.

You may flame me now for the sexist pig that I am ...

[Doctor_J]

148. Clue me in here

as long as they don't outlaw Pity Sex, I'll be ok

Where is the sexism?

[Gravitycollapse]

152. Pity sex is a sexist term. It suggests a woman giving sex to a man because she feels bad.

Which of course constructs the female's sexuality as coerced and naturally devoid of pleasure. She only does it to make him feel good, right?

[Bohunk68]

163. Don't think so.

I've heard the term Pity Sex to describe sex that is had because you feel sorry for the person. That can apply to any combination of genders. That doesn't seem very sexist to me.

[Doctor_J]

165. Wow

that's all

[Comrade Grumpy]

87. Uh-oh. Don't mess with the humorless.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. I know. Someone pissed off the joke police.

RUN!

[BainsBane]

133. Okay, I have a good one

A Husband comes home with a half gallon of Ice Cream. He asked his
wife if she wants some.
"How hard is it?" she asked.
"About as hard as my dick," he replies.
To which the woman replied, "OK, then. Pour me some."

[seabeyond]

134. we are not allowed to make weiner jokes. the men have already cried foul. and i have banded with

my brothers not to make jokes about size, and of course hardness and functionality.

[BainsBane]

135. I thought I'd test how good their senses of humor are

[Warren DeMontague]

139. I can't speak for anyone else, but when have I *EVER* objected to a Weiner Joke?

Never, that's when.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. That's good!

[opiate69]

140. I lol`d...

[cui bono]

125. I forgot what this thread was about!

But the next post is in response to the OP again. Finally.

[cui bono]

123. Haha...

[marble falls]

10. While I am against 99% of internet censorship, this one is a no-brainer. A very good step.

[Sissyk]

12. K&R

It needs to be illegal ANYWHERE in the US for Person A to post a naked picture of Person B without their permission.

[TRoN33]

13. Good!!!

[caseymoz]

16. I think the sentence is too short.

and it should be a felony.

However, at least some porn advertised as ex-girlfriend actually headlines porn stars. Strange vengeance kink for people to have . . .

[Tumbulu]

52. I guess a state cannot create a felony

Has to be initiated at the federal level, but this is a start. I 'd like to see a higher penalty, and longer jail time, though

[sir pball]

60. States can create felonies

I suspect that there might be an Eighth Amendment case to be made for a felony conviction being excessive punishment; a good lawyer would probably argue while it is certainly criminal harassment, simply posting a naked picture of somebody doesn't rise to the level of gross sexual offense the law would generally consider a felony.

Not judging, just sayin'.

[morningfog]

72. In think the sentence too long.

I don't think there should be any sentence. There are already civil remedies available. I think it is disgusting and wrong, but not a crime, on my opinion. Unless hidden cameras where used, the exes consented to be photographed or filmed. There is always a risk of such images making it to the internet.

[Jim Lane]

160. Yes, the exes consented, but this law, like others, sets limits to legally effective consent.

Consenting to the taking of a naked picture would be effective as to the taking of the picture but not as to its subsequent online posting under the circumstances set forth in the law.

You say that there are civil remedies available, but my understanding is that such suits often fail. After all, as you point out, the person being photographed consented to be photographed. One main effect of this law might be, not the possibility of criminal prosecutions, but the empowering of victims to obtain civil remedies for any statutory violation.

[nomorenomore08]

156. Although arguably, a less-harsh penalty may increase the chances of conviction.

And I think some of these guys need to be made an example of, in the form of a criminal record - even if it's only a misdemeanor.

[petronius]

19. Good! Although I might argue that 'intent' ought to be irrelevant

No one has any right to do that deliberately, without permission. So whether the intent is to "cause emotional distress or humiliation," or to boast, or to profit, or to titillate, it's all the same violation...

[seabeyond]

21. exactly. make it clear. the wrong is putting it on the net without permission. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

30. I think you meant "without", right?

[seabeyond]

32. thank you

[redqueen]

44. +1

[jberryhill]

64. The intent element is the only thing that makes it arguably Constitutional

Did you oppose the publication of the Abu Ghraib prison photos? Did any of those people consent to publication of pictures of them nude?

[Xithras]

71. Without "intent", it would be struck down by the first court that reviewed it.

The law deals with photos that are taken voluntarily, and under federal law those are the property of the photographer. The state cannot simply prohibit people from distributing photos that they legally took and own, and that the subjects consented to at the time.

There's still a very real question as to how this will fare when it receives its inevitable court challenge, but the intent angle at least gives the state some ground to stand on. By only criminalizing the action based on the intent, they are criminalizing the "deliberate act of harming" and not simply the redistribution of legally protected speech.

[nomorenomore08]

157. Exactly. The "intent" part may seem unnecessary, but without it the law would be too vague. n/t

[rocktivity]

23. I've always been of the opinion that showing naked photos of your partner

exposes far more about you than it does about them.


rocktivity

[Orrex]

28. Well, typically the partners don't see it that way.

[NewJeffCT]

45. well, it exposes what's inside of the person

hatred, jealousy, evil, etc.

but, it could cause egregious harm to the person who was exposed by their ex spouse/significant other, and not just mental harm.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Yeah, that ought to be a crime.

[inch4progress]

33. This law is necessary, but really won't stop it

Educate, Educate, educate. The problem is that people aren't "thinking" when they allow people to take nude photos of them. Even if the photo isn't posted by the person who took the picture, it is relatively simple to hack a smartphone, extract the photos and post is anywhere they want.

[rrneck]

37. Fine objective but it's hard to prove intent. nt

[Tikki]

81. Not really...just don't post a picture of a naked friend.

If they want it on the internets...let the naked person post it.

Tikki

[rrneck]

84. What if consent was given but then denied?

Should we have lovers sign a release? Maybe it was a practical joke between exhibitionits gone awry. Did the practical joker intend harm?

"Just don't do it" doesn't really address the issue at hand.

[Tikki]

86. Well, we learn to err on the side of 'just don't do it under any circumstances.'

but, if you absolutely must then write up a legal contract and pay accordingly, stating that the picture can be used
for any purpose at any time.
Then no revenge could be considered.

Tikki

[rrneck]

90. It's much better to err

in the side of positive cultural development. The technology exists to broadcast personal images worldwide and people need to learn how to manage that within the context of their personal relationships.

Adjucating interpersonal relationships opens a gigantic can of civil liberties worms I expect.

ETA

It might be better to regulate the outlets that profit from the dissemination of imagery. So if you want to put images of your naked girlfriend on a porn site, the site would be required to keep a release on file.

Of course, that pushes it into exactly what porn is so we would know exactly when a release is required - all of which hinges on a reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Tikki]

91. My husband took photos of semi-nudes for his art class...there had to be a release signed with terms

and conditions. One of the terms was that the photos could not be sold
and could not be distributed.

You can come to our house and see them but that is the only place you will see them.

If his model had agreed to allow the photos to be distributed then that would be a different story.
Get it in writing..then there should be no problem.


Tikki
interpersonal means between two people...correct?

[rrneck]

93. There's a gigantic difference

between photographing a model in a pre arranged setting and a snapshot with a camera phone.

When I taught figure drawing cameras of any kind were verboten.

The issue is not the existence of the images, but their distribution. The onus should be on the distributors. If some woman finds her image is making somebody else money, she deserves a cut of the profits. That's what releases are for, not for policing interpersonal integrity.

If you want to market porn, produce your own content. Don't profit off other peoples freebies.

[Tikki]

97. Lets talk interpersonal relationships...If you and someone are in a sexual relationship..

you can't just loan that person out for sex, just because you are in a relationship with that person
and you want at any given given moment to share that person...that is called pimping.

The person you are having a relationship can decide to have sex with whomever you wanted them
to have sex with as long as it is someone they want to have sex with...but it has to be their decision.

If you need to share a picture of the naked person you are in a relationship then get their permission
to post it now and in the future.

I have a feeling, maybe wrong, that you think people in a relationship are suddenly struck dumb
and unable to think clearly.




Tikki

[rrneck]

99. Pimping is a business transaction.

Business transactions can be regulated because there's a money trail. It seems to me regulating consent in personal relationships is an invasion of privacy and sets a dangerous precedent. And there is of course a big difference between someone's body and an image of same.

Actually, I think people are perfectly capable of managing relationships without a phalanx of attorneys codifying everything they do. The range of acceptable behavior between people in the privacy of their homes should be as free as possible. The issue is not the existence of the images, but how they are used.

The phenomena of reality shows from survivor to amateur sex is based on economics. The distributors are trying to avoid paying for content. If we required every revenge porn site to keep a release on file for each amateur performer the business model would collapse because each one of them could demand payment for the use of their image. As is often the case a culture war issue is really a class issue. This is actually about labor, not sex.

[Xithras]

126. Photography releases don't grant rights, they limit them.

When I photograph someone and hand them a model release, that release serves two purposes:

1. It protects ME from later claims that the photography was nonconsensual. The law would generally be on my side anyway if the model later claimed that it wasn't consensual (they would need to prove it), but the release provides an extra layer of protection that can ward off lawsuits before they get started.

Understand that, under federal law, I own full copyright to my images the moment I take them, and am free to distribute them however, and to whomever, I choose. A model release is an additional layer of protection, but it isn't required by any federal or state law.

2. It allows the subject to inject any limitations on the use of their image at that point. In your husbands art class, the release limited the photographers otherwise unlimited distribution rights. It became a legally binding contract, exposing your husband to a lawsuit if he violated it. Without that release, your husband would have been legally permitted to do anything he wanted with that image.


When this topic came up with my daughter two years ago, my wife and I gave her three bits of advice.

1. Just don't do it. Have more self respect.
2. If you must do it, have the guy sign a paper beforehand legally agreeing not to distribute them to anyone else, and assigning ownership of the photos to YOU. It doesn't have to be fancy or notarized to be legal, just a note with a simple agreement, your signature, and his. If he distributes the images anyway, that little note will give you grounds to sue his ass off, and the ownership assignment will provide legal grounds for copyright suits against any websites that might try to publish them. It takes two minutes to write this out, and can save years of heartbreak.

[Tikki]

132. Correct...if you don't have prior permission for any circumstances then don't publish..

Let's hope that this new law is preventative on both sides of the camera phone.


ps I am not being a smarty pants...but is there an app for these kind of things?
Tikki

[Taverner]

115. Is intent required? Wouldn't privacy laws cover this?

[Shrike47]

128. I think some sort of culpable mental state is required for any crime.

[Orrex]

38. Two things:

1. I initially thought that this was about "revenge porn" as in "films about graphic portrayals of vengeance"

2. I'm amazed to learn that this wasn't already illegal

[seabeyond]

39. i would think it was also. a while ago, i was reading how texas was going after this.

though it may have resorted to a civil suit, which is different. i just do not remember. but i agree.

[mindwalker_i]

40. Jerry Brown rocks!

He's such an improvement over the governator, and to be honest I thought Arnold was nowhere near as bad as I expected him to be. But it's interesting to see posts on other sites claiming that Brown ruined the CA economy again, just as he did twice before (last I saw this was from some dude on slashdot). Uhm, what? Ruined the economy? How are these people measuring that?

[ailsagirl]

154. He's my guv!!

[Politicub]

41. Good law

And lol at the poster who said that s/he hopes that pity sex isn't outlawed.

[Tikki]

42. And now for something completely different...I am so proud to be a Californian where we are moving..

forward with some progressive and many common sense laws.



Tikki

[Hekate]

53. Excellent. It's about time. Some days I am actually proud to be in California...

... and Jerry Brown is definitely a good Governor to have.

[gopiscrap]

54. excellent this should be nationwide

[duffyduff]

56. Good for California.

The ACLU becomes even more and more irrelevant when it continues to back porn on some dumb First Amendment argument regardless of whether somebody knows they are being filmed.

[Whisp]

59. Good! sick bastards. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

63. "The American Civil Liberties Union had opposed the bill" n/t

[Taverner]

89. Yep. Because it is unconsitutional

Stronger libel, defamation or harassment laws would be a better direction to stop this

[Orrex]

110. Harassment maybe, but libel or defamation? I doubt it.

Showing an actual picture of someone doing something is not defamation or libel. Possibly harassment, but you would need to convince me. And I don't see how those laws, in this application, would pass constitutional muster any more than this current law.

For the record I like the current law. If it's thrown out for being unconstitutional, then it should also be legal to pick up someone's phone and email the pics on it to a recipient of your choice, thereafter distributing those pics far and wide for all to see. Absent some constitutionally tested law to the contrary, an unattended phone implies no more expectation of privacy than does a photo shared between two people.

[Taverner]

111. Harassment would probably be the best way

It's been ages since I've taken Media Law, but I remember either slander or libel - one of the two - does not require that the accusations be false.

[Orrex]

116. That's an interesting point

Attorney Wiki advises me that both slander and libel are described as defamation and refer to the communication of false statements harming the reputation (etc.) of the subject.

Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.

From Wikipedia

But I'm not comfortable accepting this reference as authoritative.


Hmm...

[Taverner]

112. Invasion of privacy might be a better route

For example, it would be the same as if a Paparazzo snuck into Movie Starlet X's backyard, and took pictures of her sunning in the nude, would it not be the same as posting revenge pics?

[Orrex]

117. I agree that privacy might be the issue, but I'm not sure about that example

Sneaking into the yard is trespassing at the very least, whereas reposting a girlfriend/boyfriend's picture is not.

[Doctor_J]

85. Is it just me, or did this thread get hijacked?

This is an excellent step. But I don't understand why people are sending their pics and letting themselves be video recorded in the first place. It shouldn't really surprise them when the videos make the rounds.

[Taverner]

113. Because I don't think this law will stick

I think a better route would be to use existing privacy laws to prosecute

[Taverner]

88. Good luck

As sad as it is, this law is unconstitutional

I know, I know - it's fucked up

Now if we were to go after stronger libel or defamation laws, or hell, even harassment laws...

[jberryhill]

127. The intent element is critical, though

I can sit here at my desk and write a forged check for entertainment purposes, or post it online, whatever.

What I can't do is write a forged check for the purpose of passing it off as a check.

This is a "commission of an act" with an intent to cause harm to someone. While the act involves publication of something, there are plenty of circumstances where the "speech component" of an offense is deemed to be operative, in terms of advancing the offense, versus expressive. Conspiracy, forgery, and a host of other offenses hinge on a operative speech component.

[davidn3600]

129. Prosecutors will end up abusing it

That's the problem with broad intent clauses. Prosecutors will try to stretch the law to try to nail someone for something they think the law should cover, the court shoots them down, and then that establishes the precedent that over time will make the law useless.

Perhaps if the state limits enforcement strictly to when an ex intents to cause humiliation and purposely releases the photo.

But we both know prosecutors never stay within the bounds of a law. They always try to stretch it to cast the widest net possible. They always go beyond the law's intent and purpose.

[jberryhill]

130. You still need a jury, since intent is purely a fact / totality of circumstances issue

[msanthrope]

155. I agree with your analysis. I think this bill will pass muster. nt

[stevenleser]

95. K&R nt

[davidn3600]

98. It's unconstitutional...

It's going to be tossed.

A good law with good intentions, but it is not compatible with the first amendment.

[inch4progress]

102. How is it possibly unconstitutional?

[Xithras]

124. USSC is pretty protective of the right to distribute images under the 1st amendment.

The law may stand because of its "intent" clause, but it certainly has a tough slog ahead of it (as do similar laws in other states, none of which have been challenged yet).

The courts have upheld limitations on the distribution of images that depict illegal acts as "fruit of the crime", but those apply to things like snuff porn, kiddie porn, etc. In situations where an image depicts an act that is otherwise legal in the jurisdiction it occurred in, the courts have routinely upheld the rights of the copyright holder/photographer to distribute the image as they see fit. The distribution of photos is recognized as protected speech when their production did not involve committing a crime.

Because these photos were taken legally and consensually, it may indeed be a 1st amendment violation for the government to ban someone from distributing media that is otherwise perfectly legal to possess and share.

California is hoping that the "intent to do harm" clause will allow the state to skirt this limitation, by painting the activity as a form of harassment rather than a speech issue. Of course, that limitation introduces problems of its own. If a person posts an image on a revenge porn site in order to humiliate an ex, they can be prosecuted under this law. If a person sells the same image to a porn site for profit, no crime will have occurred, even if the person in the images is humiliated by that action. Proving intent will be difficult.

[jberryhill]

159. Presumptively, one has a right to publish pictures

What we have here is a statute against (doing something) to cause someone embarrassment etc.

The (doing something) here is publishing a photograph, which is ordinarily a First Amendment activity requiring a compelling state interest in order to limit.

So, of course there is a First Amendment question.

The issue is that there are forms of speech which are acts predicate to various crimes - fraud involves speech, as does forgery, criminal solicitation, extortion and conspiracy to commit some other crime. In those contexts, we don't view the speech as "speech" per se, but as an operative act of a crime involving other elements.

[TransitJohn]

162. Because it's a prior restraint on free speech. eom

n/t

[MrScorpio]

114. Bravo! nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

119. Anthony Weiner, Scott Brown and Larry Craig suggest we should think this through.

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

[Humanist_Activist]

146. I totally misread the subject, when I saw the term "Revenge Porn" I thought they were talking...

the trope, such as in movies like Falling Down, 9 to 5, Django Unchained, etc.

Didn't occur to me to take it literally.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Falling Down was brilliant black comedy.

[Humanist_Activist]

150. Yeah, haven't seen it in years, now that I think about it, its more of a...

"I don't give a flying fuck about this life anymore" type of movie, rather than revenge porn.

[nomorenomore08]

158. I would hope the law at least makes a difference as far as saying "This isn't okay."

Sure, assholes will still do what assholes do, but those who are only borderline assholes - or assholes-in-training, if very young - may be dissuaded from recklessly indulging in this kind of behavior.