General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJudge rules that publishing of revenge porn is protected by First Amendment
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Katie Hill
@KatieHill4CA
A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. (1/3)
The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable public interest in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. (2/3)
Its not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all. Please help us today https://secure.lawpay.com/pages/cagoldbergpllc/operating-2 (3/3)
5:37 PM · Apr 21, 2021
Response to Nevilledog (Original post)
Post removed
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)Smh
Escurumbele
(3,396 posts)extra time thinking about it your thoughts will not be exactly.
The implications of that ruling is much broader than that case. Let us not forget that the photos were taken by her husband, someone she trusted, and the coward published them to hurt her and her career.
MagickMuffin
(15,944 posts)What about them?
And . . . How do you know Katie consented to the pics?
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)I think all states have laws regarding the recording of people.
Under The Radar
(3,404 posts)brooklynite
(94,624 posts)....the issue was apparently that she was estranged from her husband who released them.
unblock
(52,262 posts)Bettie
(16,111 posts)"What was she wearing?"
CurtEastPoint
(18,652 posts)WhiskeyGrinder
(22,360 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)obamanut2012
(26,083 posts)The condescending "Dear" just makes it perfect victim shaming. Well done! *chef's kiss*
NutmegYankee
(16,200 posts)Ugh.
Luciferous
(6,084 posts)ZonkerHarris
(24,231 posts)Under The Radar
(3,404 posts)What is she the victim of?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)ZonkerHarris
(24,231 posts)hunter
(38,320 posts)And maybe people should only have sex for procreation...
... in the dark...
... behind locked doors...
... as quietly as possible...
... with God watching over them...
People probably shouldn't have sex with sketchy people who later reveal themselves to be vile dishonorable creeps, but it happens.
Don't blame the victims.
I grew up in a world where when a relationship ended badly you gave back the Polaroids.
There are naked pics of me in the deepest archives of the internet. Fortunately none are associated with my name, and it's not like anyone these days is searching for 256 X 256 pixel naked pics.
But damn, I was hot.
If I ever run for public office it won't be the naked pics that ruin me, it will be my posts on Democratic Underground.
May bare naked body ain't so bad. My bare naked soul is a horror show.
oldsoftie
(12,558 posts)hunter
(38,320 posts)... when he exclaims, "Oh yeah, I remember you!"
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)I think it is beyond sick and wrong. But I do think there are probably already laws on the books that cover this.
And they should be used to protect people!
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)and the case from this OP I would say that is an incorrect assumption.
CrackityJones75
(2,403 posts)There are laws on the books about recording against someones knowledge. If someone gave someone else images and didnt have some agreement in place that those images wouldnt be shared with someone else... Well they are shit out of luck really.
It is awful that someone would use that to damage someone else. But thats why you dont share images with people like that. If it was used to blackmail and get something from someone that would be extortion or bribery.
Otherwise if someone gives you something. Anything really, You are saying that the person that gave it to you has the right to tell you how you may use it. Forever. Even without an agreement?
It sucks but again without an agreement in place how do you expect to hold people accountable?
edhopper
(33,592 posts)the judge overturned it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)There's a big legal difference.
One she should have been extremely aware of. They never got hold of nude pictures of Hillary, but she shouldn't have needed that literal a lesson to know in her bones that the Republicans will do anything to take out Democratic politicians. She was warmed by concerned colleagues.
Escurumbele
(3,396 posts)dickhead, and a coward.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)However, they would have brought her down with something else because she was careless n other areas of both her private affairs and as a congresswoman.
The genuine issue was the serious ethical violations regarding the sexual misconduct of a person of power involving two of her employees.
Note the trouble both Cuomo and Franken were/are in, and none of the allegations of sexual misconduct against them even approached intercourse.
Fla Dem
(23,698 posts)Free speech is free speech.
Are you saying this only applies to those in the public arena???
So if Joe Smore publishes a porn picture of Mary Nobody, then that would not be allowed?
Layzeebeaver
(1,625 posts)Should never be allowed to be published in public without their express permission except in cases of illegal activity where the information is used in a court of law.
brooklynite
(94,624 posts)...I can't post it to my Twitter feed without getting a release from everyone in the picture?
Link to tweet
ret5hd
(20,501 posts)Everyone knows what you do in public is "in public". But you are claiming that if a houseguest surreptitiously snapped a pic of you in your birthday suit then published it...free game.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Under The Radar
(3,404 posts)...With you that you never knew was recorded...ie Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinski that got Bill Clinton impeached.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Lancero
(3,004 posts)Single party consent is, in many states, all that is necessary for a interaction to be recorded.
StClone
(11,686 posts)This may be apples and oranges but, if you publicly donate money (it's been ruled money is Free Speech) does that then give that charity access to all your money?
Under The Radar
(3,404 posts)I think that he believes those things were private too.
Matt Gaetz likely hated that his payments to girls for sex were private despite being visible on a public forum. And the pictures of those nude girls being shown to US congressmen, and we will likely see compromising photos of Matt before this is over.
Donald Trump spends a lot of money keeping his private relationships private.
Politicians dont like the fact that what they say in private meets if gets leaked to the public or press but it isnt illegal when it happens, but it is slander if proven untrue. So basically nothing is private if someone else knows and it is legal if they wish to tell someone else.
StClone
(11,686 posts)Under The Radar
(3,404 posts)Hekate
(90,727 posts)oldsoftie
(12,558 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)SYFROYH
(34,174 posts)It might be enough that she is a public figure - an elected official, but it was evidence of misconduct that she denied which makes it doubly newsworthy?
unblock
(52,262 posts)and should be legally treated as such unless an explicit release is given.
any romantic partner who takes or is given such a picture knows (or as a reasonable person, should know) that the picture is given in the understanding that it would be kept private and confidential, again unless an explicit release is given.
i think this should be protected by legislation, but i think a court could find that an implied contract exists regardless, that is, it is effectively subject to an implied non-disclosure agreement.
being a public figure does not release someone from this. the public doesn't have any compelling legal interest in nude photos of people without their consent, even if they are public figures.
frankly i can't believe there's debate on this and i really, really can't believe people are blaming the victim.
Kaleva
(36,314 posts)crickets
(25,981 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)Once it gets in the hands of the media, and I use the term loosely, all bets are off. Especially when it comes to a public person.
Thats just the way it has to be. That goes for Donal Trumps hokey non disclosure agreements and a certain prominent womans illegally obtained emails (Im talking about Sarah Palins yahoo mail that was hacked )
unblock
(52,262 posts)if information is of a purely prurient nature, it's not in the public interest and there's no reason to violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality even if it's a public figure.
if there's a legitimate newsworthy aspect, then that can be balanced against the privacy rights (which are somewhat less for a public figure, but it's not zero).
afaik, there's nothing newsworthy about these photos other than that haha, she's nekkid. that's prurient interest only and not newsworthy.
any reasonable person should know it's private and confidential and should respect that. particularly journalists.
a public figure's private emails that show them abusing their office or something like that is entirely different. there's a legitimate public interest in that situation, so the balance tips towards allowing the disclosure.
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)That was the whole point of the ruling.
The congresswoman was accused of having an affair with a subordinate/staffer in violation of House ethics rules. Photos demonstrating such a relationship are certainly newsworthy (though I would hope that a better news organization would blur out some parts of the photos).
meadowlander
(4,399 posts)and the subcontractor later got pissed off and published it all online, we wouldn't have a thread full of smarmy "well that's what you get for sharing sensitive information" posts. The First Amendment wouldn't even come into it.
Could we extend the same legal and ethical protections to women that we extend to corporations? I know it's a big ask, but JFC!
unblock
(52,262 posts)And such matters would be covered by explicit non-disclosure agreements.
The problem is they are not the norm in romantic relationships. it's an obvious implicit understanding.
ShazzieB
(16,435 posts)What is it with all these gross pro revenge posts anyway? Enough already.
Hekate
(90,727 posts)This judges ruling is right down there with: You consented to get raped when you walked in that bar. Dear.
Luciferous
(6,084 posts)MuseRider
(34,112 posts)I can hardly believe it.....dear. Wow that "dear" was the frosting on the shit cake.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Creepy people are celebrating a win for revenge porn (as are a few righteous ones too... just in case someone feels oppressed by inferring "creepy" refers to them).
Response to Nevilledog (Original post)
msfiddlestix This message was self-deleted by its author.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,282 posts)I'm going to self delete my post.
JuJuChen
(2,215 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Kaleva
(36,314 posts)Some here are quick to blame the victim (the gun owner).
Another instance is where some here laugh at those who didn't lock their doors or had left the key to their vehicle in the ignition and they are robbed or there car is stolen.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)a gun is a tool for killing. Since that is the case, it must be handled very strictly. If someone owns a gun and they Mishandle it they are to blame. There is no such thing as an accident with a gun there is only negligence.
Leaving a door unlocked and someone taking advantage of that is a much closer fit. Asking what a rape victim was wearing is on a par as well.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)people can change, and very often do
and photos can be hacked, stolen
Kaleva
(36,314 posts)There's a lot of things we can do that are perfectly legal but most of us don't because the of the possible consequences.
obamanut2012
(26,083 posts)hunter
(38,320 posts)It's been that way since J. Edgar Hoover.
If there are no secret photos of you behaving badly, you can't be a Republican leader.
You do not want to see the Mike Pence file...
LiberalFighter
(50,967 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,205 posts)Copyright law is at issue here? Though there are exceptions to taking pictures of people without their knowledge, generally speaking doesn't copyright belong to the photographer?
I wonder how many critical decisions in the world have been decided by blackmailing someone over something like naked photos.
He who controls the dirt controls the world, and is not likely to let go easily.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)was her (now ex) husband; although given CA law she might own 1/2. She might have done better to file a copyright infringement suit rather than a revenge porn suit against the media outlets (the suit against the husband she will probably win).
Calista241
(5,586 posts)And he's the one subject to liability under the law. As long as Redstate wasn't involved in the hacking / theft of the pictures, then they're in the clear.
I don't know why Katie resigned her seat, and I wonder if she'll consider running again.
Scrivener7
(50,957 posts)"but white people get shot too" thread.
What the fuck is going on around here??
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)There used to be a lot of very diverse groups on DU that had very active subsections. But they were all largely run off in the runup to 2016.
This place has calcified immensely since then. It's a shadow of what it once was.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)From that perspective, it's one of the more interesting forums on the Internet.
obamanut2012
(26,083 posts)Semen swallowing "jokes" about women (I don't care if it's GOP women), rants about trans folks, especially kids.
It goes on and on and on and has gotten even worse.
I have my theory, but I don't feel like being dogpiled and alerted on, so...
Scrivener7
(50,957 posts)to talk about how school shootings mostly get white people.
I don't know where I am anymore.
obamanut2012
(26,083 posts)Scrivener7
(50,957 posts)Nululu
(842 posts)czarjak
(11,278 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The first amendment certainly applies to blogs whether partisan or not.
The extent of what is covered by the first amendment (and copyright law) is something the courts have struggled with...
Courts in several states have upheld "revenge porn" laws.
Ultimately the US Supreme court will have to weigh in on the issue. One of the criteria they would likely use is that of "public interest".
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled that Salem Media, owner of the conservative blog RedState.com, had shown that the photos were matters of legitimate interest involving a public official because they addressed Hills character and qualifications for her position.
RedState.com published one article in October 2019 with a link to a photograph of Hill brushing a female workers hair. The blog maintained the photo did not depict any intimate body part of Hill and argued that Hills actions called into question her character and ability to continue as a representative in American government.
Read the rest at: https://mynewsla.com/crime/2021/04/21/judge-deals-former-congresswoman-another-legal-defeat-in-revenge-porn-suit/
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)The husband is still a defendant in the case. He's the one who took and distributed the images.
If that was to some porn website this ruling would say nothing at all. All the judge's ruling says is that a news organization can run the photos when they're matters of legitimate public interest - which they were.
The only "uncharted legal territory" is the fanciful claim that an image demonstrating an ethical violation of House rules should be protected from news coverage if it's embarrassing enough.
kcr
(15,317 posts)You're right. I think it's a misleading headline. The judge did not protect revenge porn. A free press is important.
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)And the headline is usually a point of view of the ruling...not the actual ruling.
Almost every single time you see a sensationalist headline about a judges ruling...then read the actual ruling there is a wide gulf.
FBaggins
(26,749 posts)It's her own PR spin to influence public opinion. (likely not even to impact the case, but to boost her chances of getting elected again).
Sgent
(5,857 posts)wouldn't she have a joint interest in the photo if it was taken at the time of marriage? Could she have sued for copyright violation?
dlk
(11,572 posts)This judge should have known better.
Kaleva
(36,314 posts)"Certain speech or acts receive limited or no First Amendment protections, such as obscenity, child pornography, threats of violence, and speech that incites riots, violence, or insurrection."
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-riot-violence-or-insurrection.html
With the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision in 1969, it's legal to yell fire in a crowded theater as that is considered speech protected by the 1st Admendement.
However, this ruling codifies misogyny under the guise of free speech. There never seems to be a shortage of women-haters.
BGBD
(3,282 posts)If you consent to both the sex and the pictures and allow another person to possess them, then you no longer have any assumption of privacy regarding them. That of course could be changed with some kind of ND document for them.
So if a guy wants some sexy pics get him to sign a non disclosure first. And also...can you enforce a non-compete clause in a dating contract?
Vinca
(50,285 posts)DontBelieveEastisEas
(512 posts)Man, why didn't I think of that!