Bill to outlaw 'revenge porn' sent to R.I. House floor

[inanna]

Source: Providence Journal

Posted May. 31, 2016 at 8:28 PM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A bill that would prohibit the posting of certain nude or sexually explicit photos of someone else without their knowledge and consent won approval from the Judiciary Committee Tuesday, moving to the House floor with support from sponsors who have set out to make so-called “revenge porn” illegal.

The bill’s supporters, including Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin, say the legislation is designed to counter abusers who post images of their victims online in an effort to expose them to harassment from others.

Critics such as Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, say the language is far too broad and it poses a serious threat to free speech.

“Any photo that contains some nudity technically violates the bill,” said Brown.

Read more: http://www.providencejournal.com/news/20160531/bill-to-outlaw-revenge-porn-sent-to-ri-house-floor#loadComment

[cstanleytech]

1. Gotta agree if they arent careful any law they pass could get thrown out as being to broad. nt

[inanna]

2. The bill may not be perfect, but something needs to be done.

What are your thoughts about the victims in these situations?

[Warren Stupidity]

4. constitutional rights should not be discarded because "victims".

[Sherman A1]

5. Agreed

While this needs to be addressed by some means, this enters into all sorts of issues of free speech, who owns the image, rights to privacy and alike.

[cstanleytech]

6. Agreed something does need to be done but what exactly can be done in this situation

that doesnt violate the constitution?

[jberryhill]

36. Please point me to anything about victims in the Constitution

Hmmm... not the 4th -- that protects criminals who hide evidence of crimes in their home

...not the 5th -- that's about criminals who don't want to confess to crimes

...not the 6th -- that's about criminals who want a lawyer

...not the 8th -- that's about criminals who want soft punishments.

Damn. Really hard to find the part about the victims in there.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Seems like a violation of first amendment rights.

The government is going to be acting as a censor here in ways that the USSC has already decided are unconstitutional.

[geek tragedy]

7. there's no first amendment right to violate someone else's right of privacy nt

[cstanleytech]

8. Except the complication is this isnt about films and or videos being taken or given without consent

so I am not sure if a privacy argument will fly.

[geek tragedy]

11. is there a link to a specific statute?

obviously if it's people sharing commercial pr0n that's one thing.

but that's not what's typically targeted by a revenge pr0n statute

[jberryhill]

30. People react without reading the actual statutory language all of the time here at DU

Call something a "revenge porn law" and DUers think its fine, regardless of what it says or how it might be applied.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. If I give you a picture of me, it is yours.

If the state tries to censor how you use pictures you own then there is no privacy issue, but there is a first amendment issue.

[geek tragedy]

10. 1) the picture can be taken without consent; 2) sharing a picture

doesn't mean you consent to it being published--that's why models and others sign releases before their images are used

A photo of someone else is not a piece of property like a hammer or kitchen appliance.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. 1) no it can't. NT.

[geek tragedy]

13. So no photo has ever been taken of someone without their knowledge or consent? nt

[cstanleytech]

14. Your not making any sense, this law is about stopping people from sharing private photos and

and films that a consensual adult made and sent to someone else its not about commercial porn.
For example say Dan had a girlfriend named Bonnie and Bonnie as a surprise to Dan made a video of herself playing with a very adult toy and send it to Dans phone, ok?
With me so far?
Now Dan and Bonnie are happy for many months but then suddenly they start arguing and Bonnie dumps Dan because hes acting like an asshole, Dan though being in his asshole mood decides to post the video Bonnie sent him of her playing with her very adult toy online.
Now the question is even though Dan is an asshole for posting the video online is he criminally liable? This new law would make him liable even though he didnt ask her to send the video to him she did that on her own free will and its in his possession and in the past it would have been considered his property.

But what if Dan one day was rifling through her drawers when she was in the kitchen making dinner and found the video and stole it and posted it you ask? Well then Bonnie has a legitimate gripe because thats not consensual on her part since Dan would have stolen it and existing law already covers most of that.

[geek tragedy]

15. when you buy a Blu-Ray, under US law do you have a right to put its contents

up on your personal website?

Why no, you can even go to jail for that.

[cstanleytech]

16. There are limits to copyrighting private photos and videos.

http://info.legalzoom.com/personal-photos-copyright-laws-20300.html

So Bonnie could try to sue Dan for copyright infringement but I wouldnt be willing to place any money on her winning since she was the one that made the video and then sent it to "his" phone.

[geek tragedy]

17. That's current copyright law. The state is more than able to pass additional laws

restricting the unauthorized use of copyrightable material of this nature.

It's really pretty simple: if you don't have permission to publish a non-public figure's nude photos, and you publish them maliciously, go to jail.

It's really not that hard to avoid being a completely evil douchebag.

[inanna]

19. +1

[cstanleytech]

20. Not if it violates the Constitution they cannot which is the problem here if

they write the law and its to overly broad such as infringing on a persons right to do with their legal property as they wish.
For example the state cannot pass a law banning the sale of used books though publishers would love it if they did.

[geek tragedy]

21. every law is suspectible to challenge if it's overbroad.

but there's absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a properly tailored revenge porn law.

The state is absolutely within its power to punish the unauthorized publication of private nude photos, provided enough public interest safeguards etc are built int.

Revenge porn is not constitutionally protected free speech.

[cstanleytech]

23. I think scotus is going to have to decide this one. nt

[geek tragedy]

24. other states have successfully passed them and used them to convict

California, for example--and its final version wasn't even challenged by the ACLU.

[cstanleytech]

25. Did that case go all the way to SCOTUS?

[geek tragedy]

26. defendants didn't bother to appeal, but it was a very narrowly tailored statute nt

[cstanleytech]

27. Ah, still would be interesting to see if it would survive a SCOTUS challenge because if it

did then it could be a blueprint for other such laws.

[geek tragedy]

28. 34 states have such laws. Some did overstep, like Arizona nt

[inanna]

29. Also, laws have been passed in Canada and the UK.

[jberryhill]

31. Okay, so, some pervert flashes himself at a woman on the train...

She pulls out her phone and takes a picture of it.

He runs off the train at the next stop.

She goes to the police. Obviously, all they have is a picture of the guy and no way to catch him.

On his penis is a tattoo of Popeye the Sailor. In the rest of the picture, his face is blurred and no other distinguishing marks.

Can she publish the picture of the penis and ask people if it is anyone they know?

Yes or no?

It is a nude picture, published without his consent.

[geek tragedy]

34. no expectation of privacy, he would waive any such claims by committing that crime, and also

unclean hands.

[jberryhill]

35. lol - How do you know his hands were unclean?

Do we have the text of this particular statute handy?

(also try Google Images: Pulitzer Prize Vietnam Photo)

[geek tragedy]

37. here's the bill, looks like the big problem would be vagueness--

relies too much on terms like "reasonable" and "legitimate"

http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7537.pdf

Really poorly drafted in other ways (doesn't define any of the predicate acts (capture, record, store, receive) , and they've been working at this for years apparently.

It's okay to debate the general concept of such statutes--they can work if drafted properly--but I wouldn't want to defend this hot mess in court.

[jberryhill]

39. It crimininalizes a Pulitzer Prize winning news photograph

There is nothing in there expressly about newsworthiness, just a vague "public interest" or "legitimate purpose" exception which seems more geared to reporting crime (my "flasher" example).




The bombing killed two of Kim Phúc's cousins and two other villagers. Kim Phúc was badly burned and tore off her burning clothes. Associated Press photographer Nick Ut's photograph of Kim Phúc running naked amid other fleeing villagers, South Vietnamese soldiers and press photographers became one of the most haunting images of the Vietnam War. In an interview many years later, she recalled she was yelling, Nóng quá, nóng quá ("too hot, too hot&quot in the picture. New York Times editors were at first hesitant to consider the photo for publication because of the nudity, but eventually approved it. A cropped version of the photo—with the press photographers to the right removed—was featured on the front page of the New York Times the next day. It later earned a Pulitzer Prize and was chosen as the World Press Photo of the Year for 1972.

I'm pretty sure nowadays there are people who would suggest that the visually graphic reporting of war does not serve a "legitimate purpose".

[geek tragedy]

41. as I said, I wouldn't want to defend that particular statute

They should have just copied and pasted the California statute, which requires specific intent and actual harm

[smirkymonkey]

42. +1000

Lots of douchebags on this thread.

[inanna]

18. Definition of "revenge porn"

>>Your not making any sense, this law is about stopping people from sharing private photos and
and films that a consensual adult made and sent to someone else its not about commercial porn.<<

The term “revenge porn,” though frequently used, is somewhat misleading. Many perpetrators are not motivated by revenge or by any personal feelings toward the victim. A more accurate term is nonconsensual pornography, defined as the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent. This includes both images originally obtained without consent (e.g. by using hidden cameras, hacking phones, or recording sexual assaults) as well as images consensually obtained within the context of an intimate relationship.

http://www.cybercivilrights.org/faqs/

[cstanleytech]

22. The first one with images and or video obtained without consent are areas were

the law would probably survive a scotus challenge but the one where people were sent the videos or given them ?????? If the entire law is allowed to stand it could have repercussions down the road in others area.
For example imagine if publishers win the right sue people for selling a book on amazons used book section claiming its not really your book? Sure you have a physical copy but they claim that they didnt grant you the right to sale it later on to someone else only to read it.

[jberryhill]

32. In fact, you could make each successive purchaser pay you

[jberryhill]

38. Can you please post the statutory definition in question here?

Just because some website somewhere defines it that way has NOTHING to do with what this proposed state law says.

I'm kind of curious what "sexually graphic" means.

Do you know who Phan Thị Kim Phúc is?

[JonathanRackham]

33. The whole problem is solved by mandating written consent.

No paperwork = jail time. I know a girl who was burnt by her prick ex. Hell will not be deep enough for his sick ass. The ACLU is not helping those that need it the most.

[jberryhill]

40. "The ACLU is not helping those that need it the most."

Who should the ACLU be "helping"?