Slashdot Mirror
California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'
coondoggie writes "Call it a modern day love story: Boy meets girl; they 'like' each other; they privately sext naked pics of each other to celebrate; girl loses interest, breaks it off; guy responds by posting previously private pics to Internet site specializing in revenge; girl has little recourse, suffers much humiliation, ridicule. There is a lot of pressure to change the outcome of such wretched stories, which seem to be pervasive these days. Some relief is on the way the way, at least in California, where this week the governor signed one of the nation's first laws making so-called 'revenge porn' illegal. Specifically, the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly."
we accept people get naked and do fun things?
That would be far more beneficial in the long run.
You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.
TO Be Clear: IT's a horrible, rude, dhouch beg, jack ass movie to put that private stuff on the internet. I"m not siding with those assholes. It would just be nice that instead of going 'OMG she does what I do, but now its in a picture!' to 'So what, everyone does it, lets get the asshole that distribute the picture.'
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What a strange time we live in.
First, that the government needs to go stick it's nose into business like this. Second that people feel they deserve privacy for pictures they send to third parties unencumbered by any business contract or doctor/lawyer privilege. Who exactly gets to determine when a disclosure of photographs is or is not allowed? Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account? What about when someone changes their mind? What about when pictures are taken by a the second party? What about by a third party?
Strange.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
How the hell will they prove it's revenge? If you don't want naked pics of you posted on the internet, don't let him take pictures. This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of.
It seems that _positive_ internet laws only get passed when it is almost "too late". This one falls into that category, methinks. I've never understood why people engage in "revenge porn" in the first place. But I guess this gives victims of this practice - mostly women I am guessing - some way to fight their ex-boyfriends or ex-lovers. Sounds like a good & needed law overall. I support it...
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly
So it's okay if I post pictures of an ex if I don't intent to shame him/her? Or if they were never a partner, just a friends with benefits? What if I print up some fliers and drop them over a freeway overpass? This law sounds too narrowly defined.
Why not just make it legal for the ex-gf to kick the guy in the balls?
Is there anything to suggest that this law will be any more effective at curbing the free distribution of illicit data than previous laws currently failing to do the same? I'm guessing "no."
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
unless you have a picture of their tiny dick first!
Don't send naked photos of yourself to people you really don't know. In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.
"Some relief is on the way the way"
You are fucking worthless, Slashdot "editors".
She could accuse him of rape. That would probably work.
That law will be a strong deterrent. You can expect all this reprehensible behavior to stop once it's enacted.
You gave me the image, its mine to do with as i please.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I can't imagine how they will prove intent or source in most cases. Hint: they won't. This will make the situation worse, with the legal system being used for false-flag blackmail of exes in revenge.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
First thing I was thinking when I read the title is when a person have sex with someone only with the intend to hurt a lover. It can also be taped and posted to the lover and this can lead to suicide or even murder.
If it's limited to only those cases where someone can prove "intent to cause serious emotional distress", then it's not going to be very effective. I see loopholes o'plenty.
hey girls and women: if you dont want some loser you dumped posting pics of you on the net then dont take nude pics of yourself,
people need to get over their hangups with nudity, and they need to understand there is a difference between nude photos and porn, (hint: its not porn until sexual activity is involved)
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
...but judge, my intent was to impress my friends, potential girlfriends, etc. with the hotness of my ex. ...but judge, my intent was to let other guys know that such a hottie was now available, so that she might find a new boyfriend more easily. ...but judge, this photo is a work of art and thus protected by the first amendment.
etc...
Intent seems a high barrier to prove...
This is just going to be used to supress scandals that politicians get in. I expect it will be 90% used by men against women. To hide workplace harrasment, adultry, child abuse, and prostitution.
Funny all the talk of sexism these days yet no one seems to have an issue with the claim that only the guy does this? So girls never post or try to shame an EX? Yah im sure thats right......... Oh I get it if the girl does it then it must be all about GIRL POWER!! and im sure its fine
1. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to your boss and your mother.
2. Don't post anything you wouldn't want your boss, and mother to read.
3. Don't take, or allow to be taken pictures you wouldn't show to your boss and mother.
4. Nothing is ever anonymous!
I live by them, and so should you.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
If the picture is uploaded to Craigslist with the caption: "For a good time, call..." or to one of the several services that exist to serve this exact market (with fields for name and contact info of the victim, no less!), no, intent is not hard to prove at all.
DRAT FOILED AGAIN!
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Proving intent and clarifying when something was "posted publicly" is tough to do. For instance, what's to stop a slimy person from posting nude pics to a website that has a "We're still together" button that acts as a dead man's switch, such that if it isn't pressed in time, the pics get publicized. Who's doing the publishing then? And if it's one of the involved partners, when did it actually occur? When they uploaded them pre-breakup, or when they refused to lie later about their status?
Alternatively, I can just see folks posting nude pics of ex-partners with statements along the line of "Check out what I'm missing, now that we're not together any more." Was it done for revenge? Because the person is pining away? Because they want to make others jealous of what they had? Who knows? Laws regulating intent are always difficult to enforce, and are generally ill-advised.
Even so, I do like the spirit of what this law is trying to do. People should have some control over how information that they provided to others in confidence is used. Whether than control should be mandated by law or regulated via codes of conduct and other societal factors, however...
Playing devil's advocate here, clearly the person who went out with them thought they looked good. Unless they didn't, and then people would just think the poster can only date ugly people.
Why should the law care about whether or not there has been a romantic relationship, or even if there's nudity?
How about, if you have pictures of another person, given with reasonable expectations that it was for your private use (i.e. you do not have any signed permission to the contrary), why not just make it illegal to make these public with intent to bully, defame, humiliate, or shame?
Celebrities and other people in the public eye excepted, as always, or half the entertainment industry would crash overnight.
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
1) Guy meets girl. Girl is into him, sexts him some scandalous photos.
2) Guy dumps girl.
3) Girl leaks those photos of herself onto the internet, prosecutes guy.
(Feel free to swap the sexes in the case above if it makes you feel better.)
Think it won't happen? Wanna bet? Something like 8% of rape charges taken to the police are fabricated.
Ah, to be a defense lawyer.
Your honor:
1) My client did not create the image.
2) My client and the accuser never agreed to keep the images private, and my client never understood the images to be private.
3) My client never intended to cause the accuser to have serious emotional distress.
4) The accuser never suffered serious emotional distress.
5) Assuming, arguendo, that my client created the image, understood that it would be kept private, intended to cause the accuser serious emotional distress, and indeed caused serious emotional distress, the content of my client's speech does not constitute a true threat or violate another lawful criminal statute. As such, it is protected speech and may not be the subject of criminal prosecution. See United States v. Cassidy, (D.Md.2011) 814 F. Supp. 2d 574.
Damn, if only I could charge $500 an hour for those 5 minutes, I could have bought myself a very nice lunch today.
This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Just imagine, even one or two dozen people watch that two hour video of you doing all kinds of stuff.
DOJ are gonna need some gay, lesbian, assexual, whatever judges and lawyers, because none can predict what happens if they of all get a boner in a courtroom.ROFL.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
Yeah, this will definitely survive a first amendment challenge. /s
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
This seems like it falls in the area that's already covered by intimidation, extortion and blackmail. i.e. "You will not break-up with my lame, abusive ass, or I will hurt you publicly."
Your not naked under you clothes. You are clothed under you clothes. You are under your clothes. And if your wearing clothes you are not naked. Also these incidents normally involve picture that were intended as pornograpy. No one is sending nudes to a lover for medical reasons.
If in 2008 the NSA people had no problem sharing the conversations of soldiers with their girlfriends between them just imagine how they would be sharing now whatever digital you take with your girlfriend now. So just label it "national security" instead of revenge and should be ok. Or stop taking any digital media that is not meant for sharing with other people, no matter how good or bad are going your relations with your girlfriend, with no privacy that is the first thing that will be misused.
If that's the case, then why did it pass a predominately Democratic state legislature and get signed by a Democratic governor?
This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!
So Democrats elected Regan and Schwarzenegger?
Just another day in Paradise
Just make porn require consent of the lead stars. This will never be true for revenge porn. EZPZ.
Captcha: Puberty
at least not in europe.
Republican governors have controlled the state of California for much more time than democrat governors in the last century. One of those governors even became a president of the US and the most revered symbol of the conservative movement (Ronald Reagan).
California is a blue state, but it's not like republicans are rare here. I live in San Diego and my congressman is a republican.
I can see the intent of the law, and I think the people that do it are slimeballs, but who is going to decide this? If you post pictures and say "Look how hot my ex girlfriend was" are you trying to shame here? What if you include "I wish she would take me back but she is too good for me." Who is going to decide what your actual purpose was? And what if you are in the pictures as well? There are too many questions and judgement calls with this law.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Hardly. California elected both Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger governor.
First of all, I get where you're going with your argument. "Technically the picture is mine, I should be able to do with it what I please." But take a step back from the legalistic line of reasoning and see who this law benefits and who it hurts:
Hurts:
Websites whose business depends on the sharing of these pictures
The people wanting to share these pictures
Benefits:
Women who would otherwise be shamed
Men, whose girlfriends now feel more at ease giving pictures, knowing it will be illegal to share them
So tell me if I'm missing something, but unless you fall in the former category (which I find unlikely), you have no reason to be opposed to this legislation, right?
for pictures posted on sites outside the US?
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
"with the intent to shame the person publicly" What cretinous society would EVER allow such a law in the first place.
This is the standard 'self-incriminating' concept loved by rotten societies that think 'law' exists to piss on the people at the bottom. If you are smart or rich, you can NEVER fall foul of such 'laws' because you will NOT self-incriminate by validating the 'intent' requirement in any way. Rich, and your powerful lawyer will tear to shreds such a vague concept. Smart, and you'll ensure your posted pix are justified by some other 'reason'.
A DECENT law either allows everyone to publish such images, or bans EVERYONE. But a blanket ban is impossible in American society where issues of contract, ownership, and freedom of expression come first. Of course, Americans ALREADY have individual recourse to bans on publication via explicit injunctions issued by courts, but the sheeple are too THICK to understand that this is the only decent way to implement vague legal powers.
This hard law, if it stands (unlikely), impacts only offenders from certain classes of society, and this breaks the principle that everyone should be equal under the law. A person with money can ALWAYS fight such a charge with a near 100% likelihood of success. A person with limited funds will be at the mercy of prosecutors, who may expect a near 100% conviction rate. The powerful LOVE laws like these- laws with inbuilt "get out of jail free" clauses for people belonging to the 'better' classes.
And here's a question for you sheeple still to thick to get why laws like these are ALWAYS bad. A porn producer owns explicit contractually produced images of his ex-wife. If he places such images on a 'revenge' website, has he broken this law?
Another knee-jerk law promoted by the trash press to make the sheeple THINK they are helping build a more 'moral' society. The law is NOT a game. Societies should have the minimal of written laws required for sensible function, and leave the rest to individual responsibility (don't get photographed naked if you have an issue with others seeing the images) and special court injunctions.
The photographer has the copyright unless he is working for the subject under an agreement specifically assigning them copyright of the photos, or it is in the normal course of his job duties as employee for another to take such photos and he is within normal working hours or on assignment and expected to be taking such photos.
The subject has image use rights which are normally waived via contract. If no release is signed for those rights, the photographer still holds copyright, but cannot use the image commercially.
Not to mention what happens if the Feds come knocking at your door and you do not have a model consent form and a copy of her D/L to show she was not underage at the time you took the photos....
But yeah, copyright falls with the person taking the pictures. Stranger still it doesn't matter who owned the camera if you get a decent lawyer to fight for you and you are the one who used the device to compose the shot and capture it.
Just move to France (or similar countries) where you automatically own the right to all images of you (in private settings) unless a valid contract says otherwise.
It can't prevent pics from leaking (e.g. Kate Mid), but the leaker can be slapped with decent fines.
California State Assembly: 52 Democrats, 25 Republicans, 3 vacant
California State Senate:28 Democrat, 12 Republican
I'm thinking This legislature isn't passing laws to, and I quote, "protect Republicans and their "Perverted" ways"
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Here's a formula guaranteed to prevent your being the victim of revenge porn: don't send anyone pictures you don't want to see on the Internet. Absolutely foolproof, guaranteed.
Thing being: people wanna see her boobs, people don't wanna see my skinny johnson.
As a result, her pictures get circulated and mine get deleted. WORKS FOR ME!
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
This is not relevant to slashdot readers! Having sex is a requirement prior to becoming a revenge porn victim.
If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide.
If you're doing something wrong, come sit by me...
I was thinking something similar. Not necessarily that such would happen in a majority of the cases but that the potential for abuse is there.
It is unlikely to be motivated by the quest for profit, however. Criminal proceedings aren't likely to yield profit unless blackmail is involved, and the danger in blackmail will deter some cases.
I see the most likely abusers of this law as the spurned seeking revenge. Granted, few will want to post pictures of themselves online and make an accusation to get revenge. But the potential payoff (i.e. sending your #(*@ing ex to jail, that stupid !@&*!) is high enough to mean that some will try it. Combine this with the fact that males in particular are often treated guilty of sexual crimes until proven innocent and you have a huge potential for abuse.
But if they don't doit with the intent to shame the person publicly, it's legal?
Well, Cali does like its movie stars, but Regan was a different time in Cali, and Schwarzenegger would have been a Democrat in most states.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Because, God help us an inner sense of decency isn't doing it. It sucks that we need a law for this situation, but we DO need a law for this situation. And, the problem has been around for a long time. I believe it was ex-Miss America Vanessa Williams who had candid nude pics her boyfriend took of her leaked to the press.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You've got your verbs mixed up... you said "prevent" when you really meant "prohibit". Laws don't prevent you from doing anything. Instead they define behavior which you "shall not" do and define penalties for violating that prohibition. The difference is important because prevention implies a mechanism to keep the prohibited action from occurring. That is not the case with laws.
This seems so bad on many levels. I wonder what the burden of proof is on the origination of the online posting. Depending on who is more vindictive, what's to stop a person posting their own photo and blaming their ex to cause them to receive up to 6 months in jail and $1000 fine. We know how wonderful the legal system is at getting to the bottom of the source of online activity. If we need laws to guard against vindictive douch-baggery .. it can go both ways.
This is a NO BRAINER...
DON'T ALLOW NUDE PICS TO BE TAKEN BY LOVERS!!!
IT WILL, IT DOES, ITS GONNA END UP on the internet.
IF you are too ignorant to know this, you need a lot more than a BS law to "help" you.
LoL
Yes, they did. Also, familiarize yourself with the acronym RINO while you're brainstorming another mediocre witticism.
Nudes can ruin you. I had a friend who was in a situation where his GF at one point needed cash and thought it a good idea to pose naked for big naturals, a big tit porn site. He told me first in confidence but eventually everyone found out. He stayed with her for about three years and he almost proposed to her but in the end it didn't work out and he left her. One of the biggest worries he had was "what if I married her and our kids friends or classmates find those pictures?" The entire family would be disgraced. Plus I even think one of his then coworkers found her pictures.
So those nudes can easily ruin a girls life and scare off potential boyfriends or ruin relationships.
And I'm always sharing them with my friends and girl friends, I also have a profile online where I post those proudly pictures of me and my dick, I am very proud, it's a nice dick I have.
The other day I showed my dick to one of my friend for the first time, he told me : "Nice, I have a similar one".
If anyone would like to see it, just let me know
It's called Tort law. Specifically, it's the charge of defamation that allows someone to sue another person for spreading information (false or not) with the intention of ruining that person's reputation. Why is California criminalizing a formerly civil law violation?
This is clearly a case where one party's reasonable expectation of privacy is violated by the actions of another party.
The Supreme Court has ruled that you have no expectation of privacy when disclosing information to a third party not covered by privilege. Boyfriends /girlfriends are not covered.
People (women, according to the FA and others) may have copyright claims, but a better suggestion would be to have enough common sense to not distribute intimate pictures to third parties. But, that's "victim blaming", and we can't have that, can we?
To be fair though, I believe San Diego or at least parts of it are Republican strongholds due to Pendleton and Coronado, etc. Just like Orange County is a Republican stronghold. It does seem to be changing however.
~S
do you want to?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
So Democrats elected Regan [sic] and Schwarzenegger?
Yes, they did. You might have heard of Reagan Democrats? Did you realize that only two states voted against Reagan in 1984 (IIRC)? Schwarzenegger ran against a Republican in his first election and got well over 50% of the vote in his second election. Someone other than Republicans were voting for them!
In the 2012 Presidential election, California had more people vote for Mitt Romney (4,202,127) than every other state except Texas (4,555,799). There are a lot of Republicans in California, especially through the Central Valley. It's just that there are a lot more Democrats.
...we can ban next.
I don't think it's just San Diego. In 2012 California voted 61%-37% obama-romney, in what I would consider, a race where the democrat had a very strong advantage (but that's just my opinion).
To say that republicans in California are as rare as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia is not just an exaggeration, it is complete nonsense. They don't execute you in California for for switching to the republican party.
We have had a Republican governorship for 60% of the time since 1975. One of the only 2 democrat governors we've had during that time was recalled.
So let's see, about a third?
That's far more common than Christians in Saudi Arabia, who are probably less than 5% of the national population.
The problem is that the internet has a VERY long memory...not just "nudes", but other items as well. Once its out there.... there really is no way to get it back...
Just a one example.... Many people that used to post on USENET in their "younger" days are now finding that items that they had thought were LONG gone off the USENET "spool" are now coming back to haunt them. This is because when google first started its google groups service, one of the items that they had done was to purchase old backup tapes of USENET posts and indexed all of that into their engines. Google bought Deja-News and other usenet providers to gain access to the data. Suddenly stuff that normally would have been gone in 18months is now available to search/find.
The only way to post nowadays to assume that the information will be seen by the ONE person you may not want to see the info in 5-10-20 years.. So be careful what gets out there...Slashdot included.
--
Time is on my side
The thing about this law is that it's very specific in contrast to what it was before. "Revenge porn" is horrible, but it's always been illegal because you have to sign a release form to be legally published on the internet or in magazines etc... If you don't, you have to agree that you own the rights to redistribute the video, in other words, your ex did not give you the right to redistribute the video online and probably never will and therefore it's pretty damn illegal, especially if your ex is under 18 in the video.
With my ex of 7-years, I looked around my whole computer for our porn pictures and videos and I put it all on one disc and gave it to her. I deleted everything that was on that disc and she did the same for me. We still talk but we weren't douches to each other. In fact, I was the one that insisted on doing it that way, that way she knows for sure that I don't have any more pictures of her even though she completely trusts me without doing that. Now, my waifu and I have some porn but it stays on one encrypted hard drive, and it's external, and only connected to the computer when we're pushing the videos from our cameras to it. Why so secure? Because we want privacy from any peepers. We keep the drive in the closet in our bedroom with the rest of the fun stuff but we're permanently married (cannot get divorced by law unlike in America where divorces are as common as pooping) so there won't be any revenge porn for us.
Revenge porn is the result of making bad decisions, and if you break it off to the point that your SO would hate you then just exactly who's the bad guy/girl?
So you freely gave your pictures to someone who turned out to be a douche-bag? Wow... That's never happened before...
What are the newest revenge sites? They all get taken down so quickly.
At least it's better than the Slashdot beta site! OMG my eyes! And no collapseable comments? PULEEZE!
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Why do we need another criminal law? There is already defamation, which may be extended to "public disclosure of private facts" with the intent of causing harm. So the jerks who do this should get sued and have to pay the victim some damages, like a year's salary or so. This would compensate the actual victim.
Instead we create another criminal law so we have another reason to put people in prison, this time for just being an asshole. The offender's livelihood may be damaged if they are imprisoned, thereby reducing their ability to contribute to society and/or to compensate the victim. Notice that the state seeks to punish in a way that benefits the state and the hangers-on of the state, such as the prison-industrial complex, rather than being truly concerned for the victim. Thus, the trend toward the criminalization of everything.
The greatest example of course is drug abuse. Can anyone explain how exactly anyone can abuse a drug? Does a drug care what you do with it? One can abuse themselves with a drug. Then the requisite explanation that needs to be offered is: How exactly is it a crime if I abuse myself? Everyone must answer just one simple question for themselves: Who owns my body?
Crimes should be strictly limited to the following: 1. murder; 2. robbery, theft, and fraud; 3. rape, assault, and reckless endangerment; 4. vandalism or reckless/intentional destruction of another's property (this includes polluting).
In all of these, for an actual crime to occur, there must be both INTENT and a tangible VICTIM. Ie., a human being or a group thereof must have actually been killed, injured, physically violated, or deceptively deprived of their property (the victim may also be a corporate entity in the case of crimes 2 and 4). We'll leave crimes against animals for a separate discussion. Thus, there can be no crimes against "society." Criminal fraud must involve intentionally selling something that is not what it is said to be. Ie., a lie must have occurred to make the customer part with their money. Otherwise, it is civil fraud which is basically a contract dispute.
All other matters are civil, period.
Any deviation from this will result in a spiraling out of control of the state until everything is regulated down to when you can cum, and there are so many crimes that they can find a way to put you in the joint if you don't agree to fuck your customers for the NSA. Ie., exactly the situation we are in or are approaching.
I welcome arguments explaining why anything else should be a crime. But if there isn't both intent and a tangible human person(s) who are harmed physically or deprived of property (including corps.), I'm not listening.
Morons posting such pix of their ex-girlfriends have been making it impossible to find girlfriends willing to be photographed...
Regan was a democrat until 1962.
What a horrible, fearful, shuttered way to live your life.
It will be very hard to enforce. You can always accidentally 'lose' your phone or computer which contains those pictures. Then someone would 'inadvertently' post those pictures somewhere just for fun. It will be hard to prove that it is for revenge.
... and this will be struck down as a 1st amendment violation.At a great legal cost to the CA tax payers, so that some politicians can gain brownie points.
Porn production is constitutionally protected in California. Ever wonder why the porn industry in CA is so big? Well, the government tried to shut it down, and the CA supreme court ruled it was protected speech, essentially making the production legal. Since producers would face potential criminal charges in other states,many located in CA because of this. (The amount of "talent" looking to make it big in Hollywood also probably played a role).
Because of this, "revenge porn" should fail to meet the 2nd condition of the Miller Test, thus is will be protected speech (per state law simple porn is not patently offensive in CA).
As such, the government cannot restrict its publication based on the intent of the distributor.
So you would tell your mom and your boss that your retirement plan is to try heroin, resume smoking cigarettes, and have unprotected sex with 28 year old Thai hookers?
Offhand, I'd say that Sacramento and Los Angeles are Democrat. Oakland and San Francisco are so far left that they're national embarrassments.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!
So Democrats elected Regan and Schwarzenegger?
Well, they're more rare now than they were then. And Reagan couldn't be elected dog catcher by today's Republicans. As politicians go, he was pretty pragmatic and centrist. And on occasion we do elect an idiot like the Ah-nold the Governator.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
What's up with making all those super specific laws?
Over here it's illegal to publish nude pictures of a person without their consent (or other compromising pictures). Doesn't matter if s/he is your ex, your current partner, your friend, your neighbour who likes lying topless in the garden, or even your stalking victim.
So when this posting nude pictures of your ex became popular, we didn't need any new laws.
Offhand, I'd say that Sacramento and Los Angeles are Democrat. Oakland and San Francisco are so far left that they're national embarrassments.
National embarrassments? Well, not really, at least on the European scale of embarrassment. For example, the People's Republic of San Francisco ensures that all people living there have health coverage. Not a very Republican idea but certainly not an embarrassing one either. San Francisco also spends a bunch of money it gets from tourists in the form of taxes they pay to fund the arts there. What's embarrassing about San Francisco is that it's a pain in the ass to drive there literally because the streets are in such bad shape. I was there just yesterday and my tailbone is still recovering from the experience.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Just don't play the crazy social game and seek fulfillment elsewhere.
Keep social bonds only with professional restraint.
The world has more to explore than you could in a lifetime, even without the irrational social game.
and what is if my intent is to give the world some seriously awesome amateur porn?
I have this magical resolution for these kind of sittuations:
DON'T TAKE NAKED PICTURES OF YOURSELF!
Why get worked up over this law? They're obsessed over nudie pics while our meaningful private data is being ransacked!
Slashdot, where users tend to be more on the 'consumer' end of the porn spectrum. Hence all the "if you didn't want to be on the internet, then you should have checked the toilet for a hidden cam before you sat down" rationalizers.
this law sounds like a constitutionally bad one, but the intent and the motive are good.
I'm not sure what to think about this unless I can see some examples of what we're talking about. Does anyone have a link?
Reality has a liberal bias
Do you mean douchebag
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Are they outlawing it too?
This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records
by any means the image of the intimate body part or parts of another
identifiable person, under circumstances where the parties agree or
understand that the image shall remain private, and the person
subsequently distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause
serious emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious
emotional distress, is guilty of disorderly conduct and subject to
that same punishment.
Implies that the photographer AND the distributor are the same person.
Also, it implies that "parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private".
So I guess, one person does not agree or claims not to understand that and it's OK?
And then there's that "intent to cause serious emotional distress" bit.
What if that was not the intention, but say... pride? "Look everyone! This is what I get to fuck every night!"
You can be distressed all you like baby, I did this out of love, not to cause you harm.
What about lack of intention cause the photos were on a phone, computer, drive etc. that got lost or stolen?
"I don't know how those photos got online you honor. I lost my phone after getting drunk when this person broke up with me."
Nor does the existing disorderly conduct law address that:
(4) (A) Any person who photographs or records by any means the
image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable
person, under circumstances where the parties agree or understand
that the image shall remain private, and the person subsequently
distributes the image taken, with the intent to cause serious
emotional distress, and the depicted person suffers serious emotional
distress.
This looks like basically one of those "Strong on X" laws, which protect no one but which make the public paranoid cause they can get innocent people in jail easily and retroactively should the judge have a bad day.
And then there's that bit where the lower half of the boob is now far more dangerous, but that was already there.
(B) As used in this paragraph, intimate body part means any
portion of the genitals, and in the case of a female, also includes
any portion of the breasts below the top of the areola, that is
either uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Don't you have some law in the USA where people can restrict the diffusion of pictures where they appear, porn or not.
In France we have "droit à l'image". It is a form of copyright that protects the subject of a picture.
Intent is different than outcome. If the outcome is they are embarrassed but the intent was just to share what was once a part of the perpetrators life then no crime. This bill just looks unenforceable unless someone is dumb enough to post the images with text saying the intent is to embarrass which opens up the door for false accusations where the images are posted by the victim themselves to get revenge on the purported perpetrator.
I think the intent is to keep the offence relatively narrow, since there are a lot of ways these images could come to be public, and not all - probably most - do not seserve or require the full majesty of the law. As for questions of intent, well, that's why we have courts.
[FUCK BETA]
What about men with no penis size issues? Take a picture of my penis and post it online and people will go, "Oh. It's a penis. Seen one of those before."
It's not terribly interesting. It's not abnormally large or small or bent or coloured or pierced or tattooed or covered in growths. It's a penis.
Should that give me the right to publicly humiliate a woman with impunity?
No way this could ever possibly go wrong...
So I give the pictures to a buddy and HE posts them. Problem solved. Since the pictures were sent to me they are my property to do with as I see fit, and that means I can give them to someone else. What THEY do with it after that is not my concern, and if they were never romantically involved with the person, oh well.
Yeah, real iron-clad law they hammered out here. Lotsa thought went into this one.
Forgot to mention that regarding the "strong on X" stuff.
Narrow on the area of effect, vague on intent yet powerful in the headlines.
California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'*
*for certain values of "outlaws", "porn" and/or "revenge".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Yes... they were both popular actors as well as politicians.
...to handle these issues in civil courts, and/or through existing laws.
Instead of creating yet another crime.
And then there's the option of writing a detailed AND precise law that would actually address the issues it was supposedly created to handle.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Something that is being overlooked: "identifiable". This law makes it specifically illegal to post pictures that would identify the person, with the intent of shaming or embarrassing them.
So, unless your ex's boobs or vagina are world-famous and/or recognisable at a glance, you probably won't run afoul of this law as long as your pictures don't include anything that would identify her: face, name tag, etc. Keep the selfies coming! :D