Slashdot Mirror
Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a thought-provoking article at TechDirt: "My own representative in Congress, Jackie Speier, has apparently decided to introduce a federal 'revenge porn' bill, which is being drafted, in part, by Prof. Mary Anne Franks, who has flat out admitted that her goal is to undermine Section 230 protections for websites (protecting them from liability of actions by third parties) to make them liable for others' actions. Now, I've never written about Franks before, but the last time I linked to a story about her in a different post, she went ballistic on Twitter, attacking me in all sorts of misleading ways. So, let me just be very clear about this. Here's what she has said: '"The impact [of a federal law] for victims would be immediate," Franks said. "If it became a federal criminal law that you can't engage in this type of behavior, potentially Google, any website, Verizon, any of these entities might have to face liability for violations.' That makes it clear her intent is to undermine Section 230 and make third parties — like 'Google, any website, Verizon... face liability.'"
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
From the way you summarized the article, you seem to oppose it. Why not make websites that advertise revenge porn liable for being a part of the system that ruins peoples lives? If a site is just using the pictures as regular porn without knowing their source, that's one thing. But advertising "come see hot revenge porn" is vile behavior.
There are an uncountable number of ways this could go, but it seems to me that the potential for huge problems stemming from how dangerously close the bill gets to free speech issues is large.
Rights always get adjusted when they get abused in a way that hurts people consistently.
And revenge porn only exists with the intent for jerkbags to hurt people emotionally.
Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?
This is a no-brainer. Revenge porn is an abuse of trust.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
You're confusing Anne Frank and Hellen Keller jokes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
This law is kinda like:
"If you run with scissors and hurt someone it's okay to criminalize and sue the scissor manufacturer."
Congress is very good about sprinting these stupid bills up to get voted on, esp. when they're coming up for re-election. Doesn't matter which party you like, they're all the same. They suck at issues that are difficult and try to enact stupid shit like this.
Sure wish there was a requirement for anybody in decision making government positions to have at least an elementary understanding or science and technology as well as how it applies in real life.
Is there actual real revenge porn out there? From what I have seen it's all been fake (ie. porn stars).
I think they do it due to that silly notion people call "love". I've heard that condition makes people do stupid things, maybe Congress should make a law against it.
It would not be much more useless than this one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Since the law has not yet been drafted, it's kinda hard to say what it's like. But it appears to be the intent to make it a criminal act to upload revenge porn to a website, and to expose the website to some liability for uploaded content.
So I'd say it's more like suing a website for your ex uploading embarrassing pictures of you.
Just get a tattoo of a trademark (like a sports team logo). If anyone publishes a vid as revenge porn, you can get it taken down for IP infraction. I kid you not.
Uh, yeah, there's a big difference between people of a group reclaiming a word, and other people using the word to shit on them.
Except the 1st doesn't trump the 4th.
Within your own house (or other private area), you have a right to control access to allow for a reasonable level of privacy.
That is, allowing you to walk into my home does NOT automatically give you the right to record everything you see there. As the owner, I retain my personal rights to everything there; your rights don't trump mine, because this is MY private space. This also applies to actions within that space with respect to the guest: the homeowner does NOT automatically gain the right to record the guest WITHOUT permission.
Similar protections apply to all places where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists: bathrooms, private hotel rooms, etc.
A minor level of Prior Restrain is perfectly reasonable here - that is, the owner must show PROOF of permission for photographic reproduction, since the possible harm from an illegal post outweighs the benefits of unfettered postings. That is, documented permission from the participant is NOT an onerous burden on the poster, and, in fact, protects the participants' 4th and 1st Amendment rights, which, in this case, are reasonably seen as being greater than the picture owner's.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
... what about the fact that about 95% of "revenge porn" is fake -- just staged to look that way and then sold to people who like the idea? Take a look at gfrevenge . com (purposely not made into a link; absolutely NSFW) and let me know if you think there's one piece of actual revenge porn on there.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
..for those that make the rules...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It will only to serve to restrict your rights when you least expect it.
Support this, i hope it bites you in the ass, soon.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Here's an idea from Todd Knarr, a commenter on the TFA web page:
:
"It might be better to criminalize, not the hosting of such material, but the solicitation of such material. Revenge-porn websites tend to make it clear they want you to post images and videos without the permission of the people in them. So, criminalize solicitation of posting of material without the permission of the people shown in it, and the demanding of payment to take such material down when the request to take it down comes from a person shown.
This potential law is fated to fail.
Frankly, I doubt it was ever intended to succeed.
Politicians do stupid things that make stupid people think they are actually doing something.
I plays well with the hoi polloi.
The supreme court has struck down similar laws, this one is DOA
As a cop I've seen many rape victims. I have also seen a few women who have claimed rape in order to cause problems for their ex-boyfriend/ex-husband/client. Usually it's easy to tell the difference between these categories, sometimes it isn't.
Now imagine the scenario where a woman gives someone permission to take photos, these are published, and then she claims they were not intended to be published. Or she has access to someone else's computer, publishes photos from that computer, and then claims it was a felonious act by the computer owner. Unlike rape, which usually leaves some physical evidence, there is none here. There's just the word of the complainant, no evidence required.
I'm not supporting revenge porn sites. They are vile and heinous places. However, personal relationships, particularly intimate ones, often end up with the people involved willing to to do almost anything to get back at someone they think wronged them. It would be a bad law that allowed someone with a grievance to point the finger at another person and have them convicted of a sexually-related felony without evidence beyond the complainant's word. The victim would likely be required to register as a sex offender and his whole life would be ruined.
There are enough problems caused by bad laws already, let's not add to them.
I'm honestly surprised it isn't us that is doing this stupidity.
No doubt the UK will do it next week. Most likely spearheaded by another ignorant moron like Claire Perry.
You'd have to be blind as Ann Franks to not see this.
Yeah, it sure was dark in that attic.
And it's Ann Frank, not "Franks".
One way to effectively accomplish the same thing without affecting freedom of speech is to assign copyrights of an electronic image where a naked person is the primary focus of the recording to the naked person. Then it becomes a copyright issue and not a free speech issue (that is, if you don't consider copyright to be a free speech abrogation!). This shouldn't affect normal porn since the actor would presumably agree to assign the copyright over to the business or photographer for a fee.
Now, sex acts would probably constitute a joint work, and would be fair game for either party to publish (although royalties, if existing, would be shared), but that means that one party would have to be willing to upload emself to the revenge porn site. Fine, if you wanna do that.
So basically a step behind (ahead?) of how we already make firearms out to be the "bad guy" instead of the people using them unsafely.
If I were to call Prof. Mary Anne Franks a skanky cunt with progressive derangement syndrome exacerbated with fascist tendencies she could have me arrested?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Read the summary, Mary Ann Franks wrote the bill.
"If you run with scissors and hurt someone it's okay to criminalize and sue the scissor manufacturer."
Replace "scissor"[sic] with "gun" and there are an awful lot of people who want to do just that.
That depends on whether you're an employed creating a hostile workplace, making someone fear for their life, etc. by saying those things, actually. In other words, some uses of those words can be criminal (not to mention dumb).
Out of sheer curiosity, how will they know if someone truly messed in the head doesn't post their own picture and claim an ex-lover did it in order to send them to prison? What standards will they use to identify the poster?
Copyright strengthening bill disgustingly disguised as a "think of the victims" bill.
There was at least one revenge porn site that published people's names, addresses, phone numbers, and links to the person's facebook profiles. They also created a service that would allow you to remove those images - for a few hundred dollars. If you don't want those results showing up on google whenever someone googled your name, you were pressured to pay-up.
I'm not really surprised that pro-piracy Mike Masnick is also in favor of revenge porn extortion.
You forgot, One of them just recently said,"We have to pass this law to see what's in it."
That is NOT a good way to pass laws, any law. They will pass it before any of us know what's in it.
"Papers please"
Law does take into effect intent. In this case, is there a legitimate case for "revenge" porn? The topic implies that by nature the content involves posting pictures without somebody else's consent. How is shutting it down and/or charging the owners different from doing so with a site called something like "kp-central.com" which knowingly lists the purpose as housing underage pornography, or an illegal pharmacy/gambling site?
If they want to be legit, include a release with the pics like regular porn. If they get a notice that content is not legit, take it down. If not, go to court/jail.
Is this currently legal in the united states - posting porn photos of people on websites without their consent?
If no, why is a new law needed?
Or it's like...no handing out scissors to running people and expect there to be no consequences for that act.
Wow you have attitude, that is cool! It has nothing to do with the case and you aren't really making any kind of point, but I am impressed by your attitude!
You should follow that up with statements like
"Yo Man, FUCK THE PIGS!"
Or maybe:
"My dad said I have to study and need to be back from Larry's by 8. FUCK THAT NOISE MAN I WILL PARTY ALL NIGHT!"
Yeah, it's exactly like those things, if you ignore the fact that free speech rights are being infringed upon. But hey, I'm sure you're in favor of unconstitutional activities like the TSA and the NSA surveillance, right?
My horse is lonely on a saturday night and opens up Google. 10 minutes later the cops show up
Isn't there a line that protects both free speech and human dignity?
There is. If the pictures were taken without the consent of the person in the picture when they had a reasonable expectation of privacy or are released without the consent of the person who took them e.g. they were stolen by hacking a computer, website, phone etc. then their release should be illegal. However I would be surprised if that is not already the case in which case the person releasing them should be held accountable not the website.
However if the pictures were taken openly and with the consent of the person in them the photographer owns the copyright and can release them as they see fit. If you want to preserve your dignity don't agree to pose for such a photograph. Of course it would also help a lot if the response of society to having a lapse of judgment taken cruel advantage of by an ex was one of compassion and understanding and not firing the victim from their job. Perhaps if we had a society like that people would be less inclined to run to pass new laws every time some idiot comes up with a new way to be antisocial.
Don't let people take naked pictures of you.
Well, as long as you use "skanky", it's pretty clear this is an opinion, not an alleged statement of fact.
Since it's an opinion, both the First Amendment and the assorted defamation/libel/slander laws make it perfectly fine to say.
Mind you, without the "skanky", it's possible that she could SUE you, assuming she had a psychiatrist's report that proved she did not, in fact, have "progressive derangement syndrome exacerbated with fascist tendencies".
In no case could she have you arrested, since saying bad things about her is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The laughable thing is that the actual speech that the founders wanted to protect, political speech, nobody much cares about protecting that.
We must protect the public from the dire effects of political speech from rich people, for example (well, from some rich people; Hollywood types and union bosses are fine). You remember how awful President Steve Forbes was, of course - only tight regulations on political speech can protect us from such things.
Meanwhile, crap that they never had any dream of protecting, and that bears pretty much no resemblance to speech? That's sacrosanct.
Uh. Didn't read all then comments... Too boring and repetitive. "Free speech", " freedom", "1st amendment", waaah waaah waaah. What a bunch of over privileged morons slashdotters have become.
The article doesn't really explain what the law will be. California passed a law and it is VERY limited, but can be used to speed up arrests like this: http://goo.gl/lpz6oK
Posting photos of nonpublic figures (almost exclusively women in reality) and refusing to take them down is NOT freedom.
Jackie Speier tightened her grip and rolled the bill's legal size pages tightly into a bundle of justice. She imagined ramming them right up those opponents' news holes. Suddenly a wickedly devious idea sprang to mind. With only a bit of fumbling she had unrolled a condom over the large legal ramrod. She giggled naughtily, the perversion exciting and awakening her devilish desire. Her tongue playfully teased tip of the latex tinted words, moistening the papered ridges before guiding the powers that be down to her own hot puddle and back again. Ecstasy dragged a throaty moan from her arching form as she drove the transformed wood into the source of her dripping need. Legal hammer blows echoed through her being making everything quake including her desk. As she pounded the very core of her lust again and again she imagined beating down every dissenting netizen once she had forced her illegalese upon them. Jackie's pleasure crested at the mere thought of the series of tubes flooded to their grotesque limit and Speier'ed into submission. A rapturous cry escaped her as the wad of pages burst forth scattering white across the floor like the seed of so many litigious oppressors finally blanketing her personal stench of tyranny across the world.
Jackie Speier dumped the condom and bits of paper from the thoroughly violated coffee cup. Cursing her caffeine addiction once again, she strode towards the break room to make another pot.
This is a work of fiction: The names and depictions herein are fictional, and any similarity to actual events or individuals are purely coincidental.
^-- Note that this disclaimer is also present elsewhere...
This poster obviously has a personal axe to grind with the person who is the topic of this post. THEY ACTUALLY SAY IT IN THE POST ITSELF. I know that 50% of Slashdot comments, historically, are "Is this really what Slashdot has become"... well, it's my turn. Is this really what Slashdot has become?
Silicon Valley was against the DMCA until the safe harbor provisions were added. Corporate lobbyists will have similar provisions added to this bill.
I sorta looked into this a few months back, and saw that the woman* running the site was soliciting for an on-line petition. I emailed her to say that whilst I sympathised with the want to prevent this sort of thing happening, her petition was a vague and indiscriminate demand for legislative action. I suggested that my support and that of anyone with both cerebral function, and an understanding of abstract concepts like liberty, &c., might be loath to encourage mindless action using this issue as yet another critically urgent pretext. I did get a form letter back, but it may have been automatic, it did not address my query. I reckon that it will be effective, just what the proponents of speech regulation and licensing have been waiting for.
*Not sure which one, it seems there's been a boom in that field.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
you are wrong.
this is very basic. pay attention.
the law does, in fact, allow you to slander, divulge, display, swear and so on.
and then in certain cases, where your speech/expression is proven to have caused damage (proven under specified standards which vary with the type of damage alleged), provides for you to be punished.
the First Amendment is about prior restraint.
the issue with the proposed law the OP discusses is one of "chilling effect".
to adopt your own sarcastic-coda style:
Hint 1 - Google "prior restraint"
Hint 2 - Google "chilling effect"
Hint 3 - Google Simpsons "Lisa the Vegetarian"
How is it defamation when it's a video of you voluntarily, gleefully sucking cock?
How about we not use poorly contrived similes to universally blame the victims of revenge porn incidents? That would be cool.
So, where does the adage "If you don't want your naked pictures posted online, don't take naked pictures of yourself" come into play here?
Oh wait, phones have cameras on them, and phones are smarter than their users.
could you post links to some of the most egregious examples, preferably involving attractive people?
1) Your girlfriend sends you naked pics and later you break up.
2) You break up and then you hack into her accounts and steal naked pics.
In the first you actually have the right to share the pics she sent to you.
In the second it's obvious the pics are stolen property and you have no rights to them at all.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Photographers who also publish images need releases to protect themselves, but there is a distinction between making an image available for sale (even via a website), which is not considered publication in a form that would require a release, and the use of the same image to promote a product or service in a way that would require a release. Whether or not publishing a photo via the internet requires a release is currently[when?] being debated in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It is likely that any and all exposure to the public of unreleased photos via any vehicle will constitute civil liability for the photographer.
It's clear that you (as the photographer) can't license the image for use in advertising without a model release, but for anything considered artistic the rules are much more vague. Now I'm not sure exactly where I'd class revenge porn sites, but art is a broad term.
I'm pretty confident that 99.99% of "Revenge Porn" sites are fake. Fake, as in they're not really "Revenge Porn" They're just low budget smut with a theme. Follow a silly and contrived script, throw in some bad acting, bad shaky camera work. Bam. Your fetish site is ready to collect subscriptions from happy fappers.
Porn is cheap, base entertainment with low production values. The content is often an exageration of it's title, or just completely fake.
What would impress me is a bill that hold smut to some truth in advertising. Some skank with wrinkles, saggy boobs, and too much makeup is not a 'teen'