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.'"

Comments

Freedom of Speech?

[mi]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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...

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is freedom of speech, much like many other things that are found to be illegal based on other grounds. Soon I bet, there will be so many laws against USA websites, that nobody is going to want to risk hosting their website inside the USA.

This basically is requiring all content to be moderated before being available to the internet community, there goes a huge chunk of the internet.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Ralph Wiggam]

The main court case in People vs Larry Flynt is about the right to mock public figures, in that case Jerry Falwell. It had nothing to do with pornography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[ackthpt]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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...

Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[fermion]

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

In the Larry Flynt case the naked women were deemed to be adults who allowed their image be taken and printed. He likely did the paper work for releases, and photographed the women overtly and with full knowledge that the images would be published. Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint. A negative ruling would have meant that an adult women, or in the case of hustler many men, would no longer be able to expose herself or be penetrated for compensation.

So the cases are not really comparable. In revenge porn the images may not have taken overtly. In revenge porn the woman might not have agreed to have the images spread beyond the local area. Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.

So to be clear if a person arranged to video themselves masturbating or having sex with partner(s) that are aware the video is going public, then stopping that would be a violation of free speech, but otherwise not. If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses. In both cases, this is not acceptable, and the former is is not only because of age issues.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Opportunist]

There is a fine line between free speech and slander.

At the very least I'd put in a safeguard where you'd have to prove that the entity you claim is trying to display you negatively is actually really trying to do so. I.e. Google has no interest to show your naked pics you handed to your ex in secrecy. Your ex does.

If anything, make people liable for releasing naked pics of people they have no right to release. So you better guard those naked pics of your lover well.

Because else, all I'd have to do to evade that law is to post the pics of my ex on some board and wait for the various sex sites in countries that don't give a fuck about what Mrs. Congresswoman barfed up pick them up and display them.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[rolfwind]

What is speech? I think that's making any argument you'd like for or against something, the establishment, other ideas, the man, etc.

I think requiring the sign-off of all parties for pornographic videos (or any any other really where privacy is a reasonable expectation) might not be a bad idea.

But maybe it can be generalized. Say video of a person is captured in a changing room at some dept. store, the security guard takes it to try to sell it to a magazine because he thinks it's a famous person, it gets printed/put on the web. Should that be allowed? Now, think, that perhaps even if it was a celeb, they should be afforded the same protection as well?

I think perhaps it can be generalized to situations where the person expects privacy, video should not be released unless it's in the public interest (you catch the President discussing how the NSA can break into private homes to get documents) or for other criminal matters (politician taking bribes, adult trying to lure kids in a van, whatever).

Isn't there a line that protects both free speech and human dignity?

Given how small cameras and microphones have come, our freedom of speech has slammed into our rights to be safe and secure in our own homes, and lastly our own persons, our bodies.

Just like disallowing someone to yell fire in a theater, you are not actually imposing on free speech in a significant way, (I can still argue that it can be allowed, or that fires in theaters are a problem, etc), I don't see how allowing for human dignity will impose on free speech here.

I can see how a law will do that, but only if we try to be staunch and try to resist at all costs. This debate has been long in coming. We should participate and be instrumental in crafting something reasonable instead of letting a draconian law pass that merely uses a legitimate issue for the legislators' and their handlers' own ends.

What do we have to lose out on? A quick laugh at Star Wars kid where we got a few seconds of enjoyment at the cost of years of this kid's life and psyche, and other misfortunates like him? Where's the free speech in that?

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[asmkm22]

And without any additional context, you could argue that child porn or horse porn is also perfectly legal, due to free speech. Fortunately, free speech only goes so far in terms of justifying certain actions.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[mi]

Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint.

Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...

it might a violation of copyright

Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal. But we already have laws against copyright violations (if any), so why the new bill?

If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses.

My argument is that, generally, whatever can be legally seen (and peeking into a dressing room is illegal), can also be legally recorded (and the recordings subsequently published). Any laws to the contrary violate the First Amendment.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[JimSadler]

Porn is not speech any more. The Supreme Court now says money is free speech and corporations are people. Being that i am not a corporation I suppose that now I am not a person and therefore laws do not apply to me at all.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Obfuscant]

The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never.

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other's freedom not to appear on porn sites if they never consented to it.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[MightyMartian]

Judging by these kinds of posts, I'm guessing a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths. No wonder libertarianism is so popular here.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[MightyMartian]

Uphold != interpret

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Artifakt]

The first amendment guarantees that my speech (c)an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never.
Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity? Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement? ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war

Oh yeah, the First Amendment supports your right to do any or all of those, and a pig buzzed me at Mach 3 yesterday.
Hint - there is one social contract - the law.
Hint 2 - you obviously know nothing about that.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anna Merikin]

The freedom of speech referred to (presumably the one in the US Constitution) allows freedom of *political* speech.

Other forms of speech have been regulated -- slander, shouting fire in a theater, calls to insurrection.

I am not for Rep. Speir's bill in any way, but one can't hide this kind of despicable speech behind the first amendment.

OTOH, making websites who do not or cannot control content responsible for same seems likely to be struck down by the courts, if passed, and unlikely to find much support among lawmakers.

As for Ms Frank: She sounds like a terrible harridan, the kind of subhuman individual who should be locked up for good and the key thrown down her throat. As Steven Colbert would say, "The worst person in the world today."

So sue me, ma'am, please: I got a friend who's a lawyer.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[The Grim Reefer]

Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity?

I think you should be free to do all of that.

So you fully support what Senator Joe McCarthy did? Peoples lives were ruined over this kind of shit. And you really think that's fine? If someone takes out a full page add in your local newspaper with you face and declares you to be a pedophile, you think that's alright?

Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement? ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war

And it's absolutely disgusting that all of these things are not considered egregious violations of free speech rights. Seriously, even if you want free speech to be at least partially restricted, how can you support this utter bullshit?

I'll agree with you regarding the verbal challenge of an officer. Even speaking out during a time of war, to a point. But shouting down a person who has been detained for questioning is interfering with a police investigation andis a stupid thing to support. You really believe that it would be alright to interrupt a judge in a courtroom during proceedings? Are you 12? Or just mentally ill?

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not freedom, that's power.

I agree that you need power to have freedom, either directly (using force yourself) or indirectly (having someone else use force) but there is still a difference between the concept of freedom and the concept of power.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?

There is no constitutionally appointed authority on the constitution. John Marshall claimed that for the court in Marbury v. Madison.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[pla]

Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.

So far, virtually all the discussion on this topic has centered around the rights of the victim. I apologize for responding to you personally, but you have the most visible post continuing the "wrong" discussion here. :)

The problem here has nothing to do with whether or not we should condemn the concept of "revenge" porn, but rather, whether a website should bear liability for content posted by a third party. That should scare the hell out of all of us, liberal or conservative, pro-porn or feminist, rich or poor.

Look beyond porn for the implications of this - Should Amazon bear criminal liability for allowing a joking review that says "this blender turns lead into gold" to remain? Should Yelp need to fact check every single review of some rat-trap motel or suffer liability for defamation? If a blogger dares to criticize Italian or French judges for their sham of a legal system, should Wordpress' CEO (or given what I just said, Dice's CEO) go to prison? And those don't even get into the issue of search engines, where literally everything on the internet can show up - Do we really expect Google to bear the burden of making sure no one has posted something incorrect or illegal on the entire internet?

If so... Goodbye, Internet (at least in the US - Which still effectively means "Goodbye, Intenet"). Section 230 means more than a loophole for pesky websites to intentionally look the other way - It makes the entire concept of public participation in a shared discussion possible.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[grahamsz]

The problem is that generally, in the absence of any other agreement, the photographer owns the copyright to the image and can give that image to whatever site he or she chooses. In certain situations they might not be able to accept payment for it, but exhibiting their work is really their right.

If you are letting a partner take images of you then you are, without any further agreement, letting them do what they choose with that image.

Within current law, the only reasonable way to solve that is to have a contractual agreement in place first that allows you to recoup civil damages from the other party if they use the image in a way that you don't expressly consent to.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[rtb61]

You are attempting to claim the freedom to control others in actions that do not phsyically affect you but purely are the disruption of the false morality of behaving privately in a manner you claim publicly not to participate. Whose problem is it really when your private morality does not match the public reality that you claim, especially when very likely you attack others for having a public morality that matches you private morality.

Seriously think about this folks, should a family politician that claims homosexuals be fined and imprisoned or in any other way prejudiced against be allowed protection under law when caught photographically 'in flagrante delicto' with some of the same sex or should that image be legally published and that politician publicly ridiculed, how many regular two faced folks need to bear the adult responsibilities for their actions to ensure politicians and others are held to account. How many of those who cry foul the loudest ran around ridiculing others in similar situations just as loudly.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[BronsCon]

And if I post revenge porn of an ex and he or she should choose not to pursue it, that should be the end of it. They can sue for defamation of character under current laws and they'd have a bullet-proof case, assuming they could prove it was me who posted it. Perhaps my ex knew I was going to post it and he or she is fine with it? Under the proposed new law, that doesn't matter; by posting it after the end of the relationship, I've committed a crime.

Nope, not okay.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[TubeSteak]

Perhaps you should read the actual first amendment, rather than the text written in invisible ink that authoritarian judges added to it.

Our legal tradition didn't start with the Constitution and you understanding of it can't start there either.

This is really important: The Constitution was not written in a vacuum.
I'll say it again: The Constitution was not written in a vacuum.

Long before the Constitution and its Amendments were conceived, there was this thing called "common law."
Slander, libel, and threatening immediate bodily harm were already illegal.
The 1st Amendment was never intended to legalize such behavior.

We know this, because the guys who authored and debated the Amendments had voluminous written correspondences on the matter.

Your approach to the Constitution is like a layman reading the Bible,
without any historical context and proclaiming "I understand the word of God."
You don't. Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong. Please don't misinform others.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[rahvin112]

Revenge porn is 99% of the time pictures taken by a significant other during a relationship and then spread after the breakup or taken by the victim themselves and distributed to the significant other for their (ahem) personal use.

Voyeurism and hidden camera shots are illegal in almost every jurisdiction, in fact one of the few that wasn't just changed their law after a guy was acquitted. You are building a straw man talking about these already illegal actions. Much like all the other strawmen in this thread such as child porn and bestiality.

The fact is if the victim took the pictures themselves (or participated in taking them) they own the copyright and can DMCA the pictures and if they are not removed they can sue the pants off the website. If the victim's significant other took the images then they are frankly SOL and should be. They still have the right to sue the website for commercial use of their image and they can still go after the ex-significant other for the action. What they are proposing is using the power of the state and force of the truncheon to enforce what is a civil complaint brought on by their own actions.

The very idea that you could sue Google for someone linking to some website distributing images for which they have the legal right from the copyright holder is absurd on the face. Putting loopholes like this into the first amendment is going to lead to more loopholes like anti-bullying and hate speech exceptions and pretty soon you won't have free speech anymore. These revenge porn sites can already be prosecuted (in most cases) for blatant fraud and blackmail. In fact many of them already are.

The simple answer here is that if you don't want naked pictures of you on the internet don't take naked pictures.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[smugfunt]

a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths

That would be consistent with the population at large; 20% authoritarian followers, 5% social dominators according to Altemeyer.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Lord Kano]

It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.

Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.

LK

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[vux984]

You are attempting to claim the freedom to control others in actions that do not phsyically affect you but purely are the disruption of the false morality of behaving privately in a manner you claim publicly not to participate.

Uh. No. Revenge porn is about publicly humiliating an ex for breaking up with you by showing them naked and/or engaging in sexual activity. Where is the false morality? Its not like the average victim of revenge porn is advertising she's a virgin. Most will admit to having previous partners, or at least tell you its none of your business.

And how can you claim that she isn't directly affected by the fact that an ex completely exposes her and her private sexual activities on the internet for her all to see; including friends, coworkers, parents, and even children. I see harm perpetrated by the person who posted it. And I see consipiratorial activity by the operator of a dedicated revenge porn site who intentially caters to provide that particular 'genre' of content.

I don't really see google being impacted. Worst case, someone uploads 'revenge porn' to youtube, victim says get rid of it, give me the contact information for the account that loaded it up, and google does. Google isn't a revenge porn site operator.

Seriously think about this folks, should a family politician that claims homosexuals be fined and imprisoned or in any other way prejudiced against be allowed protection under law when caught photographically 'in flagrante delicto' with some of the same sex or should that image be legally published and that politician publicly ridiculed [...]

Yeah, because THAT is what revenge porn websites are all about - outing political hypocrisy?? Give me a fucking break.

Besides, you can out the hypocritical politician under the context of it being newsworthy -- you don't need to start a revenge porn site for that, now do you?

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Mr. Slippery]

Guess who is the Constitutionally appointed authority on the Constitution?

Not the SCOTUS. They assumed that power for themselves with Marbury v. Madison.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Concerned Onlooker]

'However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...'

It's not about free speech. It's about not respecting someone else's privacy. It's about breaking an implicit trust.

Tell you what, if it's OK to post the pictures I say it should be mandatory that the real name of the person submitting them should be posted right alongside the image, in order that women everywhere could know who to avoid.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Billly Gates]

It is disgusting, but the original poster replied to a further post about how this can be abused and that is why he opposes it.

Suppose you have a legit porn website. Someone uploads some porn with an exwife masturbating as an example. The divorce lawyer finds it and guess what? You are sued for revenge porn and now need to pay $5 million dollars to this women you never met so she doesn't have to work and go shopping off your retirement.

When laws come out like this whether laws that say the right to face your accuser does not apply in rape, or banning child porn, or implementing sexual harassment laws all have adverse consequences.

For example lets say you have a daughter who is 16 and filled with hormones. She takes a pic of her breasts and uploads them to her boyfriend. CHILD PORN MANUFACTURER! Her life is now ruined forever.

Or about how if you have a drink with a woman from work on a saturday and you get too friendly. Your boss can be liable for a hostile work environment even off the clock and can loose his business.

Be carefully what you support based on emotion. Going to far and the lawyers will find something to be used to the extreme.

I am so darned split with the right to refuse gays service in Arizona for example! I find it deplorable to oppose gay marriage! People should have any right.But I want to start a business. I have every darn RIGHT to refuse service for ANY reason. I own it! Lets say someone was costing me more than I was making. Or makes an unreasonable offer which is below cost. I refuse. Now I get to be freaking sued as I later find out the customer is a lesbian. Just freaking great!

I hate lawyers with a passion and trivial lawsuits. So I fit in this camp with less is better until we get real tort reform.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Murders are illegal but I can see tons of videos and photos of murders all the over the news every day.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[countach74]

I'm not sure about the constitutionality, but as far as right to contract and private property rights go, if said pornographic images were given under the express condition that they not be distributed, a violation of the contract would constitute a case for fraud. Of course, most people would make such an arrangement verbally, making it harder to prove in court. Ultimately, though, people need to be accountable for their own actions: if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, be careful about how you give it out and to whom. As bad as revenge porn is, unprincipled government intervention to fix the problem will almost certainly be worse.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[BlueStrat]

It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.

Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.

LK

I would think that simply requiring a signed & notarized release form to release video/photographs of individuals nude and/or engaged in sexual acts would reduce the amount and viciousness in many cases of these revenge videos and those who upload them, and the damage they often inflict on women whose biggest crime was choosing to trust a sleazy and heartless SOB.

I see no need to pass legislation which impacts basic civil rights. There are already numerous legal precedents and laws/regulations on the books that could be slightly tweaked, possibly as I outlined above, to solve this type of attack and violation of privacy.

What has been proposed in this Bill is nothing but a power grab by government.

Strat

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Shadow of Eternity]

The closest non-horrible way to do it I can think of would be codifying the right to privacy and control of personal images/data when it comes to publication for mass consumption. It wouldn't hurt people taking photographs in public, news crews, or similar because of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. It's plain on its face that someone has a reasonable expectation that pornographic images given to a then-sexual partner are expected to be for that individuals consumption alone, whereas you have no reasonable expectation not to show up briefly walking past a news camera.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[dcollins117]

if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, be careful about how you give it out and to whom.

if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, don't pose for pornographic photos in the first place. The whole point of a photograph is to capture a moment in time for later viewing.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[rtb61]

Your forget that the law is equally applied, can't protect the gullible and 'not so innocent' without protecting the politician. So are politicians entitled to hide the sexual peccadillos whilst publicly attacking others or not, chose one in all in, the law is the law. If you think politicians give a crap about the gullible 'not so innocent' you well are totally gullible and very likely 'not so innocent'.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[BronsCon]

You're confusing libel with defamation. Libel must be false, or believed by the person spreading it to be false. You can defame someone's character by making public some private piece of information about them, which is 100% completely factually accurate, which the general population of people who know that person would find to be out of character for them.

Character is how people perceive you, it is not fact. If your "good" character is based on lies and a negative truth comes out and destroys that perception of you, your character has been defamed.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[countach74]

Oh, and one more thing:

"It's legal. I'm allowed to exploit you. Freedom of Speech!! Small government!!.....Ignore the man behind the curtain I paid to have laws changed in my favor."

We've made the mistake of conflating morality with legality in our society. By trying to outlaw everything that the masses feel is wrong, we remove personal responsibility from individuals to self govern. "It's legal," as we appear to agree, is poor grounds for deciding if something is moral or good. What we need is a return of principles, of private property rights, and the protection of such things. As I've stated before, revenge porn in many circumstances, is almost certainly a case of fraud--a violation of property rights--and should be treated as such.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[vux984]

Sorry but law equally applied is letter of the law, newsworthy is only an opinion

Welcome to planet earth, where all law is subject to opinion.

More realistically how about just you and yours are protected and everyone else is newsworthy.

You do realize we already have a couple hundred years worth of society grappling with these questions, right? There's a lot of case law too.

No jury in the country would have any difficulty discerning a typical modern revenge porn site from a genuine news article. (For starters because the news article wouldn't need to actually post the pictures. When was the last time you saw hard core porn in any serious journalism or even puff tabloid crap... even when they were reporting on a sex scandal? (Which is all tabloids seem to do.)

And sure something right on the bloody line? That's what the courts are FOR, for rendering those legal opinions.

Potential for disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due

[AlphaWolf_HK]

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?

You don't become a criminal for doing that.

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea

[kamapuaa]

You're confusing Anne Frank and Hellen Keller jokes.

Re:This is a REALLY bad idea

[gnupun]

This law is kinda like:

"If you run with scissors and hurt someone it's okay to criminalize and sue the scissor manufacturer."

What a waste of taxpayer $$

[Asshole55]

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.

Re:Good!

[Opportunist]

Because else my next revenge webpage hails from Somewhereelsistan. Good luck with your *snicker* laws.

Make the PERSON releasing the pics liable. Not the webpage. It's ridiculous to try to play whack-a-mole with sex pages.

You mean fake revenge porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there actual real revenge porn out there? From what I have seen it's all been fake (ie. porn stars).

Interesting idea

[godel_56]

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.

Re:Freedom of Participants trumps Picture Owner

[hondo77]

So, would "simply" (can of worms, there) expanding Section 2257 Regulations a bit do the trick?

Re:Freedom of Participants trumps Picture Owner

[AK Marc]

As the owner, I retain my personal rights to everything there; your rights don't trump mine, because this is MY private space.

Nope. As the owner (legal occupant of record, not owner for rented leased places), you have the right to ask them to leave, and "force" them to leave, and no more. If they take out a camera and start recording things, you may not "stop" them, assault them, take their camera, or any other such action. You may revoke their invitation, and not much more.

Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due

[Theaetetus]

"This is a no-brainer. Revenge porn is an abuse of trust." This is a MASSIVE assumption. If you allow someone to record you in intimate acts, you have no one to blame but yourself. Free Speech trumps hurt feelings for 'lapses of morality'. Dont want to have a sex tape leaked? dont agree to be filmed.

First, that's entirely wrong. Your argument is premised on the concept that if you consent to one thing - e.g. making a sex tape - you consent to everything that can possibly be done with it. That's not true. Consent can be as narrow or broad as the consenting person wants. If you let me borrow your car, you're not necessarily consenting to let me rent out your car to my friends for use in a demolition derby. Consent to one thing is not consent to everything.

Second, your argument is an attempt to discourage people from making sex tapes. What are you, asexual? And if so, then why is this an issue you're concerned about? Shouldn't you be off not-masturbating somewhere? The rest of us would prefer that people make sex tapes, happily and in full confidence that their privacy will not be abused and their narrow consent to make a sex tape and share it with one or two people will not be broadened by some douchebag into consent to have it broadcast online.