Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"

mi contributes this excerpt from National Journal: "Sen. Al Franken is urging the FBI to more quickly and aggressively pursue and respond to reports of revenge porn, marking a rare burst of attention on a controversial topic about which Congress has typically been quiet. In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, the Minnesota Democrat asked for more information about the agency's authority to police against revenge porn, or the act of posting explicit sexual content online without the subject's consent, often for purposes of humiliation and extortion. Its popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women." Here's Franken's letter.

Comments

c'mon

[fyngyrz]

ts popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women.

It makes no difference if the victims are disproportionately any group; it would have to be UNIQUE to that group. Otherwise, if it's bad for people, it's bad for people, and no distinction need be made about age, gender or any other subgroup. It's not equality if we only consider some of the people, is it?

Re:c'mon

[hey!]

All genders (and indeed all gender self-identifications) are entitled to equal protection, but not all genders *require as much*. As women move into representative numbers in jobs and supervisory positions, that situation is changing.

My wife once worked in a division of a state agency where the division and departmental management happen by chance to be women; a few years earlier the leadership had been entirely men but they'd moved on and the agency promoted from within. One day she was recounting how she and another scientist coworker had good-naturedly teased one of their male colleagues for having a habit of "man-splaining" (something which in my experience female geeks do as well). "Wait a minute," I said. "You can't do that anymore. It's called 'creating a hostile work environment'."

Now some men are still not willing to be seen complaining about higher ranking women taking the piss out of them, but the number of sexual harassment suits filed by men has been on the rise, doubling from 8% of all cases in 1990 to 16.4% in 2010. If that guy who'd been teased for "man-splaining" had complained the women could well been disciplined. Telling somebody their long-winded explanations sound condescending is being assertive and it's a good thing. Attributing their behavior to their *gender identity* is harassment.

Re:c'mon

[ShanghaiBill]

If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware

In many cases, no consent was given. Even if it was, consent to take a picture shouldn't automatically imply consent to broadcast it to the world. A girl at my daughter's high school was a victim of revenge porn. She killed herself. That is far from an isolated case. To suggest that this isn't traumatic, and that the victims somehow deserve it, is asinine.

Re:c'mon

[hey!]

That sounds very much like a gender-based stereotype.

I don't think you quite understand what that word means. A stereotype is a simplistic model that is held as if it were true of *all* members of some group. So if I say, "blacks are poorer than whites in the US," that's not a stereotype, it's a statistical assertion about differences in economic attainment between groups in aggregate. But if I say "Blacks are poorer because blacks are lazy," that's using a stereotype because it attributes something inherent to blackness. Likewise if I say "Bob can't own that Mercedes because he's black," I'm implicitly stating that all blacks are too poor to own a Mercedes so that's a stereotype. If I were to say "the rate of Mercedes ownership is lower among blacks than whites" that is not a stereotype but a (made-up) statistical assertion.

So now I'm ready to tackle your question. Hitherto, men have not requires as much protection from sexual harassment as a group, because they have as a group dominated positions of authority and indeed all jobs except in a few professions like teaching and nursing. There have been cultural attitudes that give preference to men in hiring and salary, all other things being equal.

However that's a far cry from saying no man hitherto has ever needed legal protection for sexual discrimination or harassment. For example, it is legally possible to be harass or discriminate against people of the same sex. If your boss pressures you for homosexual sex, that's still sexual harassment.

Re:c'mon

[divide overflow]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

Revenge porn is a sexual assault? Seriously? Do you also regard the iCloud compromise as a sexual assault?

His premise that revenge porn "can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault" is not in any way the same as saying "Revenge porn is a sexual assault.". What you did there was to twist his words to create a straw man to attack, saying his statement about traumatization was instead claiming actual assault. Re-read his statement and you'll see he never said what you claimed as his premise.

Re:c'mon

[preflex]

That sounds very much like a gender-based stereotype.

I don't think you quite understand what that word means.

I don't think you quite understand what that word means.

A stereotype is a simplistic model that is held as if it were true of *all* members of some group.

Ok. I'm with you there.

So if I say, "blacks are poorer than whites in the US," that's not a stereotype

I disagree. See your own definition above. You just demonstrated a simplistic model, being held as if it was true for all members of the group. There are some fabulously rich black people in the US. Your statement is not uniformly true.

it's a statistical assertion about differences in economic attainment between groups in aggregate

You didn't assert any statistics. If you had, then it would have been such an assertion. Besides, such an assertion would make a good foundation for a stereotype. (Stereotypes aren't always bad, or unjust. That's just a stereotype about stereotypes.)

But if I say "Blacks are poorer because blacks are lazy," that's using a stereotype because it attributes something inherent to blackness.

No. It's two stereotypes. 1. Blacks are poorer. 2. Blacks are lazy. They are both stereotypes because they are both general simplistic models of a group.

Likewise if I say "Bob can't own that Mercedes because he's black," I'm implicitly stating that all blacks are too poor to own a Mercedes so that's a stereotype.

If you're simply viewing Bob and stating your opinion about him driving his Mercedes, that's prejudice. Furthermore, if Bob does own the Mercedes, your prejudice is also false. It's related to stereotypes, but different. Prejudice is "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." The basis for prejudice is often stereotypes.

On the other hand, if you're refusing to sell Bob a Mercedes because he's black, that would be discrimination. Discrimination is often the result of prejudice, which is often the result of stereotypes. Discrimination can sometimes be against the law. AFAIK, there are no laws in the US against holding stereotypes or prejudices, so long as you do not discriminate.

With regard to your other points, I agree.

Re:c'mon

[shilly]

I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?

Re:c'mon

[Sesostris III]

So the suicide was purely down to mental illness rather than the revenge porn? I suppose it is similar to deliberately giving peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy - It was their peanut allergy that killed them of anaphylactic shock, not the person who gave them the peanuts!

(</sarcasm> - in case anyone was wondering!)

Actually, you don't say whether you think revenge porn should be illegal in the US, only that victims (mainly women) should be 'man' enought to put up with it!

(I'm pleased to say that in England and Wales (I'm in England) it is already illegal - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31429026. Scotland and Northern Ireland are considering it.)

Re:c'mon

[ShanghaiBill]

Well, they deman equality of *results*, sometimes even superiority in many other fields - high paying jobs, political power, legislation benefits.

Really? How many victims of revenge porn have demanded any of these things? All they are asking for is protection from one of the most egregious invasions of privacy imaginable. To imply that they deserve it because of some completely unrelated feminist agenda being pushed by completely different people, is idiotic.

Re:Really?

[ClickOnThis]

I find it disgusting that the author wouldn't stop revenge porn because it's an immoral or criminal act, but only because most of the affected audience happens to be women.

Nice straw man. There's nothing in the letter or TFS or TFA that suggests anyone is doing this "only because most of the affected audience happens to be women."

The overwhelming majority of rape victims are women. But we have laws against rape because it is wrong, not because women are in the majority as victims.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[quantaman]

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal.
I would expect Franken, or at least someone who works for him, to know this. Perhaps he just wants it declared illegal by executive fiat, as is the practice with this administration.
But really, this ploy, and Slashdot's new social-justice-warrior driven coverage of it, is driven more by a desire to distract everyone from foreign events, Hillary's email server, and Obama's frequent and blatant power grabs.
That's actually kind of funny, now that I think of it. There's been no story posted at all about Clinton's email shenanigans. Well, we know who Dice has thrown their lot in with.

I would expect someone who writes a comment accusing the subject of being misinformed would at least RTFA to ensure they aren't completely misinformed on that very fact:

In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, the Minnesota Democrat asked for more information about the agency's authority to police against revenge porn, or the act of posting explicit sexual content online without the subject's consent, often for purposes of humiliation and extortion.

[...]

Franken wrote in his letter. "As technologies rapidly advance, it is our responsibility to ensure that our nation's laws keep pace with those technologies. But it is also our responsibility to ensure that existing laws are strictly enforced."

[...]

In addition, Franken wants information on any limitations within current law that may have impeded the FBI from carrying out investigations or making arrests. Franken, who asked for a response by May 8, is exploring whether legislation may be necessary to combat revenge porn, his office said.

In summary Franken is saying that revenge porn is a serious problem and he wants to know if the FBI can do more with the laws already there or if they need additional laws to fix the problem. Isn't this exactly what you want a legislator to do?

Re:Really?

[Shados]

The implication here is more along the line of: "revenge porn is wrong, period. Some people may not feel like its an issue because they're guys and the victims are usually women".

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this exactly what you want a legislator to do?

Well yeah, but not a legislator (D) by his name who consistently calls us right-wingers out on our B.S and makes us look like the asses we are.

Sheesh.

Nothing, but the LAW

[TiggertheMad]

What then would prevent my ex-wife from posting the sex tape via a public computer terminal and reporting it to the FBI's "revenge porn" task force? Nothing....and it would be my word against hers and her ass on every computer screen in the country so there goes 5-10 years of my freedom.

Nothing except perhaps, the fact its against the law. IANAL, but I think that is covered by:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

...And if she were caught falsely reporting a federal crime, she would be the one doing 5-10 years. (Lying to the feds is a really bad idea, unless you like orange jumpsuits.)