MPAA Opposes Proposed Minnesota Revenge Porn Law, Saying It Limits Speech (arstechnica.com)

New Minnesota legislation is "attempting to penalize those who post explicit photos or videos of ex-lovers on the Internet without permission," reports the Associated Press. But while 27 states across America have already passed laws against "revenge porn", Hollywood's lobbying arm, the MPAA, argues that Minnesota's bill doesn't specifically require an intent to harass in their definition of the crime, which "could limit the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, Constitutionally protected material, including items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest," according to Ars Technica. The MPAA adds that "images of Holocaust victims, or prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or the Pulitzer-Prize winning photograph entitled 'Napalm Girl' -- which shows a young girl running screaming from her village, naked, following a Napalm attack -- could be prohibited under the terms of this legislation."

"This is the same MPAA that fiercely supported the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2012," notes Ars Technica, though "many claimed that legislation would also curtail free speech because SOPA could lead to the removal of domains that host infringing material." But the state's ACLU chapter is also opposing Minnesota's bill, according to the Associated Press, pointing out that it doesn't require an offender to be aware that they're invading someone's privacy, and arguing that "We're not doing victims of revenge porn any service by passing a law that can't be upheld in court, that will let people go free."

Comments

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Calydor]

Then the law should say that instead of blanket statements that are open to interpretation as required.

Re:Is it just me...

[SuricouRaven]

They are not insane. They are just acting as any company is expected to: Every action they take is towards the goal of maximising their profitability. They oppose this law, not out of free speech concerns, but because it could get in the way of exploiting celebrity scandals for money in future.

Re:Odd bedfellows.

[Ol Olsoc]

Why do you people have such problems with the concept of judgement? "Drawing the line" is something that comes up all the time in law courts, even in murder cases. That is why you have judges - experienced and intelligent people - to judge where to draw the line rather than clerks with rule books presiding over courts.

While it's all jolly good fun to spend weeks in court, having your bank account drained by your lawyer, some folks might not want to be taken to court over a photo of their soon to be divorced wife in a bikini perhaps with the famous camel's to or erect nipples, posted on Facebook. That "private parts" provision is so broad you could drive the Costa Concordia though it.

Who knows, perhaps legal counsel doesn't cost anything on your side of the pond.

But over here, where the courts are used to bankrupt people - and yes, that might be a 'murrican problem - the law can be made a lot more specific. Harassment by publishing private pics depicting sexual activity without consent of the person in the photo.

And some times that might be a fully clothed person.

Even moreso, let's take feet. For some reason unknown to me, some folks find feet to be sexually stimulating. Harmless for certain. But if you took a photo of your wife or husband's naked feet, and published it without their consent, would you want to go in front of a judge who happens to share that same peccadillo?

"Guilty as charged, Mr. Broadstreet! And Mrs. Broadstreet, do you mind if we keep those photos in case we need to look up the evidence in this case again?" Some times it's hard under those robes.