Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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."
Stick figures good enough for illustrations? Also, playing atheists advocate, shouldn't the camera know when it's going to be party to a crime??
Isn't harassment already illegal? Whether it happens via internet or via newspapers is irrelevant..
I see it, now. I was trying to figure out what their angle was, but you put it rather plainly.
This law would basically guarantee that there would never be another paparazzi photo of some starlet skinny dipping or sun tanning, ever, ever again.
It doesn't matter that there's no intent to do emotional harm to the subject of the rag photo. They did not give consent and obviously since they are celebrities, and since that means they can make a lot of money from every picture taken of them, they would never in a million years let anyone take a picture of them without their permission. Wow, even at that point, I guess you would not have to show an attempt to directly cause emotional harm -- if it's a celebrity, ANY paparazzi photo or even any fan photo that shows ANYTHING more than bare arms will harm that celeb's income and would be like stealing from them, and theft is emotionally distressing and voila, emotional harm.
Hell, I'm glad the MPAA is fighting against this thing.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee