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."
I believe the old saying is even a stuck clock is right twice a day.
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??
Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
Subdivision 1. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. (a) A
cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual
images exists when:
(1) a person has threatened to disseminate an image or has intentionally disseminated
an image without the consent of the person depicted in the image;
(2) the image is of an individual engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are
exposed in whole or in part; and
(3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which a reasonable
person would know or understand that the image was to remain private.
(b) The fact that the individual depicted in the image consented to the creation of the
image or to the voluntary private transmission of the image is not a defense to liability for
a person who has disseminated the image without consent.
Or not.
...or does the MPAA get more and more batshit insane with every passing year?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Copyright law is already too biased towards producers. They are behaving like spoilt little children and need their toys to be taken away. Seriously, they get enough (more than enough) already.
John_Chalisque
Then the law should say that instead of blanket statements that are open to interpretation as required.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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
It's a badly-written law, one driven by good intentions but sure to have unintended consequences. The MPAA may be doing the right thing on this occasion, but only because it happens to be in their self-interest.
Personally I think the world just needs to get over this ridiculous obsession with catching a glimpse of someone naked. Yes, it's a breast. Plenty of those on the internet already, nothing special about yours.
Hmm. Interesting point.
You could stick to simple pathology (i.e. "a led to b led to c") and say that if only two known people were supposed to have the data (the insemination video, in your example, presumably only to be owned by the egg-bearer and the sperm-donor) and if one of those people is charging illegal dissemination of the data, then it must be the other person who did the deed.
So even if the charged person used darkwebz, deleted the logs of the logs of the LOGGING of logging's log log, and found a free e-mail server that can't be hacked and which has an absentee sysop, and telnetted the mainframe through the satellite uplink, you could still say "yeah, but, it was you."
HOWEVER -- which I think is really what you're getting at -- it could be made to show that it's impossible to prove which of the two originally consenting parties with-drew the line of consent at the dissemination of the data. Charged party B could claim that infuriated party A was actually the culprit, and there would be no way at all whatsoever to prove whodunit.
Laws like this always, always, always ignore that data which is created has every possible eventuality of becoming shared. They create these artificial boundaries where sharing is supposed to "not happen", but hell these days the data itself can share itself.
Let's say that the happily fluid-swapping couple recorded and stored the video of the conception of tomorrow's tyrannical pirate using software based entirely on Flash. It was a Flash application and it stored the video also as Flash.
Knowing the vulnerabilities of Flash, any weirdo on the internet could have been the one to distribute the video and even to make it look like one or both parties were the ones to blame.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.