California Looks To Limit “Revenge Porn”

I actually do not think this is a bad idea…

(SF Chronicle) State lawmakers are attempting to limit a distressing social media phenomenon known as “revenge porn,” where spurned suitors post intimate photos of their ex-lovers on the Internet for all to see.

The Assembly is set to debate a bill that would make such conduct punishable by up to a year in jail, while Gov. Jerry Brown is considering separate legislation that would make it a crime to impersonate or bully a domestic violence victim online.

…of course, the best idea is to not allow compromising pictures and videos be taken of yourself in the first place. What may “feel good” now can easily come back like the dead in a Stephen King story.

The measures are forcing lawmakers to consider where to draw the line between unfettered free speech and privacy rights.

“Right now law enforcement has no tools to combat revenge porn or cyber-revenge,” said Sen. Anthony Cannella, a Republican from Ceres who proposed one of the bills. “Unfortunately it is a growing trend and there are a lot of victims out there, a lot more than I ever imagined. … It’s destroying people’s lives.”

This bill has bipartisan support, as well it should. Posting “revenge porn” is not free speech, certainly not as how the Founding Fathers saw it. Much like slander and libel, which are not considered free speech, “revenge porn” is designed to damage another person. I hold the classic liberal point of view that if it doesn’t harm other people, the government should stay out of it, and it’s none of your business. Generally, just because you are “offended” doesn’t give you the right to get government to pass a law. In the case of “revenge porn”, it can cause actual harm to a person.

Under his SB255, perpetrators who post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without their permission with the intent of causing serious emotional distress or humiliation could be charged with a misdemeanor. They could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for a first offense, with a year in jail and a $2,000 fine for repeat violations.

Personally, I think they should significantly increase the fines. Most judges will avoid using the already over-burdened penal system to incarcerate, except perhaps after many, many violations.

But, again, the best thing is to not allow nude pics and vids to be taken in the first place. Rarely does anything good come of them.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

2 Comments

Comment by Malicious_Filner_Monday Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-26 15:34:33

with the intent of causing serious emotional distress or humiliation

Again, we are patrolling thought patterns now? If they left the law as it was, “Under his SB255, perpetrators who post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without their permission” that would have been plenty of legal justification. But when you add “thought” in to the reason for punishment, you make it hazy. And immoral in my opinion.

could be charged with a misdemeanor. They could face up to six months in jail

Wait.. a misdemeanor now has a jail time of up to 6 months? How is that misdemeanor time? Speeding is a misdemeanor. Jay-walking is a misdemeanor.

Maybe I am lumping all misdemeanors in to one category when there are layers in the law like manslaughter up to murder 1. But, !JAIL! ???

For posting something that was freely shared with you in the first place?

They already have the “can’t record or share video images without permission laws”. So why this new one?

 
Comment by Malicious_Filner_Monday Subscribed to comments via email
2013-08-26 15:38:07

Also, how do you stop it? Once it gets noticed by the major and minor players in the porn-video business, it goes viral across the net.

How would you prove that this person was the one that uploaded it? Maybe he sold his camera and the videos were on it?

Are District Attorneys going to spend all of that IT Analysis money on a misdemeanor case?

They’ve already have cases where courts have ruled you can’t necessarily tie Instant Messages to a person even if the messages are shown to be sent from that person’s phone.

But this is California and government. So, it doesn’t have to make sense.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10787 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE