Skip to main content

View Diary: Revenge Porn: Why we Can't Have Nice Things (73 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is horrible, but... (5+ / 0-)

    wouldn't this fall under child pornography laws without new laws?

    For those above the age of majority, why can't many of these cases be handled within the confines of existing harassment law?

    I don't want to come off as trying to excuse or support 'revenge porn', but I'm worried about a slew of unintended consequences coming from new laws on this subject. Generally, the person who took a photograph owns it and has the rights to distribute it. Could these new laws be used to, for example, restrict the distribution of pictures of police behaving illegally?

    If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they should be responsible for the consequences. Likewise if someone post harassing photos on a porn site, it's fair game to dox them on a douchebag site.

    •  Perhaps (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redwagon, doingbusinessas

      but that depends on how the laws are written in each state. What I'm talking about are photographs and videos of people engaged I sexual acts or just plain nudity.  

      Besides there are already laws in several states that make it illegal to record the police which is about as wrong as it gets but unless the police in question are naked on the streets, I don't see how pics of them behaving badly in the course of their job would be subject to these laws.

      •  I am not sure how we got here but, the SCOTUS (5+ / 0-)

        has plainly said that police in public discharging their duties have no reasonable expectation of privacy and that citizens not only have a right to record them (audio and video) but, police should not attempt to harass citizens engaged in this activity.

      •  adding a link to the reply above (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Debby, llywrch

        Massconfusion mentioned that laws against recording police officers were struck down.

        I just wanted to add a voice in agreement -- and include a link.

        This Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison. In most states, like NY, only one person needs to consent, so the consent of the person who is recording it is enough to make it legal.

        Many states, however, including Illinois, have “all-party consent” law, which means all parties to a conversation must agree to being recorded before recording it can be done. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them. Since police do not have an expectation of privacy while they are doing their work on the public street, video or audio recording of a police officers would not be banned.

        Just a FYI.
    •  It seems to me there basically needs to be one (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chantedor, Wednesday Bizzare, llywrch

      standard, irregardless of how "sexy" a picture is. People, after all, have similar problems when they are photographed intoxicated and such, or taking illegal drugs. The introduction of money into the equation does add problems, especially over the issue of blackmail though. Generally, while dual consent for the release of privately taken images is nice idea, and something which decent folks would agree is only the decent thing to do when the pictures involve sexual content, like the poster above, unless the law is written to say "And this only applies to pictures involved sexytimes, t.m." it will immediately begin to be abused. And if it is written to say "this only applies to sexytimes" well, it'd be more justifiable, but that raises questions of its own.

    •  I disagree with your last paragraph... (7+ / 0-)

      Having your photo taken at a public event is entirely different from a private, intimate setting, where if people are engaging in intimate behavior, they are doing so with a reasonable expectation of some privacy. That needs to be respected by people.

      Now, if a police officer is acting abusively in his duties, that's public activity. Hell, if someone records me staggering down the street, acting like a fool after a night of drinking, well, that's public activity too. If a woman flashes a crowd in public, and people take pictures... public activity (but be nice)...

    •  A consenting adult--shouldn't have to worry about (9+ / 0-)

      losing their job or the ability to be seen in public because they were unable to detect a hint of sociopath in a previous sex partner.

      In a perfect world ex-lovers would never do such a thing. But sadly, you have to wonder how many of these people of age, even knew they were being filmed?

      If someone told me that they did this to another human being, even one I thought was a bad human, it would be grounds to not be friends anymore. How could you trust them to not find a way to do that to you? Or someone else? Or do something equally humiliating and demoralizing?

      Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

      by GreenMother on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 02:19:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wednesday is a Creep (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Cream Puff

      >If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they ?>should be responsible for the consequences. L

      Let's pretend that this does not happen exclusively to women. Wednesday, you are a total complete creep.

      >If an adult posts adult pictures not of a classic public figure that person should be responsible for the consequences. These consequences should include very high levels of fines.  If the information is linked to data enabling or exhorting theft assault, then jail time is possible. Such data includes: unique identifiers, Social Security number, address, physical location.

      There, I fixed it for you.

      You odious douche-bro.

      •  Personal attack not cool. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        martydd, churchylafemme

        Although I agree with your content, name calling is unwelcome.

        You're gonna need a bigger boat.

        by Debby on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:46:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wish Creampuff would withdraw the HR. (0+ / 0-)

          I realize calling names is HR worthy.  However, for all we know, the person is dealing with the emotional trauma of this having happened to him or her, and I can easily understand someone losing it after reading a comment suggesting that it's reasonable for these pictures to be posted and used in such a terrible way.

          Rules and rules, but just as we don't want the government to blindly enforce all rules, the rules  of this site shouldn't be blindly enforced either.

          •  I can't divine (0+ / 0-)

            personal history trauma, only the content of comments.

            I don't agree that the original comment suggested "it's reasonable for these picture to be posted and used in such a terrible way."

            Questions about unintended consequences and duplication of statutes are relevant.  I hate it when people who post thoughtful if somewhat contrarian viewpoints get dumped on like this.  The sub-threads they generate can be much more enlightening than a hundred pilings-on of how bad revenge porn is.

            I understand your point about rule interpretation and I don't blindly shoot donuts at all insults.  I felt compelled to do it here because I feel reasoned debate should be encouraged on this site, and that comment was suppressing it.

            First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

            by Cream Puff on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:38:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Did you miss this part? (0+ / 0-)
        why can't many of these cases be handled within the confines of existing harassment law?
        You responded with personal insults to a thoughtful presentation of an likely unpopular viewpoint about unintended consequences .

        However strongly you feel about revenge porn, you clearly deserve a donut for this.

        First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

        by Cream Puff on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:59:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Homegrown Pr0n has exploded over the past few (0+ / 0-)

      years due to the advent of smartphones.

      I don't know about ya'll but i think legislators generally suck at regulating stuff on the internet. Sites that openly encourage stalking and harassment are one thing, but trading sexy pix.......

      I mean, we've already seen child porn laws used to turn horny, sexually experimenting teenagers into Registered Sex Offenders.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 09:19:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't quite the case (3+ / 0-)
      I don't want to come off as trying to excuse or support 'revenge porn', but I'm worried about a slew of unintended consequences coming from new laws on this subject. Generally, the person who took a photograph owns it and has the rights to distribute it.
      It isn't nearly this straightforward. There are a thousand little wrinkles.

      If you take a picture of me in a public space (or ... depending on circumstances, maybe in a private space also), the photograph is yours, copyright you. However, your publishing that photograph, whether commercially or non-commercially, opens you up to liability. This is why we have model release forms, although if you trust one another, a verbal agreement is also binding.

      If you publish a photo that causes provable damage to me, then even if you have a release form, you can be sued over it. (Unless the release has a 'hold harmless' clause, in which case one would be ill-advised to sign it.)

      Think about it: if the rule really were 'if you took the picture in a public place (or in a private space with consent) you can do whatever you like with it' then how would sports figures be able to stop companies from publishing their likenesses on the Wheaties box without their consent?

      Now, pictures related to news (newspapers, magazines, etc) have a lot more latitude than do other publishing venues. Likewise, public figures have much less protection from having their images poached. There're a LOT of ambiguity here, and several different tests used by courts. But it's nowhere near as straightforward as you make it out to be, and your rule ('If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they should be responsible for the consequences.') would be a very damaging rule, and in general most damaging to those with the least power.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (173)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Politics (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site