'Revenge porn' outlawed in California

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#1
From the Guardian:

California governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their former partners.

The bill, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanour to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 (£620) fine.

"Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims," the bill's author, senator Anthony Cannella, said in a statement. "Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted."

Cannella, a Republican, says revenge porn is a growing problem in the age of social media, when photos and videos that were made privately during a relationship can find their way onto hundreds of websites.

Before the criminal law was enacted, California allowed victims to sue their virtual assailants, but that is an expensive and time-consuming option.

The American Civil Liberties Union had opposed the bill, arguing it might restrict free speech rights, which has been a concern in other states as well.

Florida lawmakers rejected a similar bill this year after constitutional free speech concerns surfaced there.
 

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#2
Legislating things like this is a double edged sword that has a plethora of potential implications, all of which might not be positive.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,193
27,686
898
Seattle
#3
..with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation
How do you prove that?

I fucking hate intent based laws.
 
Apr 30, 2011
35,699
94,490
358
CLT
#4
How do you prove that?

I fucking hate intent based laws.
Exactly they should take into account the joy we get from said porn.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#5
Legislating things like this is a double edged sword that has a plethora of potential implications, all of which might not be positive.
You should run for office. You've got this talking without saying anything business down.
 

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#6
How do you prove that?

I fucking hate intent based laws.
Situations of "revenge" porn should be handled like Olivia Munn's character dealt with it on the Newsroom:

 

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#7
How do you prove that?

I fucking hate intent based laws.
The real windfall from this law will be from civil lawsuits that are filed citing the criminal charges in the complaint-- remember California allows for a civil lawsuit even if a defendant is found not guilty of criminal charges.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#8
Situations of "revenge" porn should be handled like Olivia Munn's character dealt with it on the Newsroom:

I've never actually seen this show before. Is it just me, or are these people talking even faster than back on The West Wing? I guess that means they're even smarter, huh?
 

siliconsoul

Snarky Cunt
Aug 13, 2013
6,253
4,735
243
#10
If I learned anything working in the San Fernando Valley, it's that you DO NOT make a photo or video of something you want to keep private and DEFINITELY don't send a digital version to another person.
 

SatansCheerledr

Ideologically Unsound
Apr 6, 2005
15,486
7,795
716
I Will Pay Snakes To Bite You
#12
Sweet!

I'm going to go take a picture of my dick, post it online from Mrs. SC's computer and get her ass tossed in the clink.

Bitch put a sock with a hole it the toe in my sock drawer.
 

the Streif

¡¡¡¡sıʞunɹɹɹɹɹɹɹℲ
Donator
Aug 25, 2002
15,217
6,029
941
In a hot tub having a snow ball fight.
#13
Sweet!

I'm going to go take a picture of my dick, post it online from Mrs. SC's computer and get her ass tossed in the clink.

Bitch put a sock with a hole it the toe in my sock drawer.
She did that to me the other day too!
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,193
27,686
898
Seattle
#14
Now New York wants to get in the act. The top two nanny states at it again.

NY lawmakers consider banning 'revenge porn'
Posted: Oct 08, 2013 6:45 PM PST Updated: Oct 09, 2013 6:32 AM PST
By WCAX News - bio | email

BURLINGTON, Vt. -
A push to outlaw "revenge porn" is gaining traction in New York.

Proposed legislation would make it a crime for people to post pornography to damage somebody's reputation.

Common targets often include former girlfriends, boyfriends and ex-spouses.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are planning to introduce bills on the topic next year.

"It certainly shows that you have to work hard to keep up with today's technology and have laws that will punish people who abuse that technology," explained Sen. Betty Little, R-Queensbury.

Early proposals in New York recommend penalties that range from one to four years in prison.

A similar law has gained attention in California and carries a sentence of six months behind bars.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#15
Let me get this straight, you guys are angry because they are making it illegal to post naked pictures of people on the internet as revenge? This is something that upsets you? I mean, I know this is Wackbag, but can we at least be a tad realistic here?
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,193
27,686
898
Seattle
#16
Let me get this straight, you guys are angry because they are making it illegal to post naked pictures of people on the internet as revenge? This is something that upsets you? I mean, I know this is Wackbag, but can we at least be a tad realistic here?
No, my problem is intent laws.

If I post it as "revenge porn" then it's illegal. If I post it and say "look how hot my EX GF is, I wish I was still with her" it's not. If I post it while we are dating with her consent, perfectly fine. But if she later says I posted it maliciously, I'm fucked.

If you don't want to risk your pic being put on the internet, don't have one taken. I own any pic I take with my camera.

There are already laws on the books for this, they are called consent laws. If you agree to have the pics taken, and do not sign a contract to stipulate partial ownership, you have no say in what is done with those pics. If you have a verbal agreement that your boyfriend wont share them, there are laws on the books for breaking those as well.

We don't need more laws.
 
Last edited:

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#17
No, my problem is intent laws.

If I post it as "revenge porn" then it's illegal. If I post it and say "look how hot my EX GF is, I wish I was still with her" it's not. If I post it while we are dating with her consent, perfectly fine. But if she later says I posted it maliciously, I'm fucked.

You don't want to risk your pic being put on the internet, don't have one taken. I own any pic I take with my camera.
Then let's make raipe legal too, because the exact same argument could be made for that. You can't judge the merits of a law by looking at how it could be potentially abused. Posting naked pictures of someone on the internet without their consent should be illegal.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,193
27,686
898
Seattle
#18
Then let's make raipe legal too, because the exact same argument could be made for that. You can't judge the merits of a law by looking at how it could be potentially abused. Posting naked pictures of someone on the internet without their consent should be illegal.
Bullshit. You give consent by allowing the pics to be taken in the first place.

This shit is no different than hate crime laws.

I know I wrote more after I posted, sorry about that, but please see above post.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#19
Bullshit. You give consent by allowing the pics to be taken in the first place.

This shit is no different than hate crime laws.

I know I wrote more after I posted, sorry about that, but please see above post.
I think that's ridiculous. Consenting to have your picture taken by someone who is in a relationship with you is implied consent for you to share it with everyone? That makes sense to you?
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,193
27,686
898
Seattle
#20
There is also the bigger issue...and the real reason they are doing this. This gives a wedge into taking down post of the porn that is on the internet. You can't prove that the girl in the pic that you ripped from another site didn't give consent? Down it goes. That porn vid that's been traded around the net for a decade...take it down, you can't verify consent.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,193
27,686
898
Seattle
#22
I think that's ridiculous. Consenting to have your picture taken by someone who is in a relationship with you is implied consent for you to share it with everyone? That makes sense to you?
Like I said above, your boyfriend assuring you that no one else will see it is a verbal contract. We already have laws on the books for that.

And be clear, this isn't just posting pics in the NY law. As long as I can prove I'm not doing it to hurt her, I can post all the nude pics of her I want, even without her consent.

It's a shitty law, no matter what side you are on.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#25
Like I said above, your boyfriend assuring you that no one else will see it is a verbal contract. We already have laws on the books for that.

And be clear, this isn't just posting pics in the NY law. As long as I can prove I'm not doing it to hurt her, I can post all the nude pics of her I want, even without her consent.

It's a shitty law, no matter what side you are on.
But the existing law could be abused exactly like this one, so I don't see your point. Your ex could say you promised her no one would see it even if you didn't. What additional dangers do you foresee from a law that directly addresses this specific issue?