Disclaimer

Disclaimer: I am providing the content on this blog solely for the reader's general information. This blog contains my personal commentary on issues that interest me. Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed on this blog are mine alone, and not the views of any law firm with which I am in any way associated or any other member of any such law firm. Nothing on this blog is intended to be a solicitation of, or the provision of, legal advice, nor to create an attorney-client relationship with me or any law firm. Please view my "Full Disclaimer" statement at the bottom of the page for additonal information..

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

“Revenge Porn” Outlawed in California



California governor Jerry Brown signed a bill outlawing “revenge porn.”  Revenge porn is just what it sounds like.  It is nude or sexual pictures or videos taken by a former boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse or lover, that was made with consent at the time, that is posted by the ex after a breakup in order to hurt the former lover.  Revenge porn sites have sprung up across the internet.
 
Jerry Brown: Made the right call here
In January, a Beaumont, Texas attorney sued a revenge porn site on behalf of multiple women who had pictures and videos of themselves up on the website against their consent by exes intent on humiliating them.  (see story here) 

Because posting nude pictures, that were taken consensually but not for the purposes of posting publicly, is not a crime in Texas, the suits were civil. 

And that’s the crux of the fight here.  None of the women involved took the pictures and sent them to their ex-boyfriends (typically) with the intent to have them put on the internet on a porn site.   The ex-boyfriend’s intent was clear, though, to humiliate their ex-girlfriend publicly.

The California law specifically addresses the intent of the person posting the pictures.  The California bill, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post nude pictures of someone else online without permission with intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation.

A similar proposed law was defeated in Florida on free speech grounds.  The ACLU has targeted this law in California.  I fail to see how free speech is involved.  This law specifically targets someone with a malicious act, with an intent to humiliate that person forever.  Once something is on the internet, it’s on there almost forever (until linkrot sets in). My freedom to swing my fist ends at your face.  There is no argument that there is an artistic motive here or anything beyond the intent to injure.  The ACLU is out of line.  California is right to take action.  The rest of the country needs to follow.

See full story: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/02/revenge-porn-outlawed-california

No comments:

Post a Comment