Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government

California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn' 528

coondoggie writes "Call it a modern day love story: Boy meets girl; they 'like' each other; they privately sext naked pics of each other to celebrate; girl loses interest, breaks it off; guy responds by posting previously private pics to Internet site specializing in revenge; girl has little recourse, suffers much humiliation, ridicule. There is a lot of pressure to change the outcome of such wretched stories, which seem to be pervasive these days. Some relief is on the way the way, at least in California, where this week the governor signed one of the nation's first laws making so-called 'revenge porn' illegal. Specifically, the bill prevents people from electronically distributing or posting naked pictures of ex-romantic partners after a break-up with the intent to shame the person publicly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Outlaws 'Revenge Porn'

Comments Filter:
  • How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:56PM (#45018883) Homepage Journal

    we accept people get naked and do fun things?
    That would be far more beneficial in the long run.

    You got naked and had sex, own up, move on.

    TO Be Clear: IT's a horrible, rude, dhouch beg, jack ass movie to put that private stuff on the internet. I"m not siding with those assholes. It would just be nice that instead of going 'OMG she does what I do, but now its in a picture!' to 'So what, everyone does it, lets get the asshole that distribute the picture.'

  • by MetalliQaZ ( 539913 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:57PM (#45018901)

    What a strange time we live in.

    First, that the government needs to go stick it's nose into business like this. Second that people feel they deserve privacy for pictures they send to third parties unencumbered by any business contract or doctor/lawyer privilege. Who exactly gets to determine when a disclosure of photographs is or is not allowed? Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account? What about when someone changes their mind? What about when pictures are taken by a the second party? What about by a third party?

    Strange.

  • Revenge? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @04:57PM (#45018903)

    How the hell will they prove it's revenge? If you don't want naked pics of you posted on the internet, don't let him take pictures. This is one of the stupidest laws I've ever heard of.

  • Problem solved (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:00PM (#45018955) Homepage
    Don't send naked photos of yourself to people you really don't know. In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.
  • by javajawa ( 126489 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:05PM (#45018997) Homepage
    Well... without a contract... that third party does not have copyright of the image... what business does the third party have in distributing those photos, in the first place?
  • by operagost ( 62405 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:05PM (#45018999) Homepage Journal
    I can't imagine how they will prove intent or source in most cases. Hint: they won't. This will make the situation worse, with the legal system being used for false-flag blackmail of exes in revenge.
  • by Teun ( 17872 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:07PM (#45019021)
    You will understand once it happens to you.
  • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:12PM (#45019101) Homepage

    What about this?
    1. In a lot of these cases, the person who uploaded the picture to the revenge site did not take the picture. It was sent to them some time before. They do not own copyright to the image. It was already illegal in that case.

    2. These sites are funded by advertising. Therefore, the images are being used in a commercial manner. Your likeness cannot be used for commercial purposes without your explicit consent. It was already illegal in this case, too. [dmlp.org]

    So we're really just adding an almost-impossible-to-prove situation on top of things that are already illegal. The problem is and always has been that the person whose picture is posted doesn't know about it because they would never visit the site. So they don't find out until everyone else already knows about it.

  • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:13PM (#45019119) Homepage

    But you can't use that image for commercial purposes (ad-supported web site counts) without getting a release from the person who is in the photo. It's still already illegal.

  • Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:15PM (#45019145)

    I think the point is people don't want pictures of themselves naked on the net. It isn't a problem of having people know you got naked and had sex. Most people are ok with that.

  • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:16PM (#45019171) Homepage Journal
    How about an old but tried and true method to avoid this.

    Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!

    Geez, when did people get so fucking boneheaded about this. Cameras have been around for a long time, and even back when you didn't run the risk of images being broadcast to the whole world in an instant, folks generally seemed smart enough to NOT let themselves get photographed in compromising solutions.

    Not that anything about good sex is shameful, but c'mon, use a little common sense...if you let someone in this day in age make some homemade pr0n with you featured as the star....especially a chick, you will eventually be broadcast to the world with a dick in your mouth.

    Seriously, when did people become brain dead about stuff like this, especially in this day in age?

  • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:17PM (#45019187)

    You will understand once it happens to you.

    It will never happen to me because I set the bar for sending naked pictures of myself to someone a bit higher than "like". As in, "it's stupid to do that, whatever emotional attachment you think will be created by doing it is not worth having, and it could turn out badly when they get tired of liking me, which they will, because they clearly only like me because I sent them a naked picture."

    If you decide to make friends "love" you by sending dirty pictures to them, then you made a bad decision and as an adult you shouldn't be protected from yourself by the nanny state.

  • by Capt.DrumkenBum ( 1173011 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:18PM (#45019201)
    1. Don't say anything you wouldn't say to your boss and your mother.
    2. Don't post anything you wouldn't want your boss, and mother to read.
    3. Don't take, or allow to be taken pictures you wouldn't show to your boss and mother.
    4. Nothing is ever anonymous!

    I live by them, and so should you.
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:18PM (#45019215) Homepage Journal

    You will understand once it happens to you.

    If you're stupid enough to let someone film you having sex, or even worse you take and send these compromising images of yourself and send them to folks...you deserve what you get.

    For goodness sakes...try to cultivate at least a couple of healthy brain cells, and use them, eh?

  • Re: How about (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:21PM (#45019247)

    Speak for yourself. I'm not bright enough to stop people taking pictures of me naked (inc myself), so let's make up another law .. We don't have enough already.
    This will also reenforce some other policies, like ... If you take a family photo and I'm walking in the background, I can sue you for copying my likeness without permission.

    More boneheaded "I'm not responsible for my own actions" policies please.

  • Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:28PM (#45019361)

    Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone in the world was suddenly a better person.

    Unfortunately this is not going to happen in the short term.

    So should we not act to rectify the situation in the immediate while we hold out for the ideal? Are you suggesting that the law should not actually be enacted?

    Sometimes practical realities eclipse ideals.

  • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UppercaseM ( 2859767 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:31PM (#45019407)
    Girls can't always control if someone takes a picture of them. Pictures can be taken with hidden cameras or while they are sleeping or drunk. They could be taken in a long term relationship or marriage where splitting up seemed unlikely. The fact is that if the pictures were agreed to be kept private, that's an oral contract that was breached which lead to an invasion of her privacy and other potentially negative affects such as the loss of a job. Telling women not to take/give pictures to an SO in case the person turns out to be a d-bag is like telling musicians to not to make songs if they don't want them pirated. If you want your girl to send you pictures, then respect her equal rights to them unless you don't want nudie pictures of your girl...
  • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:37PM (#45019495)

    you do realize that we already have laws on the books to handle situations where no consent was given, right?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:47PM (#45019605)

    But you can't use that image for commercial purposes (ad-supported web site counts) without getting a release from the person who is in the photo. It's still already illegal.

    100% Wrong. Not only in regards to how copyright law works in terms of distribution rights, but also in terms of who owns the image. The short (somewhat overly simplified) answer is- you didn't put a copyright notice on the image and you didn't register it, so the second it was distributed you gave up all rights to control it.

    As for the story, this is a typical bullshit California-style law.
    You can already file a civil case against someone who did this under defamation, slander, or libel laws.
    All this law really does is make it carry a misdemeanor criminal penalty of "disorderly conduct", IF and only if the local Prosecutor wants to spend the money to pursue a case. It still requires the victim (or the prosecution) to prove they were actually damaged, prove that there WAS an existing agreement with the person to keep the image private, and prove that the motive was revenge. In fact, under criminal prosecution it would be MORE difficult to get a 'guilty' verdict than it would be for the victim to win a judgement in a civil case, and in almost all situations the defense would be able to get such a charge dismissed outright.

    So despite what the "women's advocacy groups" claim, this really doesn't do anybody any good in the end. It just makes the law more complicated, and lets some politicians brag about "defending women".

  • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:48PM (#45019615)

    'Revenge porn' is nearly always copyright violation. Clearly the 'model' has not signed off on this usage, and in the case of 'sexting' in particular, the 'model' is usually the 'photographer' too and therefore has ALL publication and distribution rights to the image, not just the model rights.

    Anyone publishing revenge porn or hosting revenge porn sites is operating on the same level of self delusion as kazaa had when it asserted it 'presumes its users had the rights to the files being shared' while at the same time advertising you could get all the top hits for free.

    Same thing here, they disclaim that the photo submitters have the rights to submit these photos while at the same time promoting the ability to get revenge on your ex by publishing the pictures she sexted you... literally inducing copyright infringment by definition.

    If anything these website operators deserve to be shut down more than Kazaa did because these guys are are actually hosting/distributing the content.

  • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UppercaseM ( 2859767 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @05:54PM (#45019689)
    Yes, but consent can be a difficult thing to prove or disprove. This gives people an additional angle to ensure that their right to privacy is respected.

    And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.
  • by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:00PM (#45019759)
    You're right that sexism is involved, but you're entirely wrong about where it's occuring. Women almost never do this because our society is sexist about nudity. No one cares about male nudity unless the male in question is running for office. A nude picture of a man generally get a "boys will be boys" response and everyone forgetting about it shortly thereafter. A nude picture of a woman generally results in A: lots of males wanting to view it and B: lots of people calling the woman a slut or whore or something similar.

    So even if both people in the relationship have nude pictures of each other the male is still in a position of strength. He can damage her reputation significantly by publishing them while she can't do the same to him.
  • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:04PM (#45019779)

    Do you think a girl should be guilty of a crime if she reveals that her ex had only a 3 inch long penis after a breakup?

    As embarrassing a thing this may be, it is protected under freedom of speech. I don't see how a naked picture is any different.

  • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:04PM (#45019783) Homepage Journal

    You can replace girls with people.

  • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:19PM (#45019931)

    Never nudes.

    See, that would require having good judgment and putting a thought or two towards contingency. This was once considered the norm for adults and those adults who failed to do it were seen as failing to achieve what was expected of them, whether involving photography or anything else. Now it's increasingly treated like some terribly unreasonable standard. Folks, this is a movement in the wrong direction.

    It's the never-ending governmental quest to protect adult people from the consequences of their own poor judgment. I don't believe many people recognize how dangerous this actually is, how much of a step backwards it represents, and how many similarly-spirited steps we've taken in the last decade or two. All the short-sighted see is what's in front of them, yeah a guy publicized photos he was trusted not to publicize, yeah he's an asshole, sure. We're going to stop being adults now because of excuses like this?

    I will never end up in such a situation, but if I somehow did, I'd chalk it up to my own poor decision-making and consider it a lesson learned. Do stupid thing -> suffer stupid consequence, seems like everything's in order to me. I'm not a victim if I actively contributed to the unpleasant situation I'm in that couldn't have happened without my said contribution. So, who finds that offensive (code for "makes my lack of personal responsibility uncomfortable") and thinks I care?

  • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:24PM (#45019997)

    You can replace girls with people.

    Yes but that would eliminate the emotional angle of an implied "poor females victimized by those nasty brutish men". Absent that, the speaker would be left with nothing to fall back on except to make a reasonable argument. Clearly you see the problem.

    Good catch.

  • Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by the phantom ( 107624 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:44PM (#45020187) Homepage
    Which the original poster addressed by noting that in the case of "sexting" the model is usually the photographer, therefore the owner of the copyright. The rest of his post followed from that assumption.
  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @06:55PM (#45020279)

    It's about pictures the two of you took with mutual consent when all was great, I know Slashdotters aren't supposed to ever get in such a situation but it is quite common.

    The sick part comes when after a break-up one of the partners posts them on the net out of revenge for the break-up.

    When you date people who a) are not childish, and b) have a sense of honor, it protects you from pretty much all of these problems.

    The sick part is that so many people think the government could ever be a substitute for cultivating a little wisdom.

  • Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @07:20PM (#45020513)

    You can lie with pictures as well (e.g. photoshop).

    My point is that there is lots of embarrassing stuff traded between people during a relationship. Why should it be that only photographic secrets are now protected?

    I don't want the government to get into this domain, because there is either going to be severe overreach and/or a severe consistency problem.

    Sure we ave video and photographs specifically referenced. What about audio files, text messages, emails, love letters, verbal secrets, etc. I can totally see this becoming a lawyers paradise with all the new litigation opportunities. And in the end, what will we have really accomplished? Will women finally really be able to pose for nude pictures without fear of future shaming? No.

    The real problem is that society shames women, or rather that women allow themselves to be shamed, for posing for nude pictures. We may as well make a law that criminalizes the hurting of people's feelings.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, 2013 @11:23PM (#45022021)

    " He can damage her reputation significantly by publishing them while she can't do the same to him."

          Wanna a bet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3SlGjIm4Jc

    What he did wasn't illegal, what she did was. Funny how the part where she dumped him gets ignored. Men don't like being treated like shit anymore than women do and women often aren't any more angelic in their responses either. In this case, she was worse. Sexism works both ways. If he had decked her friend and caught up with her he'd be in jail even though she started the fight and brought a friend to assist. And it's highly likely a jury would convict him. Women may see more issues(ok, blown out of proportion issues) but the end responsibility and accountability is still placed on men in our society not women.

    "Women almost never do this because our society is sexist about nudity. "
    "So even if both people in the relationship have nude pictures of each other the male is still in a position of strength."

    And if your girl friend makes fun of your sex life to all her girlfriends and they spread it around?
    Men do the competing and women do the picking. There is no balance women have the upper hand.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, 2013 @12:16AM (#45022267)

    " He can damage her reputation significantly by publishing them while she can't do the same to him."

          She could accuse him of rape. Even manufacture evidence quite easily. He'll be arrested, tossed in jail, publicly humiliated on the front page, lose his job, etc, in most places on just the accusation. A guy accusing a woman of rape gets little more that the last page if anything and the short-shrift in law enforcement and that if he is believed at all. Fact is, sexism is everywhere, and both genders can treat each other badly. Deal. All this abusive law proves is freedom(free doom) is dead, long live the nanny state.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...