Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites 328
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a thought-provoking article at TechDirt: "My own representative in Congress, Jackie Speier, has apparently decided to introduce a federal 'revenge porn' bill, which is being drafted, in part, by Prof. Mary Anne Franks, who has flat out admitted that her goal is to undermine Section 230 protections for websites (protecting them from liability of actions by third parties) to make them liable for others' actions. Now, I've never written about Franks before, but the last time I linked to a story about her in a different post, she went ballistic on Twitter, attacking me in all sorts of misleading ways. So, let me just be very clear about this. Here's what she has said: '"The impact [of a federal law] for victims would be immediate," Franks said. "If it became a federal criminal law that you can't engage in this type of behavior, potentially Google, any website, Verizon, any of these entities might have to face liability for violations.' That makes it clear her intent is to undermine Section 230 and make third parties — like 'Google, any website, Verizon... face liability.'"
Potential for disaster (Score:4, Insightful)
There are an uncountable number of ways this could go, but it seems to me that the potential for huge problems stemming from how dangerously close the bill gets to free speech issues is large.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is freedom of speech, much like many other things that are found to be illegal based on other grounds. Soon I bet, there will be so many laws against USA websites, that nobody is going to want to risk hosting their website inside the USA.
This basically is requiring all content to be moderated before being available to the internet community, there goes a huge chunk of the internet.
Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there room for this behavior in a world where saying the "N" word, calling gay people words beginning with "F", etc. isn't socially acceptable?
You don't become a criminal for doing that.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.
Re:This is a REALLY bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
This law is kinda like:
"If you run with scissors and hurt someone it's okay to criminalize and sue the scissor manufacturer."
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Larry Flynt case the naked women were deemed to be adults who allowed their image be taken and printed. He likely did the paper work for releases, and photographed the women overtly and with full knowledge that the images would be published. Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint. A negative ruling would have meant that an adult women, or in the case of hustler many men, would no longer be able to expose herself or be penetrated for compensation.
So the cases are not really comparable. In revenge porn the images may not have taken overtly. In revenge porn the woman might not have agreed to have the images spread beyond the local area. Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.
So to be clear if a person arranged to video themselves masturbating or having sex with partner(s) that are aware the video is going public, then stopping that would be a violation of free speech, but otherwise not. If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses. In both cases, this is not acceptable, and the former is is not only because of age issues.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
And without any additional context, you could argue that child porn or horse porn is also perfectly legal, due to free speech. Fortunately, free speech only goes so far in terms of justifying certain actions.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...
Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal. But we already have laws against copyright violations (if any), so why the new bill?
My argument is that, generally, whatever can be legally seen (and peeking into a dressing room is illegal), can also be legally recorded (and the recordings subsequently published). Any laws to the contrary violate the First Amendment.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other's freedom not to appear on porn sites if they never consented to it.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging by these kinds of posts, I'm guessing a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths. No wonder libertarianism is so popular here.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uphold != interpret
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment guarantees that my speech (c)an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never. ,Just interrupt or speak over the speech of a person being questioned by law enforcement at the time? Verbally challenge the policeman him or herself during his or her otherwise legitimate excercise of police powers? Give verbal aid or comfort to an enemy nation during time of war
Slander someone? Libel them? Threaten immediate bodily harm? Extort? Divulge information during a trial despite court order? Reveal medical or financial information you become privy to in an official capacity? Speak against the authority of a judge or other court official in proceedings? Display contempt for said judge in open court? Swear at or otherwise intimidate a person being constrained to remain on the spot by law enforcement?
Oh yeah, the First Amendment supports your right to do any or all of those, and a pig buzzed me at Mach 3 yesterday.
Hint - there is one social contract - the law.
Hint 2 - you obviously know nothing about that.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should read the actual first amendment, rather than the text written in invisible ink that authoritarian judges added to it.
Our legal tradition didn't start with the Constitution and you understanding of it can't start there either.
This is really important: The Constitution was not written in a vacuum.
I'll say it again: The Constitution was not written in a vacuum.
Long before the Constitution and its Amendments were conceived, there was this thing called "common law."
Slander, libel, and threatening immediate bodily harm were already illegal.
The 1st Amendment was never intended to legalize such behavior.
We know this, because the guys who authored and debated the Amendments had voluminous written correspondences on the matter.
Your approach to the Constitution is like a layman reading the Bible,
without any historical context and proclaiming "I understand the word of God."
You don't. Your interpretation is unequivocally wrong. Please don't misinform others.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is disgusting, but the original poster replied to a further post about how this can be abused and that is why he opposes it.
Suppose you have a legit porn website. Someone uploads some porn with an exwife masturbating as an example. The divorce lawyer finds it and guess what? You are sued for revenge porn and now need to pay $5 million dollars to this women you never met so she doesn't have to work and go shopping off your retirement.
When laws come out like this whether laws that say the right to face your accuser does not apply in rape, or banning child porn, or implementing sexual harassment laws all have adverse consequences.
For example lets say you have a daughter who is 16 and filled with hormones. She takes a pic of her breasts and uploads them to her boyfriend. CHILD PORN MANUFACTURER! Her life is now ruined forever.
Or about how if you have a drink with a woman from work on a saturday and you get too friendly. Your boss can be liable for a hostile work environment even off the clock and can loose his business.
Be carefully what you support based on emotion. Going to far and the lawyers will find something to be used to the extreme.
I am so darned split with the right to refuse gays service in Arizona for example! I find it deplorable to oppose gay marriage! People should have any right.But I want to start a business. I have every darn RIGHT to refuse service for ANY reason. I own it! Lets say someone was costing me more than I was making. Or makes an unreasonable offer which is below cost. I refuse. Now I get to be freaking sued as I later find out the customer is a lesbian. Just freaking great!
I hate lawyers with a passion and trivial lawsuits. So I fit in this camp with less is better until we get real tort reform.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
Murders are illegal but I can see tons of videos and photos of murders all the over the news every day.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
The closest non-horrible way to do it I can think of would be codifying the right to privacy and control of personal images/data when it comes to publication for mass consumption. It wouldn't hurt people taking photographs in public, news crews, or similar because of the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard. It's plain on its face that someone has a reasonable expectation that pornographic images given to a then-sexual partner are expected to be for that individuals consumption alone, whereas you have no reasonable expectation not to show up briefly walking past a news camera.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, be careful about how you give it out and to whom.
if you don't want to be a "victim" of revenge porn, don't pose for pornographic photos in the first place. The whole point of a photograph is to capture a moment in time for later viewing.
Re:Jerkfaces Usually Get Their Due (Score:4, Insightful)
"This is a no-brainer. Revenge porn is an abuse of trust." This is a MASSIVE assumption. If you allow someone to record you in intimate acts, you have no one to blame but yourself. Free Speech trumps hurt feelings for 'lapses of morality'. Dont want to have a sex tape leaked? dont agree to be filmed.
First, that's entirely wrong. Your argument is premised on the concept that if you consent to one thing - e.g. making a sex tape - you consent to everything that can possibly be done with it. That's not true. Consent can be as narrow or broad as the consenting person wants. If you let me borrow your car, you're not necessarily consenting to let me rent out your car to my friends for use in a demolition derby. Consent to one thing is not consent to everything.
Second, your argument is an attempt to discourage people from making sex tapes. What are you, asexual? And if so, then why is this an issue you're concerned about? Shouldn't you be off not-masturbating somewhere? The rest of us would prefer that people make sex tapes, happily and in full confidence that their privacy will not be abused and their narrow consent to make a sex tape and share it with one or two people will not be broadened by some douchebag into consent to have it broadcast online.