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.'"
Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a fine line between free speech and slander.
At the very least I'd put in a safeguard where you'd have to prove that the entity you claim is trying to display you negatively is actually really trying to do so. I.e. Google has no interest to show your naked pics you handed to your ex in secrecy. Your ex does.
If anything, make people liable for releasing naked pics of people they have no right to release. So you better guard those naked pics of your lover well.
Because else, all I'd have to do to evade that law is to post the pics of my ex on some board and wait for the various sex sites in countries that don't give a fuck about what Mrs. Congresswoman barfed up pick them up and display them.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
What is speech? I think that's making any argument you'd like for or against something, the establishment, other ideas, the man, etc.
I think requiring the sign-off of all parties for pornographic videos (or any any other really where privacy is a reasonable expectation) might not be a bad idea.
But maybe it can be generalized. Say video of a person is captured in a changing room at some dept. store, the security guard takes it to try to sell it to a magazine because he thinks it's a famous person, it gets printed/put on the web. Should that be allowed? Now, think, that perhaps even if it was a celeb, they should be afforded the same protection as well?
I think perhaps it can be generalized to situations where the person expects privacy, video should not be released unless it's in the public interest (you catch the President discussing how the NSA can break into private homes to get documents) or for other criminal matters (politician taking bribes, adult trying to lure kids in a van, whatever).
Isn't there a line that protects both free speech and human dignity?
Given how small cameras and microphones have come, our freedom of speech has slammed into our rights to be safe and secure in our own homes, and lastly our own persons, our bodies.
Just like disallowing someone to yell fire in a theater, you are not actually imposing on free speech in a significant way, (I can still argue that it can be allowed, or that fires in theaters are a problem, etc), I don't see how allowing for human dignity will impose on free speech here.
I can see how a law will do that, but only if we try to be staunch and try to resist at all costs. This debate has been long in coming. We should participate and be instrumental in crafting something reasonable instead of letting a draconian law pass that merely uses a legitimate issue for the legislators' and their handlers' own ends.
What do we have to lose out on? A quick laugh at Star Wars kid where we got a few seconds of enjoyment at the cost of years of this kid's life and psyche, and other misfortunates like him? Where's the free speech in that?
You mean fake revenge porn? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there actual real revenge porn out there? From what I have seen it's all been fake (ie. porn stars).
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:0, Interesting)
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.
If it's a copyright issue, the DMCA already empowers the copyright holder to have the violating images taken down. So, no new law is needed to address this.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not freedom, that's power.
I agree that you need power to have freedom, either directly (using force yourself) or indirectly (having someone else use force) but there is still a difference between the concept of freedom and the concept of power.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that generally, in the absence of any other agreement, the photographer owns the copyright to the image and can give that image to whatever site he or she chooses. In certain situations they might not be able to accept payment for it, but exhibiting their work is really their right.
If you are letting a partner take images of you then you are, without any further agreement, letting them do what they choose with that image.
Within current law, the only reasonable way to solve that is to have a contractual agreement in place first that allows you to recoup civil damages from the other party if they use the image in a way that you don't expressly consent to.
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
a fifth to quarter of the posters are borderline sociopaths
That would be consistent with the population at large; 20% authoritarian followers, 5% social dominators according to Altemeyer [umanitoba.ca].
Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not defamation of character if what you say is true.
Basically, if you're not photoshopping someone's head onto another body, revenge porn is not defamation.
LK