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."
How about (Score:5, Insightful)
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.'
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
I don't do it :(
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
I did it before I got married :(
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
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:5, Funny)
Hi honey,
This is me, your SO. Just a note to let you know that while you were posting this, I emptied your apartment using the spare key you gave me. I was not going to tell you that it was me who did it, but since you've explained to the rest of your fellow /.ers that you are an adult and you would simply "chalk it up to my own poor decision-making and consider it a lesson learned" I'm going ahead and telling you this.
Cheerio
Your sweet honey buns
Re: (Score:3)
Never nudes.
See, that would require having good judgment and putting a thought or two towards contingency.
Nope. It would require a magic sixth sense that lets you know that the apparently trustworthy person you're with won't turn into a total asswipe six months from now. To date, there's no known method.
It also requires that none of his buddies will 'borrow' his cellphone when he's asleep/drunk and that he's incapable of hiding a cellphone in a place where you might be naked, or even just surprising you in the shower.
etc.
Short version: Life isn't the perfect little utopia you were imagining when you said that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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?
Re: How about (Score:3, Insightful)
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. ... If you take a family photo and I'm walking in the background, I can sue you for copying my likeness without permission.
This will also reenforce some other policies, like
More boneheaded "I'm not responsible for my own actions" policies please.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Back in those days, photos were taken on photographic film which had to be developed, and in 99.9% of cases by someone not taking the photo or in the photo. Therefore, someone else would see the nudey.
Machines were invented for developing consumer photographic films but still they would be inspected by humans for quality control. They get to see the nudey.
In some countries, like the UK, with strict, old-fashioned prurient laws about the nudey, pictures of boobs and front-bottoms (male and female) could land you in jail with a conviction as a sexual pervert.
So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare.
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
You (and the original AC) are forgetting the Polaroid instant camera. They weren't purchased for the quality of the pictures or the low price of the film.
Now get off my king-sized water bed.
Re:How about (Score:5, Informative)
"So in the "olden days" i.e. pre-cheap digital cameras, nudey pictures were very rare."
They weren't "very rare". They were just mainly confined to those who had their own darkrooms.
Or anyone who had one of these [wikipedia.org]...
Re: (Score:3)
In a modern context, I suppose all the girls in my class would've been busted for distributing child p
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!
On the bright side, it's a quick way to get your 15 minutes of fame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame [wikipedia.org]
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
you do realize that we already have laws on the books to handle situations where no consent was given, right?
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.
Re:How about (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
That's why I always film the consent and the resulting sex.
Re:How about (Score:4, Interesting)
And, yes, I realize that it may seem counter-intuitive to call it privacy, but the media was private to the relationship.
So was the naive decision (of the photographed person) to trust someone who should not have been trusted. If we agree that private things should remain private, there is no reason why this should be an exception.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
You can replace girls with people.
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
It's nice to see some politicians passing a law that may actually help a few people...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
It's the difference between hearsay ("Susan told me Tom was in town") and testimony ("I saw Tom in town").
Also known as, "pics or it didn't happen".
And when it comes to pics on the internet, it can also be the difference between "I wouldn't want to see that" and "oh god no, I can't un-see that".
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Because politicians love the meme of the innocent maiden victimized by nasty brutish men, so long as the politicians get to be the knights in shining armor.
Or the hard-working black man kept down by mean ol' racist Whitey. Or whatever -- any division will work. So long as it divides people into group identities and requires a savior, it will become a political issue.
It's not a very funny joke, but the joke is that so many people really think the legislators voting for this give a flying fuck about w
Re: (Score:2)
What a ridiculous rule. Next we're going to hear about a law prohibiting spreading rumors about someone after a breakup.
It sounds to me like some short sighted politician in California got burned, and now they are making another arbitrary rule. Perhaps a proportional response would be to go find these pictures and distribute them more widely.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if Anthony Weiner's wiener pic would end up violating this law. Didn't the girl release it?
~S
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
'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:5, Interesting)
'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.
I've made the same point (and I'm an IP attorney, so yes, you're right regarding the copyright ownership), but there's a counterpoint: these photos are not intended for distribution or sale, and so the actual damages for illegally distributing them is going to be (a) negligible, and (b) nigh-impossible to prove.
"But wait," you say. "What about statutory damages of up to $150,000 for willful infringement? Surely, that's a better fit here (and a more apt punishment) than the Jammie Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum RIAA cases!"
And you're absolutely right... except that to get statutory damages, you have to register your copyright.
By sending a copy to the Library of Congress.
Where it is publicly archived and available.
Your intimate sex picture.
That you're suing over because you don't want it publicly available.
Dang.
Nonetheless, once it's published on a revenge-porn site, the damage has already been done, so someone wise could quickly register their copyright (you have 3 months from first publication) and then (a) file a DMCA takedown to get it removed, with huge penalties if they don't, and (b) file suit for statutory damages for willful infringement against the ex who stole it.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
That's funny, since I'm an IP attorney, and I would never let anyone get away with the statement that "'revenge porn' is nearly always [a] copyright violation." The photographer or videographer will frequently be the partner rather than the subject, in which case a civil suit for copyright infringement is going to go exactly nowhere.
To be clear: (1) The copyright is held by the photographer; (2) The copyright in the photograph cannot be assigned except through a written instrument; and (3) in these situations the court typically cannot order such a transfer. 17 USC 201(e). If you didn't set up the camera or take the photo yourself, there is very little chance that you will be able to use copyright law to address the problem.
And never forget the ultimate problem -- anything posted on the internet will remain on the internet (through some service and at some location) essentially forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright belongs to the author, who may or may not be the subject.
The subject of a photo also has rights over the image.
If the photographer is not the subject, and if the subject is a particular person or 'model', that person needs to sign a 'model release' before the photographer can publish it to a commercial website.
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
We live in a sex-obsessed culture.
Part of what gives sex value is the difficulty in obtaining it.
Part of a person's value is the right to have sex with that person, which is given only at some cost.
Part of the value of sex with this person is the rarity of it. Few have had sex with this person.
Nudity and naked pictures are a part of the sexual process and its value. Only those who have sex with this person can see this person naked.
This person gave the right to have sex with her to one person.
Now everyone can engage in the seeing-naked part of the sexual process with her. This part is no longer rare.
Others will assume that she's a trollop, greatly depreciating her sexual value since it is commonly available.
Embarrassment is knowledge of others' diminished opinions of one.
-> Embarrassment
Social games are social games. An exploit has been patched.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:This law is to prtect Republicans. (Score:5, Interesting)
This law was passed in California. Republicans there are as rare as Christians in Saudi Arabia!
So Democrats elected Regan and Schwarzenegger?
Re: (Score:3)
California State Assembly [wikipedia.org]: 52 Democrats, 25 Republicans, 3 vacant
California State Senate [wikipedia.org]:28 Democrat, 12 Republican
I'm thinking This legislature isn't passing laws to, and I quote, "protect Republicans and their "Perverted" ways"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Republican governors have controlled the state of California for much more time than democrat governors in the last century. One of those governors even became a president of the US and the most revered symbol of the conservative movement (Ronald Reagan).
California is a blue state, but it's not like republicans are rare here. I live in San Diego and my congressman is a republican.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to a wedding photographer. The prints you get do not come with permission to copy them and send them to everyone you know, whether for money or not.
That's actually a good point. Before hiring a wedding photographer always make sure to clarify what rights each party has to the pictures taken -- in writing -- and don't hire anyone who isn't willing to make some compromises (even if you have to pay a little extra and search a little harder). You have plenty of negotiating leverage before the wedding occurs, but not afterwards.
So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not exactly true. Otherwise, posting any picture on the net would be illegal.
Its almost impossible to take a picture in any city and not have at least one person appear in it.
There is only an expectation of a release if your photo will be used as an endorsement or an advertisement.
I've appeared in hundreds of news photos, sports photos (due to having great seats close to the action).
I appear on several people's facebook pages even though I have no facebook account. If you step outside
your home, you are fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno where you live, but it is perfectly legal for me to stand in a public place, take pictures and publish them on the web....have you not seen everyone post their tourist pics on FB or flickr or other websites? You've not see websites of people showing off their street photography?
If it is editorial in nature, you can feel quite free to sell those images too, like to news agencies without any form of release.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
becasue one is a civil law, the other is not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Though considering that society tends to heap a lot more scorn and abuse on women so exposed than men, maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
You really want to see a picture of me naked?
You are sick and twisted. :D
[John]
Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:So... can they do it pre-breakup? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Do not confuse the value of having sex with the value of being filmed while having sex. The latter can result in being fired, snubbed, insulted, blackmailed, and justifiably having your judgement challenged. Not properly evaluating those potential consequences is at least foolish and most likely stupid.
Who would you prefer be hired as a kindergarten teacher, bank teller, secretary handling top secret documents: someone you saw in a porn video, or someone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming the images were uploaded anonymously, and that both parties had access, there is the further question of exactly which party is seeking revenge. It isn't beyond belief that someone might upload their own photos in an attempt to frame the person who just broke up with them.
Re: (Score:3)
The rule of law is, at its core, a way to protect one party's rights against the actions of another party. Government is the messy system we have devised to enforce said rules. This is clearly a case where one party's reasonable expectation of privacy is violated by the actions of another party. In particular, consider homemade sex videos made by a couple which are later distributed by an angry ex. Law or no law, people are going to sue.
This sort of "revenge porn" apparently happens often enough with curren
Re: (Score:3)
Now we have to take the understood intention of the first party into account?
After reading the bill's summary, I'm not sure how this law could ever be enforced, mostly due to issue of intent.
They readily admit that they can't generally identify who posted the pics/vids to such sites. If you can't even establish who posted it, how can you determine their intent beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless you can prove that the person who took the pic/vid in fact posted it, anyone charged could reasonably claim someone else was able to access the pic/vid from their phone/computer and uploade
Revenge? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just a marketing stunt to make crappy pictures a little more exciting. It bears very little resemblance to reality.
Better late than never... (Score:2)
Re:Better late than never... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
An alternative (Score:2, Funny)
Enforcement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actualy, it does.
It will mostly involve 2 parties. As such, knowing where the photos came from will be trivial.
SO legal recourse, which is what this is about, is far simpler here then a bittorrent that could have come from on of 1000 machines.
Problem solved (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, don't send naked pictures of yourself over the Internet to anyone.
Good advice for Slashdotters. Nobody wants to see that.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about people that were in a romantic (or sexual) engagement that went sour, the internet is only got involved after the fact..
Re: (Score:2)
At least under current law they can go after websites in the US which show the picture and from there, backtrack to who released the picture in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Ownership (Score:2, Funny)
You gave me the image, its mine to do with as i please.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that'll do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, it'll be yet another bludgeon being able to be used in court against a husband (or father).
At least it might help hinder the Paparazzi.
with the intent (Score:2)
If it's limited to only those cases where someone can prove "intent to cause serious emotional distress", then it's not going to be very effective. I see loopholes o'plenty.
No, that won't be so tough (Score:2)
If the picture is uploaded to Craigslist with the caption: "For a good time, call..." or to one of the several services that exist to serve this exact market (with fields for name and contact info of the victim, no less!), no, intent is not hard to prove at all.
Re: (Score:2)
everybody is naked under their clothes (Score:3)
people need to get over their hangups with nudity, and they need to understand there is a difference between nude photos and porn, (hint: its not porn until sexual activity is involved)
nobody is naked under their clothes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or better yet, we could try to get over the collective obsession with naked bodies and who is mating with whome. We're acting like a bunch of over-evolved apes.
Intent is the key word... (Score:3, Interesting)
...but judge, my intent was to impress my friends, potential girlfriends, etc. with the hotness of my ex. ...but judge, my intent was to let other guys know that such a hottie was now available, so that she might find a new boyfriend more easily. ...but judge, this photo is a work of art and thus protected by the first amendment.
etc...
Intent seems a high barrier to prove...
Political Scandal (Score:2)
Four rules to live by (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Well there goes my saturdays (Score:2)
DRAT FOILED AGAIN!
Won't work... (Score:2)
Proving intent and clarifying when something was "posted publicly" is tough to do. For instance, what's to stop a slimy person from posting nude pics to a website that has a "We're still together" button that acts as a dead man's switch, such that if it isn't pressed in time, the pics get publicized. Who's doing the publishing then? And if it's one of the involved partners, when did it actually occur? When they uploaded them pre-breakup, or when they refused to lie later about their status?
Alternatively, I
Why does this only apply to naked exes? (Score:3)
Why should the law care about whether or not there has been a romantic relationship, or even if there's nudity?
How about, if you have pictures of another person, given with reasonable expectations that it was for your private use (i.e. you do not have any signed permission to the contrary), why not just make it illegal to make these public with intent to bully, defame, humiliate, or shame?
Celebrities and other people in the public eye excepted, as always, or half the entertainment industry would crash overnight.
First ammendment (Score:2)
Don't do it for revenge (Score:3)
If in 2008 the NSA people had no problem sharing the conversations of soldiers with their girlfriends between them [go.com] just imagine how they would be sharing now whatever digital you take with your girlfriend now. So just label it "national security" instead of revenge and should be ok. Or stop taking any digital media that is not meant for sharing with other people, no matter how good or bad are going your relations with your girlfriend, with no privacy that is the first thing that will be misused.
Who decides if it was "shaming"? (Score:3)
I can see the intent of the law, and I think the people that do it are slimeballs, but who is going to decide this? If you post pictures and say "Look how hot my ex girlfriend was" are you trying to shame here? What if you include "I wish she would take me back but she is too good for me." Who is going to decide what your actual purpose was? And what if you are in the pictures as well? There are too many questions and judgement calls with this law.
have you seen pictures of your mom naked? (Score:3)
do you want to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So it is OK if girls do it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.