The Moral Police in California at it again. (how much, crimes, felons)

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by zombocom

How are they not the same thing?

Profit denotes a monetary advantage, while exploit can denote advantages of any sort.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I think many of these pictures are posted along with context that demonstrates intent. And if a person were to tell the person posting them that they considered the postings to be malicious, if the person continued to post them, a case for malice might be established.

Websites will take them down when asked.

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Profit denotes a monetary advantage, while exploit can denote advantages of any sort.

It can, but in the context of using a person's likeness, there is little difference.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I would think as the cases get prosecuted, that the bar establishing "serious" harm will get set, and precedent established. Laws rarely define concepts as "serious" in an explicity and solid way, because each case is unique, and judges require some leeway in determining how seriously the victim has been impacted.

As I noted, how seriously they were impacted is irrelevant. The law prosecutes someone for intentionally wanting to inflict serious harm.

If serious harm is done and no intent to do serious harm is proven there is no violation.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Websites will take them down when asked.

Usually I'm the one accused of being too trusting.

And I've actually had some experience with this. Websites aren't always responsive to a person's complaints.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

As I noted, how seriously they were impacted is irrelevant. The law prosecutes someone for intentionally wanting to inflict serious harm.

If serious harm is done and no intent to do serious harm is proven there is no violation.

Okay. So then you take it to civil court, where intent isn't the issue, but whether the person could have prevented any or all of the harm.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The girl has to choose between betraying the guy who is "banging her", or protecting society from a murderer. She isn't behaving out of malice. (You did read the law, right, the one you're so incensed about. Because it explicitly states that the ex, which I'm not sure the girl you "banged" last night qualifies as an ex, has to be acting out of malice.) And where you get "fruit from the poisonous tree" is beyond me. Her testimony in court would be permissible because it was proffered by a citizen acting on behalf of society. Your posting nudie pictures of her online in an effort to hurt and humiliate her would be unacceptable because it's done out of MALICE.

So if I put the pictures on line for the sole purpose of adding to size of the Internet then it would be ok according to this law. What is the point of the law if the intent cannot be known, thus no one can ever be charged?

Sounds like we are getting into thought crime territory.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Okay. So then you take it to civil court, where intent isn't the issue, but whether the person could have prevented any or all of the harm.

They can do that now.

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Sounds like we are getting into thought crime territory.

That line was crossed many pages ago...

[zombocom]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So if I put the pictures on line for the sole purpose of adding to size of the Internet then it would be ok according to this law. What is the point of the law if the intent cannot be known, thus no one can ever be charged?

Sounds like we are getting into thought crime territory.

...a great many laws have a specific intent element...