Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:07 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
It's not a personal matter if you post it on a public website.

Also, there are already many laws that regulate when, how, and where you can use your property, or display media. So in that capacity, this law is nothing new, and is entirely constitutional.

So it is very interesting that some people here are just now suddenly very opinionated about this issue - wonder why...
Maybe because it was just now in the news? We should have been clairvoyant and discussed this before it happened?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:08 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,788,700 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
We already have laws that cover both of those.
Plus they both require someone to lie about others, this law has nothing do do with that.

This law would be more akin to making it illegal to talk about about someone even though you are telling the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:09 PM
 
Location: DFW
2,936 posts, read 3,501,723 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTimeForLove View Post
Calif. Governor Brown signs anti-revenge porn bill

"California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups."

=====

Why can't California respect the owner of digital media? If they took the video/photographs, and the person consented to said videos and photographs, then said owner has the right to distribute said sexiness!


This law must be unconstitutional.

If this law is not struck down, that means the paparazzi does not have right to their pictures of celebrities. It means, that Hollywood companies do not have a right to their motion pictures.
No they don't. People take sexy photos for their lovers to enjoy. The angry ex doesn't have a right to distribute it. There is a difference between someone who sexts their beau and a porn star who is consenting to have their sexual activity distributed for profit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:13 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 2,066,553 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Maybe because it was just now in the news? We should have been clairvoyant and discussed this before it happened?
Ah, so you don't have a problem with government regulating the use of your property, just in this particular case.

Like I said - interesting that your rage is so selective... Why do you only have a problem in this instance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:14 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,788,700 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Towner View Post
No they don't. People take sexy photos for their lovers to enjoy. The angry ex doesn't have a right to distribute it. There is a difference between someone who sexts their beau and a porn star who is consenting to have their sexual activity distributed for profit.
Who ever owns the picture has the right to distribute it as they see fit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:15 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
Ah, so you don't have a problem with government regulating the use of your property, just in this particular case.
That is a very vague statement.

Quote:
Like I said - interesting that your rage is so selective... Why do you only have a problem in this instance?
I'm not the one attacking others for having a viewpoint that is counter to theirs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:20 PM
 
Location: DFW
2,936 posts, read 3,501,723 times
Reputation: 1806
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
Who ever owns the picture has the right to distribute it as they see fit.
No they don't, you sound like a very morally bankrupt person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:25 PM
 
1,614 posts, read 2,066,553 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
That is a very vague statement.



I'm not the one attacking others for having a viewpoint that is counter to theirs.
I'm not going to reiterate in the same detail the same point over and over. the point remains that regulation of media is nothing new, and in this context there is no free speech issue, and there is no property right issue (and if there is, the government's interest is sufficiently compelling to prevail).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:31 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,992,125 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom View Post
I'm not going to reiterate in the same detail the same point over and over. the point remains that regulation of media is nothing new.
Of course it isn't.

Quote:
There is no free speech issue here, the issue here is "should an ******* be able to ruin a girl's life because she dumped him (and considering what transpired afterwards, that she dumped him is probably of no great surprise).
Guy has a friend. He see's his friends wife out with another man. They are slobbering all over each other in a bar with his hand up her skirt. The guy snaps a photo and posts it to Facebook. Do you think this might ruin this womans life? Should he get arrested for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,788,700 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Towner View Post
No they don't, you sound like a very morally bankrupt person.
Yes they do. If I have a legally acquired picture I can do with it what I see fit.

I side with freedom every chance I get, I prefer not to make decisions for other people. Obviously, this is what you think you are best at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top