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.
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?
"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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.