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.
"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.
Here's a thought: Why don't people stop taking naked selfies and sending them via a third party to others? It's like writing secrets in a diary - it you write it, some else is going to read it. If you take a photo, someone else (or a lot of some elses) are going to see it. I blame the person who posed naked.
I've never stepped out of the shower, looked in the mirror and thought "Wow, the world needs to see this!" (Not that I'm that bad looking, but...) I never have to worry about a photo of me naked showing up anywhere as there are none.
Actions have consequences. And this is bad law. But then what do you expect out of the Land of Fruits and Nuts?
The act is clearly malicious and its only intent is to hurt the other individual, or to possibly make a profit. Both would be done without the other person's consent.
What exactly do you posters have against the law? You think its ok to do the above?
The act is clearly malicious and its only intent is to hurt the other individual, or to possibly make a profit. Both would be done without the other person's consent.
What exactly do you posters have against the law? You think its ok to do the above?
You brought other aspects into this. If it was to profit there are already laws that address that. Any picture you take is copyrighted.
Whether something is O.K. and whether it should be illegal are two different things. Adultery IMO isn't O.K. but I'm not pressing to make it illegal.
If you give me something and I decide to give it away to someone else, I see no reason for that to be illegal. If you don't want something gave to someone you don't want to have it, keep it to yourself.
Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
"Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims," the bill's author, Sen. Anthony Cannella, said in a statement. "Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted."
Cannella, a Republican, has said revenge porn is a growing problem in the age of social media, when photos and videos that were made privately during a relationship can find their way onto hundreds of websites.
You brought other aspects into this. If it was to profit there are already laws that address that. Any picture you take is copyrighted.
Whether something is O.K. and whether it should be illegal are two different things. Adultery IMO isn't O.K. but I'm not pressing to make it illegal.
If you give me something and I decide to give it away to someone else, I see no reason for that to be illegal. If you don't want something gave to someone you don't want to have it, keep it to yourself.
Adultery isn't a comparable offense. Black mail. Slander. Those are closer comparisons.
If you want to send nude photos of someone you supposedly cared about out of malice you should be prosecuted. Not because its morally wrong but because its causing harm to that other individual.
Adultery isn't a comparable offense. Black mail. Slander. Those are closer comparisons.
You have absolutely no proof of that and besides once again, we already have laws against blackmail and slander. You also brought the "do you think it's O.K." as a justification for making something illegal, not me.
Quote:
If you want to send nude photos of someone you supposedly cared about out of malice you should be prosecuted. Not because its morally wrong but because its causing harm to that other individual.
Malice is free speech. If someone tells you something and you decide to repeat that to hurt them, if true there is nothing they can do about. This law will be overturned.
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.
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 like writing secrets in a diary - it you write it, some else is going to read it. If you take a photo, someone else (or a lot of some elses) are going to see it. I blame the person who posed naked.
