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)
 
Old 10-02-2013, 08:41 PM
 
91 posts, read 401,736 times
Reputation: 70

Advertisements

If this law is valid, then any lawmaker who voted for the sex offender registry is guilty of malice!

They did the time, but still pay for the crime with being singled out anywhere they go?

Not just sex offenders, but other felons, and lawbreakers (which is currently 25% , 1 out of 4 people in the US) for the rest of their life.

The government commits MALICE by keeping records of people that break the law for the entire life of that individual, even though they already paid the fines/and or jail time.

The government also requires companies to post in the PUBLIC NEWSPAPER if someone had their house foreclosed on ,or had a debt they were sued for.

How come the government can willingly single out people, but another citizen can't even share a video to someone else?


We are just citizens, we are not the powerful government or their liberal knights of royalty. You sheeple bow down to tyranny and control humans that want to be free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2013, 09:31 PM
 
Location: California
37,097 posts, read 42,098,467 times
Reputation: 34962
I'm ok with this law. We have to keep up with technology . I'd also advise everyone to NOT take nude pics/make sex tapes. But that's just me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 09:35 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,797,822 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I'm ok with this law. We have to keep up with technology . I'd also advise everyone to NOT take nude pics/make sex tapes. But that's just me.
So further restrict first amendment rights because we have to keep up with technology. I'm sure you are happy with the work the NSA is doing as well. Maybe we can get rid of the forth amendment while we are at it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 11:29 PM
 
Location: California
37,097 posts, read 42,098,467 times
Reputation: 34962
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
So further restrict first amendment rights because we have to keep up with technology. I'm sure you are happy with the work the NSA is doing as well. Maybe we can get rid of the forth amendment while we are at it.
I'll gladly restrict first amendment rights from idiots who don't know what that even means. Including revenge porn posters on the internet. And sleep well at night too!

Besides, nobody is saying they can't do it. Just that they can't do it without penalty, so there you are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 11:32 PM
 
91 posts, read 401,736 times
Reputation: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I'll gladly restrict first amendment rights from idiots who don't know what that even means. Including revenge porn posters on the internet. And sleep well at night too!

Besides, nobody is saying they can't do it. Just that they can't do it without penalty, so there you are.
So why haven't you or California made it illegal to post badly about ex-bf's??

I've heard of those sites were women can post pics of their ex-bf's and talk **** about them , and "WARN" other women about staying away from those jerks.


If that isn't illegal, then this shouldn't be either.


Before you know it, free speech is gone. All because you were trying to protect people from making their own bad decisions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 11:34 PM
 
Location: California
37,097 posts, read 42,098,467 times
Reputation: 34962
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTimeForLove View Post
So why haven't you or California made it illegal to post badly about ex-bf's??

I've heard of those sites were women can post pics of their ex-bf's and talk **** about them , and "WARN" other women about staying away from those jerks.


If that isn't illegal, then this shouldn't be either.


Before you know it, free speech is gone. All because you were trying to protect people from making their own bad decisions.
I'm sure if you made an effort you could get this going. Like all the naked women did. It all starts with one person...

Are these ex-bf's naked?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 11:35 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,797,822 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
I'll gladly restrict first amendment rights from idiots who don't know what that even means. Including revenge porn posters on the internet. And sleep well at night too!

Besides, nobody is saying they can't do it. Just that they can't do it without penalty, so there you are.
It saddens me how much you enjoy shredding the constitution.

That is like saying, no one is saying you cannot murder someone, just that they can't do it without penalty.

What makes this country great is each persons right to be an idiot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,923,168 times
Reputation: 3415
I think the good governor has larger issues in his state that he needs to address..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2013, 11:58 PM
 
Location: California
37,097 posts, read 42,098,467 times
Reputation: 34962
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life View Post
It saddens me how much you enjoy shredding the constitution.

That is like saying, no one is saying you cannot murder someone, just that they can't do it without penalty.

What makes this country great is each persons right to be an idiot.
And I'm amused that you think we have had/should have unfettered freedoms. It's never been that way, humanity couldn't handle it. Witnessed by "revenge porn".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2013, 12:48 AM
 
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,657,679 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
There is a profound difference between posting someone's bad picture, and posting pornographic images of someone.
Arguments for this law can be made on several grounds. One has to do with a reasonable expectation of privacy (that was the argument made in the case of the Rutgers kid who jumped off the GWB following his outing on social media because of his roommate's hidden webcam; he had a reasonable expectation of privacy governing acts he engaged in within his own dorm room). One could argue that a member of an intimate couple has a reasonable expectation of privacy for images made for such a couple's mutual (or one-sided) enjoyment.

Think of it this way: before the digital age, you and your partner might have made all kinds of explicit pics that you developed for yourselves. In the event of a break-up, and to humiliate your former partner, how would you distribute these images in a public sphere? Post them in hard copy on sign posts? In that case you would be guilty of public indecency.

I think a better analogy than libel or slander might be sexual harassment. Posting nude pictures of another person in a public place without their consent seems to me to be just as much of an act of harassment as making unwanted advances, telling humiliating jokes, or other such behavior in public. Cyber-stalking may also be germane, and that is an emerging area in what we need to figure out in the balance between rights to freedom of expression on the one hand and others' rights to freedom from harm. And intention does matter in jurisprudence, and it has for centuries, thus the distinctions between degrees of crimes, and these have nothing to do with policing thought but rather to do with judging levels of malice aforethought.

In any case, modern jurisprudence will always be several steps behind technology; it takes time for the law to catch up with practice. Look up how laws regarding slander, libel, and defamation developed after the advent of penny presses in the 19th century.
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. The time now is 07:36 AM.

© 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