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.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTimeForLove
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.
Um, that doesn't make any sense. While I agree that some aspects of the sex offender registry are too draconian, like forcing eighteen-year-old people who are convicted of sleeping with their sixteen-year-old consenting partners to register for life or tagging people with a one-off offense of public indecency which could just involve drunken parking lot pizzing, there are good reasons for preventing, say, convicted pedophiles from working with children or cruising public parks.
And how could the government reasonably not keep records of those previously convicted of crimes? (Molineux typically prevents prosecutors from bringing up evidence from previously suspected crimes).
Not only that, but in what possible universe is publishing a matter of public record (something anyone could go to a court house and request information about) like a foreclosure or bankruptcy analogous to someone posting privately taken videos or photos of someone else naked? Since when is someone's private nudity and/or sexual activity equivalent to a matter of public record? In any case, in major urban areas, the proceedings of small claims court or bankruptcy filings don't merit any mention. There's a lot more pressing news to cover.
I don't see anything wrong with a law that would penalize individuals who post nude pictures of others online.
But why stop there? Lets ban people from taking photos of people all together unless the person gets them to sign a contract before hand.
So Michael Phelps should be able to sue and have the police prosecute the person who secretly took a picture of him smoking weed.
Let's make it illegal for all those youtube vloggers and others who capture video of people out in public. Maybe they will capture a guy comitting a crime, but since he didn't consent to it, the video shouldn't be allowed in court?
Or maybe he catches a girl out on a date with a guy, and the girl's husband sees it, and ends up beating his wife. The girl should then able to sue the camera guy.
The list goes on and on of things we could make illegal.
We live in a country where you can't do anything without thinking if it breaks one of the 1.5 million federal and state laws and regulations.
Everything you do, from having a dirty house, hoarding, all the way to being naked in your kitchen without the blinds covering the window is illegal.
Where does it end?
All you freedom haters should start a communist party. Oh wait, you already have one, it's the democrat party.
But why stop there? Lets ban people from taking photos of people all together unless the person gets them to sign a contract before hand.
So Michael Phelps should be able to sue and have the police prosecute the person who secretly took a picture of him smoking weed.
Let's make it illegal for all those youtube vloggers and others who capture video of people out in public. Maybe they will capture a guy comitting a crime, but since he didn't consent to it, the video shouldn't be allowed in court?
Or maybe he catches a girl out on a date with a guy, and the girl's husband sees it, and ends up beating his wife. The girl should then able to sue the camera guy.
The list goes on and on of things we could make illegal.
We live in a country where you can't do anything without thinking if it breaks one of the 1.5 million federal and state laws and regulations.
Everything you do, from having a dirty house, hoarding, all the way to being naked in your kitchen without the blinds covering the window is illegal.
Where does it end?
All you freedom haters should start a communist party. Oh wait, you already have one, it's the democrat party.
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.
I don't think there is a one of us that would argue that if the pictures were taken without the knowledge of the person being photographed, that should be illegal. It is illegal.
Quote:
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.
Generally where does the harm come in with something like this? Is it when someone in Virginia see's a naked picture of someone in Nevada that they don't know and never will? Or does the real harm happen when your friends and neighbors see the pictures? When you have to face them everyday.
So in 1986 you were dating a co-worker and took some nude pictures from an instant camera. You break up and the person you were dating brings the pictures to work and shows them around. No harm? Less harm than people half way around the country that you will never meet seeing them?
Quote:
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.
"I meant no harm, I thought it was funny".
Quote:
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.
Bottom line is you have complete and total control of your image. If there are things you don't want shown, all you have to do is to maintain control over them.
College co-ed is interest in some guy in campus. They have sex but the guy really isn't all that interest. To get him more interested she sends him some nude photos. He calls his friends over and says, "Hey, look what the hot chick on my Art appreciation class just sent me".
The friends all ask to have the pic forwarded to them. Before long half the college see's them. Pain and humiliation ensue's, she drops out of college. Who is at fault here?
I don't think there is a one of us that would argue that if the pictures were taken without the knowledge of the person being photographed, that should be illegal. It is illegal.
No, it is LEGAL in all public places. As well in private places if you own the home/business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
College co-ed is interest in some guy in campus. They have sex but the guy really isn't all that interest. To get him more interested she sends him some nude photos. He calls his friends over and says, "Hey, look what the hot chick on my Art appreciation class just sent me".
The friends all ask to have the pic forwarded to them. Before long half the college see's them. Pain and humiliation ensue's, she drops out of college. Who is at fault here?
We'll I guess according to the law, if they aren't technically boyfriend and girlfriend, then it's fair game to put the pics online.
Why? The photo of Phelps smoking pot could have very well cost him a lot of money. It hurt his reputation. I'm sure he didn't like it and it very well could be said that it was done with malice and an intent to profit from the situation.
Now I will agree that isn't exactly the same as he was out in public but your argument to start with was prosecuting someone because harm was done.
Harm is done to people all the time and we do not prosecute it. Many of us would agree that things might not be the right thing to do but not doing the right thing many times has no place in the courts.
You have 100% control over your image. Keep your clothes on in front of the camera and there is never a problem.
No, it is LEGAL in all public places. As well in private places if you own the home/business.
It is not legal to put a camera up anywhere to take naked pics of someone without their knowledge. Granted if you are nude in public people can take your photo without your consent. There are pretty common sense reasons for the above.
Go ahead, open a business and place a camera in the rest room. You will be arrested and nobody is going to argue against that.
Quote:
We'll I guess according to the law, if they aren't technically boyfriend and girlfriend, then it's fair game to put the pics online.
See now, isn't that silly? How do we determine this? 5 dates constitutes bf/gf? 3 dates? 2 months? It also shoots down the "harm" aspect. You aren't harmed because you officially weren't bf/gf?
Well it looks like the only people who have problems with this law are the ones who might be planning revenge porn. And I'm ok with that. I'd rather have you in jail then someone who causes no harm to anyone else.
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.
