The Moral Police in California at it again. (felony, parties, financial)
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.
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.
And who exactly decides if "malice" is part of the equation? You? Gov. Moonbeam?
Any law that proclaims to know the answer is a judgmental law and is a bad law.
There's a difference between acts that harm no one, and acts that can cause physical harm (suicide), financial harm (job loss), and emotional harm.
So outing someone should be a criminal offense?
A girl I knew in HS during a bitter breakup with her bf loudly announced at a party that he had a tiny d*ck. Classy? Nope....but it could have caused him emotional harm and even suicide, should we lock her up?
What about accusing a man of rape but turns out there isn't enough evidence? This guy has suffered public humiliation, it's all over the internet...I guess we file charges against the accuser?
What about the websites where you can read what ex-gf's had to say about the guy who asked you out?
I'm just trying to get you guys to see what a slippery slope this can be and once those pics are out there, they are copied and on the internet FOREVER.
Personally, this is nothing more than a publicity stunt by pontius Brown and other pols because nobody wants to be "that guy" and be labeled some sort of "woman hater" for pointing out the obvious. So, they will kick this can to the state supreme court and let them be the "bad guy".
Civil court would be a good place to sue the d-bags doing stuff like this.
A former student of mine tried to commit suicide after a former boyfriend posted nude pictures of her on the Internet. I agree that people shouldn't take naked pictures to begin with, but if it taken for personal use, then it needs to only be for personal use. Revenge porn is a vicious act designed to humiliate another person and it should be illegal.
people have committed Suicide because their spouse cheated on them also.
"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.
If a person is required to sign a release form to allow a photographer to use their image, what is the difference? Allowing someone to take your photo for their personal consuption does not give any special right to the photographer.
If someone uses your image for the unintended use of the photo, then the contract between the parties has been breached.
Saying that if someone did not want their immage used as the photographer wishes, then they should have not posed...is assinine.
If a person is required to sign a release form to allow a photographer to use their image, what is the difference? Allowing someone to take your photo for their personal consuption does not give any special right to the photographer.
If someone uses your image for the unintended use of the photo, then the contract between the parties has been breached.
Saying that if someone did not want their immage used as the photographer wishes, then they should have not posed...is assinine.
Except that if you allow someone to take your picture (consent) they can do whatever they want with it.
I agree with the earlier comment about OK vs. legal. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right, and I don't defend anyone who would do this. With that said...
Why are so many disregarding the part the original "model" takes in creating such images or allowing them to be created? This is a bad choice, which in some cases has very serious consequences. The role of law is not to protect ourselves from making bad choices which only affect us. Should taking naked photos of one's self be made illegal? if so, then smoking and fatty foods should be illegal as well. Indulging in any of these is a personal choice, and these choices have generally negative consequences.
If I take a nekkid pic of myself, and mistakedly trust someone else enough to share it with them, then it's my problem what follows. If I never take such photos, either through making a good choice or a lack of desire to do so, then the proability of negative consequences is greatly lowered.
I blame the subject in the photo for allowing such photos to be taken, for any purpose. If they choose to do so, then deal with the consequences. The law should not get involved when someone does something stupid which harms only themselves and has no chance of harming anyone else (such as with drinking or drugs).
This should be a learning experience for those who have made such bad choices: 1) Don't take photos of yourself or allow others to; and, 2) Learn to recognize a**holes and don't trust them. (Some never learn, but that's a Darwinian issue.) Properly taken, I'll be they don't do that again!
This isn't about mistakenly trusting someone. This is about violating someone's trust AND privacy. If you take a naked picture of yourself and give it to your husband whom you presumably trust, and ten years down the road the marriage ends in divorce, if your husband then produces that picture, scans it with his cellphone and sends the picture to the internet, it can cause a lot of harm. Not just to you, the picture taker, but to the children of the two people, to the careers of the two people, to their reputations. We have laws that protect people's privacy, such as no cameras in dressing rooms, to protect people's privacy. This law is about protecting a person's privacy, from someone who was once trusted and intimate, who is now seeking revenge. Putting intimate images on the internet in these situations is meant to do harm. The law is to discourage these people from harming others.
This isn't about mistakenly trusting someone. This is about violating someone's trust AND privacy. If you take a naked picture of yourself and give it to your husband whom you presumably trust, and ten years down the road the marriage ends in divorce, if your husband then produces that picture, scans it with his cellphone and sends the picture to the internet, it can cause a lot of harm. Not just to you, the picture taker, but to the children of the two people, to the careers of the two people, to their reputations.
No, this is all about mistakenly trusting someone. It involves self-action (in taking photos) or participating in the action of another (by being a willing model), and the ultimate consequences which arise. Why would one allow nude photos to be taken if there is no intention of others ever seeing them? What damage will happen to children? Could not the same damage happen if it later becomes known that 'Mom was a wh*re' or 'Dad was a womanizng drunkard'? Careers? Damage can happen if one makes any other of a number of bad choices which impacts their professional endeavors. Reputations? Being known as someone who knowingly passed out nude photos of themselves is a consequence of their own actions - which is my whole point.
What you describe as damage is best left as a civil matter between two (or more) people, not a criminal matter for what is being discussed here.
Parents, teach your daughters that it's ALWAYS a bad idea to share nude pictures with ANYONE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. And hope that they listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
We have laws that protect people's privacy, such as no cameras in dressing rooms, to protect people's privacy. This law is about protecting a person's privacy, from someone who was once trusted and intimate, who is now seeking revenge. Putting intimate images on the internet in these situations is meant to do harm. The law is to discourage these people from harming others.
No cameras in dressing rooms is to protect others, not photos you may take of yourself. No one should be photographed in a state of undress without their consent. If I take a selfie in the dressing room, no harm, no foul (unless I decide to share it).
Broken trusts are not criminal matters. If someone feels wronged, they can take it up as a civil matter. They need to be prepared to show actual damages and that they did not willingly participate in the events leading to such damages. ("But he said he loved me" is not a defense.)
No, this is all about mistakenly trusting someone. It involves self-action (in taking photos) or participating in the action of another (by being a willing model), and the ultimate consequences which arise. Why would one allow nude photos to be taken if there is no intention of others ever seeing them? What damage will happen to children? Could not the same damage happen if it later becomes known that 'Mom was a wh*re' or 'Dad was a womanizng drunkard'? Careers? Damage can happen if one makes any other of a number of bad choices which impacts their professional endeavors. Reputations? Being known as someone who knowingly passed out nude photos of themselves is a consequence of their own actions - which is my whole point.
Sharing nude photos with your partner does not make you a *****.
What you describe as damage is best left as a civil matter between two (or more) people, not a criminal matter for what is being discussed here.
It's criminal because of the intent.
Why would you post nude pictures of your spouse/partner/whatever on the internet other than to cause them harm or embarrassment? Please explain that to me.
Parents, teach your daughters that it's ALWAYS a bad idea to share nude pictures with ANYONE under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. And hope that they listen.
No cameras in dressing rooms is to protect others, not photos you may take of yourself. No one should be photographed in a state of undress without their consent. If I take a selfie in the dressing room, no harm, no foul (unless I decide to share it).
Broken trusts are not criminal matters. If someone feels wronged, they can take it up as a civil matter. They need to be prepared to show actual damages and that they did not willingly participate in the events leading to such damages. ("But he said he loved me" is not a defense.)
You live and learn, or you don't live long.
I'm glad the law is on the books. Everybody here at works feels its a just law as well.
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.
