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.
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.
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.
The intention isn't to let "others" see the pictures. The intention is for the pictures to remain private between the subject of the photos, and with whomever the subject wants to share those pictures. Someone releasing the images to the general public is doing so with the INTENTION of doing harm. And the law is meant to prevent harm.
As for what harm can come to a child? Are you kidding me?? The internet is not just an adult forum. Children surf the internet, all the time. How long before other kids start humiliating your child after your ex puts your nude photo on the internet?
Personal relationships are not public matters. Until the parties involve make private matters public. At which point laws kick in. Slander and libel laws were sufficient before modern technology made possible modern attacks on privacy. If a person consents to being laid bare before the public, then that's okay. But if a person doesn't consent to having their privacy stripped from them, literally, then it's not okay. And when something that is not okay becomes so prevalent that the law takes notice, then a law prohibiting such is appropriate.
You cannot be free in a world without privacy. The erosion of privacy in our society is the biggest threat to freedom.
Sharing nude photos with your partner does not make you a *****.
No. But it can make you seem naieve in thinking that someone with such photos of you would never use them to cause you harm. Maybe having once been through a nasty divorce I'm a bit cynical. Someone I loved and trusted did all she could to destroy me - personally, financially and professionally. I learned from that experience what people are capable of and adjusted my views of the universe and my own behavior accordingly.
My example was that there are other things which could cause equal "damage" but these are not seen as cause for active criminalization of such behaviors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
It's criminal because of the intent.
Ah, the "hate crime" gambit. It's not the deed, it's the motivating intent!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
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.
Why would you give your spouse/partner/whatever the means to do so? Please explain that to me.
Does your spouse/partner/whatever really need the additional "stroke material" for when you're not available?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
I'm glad the law is on the books. Everybody here at works feels its a just law as well.
Well, who could possibly argue against the decision of those at your job? I guess you win! I still feel it's bad law and more evidence of the "nanny state" effort to protect people from taking responsibility for their own actions and dealing with the consequences of bad choices.
So you believe its ok to send naked pictures of your wife to the public because your upset she left you?
Let's say you take a family photo at a family event. It turns out everyone looks great in the photo, but you look very very weird and were caught picking your nose and had bed hair.
You demand that they don't put that picture on facebook or any other website.
Can you file a police report and have the police file a criminal report on the person that posted that bad pic of you?
NO, you can't. You willingly took that picture, and just because it makes you look bad, doesn't give you the right to the picture.
The picture is PROPERTY of the person that took the picture if they own that camera.
The intention isn't to let "others" see the pictures. The intention is for the pictures to remain private between the subject of the photos, and with whomever the subject wants to share those pictures. Someone releasing the images to the general public is doing so with the INTENTION of doing harm. And the law is meant to prevent harm.
If a woman wants to take nudes for her bf , she should write up a short contract that they sign that specifically states only her and him can look at the photos, and that any other viewing is not permitted.
With no contract, it's free game for the owner of said photographs.
I'm glad the law is on the books. Everybody here at works feels its a just law as well.
As long as nobody thinks too hard about it and just assumes the law will work solely in the desired manner then there is nothing not to like about it.
Kinda like when they rolled out 3-strikes or minimum sentencing laws because of outrage over some really bad guy that got a slap on the wrist, repeat offenders etc. What's not to like? What could possibly go wrong?
Let's say you take a family photo at a family event. It turns out everyone looks great in the photo, but you look very very weird and were caught picking your nose and had bed hair.
You demand that they don't put that picture on facebook or any other website.
Can you file a police report and have the police file a criminal report on the person that posted that bad pic of you?
NO, you can't. You willingly took that picture, and just because it makes you look bad, doesn't give you the right to the picture.
The picture is PROPERTY of the person that took the picture if they own that camera.
There is a profound difference between posting someone's bad picture, and posting pornographic images of someone.
If a woman wants to take nudes for her bf , she should write up a short contract that they sign that specifically states only her and him can look at the photos, and that any other viewing is not permitted.
With no contract, it's free game for the owner of said photographs.
I think in California, there's a law that says otherwise.
Let's say you take a family photo at a family event. It turns out everyone looks great in the photo, but you look very very weird and were caught picking your nose and had bed hair.
You demand that they don't put that picture on facebook or any other website.
Can you file a police report and have the police file a criminal report on the person that posted that bad pic of you?
NO, you can't. You willingly took that picture, and just because it makes you look bad, doesn't give you the right to the picture.
The picture is PROPERTY of the person that took the picture if they own that camera.
Do you understand the definition of "revenge porn" this has nothing to do with bad hair photos.
"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.
Nicely done, I can't tell if you're just an idiot, or trolling.
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.
