'Revenge porn' law considered by California

[Eugene]

Source: BBC

28 August 2013 Last updated at 13:12 GMT

'Revenge porn' law considered by California

California is considering a law that would make it illegal to post "revenge porn" in the US state.

The state assembly bill would make it a crime to post pictures of anyone online in a state of full or partial undress.

Crucially, the latest version of the bill makes it illegal to post pictures even with that person's consent.

But prosecutors would have to prove "the intent to cause serious emotional distress, and (that) the other person suffers serious emotional distress".

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23863501

[zazen]

1. ironically, this is stricter than parts of 80s anti-porn legislation

which was overturned by the US District Court, a decision upheld by the Supremes. That legislation only allowed civil remedies, but was the first ever to give someone used in pornography against their will any redress against the pornographers (and the hew and cry over the "free speech" rights was incredible, because the women used in porn were considered garbage). Now that someone's sister, daughter, and mother can be made into pornography, more people are taking it seriously.

Thank God. I hope those mo-fos who post that crap have to do some serious jail time, instead of innocent people who use recreational or medicinal marijuana.

[Xithras]

2. Based on my understanding of copyright law, I don't see this surviving challenge.

They are trying to append the law to another statute that criminalizes hidden camera shots. That kind of activity is illegal because it's the fruit of another crime.

But when a model has consented to a photograph, nude or otherwise, no crime has been committed. Under federal law (specifically, section 106 of the US Copyright Act), the copyright and ownership of a photograph belongs exclusively to the photographer unless it is specifically assigned to another person or entity (such as the photographers employer, or to a customer after a paid photo shoot).

So, this law basically says that a photographer cannot publish or distribute a legally produced, and legally held, work simply because the subject finds it offensive...even if the subject approved the production and distribution of the photograph at the time. Even though the image is legal to produce, and legal to own, the government will prosecute you for distributing your own media to others. That is a government inhibition of free communications, and is clearly unconstitutional.

[LittleBlue]

3. Yeah, good luck with that

Crucially, the latest version of the bill makes it illegal to post pictures even with that person's consent.

The courts will toss this out faster than Orly Taitz's lawsuits against Obama

[Recursion]

4. Lovers of Anonymous should remember they also ran pinkmeth

Every self-organized movement has a dark side.