General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsU.S. judge puts Arizona's 'revenge porn' bill on hold
Source: Reuters
BY DAVID SCHWARTZ
PHOENIX Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:03pm EST
(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday put on hold enforcement of Arizona's "revenge porn" law that made it a felony to post online nude images of others without their consent, after a rights group said the measure was too broad and state attorneys agreed it should be revisited.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's order came at the request of the state attorney general's office and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing booksellers, newspapers and others in a federal lawsuit against the law.
The judge called for enforcement of the law and further legal proceedings to be put on hold pending possible changes to the legislation by the Republican-controlled state Legislature when it reconvenes in January.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/27/us-usa-arizona-revengeporn-idUSKCN0JB05X20141127
Dr. Xavier
(278 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Should it have been a crime to publish the photos he privately sent to others?
The objection is that it is drafted broadly enough to criminalize the publication of nudity which is in some sense newsworthy.
former9thward
(31,806 posts)Anyone posting on twitter knows that it can be retweeted instantly to anybody anywhere. The AZ bill was supposed to cover private photos being posting without consent online by someone else, namely an ex bf or gf.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)He did not publicly tweet those pictures. He sent them as DM's.
I'm not talking about what the AZ bill was "supposed to cover" - we all know the ugly thing it was "supposed" to cover.
The question in this proceeding is whether the wording and the four limited exceptions are overbroad enough to cover things which is was NOT "supposed to cover".
Wiener did not consent to the publication of those photos to anyone other than the recipients of them. He did not post them as public tweets. They were direct messages which he intended to send only to the recipients of them.
The language of the AZ law would have required his express consent to their publication.
Do you think it should have been illegal to publish them or not?
That has nothing to do with revenge porn, but is arguably criminalized by the words of this particular statute, which criminalizes any publication of nudity without consent of the subject except:
----
1. Lawful and common practices of law enforcement, reporting unlawful activity, or when permitted or required by law or rule in legal proceedings.
2. Lawful and common practices of medical treatment.
3. Images involving voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting.
4. An interactive computer service, as defined in 47 United States Code Section 230(f)(2), or an information service, as defined in 47 United States Code Section 153, with regard to content provided by another person.
-----
Okay, so #1 takes care of the "here's the picture of the tattoo on the naked burglar's butt"; #2 deals with medical imaging; #3 deals with "streaker runs out onto football field"; and #3 makes dang sure the telecoms and Facebook aren't held liable.
There are news organizations with some crazy First Amendment fetish who believe there should be some sort of "newsworthiness" exception. I mean, my goodness, what would a free press mean if we didn't get paparazzi photos of the genitalia of folks like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or Kate Middleton.
So while it might be hard to imagine the circumstances.... let's say "Politician found masturbating in local park" - should, or should not, a newspaper be allowed to run that story with the photo, yes or no?
former9thward
(31,806 posts)I am sort of a First Amendment absolutist and that side of me leans towards anything that comes into your possession legally you should be able to publish. I think that in this day and age anyone should know that if a private photo is taken of themselves legally, and given to someone else legally, it may wind up in the public. Maybe that would stop people from taking stupid photos of themselves and sexting. And if this is illegal then what exactly is illegal? We have no problems with pictures of people kissing. What is the line both in nudity and sexual acts? I don't know.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)As you know, there are major democracies which do not take such a broad approach to speech.
Would you say that political discourse - the heart of the rationale for free speech - is hindered by restrictions such as one encounters in Canada, the UK or Germany? Likewise, these countries have stronger protections of personal privacy. Has this harmed their culture or avenues of expression in any palpable way?
Those are questions to which I don't personally have answers.
former9thward
(31,806 posts)That is the problem of only living in one culture. It is difficult to say another culture is better or worse than the one you live in. I don't like the slander/libel laws they have in those countries. I believe it is far too easy to be sued for things you say or write there. I don't like limitations on WW II related subjects such as Nazism and the Holocaust that exist in some of those countries. But I didn't live though that period in a country that was devastated by WW II. The U.S. allows Nazis and Holocaust deniers but those groups are marginal at best, so it has not affected us.