'Revenge' porn law: Ex-boyfriend who posted nude photos gets jail time

[proverbialwisdom]

Source: Los Angeles Times

BY VERONICA ROCHA
December 1, 2014, 5:08 p.m.

A Los Angeles man who posted nude photos of his ex-girlfriend online was sentenced Monday to a year in jail under California's new "revenge porn" law, authorities said.

After a seven-day trial, a jury found Noe Iniguez, 36, guilty of violating restraining orders as well as the state's "revenge porn" statue, which prohibits someone from posting nude photographs online for the purpose of causing emotional harm, according to city attorney's spokesman Frank Mateljan.

<>

“This conviction sends a strong message that this type of malicious behavior will not be tolerated,” City Atty. Mike Feuer said.

The new law is a "valuable tool" for prosecutors looking to protect victims "whose lives and reputations have been upended by a person they once trusted,” he said.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-man-jail-revenge-porn-law-20141201-story.html

[7962]

1. Good.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Good! nt

[Hekate]

3. Works for me. Now about those who post threats of violence and death.... nt

[heaven05]

4. dumb ass

deserved what he got. To do something like that shows an immaturity that is........dangerous. Poor little ego got bruised.

[safeinOhio]

5. Confucius said

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

[iemitsu]

6. And another good.

I hope this has the effect of making others, who might be this stupid and evil, to consider twice before uploading private pictures of women.

[Snow Leopard]

7. Hopefully it applies to pics of men too

Just sayin'

[iemitsu]

8. Sure, naked pictures of women or men ought not be uploaded

against the will of the person pictured.
Unless the naked person is in a public space when the picture was taken. Then, I guess, they have given their permission to be viewed by others.

[salin]

9. equally.

gender isn't an issue. Attempting to degrade an ex, regardless of gender, through the internet is the issue.

[gopiscrap]

16. agreed

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. The statute's language is deliberately gender neutral. "any person"

[LanternWaste]

42. I see no indication that it wouldn't.

I see no indication that it wouldn't...

Just sayin', part II.

[Hoppy]

18. -- but its only a California law. What other states have such laws?

[Pacifist Patriot]

37. This is a great resource for your question...

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-revenge-porn-legislation.aspx

[arcane1]

10. Hell yes! Another reason to love California. And another good move by Harris.

[Kalidurga]

11. Make it a federal law.

I guess making it international is asking too much.

[seabeyond]

12. Good. Nt

[Kablooie]

13. Does it count if I post pictures of myself to do emotional harm to the viewers?

[Warpy]

17. Nah, you go looking for nudie pictures

you take your chance that they might be of Phyllis Schlafly, Rush Limbaugh, or Ronald Reagan.

Or you.

[FSogol]

26. Ugh, that did it. Giving my Cherrios to the cat.

[BrotherIvan]

14. Good

Nude photos, or any photos should not be posted on the internet without consent.

[SunSeeker]

15. K & R

[Tunkamerica]

19. So, what's the line here?

Is it distasteful pictures?

If I'm a photographer... and I take pictures of everyone I know. And then I upload them to my site. I'm the copyright owner since I took the pictures.... does it just take an ex saying she was harmed by my uploading to make it a crime? It seems specious and ultimately overturnable. It actually seems wrongheaded when I think more about it. Everyone was fine with the nude photos for 2 years, let's say. Then we break up. Then she's immediately damaged? I go to jail?

What about a nude model who decides she doesn't want to be a nude model anymore? Does it immediately become a crime? Does she dictate? Is the onus of removing nude photos on her? What is the the statute? This seems wrong in all sorts of ways.

I get the idea. But the repercussions.

[groundloop]

20. If you hire a model you should have a model release signed by both parties

If a photographer doesn't have the sense to have a signed model release before doing nude photos he's asking for trouble.

As far as nude photos of an ex - the laws are already out there stating that if photos were taken in a private place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy then you don't have the right to freely display them. If you break up with someone you'd be well advised to immediately remove any nude photos of them from your website or social media.

And I can already hear someone screaming about the first amendment.... I don't buy it. Speech that's harmful or threatening is not protected, I'd say that posting nude photos of someone who doesn't want them posted is harmful.

[Tunkamerica]

21. but, a photographer doesn't always hire models

sometimes she dates them, sometimes she's just there

[geek tragedy]

23. either someone gives you permission to use their photos for publication, or they don't.

if a person signs a release, they sign a release.

if not, don't publish

pretty simple really

[Tunkamerica]

25. So...

I've taken 1000's of photographs in my life. No one has ever signed anything.

If someone suddenly decides one of my photos is causing them harm. I go to jail?

[geek tragedy]

27. If they had their clothes on, no.

Get someone's permission before publishing nude photos of them. And make sure you have a good reason for doing so if you can't get permission. Not a difficult rule to follow.

[Tunkamerica]

28. but sometimes they didn't

In the mountains there are swimming holes and people get photographed. Everyone sees the camera. Everyone knows there's a camera. Do I go to jail because someone 5 years later decides that causes them harm?

[geek tragedy]

29. are you doing it to humiliate them or inflict emotional distress or otherwise

target them for unwanted attention?

If not, then you're good from a criminal point of view. But, you're taking your chances in civil courts.

You have to be a major league asshole to run afoul of this kind of statute (it's possible to draft these things too broadly of course).

[Tunkamerica]

31. hehe

see my comment below.

of course not, but it's too broad and will be fought.

an ex-lover can be very persuasive in a court.

[geek tragedy]

32. not really.

malicious intent in the unauthorized publication of nude photos is VERY narrow.

if someone isn't a really horrible human being, they'll have no trouble avoiding criminal liability.

Don't publish nude photos of people against whom you're bearing a grudge or with whom you're in a dispute. Very easy rule to follow.

The ACLU hasn't bothered to challenge most revenge porn laws. The California law incorporated their concerns.

Revenge porn as defined in California is not protected by the first amendment.

[Tunkamerica]

30. seems too broad and way too arguable

it's a law that will fail. at least with the wording i was provided with.

[jberryhill]

33. There is a requisite intent element

[Xithras]

39. Actually, you'd have nothing to worry about...

In the mountains there are swimming holes and people get photographed.

They are in a public place with no expectation of privacy. You can photograph away. Hell, there are entire websites dedicated to nude beach and public nudity shots. If you're willing to hang it all out there in public, the law says that you have no real recourse if the public decides to look.

[MissMillie]

41. I don't remember where I heard the phrase, but....

"don't shit where you eat."

[progressoid]

35. read...

"prohibits someone from posting nude photographs online for the purpose of causing emotional harm"

[Xithras]

38. The line is "to deliberately harm" the person in the photo at the time you post it.

There have already been several instances of men posting nude photos of their wives and girlfriends online, where prosecution wasn't even an option. Instances where the subjects later WANTED prosecution, but the DA's declined because the law didn't apply.

Here's a very real comparison of the scenarios: A man and woman hook up. The man takes a consensual nude photos. The next day he posts them online with a caption.

Scenario 1: Nude photo is posted with the caption, "Look at this gorgeous hottie that I hooked up with last night! Am I a lucky stud or what?"

Scenario 2: Same guy posts same photo with this caption, "I f****d this b***h last night and she wouldn't even give me her f*****g phone number this morning! Screw her!"

Scenario 1, no crime was committed. Scenario 2, a felony was committed. Under California law, the posting of the photos is not a crime unless it was done to deliberately harm or disparage the person in the photograph.

If you upload a photo of a model, or your wife or girlfriend, and she's fine with it when you post it, and then later changes her mind, it is NOT a crime. You had consent, you hold copyright, so there is no legal case. It is ONLY a crime if you post them to cause harm.

Basically, the law makes it a form of harassment.

[Doctor_J]

45. I also read that some of these sites are actually pros

and that the "jilted boyfriend" angle is just part of someone's fetish.

[Feral Child]

22. Justice.

Paying for his "pay back".

[geek tragedy]

24. thumbs up. nt

[yuiyoshida]

34. Good!

It keeps me out of prison for killing my ex boyfriend. (kidding) but good.

[Derek V]

40. Awww!

[BadGimp]

43. this is bad law imo

[BadGimp]

46. why is this a crime?

Q: because the subject matter is sexual?

People do shit to others out of spite all the time. Why revenge porn different?

If I took pictures or videos or both of my girlfriend feeding her face with ice cream, then after we broke up I shared them in an effort to embarrass her, would that be a crime? It would certainly make me a candidate for a Scumbag Award but not a criminal.

Unless a person obtains a signed disclaimer for each photo or video, then they are fair game in my opinion. Content is legal property of the possessor. The fact that they are of a sexual nature and they were obtained in the context of a "relationship" matter not one bit to me. So owning them is NOT a crime but sharing them is? If you have share them and you ALSO have malice in your heart you're a criminal? But if you are merely sharing your "erotic art" among consenting friends you're just a normal person?

I would never approve or condone such behavior by anyone, but it is not a legitimate crime imo. It's a gross over reaction by society and lawmakers to a private civil matter.

Why not force victims to pursue these claims via civil court. We could make it easy to file a claim. We could lower the burden of proof of damage for the claimants. There are ways to make this a kind of behavior that has real consequences without criminalizing the behavior.

Exercise: Just do a deep dive and ponder where this slippery slope can and will lead. What's next? You can;t share a secret your lover told you?

[Mugu]

44. One year almost doesn't sound like enough

for such bad behavior.

But, I'm not sure how much would be enough.