Posted on 07/14/2015 11:51:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway
> Publically displaying, selling, or disseminating nude pictures of anyone without the photographed persons specific permission for that display, sale, or distribution should be a crime, with malicious or profit intent added as a multiplier added to penalty. Exception for baby pictures to caring relatives of normal sexual proclivities.
Who can disagree with that but all of the hoopla about this issue lately involves celebrities that took nude photos of themselves then sent them to their boyfriends who either posted them later for revenge or profit. Being a celebrity they should use a little more discretion than regular folks and refrain from taking nudies knowing that they would be worth top $ if they split up. Its like a woman who knows not to walk outside in a bad neighborhood after its dark but does it anyway. I’m just saying they should have been a little more prudent.
I WOULD NOT DO THAT...I JUST WONDER ABOUT THE CAUSE AND EFECT DISCONECT WITH THE ACLU
Agree, prudence is good. Unfortunately, some of these celebrities are quite young, late teens, very early twenties, often spoiled and catered to from early teens, not much prudence required by their parents/managers. Civil actions are a good way to resolve monetary issues.
> Civil actions are a good way to resolve monetary issues.
That’s what they really want anyway - dinero. They just feign offense. They are actors after all. Not hard to do for them. Not at all...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.