Posted on 04/23/2018 8:03:31 AM PDT by ken in texas
An appeals court has struck down Texas’ “revenge porn” law, ruling that the statute is overly broad and violates the First Amendment.
The 2015 state law targets what author state Sen. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, called “a very disturbing internet trend” of posting a previous partner's nude or semi-nude photos to the web without the partner's permission, often with identifying information attached. Inspired in part by the testimony of Hollie Toups, a Southeast woman whose intimate photos were posted online, the law made posting private, intimate photos a misdemeanor, carrying a charge of up to a year in jail as well as a $4,000 fine.
The 12th Court of Appeals, based in Tyler, said the law is unconstitutional because of its broad-based content restrictions that infringe on free speech. The First Amendment, wrote Chief Justice James Worthen, usually prohibits “content-based” restrictions.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office will lead the fight to overturn the court’s ruling — an appeal which could make it to the state’s highest criminal court, the Austin American-Statesman reported. For now, the ruling only blocks the law in more than a dozen Northeast Texas counties under the 12th Court of Appeals, though courts elsewhere in the state would likely consider its reasoning.
The court also took issue with a provision of the law that allowed it to target third parties who may have “unwittingly” shared intimate photos.
Dozens of other states have revenge porn laws, though they vary in scope and severity of punishment.
Wednesday’s ruling also asks a lower court to dismiss the charges Jordan Bartlett Jones, who was accused of posting an intimate photo of a woman without her consent. It was his case that put the law in front of the appeals court.
If the law really prohibited posting of all "private, intimate photos" then that does sound unconstitutionally broad and vague. That definition would include a photo of a fully clothed couple sitting in front of a fireplace.
Isn’t the best left in civil court, than criminal court?
That’s my take. I also thought it was already a crime to release private pictures like that without a waiver.
I may be criticized for saying this. But, ladies, please, don’t get into these situations where somebody is taking nude photos of you. Because who knows where such photos will end up eventually. Who knows if you will be with that particular boyfriend forever.
I hope it’s not too suggestive to say, let him get an eyeful in person, and only in person, if that’s the status of your relationship. But no need to document things via photos or videos for the world to see.
So, can we see the pics of Me. Toups now?
Knew this was coming........SCOTUS will have to decide, eventually....................
I’m glad I was a teenager and young adult at a time when we didn’t have cell phones with cameras and video recorders. I’m sure that we were just as stupid and foolish as the current generation, but very few people had the means or motivation to take nude pictures, or record themselves having sex. The best way to avoid having embarrassing nude pictures or videos of yourself posted for the public to see is to not have them taken in the first place.
If you don’t pose for porn pictures, then porn pictures of you will never wind up on the internet. I know that’s a radical concept, but it actually works.
“I also thought it was already a crime to release private pictures like that without a waiver.”
I think that really only applies to things that are distributed commercially.
The Missouri law that Gov. Greitens is charged with breaking makes it a felony to take a picture without permission, if it is taken in a place where privacy can be expected. The law was written to prosecute peeping Toms and lowlifes who have hidden cameras/peep holes in dressing rooms, tanning salons, etc. But it was stretched in his case to include inside a person’s home. So if I take a video of my sleeping wife (to prove to her that in fact that she snores), I have not only made a foolish mistake, but committed a felony.
You're not the only one. Images and video are great for some things, others should be part of our memory only. ;-)
If you get or allow those pictures to be made believing that they will never become public you are a fool regardless of the law.
I agree. But this statute appears to prohibit much more than just naked photos.
The 3rd Party part is probably what bothered them. If some jack posts a nuddie pic on the internet, I have no way of know if the nuddie consented. The law, as I understand it, would also hold me, the 3rd party, as responsible (along with the clown who posted it). So keep it to the guy who starts the process, not the downstream people who may not have a clue as to what’s going on.
It is one of those laws that was not thought out very well.Look at what was done with RICO because the wording leaves too much to interpretation.
How about looking at this a different way:
It isn’t a free speech issue, it is an issue of intellectual property (an image of you taken without your specific permission for publication is a violation of your PROPERTY rights). Another thing is invasion of privacy - you have a right to NOT expose your image, particularly of body parts that are traditionally taboo to be shown in public. Those 2 things - property rights and the right to privacy - should overcome free speech issues...particularly if some legislature could artfully craft appropriate legislation.
I believe both of those issues should be reserved for civil court where you can sue somebody for those infractions.
It isn’t a free speech issue, it is an issue of intellectual property (an image of you taken without your specific permission for publication is a violation of your PROPERTY rights). Another thing is invasion of privacy - you have a right to NOT expose your image, particularly of body parts that are traditionally taboo to be shown in public. Those 2 things - property rights and the right to privacy - should overcome free speech issues...particularly if some legislature could artfully craft appropriate legislation.I think you're exactly right. The statute in question was overturned for being "overly broad." Legislatures at all levels (from Congress on down to your small-town city councils) often write very sloppy, overly broad laws.
Traffic ticket cases are tried as criminal matters.
Being a defendant in a traffic case that I took to trial, I have a few comments:
1. Jurors are mostly stupid/ignorant about the constitution.
2. Texas Municipal Courts are corrupt as hell. Nothing but revenue generators.
3. Caught the judge and prosecutor lying to me, and then it was game on. Despite Virtually every possible violation of my constitutional rights to due process. The lapdog jurors found me guilty of both alleged violations. However, the jury imposed fines of well less than half if I had not gone to trial.
4. Judge didn’t enter the judgment while I was there, and there is no final verdict until the judgment is entered in the presence of the accused. The court clerk mailed copies of the judgments, and asked me to sign them and mail them back. That wasn’t going to happen.
5. Next time I went to the courthouse to get copies of some documents, the judge’s assistant slid the same documents in front of me in an attempt to get me to sign them. The conversation went like this:
Me: You want me to sign these documents?
Clerk: If you would.
Me: You don’t really think I’m going to sign them, do you?
Clerk: Not really.
Me: You tell that bitch (the judge), that if she wants me to sign them, the Prosecutor is going to have to cite me in for a hearing.
Haven’t heard from them since.
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.