Replies

It is an absolutely ridiculous misapplication of the law. But the important thing to the Dems is they make the charges public, make her defend against them, scream loud and long about the Republican, get their media allies to carry their water, and, hopefully, get her convicted and removed from the Senate or censured. That is all the public will know and remember.

The language of [Arizona] ARS 13-1425 states: “It is unlawful for a person to intentionally disclose an image of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image if all of the following apply:

The person in the image is depicted in a state of nudity or is engaged in specific sexual activities.
The depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the depicted person.”

I don't see how they could argue that ALL of those three criteria apply, especially the second and third items.

"I don't see how they could argue that ALL of those three criteria apply, especially the second and third items."

One of Sullivan's follow-ons is completely on-point: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

Hunter is a notorious public figure. Rogers could post a Kathy Griffin-style pic of Hunter. Just like Griffin, nothing will ever happen. There is no cheap censorious state law in the US that has ever stood up to Sullivan.

Rogers could have made AI pics of a nude Hunter and posted them without fear. She should put them back up and give the finger to the RINOs who told her to cool it, and tell that shyster -- who appears to be threatening her with lawfare, which is straight-up against the Arizona Bar Code of Ethics ER 4.1-4 -- what goes around comes around.

Cannot believe what a world we live in where people do not have the faintest comprehension of these laws, particularly legislators. What is the point of a Constitutional Republic when no one knows the Constitution or the originalist laws that have been crafted from it, including case law? (Not a complaint directed at you, POF)

Millions of people have died in defense of the Constitution and for what?

I don't see how they could argue that ALL of those three criteria apply, especially the second and third items.

I agree entirely.

I don't think you "disclose" an image if you just post a link to where someone else has already posted the image on the interweb. Also, Hunter Biden clearly does not have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in images that he abandoned at a computer repair shop and that have subsequently been posted all over the interweb.

If the statute can be construed to cover tweeting a link to Hunter Biden's photos, then the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and must be overturned under the First Amendment.