Posted on 03/09/2021 9:11:30 AM PST by BenLurkin
On Wednesday, the court will hear a motion by defendant Jennifer Van Laar to strike the lawsuit, claiming it is an attempt to silence speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment. Van Laar, a former GOP campaign operative and journalist, published provocative pictures of Hill on a conservative website and shared them with a British tabloid.
Hill contends that the two media companies, Van Laar and Kenneth Heslep, Hill’s ex-husband, violated California’s revenge-porn law by distributing and/or publishing images including photographs that showed her nude while brushing another woman’s hair, holding a bong and sunbathing.
The 2013 statute makes it a crime to distribute private images without the person’s permission. Such laws, enacted by nearly every state, have exceptions, notably if such sharing is in the “public interest” — the issue at the heart of the defense’s response to Hill’s lawsuit.
Van Laar and the media outlets maintain that Hill’s lawsuit fails to meet the requirements of the statute because they were not the original distributors of the images, because Hill’s nipples and genitals were redacted in the published pictures and because of the “public interest” exemption. They also assert they have a 1st Amendment right to publish information about an elected official’s behavior that is newsworthy.
Van Laar wrote an article for Red State about Hill’s relationship with the campaign staffer that ran with the hair-brushing picture. She was also interviewed by the Daily Mail and provided the tabloid with a thumb drive containing pictures, some of which were published in an article that named Van Laar as a coauthor. Van Laar said she did not write the article and believes she was given a byline as a “professional courtesy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I am of the opinion that revenge porn is a form of defamation and is therefor NOT protected by the first amendment.
It seems you must believe that truth is not an absolute defense to defamation. You can say/publish true things and still be held liable under defamation law. I'm not sure I like that.
—I am of the opinion that this is not “revenge porn”—
Doesn’t something have to be false in order to be defamatory?
Fake pictures showing her perversion would seem to be defamatory, but real ones?
I am of the opinion that revenge porn is a form of defamation and is therefor NOT protected by the first amendment.......
.....
Especially if it has a dramatic impact of the defamed.
Hill paid the price for her defama
If the pictures were taken with consent, then it is free use.
If I see Nancy Pelosi and ask to take a picture with her, I have the right to sell that picture to a libtard who loves Nancy.
Just because these pictures/videos contain nudity does not change the consent.
The only time this is wrong is if the pictures/videos were taken without consent....spy camera, hidden camera, etc.
I will stick my neck out here. Isn’t lots of sensational journalism ‘revenge’.... and should it then not be protected.
Revenge porn is definitely morally wrong. Where it’s legally wrong depends on how much damage it does to one’s reputation. But this is a civil matter. When it comes to the first amendment question, I don’t know that privacy rights apply.
So even if it’s not protected by the first amendment, sue their pants off. (pun intended)
Revenge porn should be governed by privacy laws, not defamation laws. Treat it the same way unauthorized disclosure of medical records or disributing social security numbers would be treated.
Interestingly, in many states, even defamation is protected by the First Amendment which is to say that defaming someone is not (generally) criminally punishable by the government in those states. I think there only a dozen or so states that still have criminal defamation statutes still on the books. I’m not sure how often, if ever, those statutes are used. I’m not certain, but I believe there are no federal criminal defamation statutes.
With respect to the concept of ‘revenge porn,’ I’m not entirely sold on the notion. When one lover displays nude photos that a partner knowingly posed for, I’m not entirely sure that should be criminal. Doing it surreptitiously is of course another matter entirely. The moral of the story is simple: If you don’t want naked photos passed around, don’t pose for naked photos...and more importantly, perhaps more discrimination when picking sexual partners is also in order.
What is a “private image” under the law?
The pictures would certainly not be rated X, just R. My understanding that those types of images are routine in the streets of San Francisco.
If there is a picture of you hugging your mistress in a hotel room is that a private image?
Good point. And/But, in a few years, I have feeling that deep fake tech is going to manifest itself in this very way.
Don’t consent to pictures in private that you don’t want seen in public.
Don’t do things in public that you don’t want photographed.
A person’s stupidity is not reason enough to tear up the Constitution as you wish to do.
Yup. The only issue for me with this is pretty simple. Did she consent to having her picture taken, or can it be reasonably construed that she consented to it? Once the bell is rung, you can't call the sound back.
If, on the other hand, the picture had been taken by someone who had sneaked up to a window and taken it covertly, that is a completely different issue.
i have to see it to know it... and see it again if i like it.
The truth is never defamation. Revenge porn is more a form of intimidation.
FYI. if you get an e mail saying here is the link to see Martha Stewart and Snoop dog doing it don’t open its real. Aint nobody got time for that
“Don’t do things in public that you don’t want photographed.”
Like going to Cancun.
Anyway, if she’s a US Rep., then sorry, she does have less privacy than others. It is a PUBLIC JOB and she’s the face in Congress for nearly a million people. Want privacy, then don’t run for office.
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.