Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Editorial: Revenge Porn Hardly Qualifies as Free Speech
Verde News ^ | 7/14/2015

Posted on 07/14/2015 11:51:41 PM PDT by nickcarraway

The American Civil Liberties Union's successful bid to strike down Arizona's new "revenge porn" law solves a problem that doesn't exist.

Backed into a First Amendment corner with no legal wiggle room, the Attorney General's Office waved the white flag on enforcing the new law designed to stop jilted lovers from posting naked photos of their exes on the Internet without their permission.

The ACLU challenged the validity of the "revenge porn" law on grounds that it could be broadly interpreted to include book stores that sell, display or simply show images of others who are naked.

As if prosecutors and police have enough free time to review every book in every book store in Arizona looking for photos of naked people, and then going to the trouble of finding out if those people gave permission to have such photos published.

The law as crafted was designed to allow people who have been violated in the most humiliating way in Cyberspace's version of the Wild West to seek legal redress. Specifically, it was designed to address situations where someone may have taken a compromising photo during a relationship that was not meant to be shared with others and posted it on the Internet.

It would justifiably make such actions a felony crime instead of a get-even prank.

Hopefully, the ACLU's legal victory in this case will only be a stumbling block and not a blockade to the successful creation of a revenge porn law for Arizona. Fine-tuning the language of the law should be an easy task that would pass ACLU muster as there currently are 24 states with active criminal laws against revenge porn; some of which define the offense as cyber-rape.

Most certainly, common sense dictates that such offenses obviously fall into the category of criminal harassment and hardly fall under the confines free speech and free press.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last
To: gleeaikin

> 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.


21 posted on 07/15/2015 5:23:06 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Islander7

I WOULD NOT DO THAT...I JUST WONDER ABOUT THE CAUSE AND EFECT DISCONECT WITH THE ACLU


22 posted on 07/15/2015 9:49:47 AM PDT by PCPOET7 (VORS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001; All

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.


23 posted on 07/15/2015 11:16:13 AM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

> 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...


24 posted on 07/15/2015 11:22:31 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-24 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson