4 ms·

New Texas laws: Illegal to send unsolicited nude photos

9 points by ga-vu 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago
This law sounds overbroad, and nothing but trouble. It'll make sending nudes carry a huge legal risk. I'd expect to see someone use this against their ex (or illicit lover) within a year of taking effect. From all the teens punished for child porn for having pictures of themselves, it should be painfully clear prosecutorial discretion cannot be relied upon.
- ksaj 7y ago
  Sending nudes or porn to someone to whom physical flashing would have been untoward (an unwitting stranger, the general public, a child, a student, your taxi driver, etc), or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared (revenge porn), is the kind of action that one should be able to take to court. They share nearly identical mens rea (flashing vs unexpected unwanted dick pics), so it doesn't make sense one is criminal but the other is not.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    You have chosen very clear cut examples, but the law will not be limited to those. For example, a boy and girl start dating. Eventually, she sends him nudes - maybe they discussed it offline, so there's no written record of consent, or maybe she correctly guessed he'd like them. But then they meet, and he pushes her to have sex, saying he'll claim the nudes were unsolicited otherwise. Or maybe he's white, she's black, and the boy's racist family push him to claim they were unsolicited, to hide the affair, or to get rid of her. > or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared (revenge porn) That is an entirely different matter, that this law will do nothing to help. There are sites devoted to revenge porn, so those pictures are solicited.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Have you read the law? What's the link of the version that you've read please?
      - deogeo 7y ago
        I have not - I'm speculating. As are the posters that claim the law is fine. But "Austin-based attorney J.T. Morris, who specializes in First Amendment cases" shares my concerns.
      - jacques_chester 7y ago
        The relevant Act appears to have been HB 2789[1][2]. I don't see the text in the Texas Penal Code yet. [1] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB2789 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86... [2] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F.pdf#navpanes=0 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F....
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      All of your it-could-go-wrong scenarios are in themselves crimes. Blackmail and obstruction or perversion of justice. If you think these brilliant schemes won't occur to the police or the defence attorney, I have unsolicited photos of a bridge in Brooklyn to send you.
- thrav 7y ago
  Someone in government’s daughter got one too many pictures sent their way. It happened to my wife at least once that I’m aware of. I was texting the guy on her phone when it happened. It’s extremely jarring, and was completely unprompted and uncalled for. I don’t hate the law, if there’s a good burden of proof on the conversation to show that it was uninvited. As the other comment said, it’s basically flashing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  > It'll make sending nudes carry a huge legal risk. Nonsense. You text "do you want to see a nude?". If they say yes, you're in the clear and have a written record. If they so no, you don't send a nude.
- traderjane 7y ago
  I would also say executive discretion needs to be put under a microscope in an era of cynicism and data.
693471 7y ago
Countdown until the "nudes are free speech" defense
tux1968 7y ago
Because just deleting the nudes and moving on with your life is too difficult? The human body doesn't upset me enough to worry if some man or woman spams their junk at me. But there are images that I find emotionally hurtful, and I do accept that some people include nudity in this category. It still seems a bit dubious that this has become a big enough problem to warrant more laws.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  And just because you personally haven't been robbed, and would in fact be just fine with being robbed, doesn't mean we should go without laws against robbery.
  - tux1968 7y ago
    The kinda conflates two very different events. I never made a case against something as serious as robbery. The real point is that unlike robbery, nothing very serious has happened when you see a picture of a naked body.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      The real point is that you are assuming that your preferences are a universal moral measurement of harm.
      - tux1968 7y ago
        No more than people who are saying the opposite is true. We should use objective measures. There are tangible real world ramifications for the effects of robbery. People who get offended at nudity suffer some mild discomfort at best. We should be basing our legal system accordingly. For instance, what about people who delight in receiving unsolicited nudes? This law is imposing its universal moral pronouncements on them.
        jacques_chester 7y ago

9 points by ga-vu 7y ago

This law sounds overbroad, and nothing but trouble. It'll make sending nudes carry a huge legal risk. I'd expect to see someone use this against their ex (or illicit lover) within a year of taking effect. From all the teens punished for child porn for having pictures of themselves, it should be painfully clear prosecutorial discretion cannot be relied upon.

ksaj 7y ago
Sending nudes or porn to someone to whom physical flashing would have been untoward (an unwitting stranger, the general public, a child, a student, your taxi driver, etc), or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared (revenge porn), is the kind of action that one should be able to take to court. They share nearly identical mens rea (flashing vs unexpected unwanted dick pics), so it doesn't make sense one is criminal but the other is not.
- deogeo 7y ago
  You have chosen very clear cut examples, but the law will not be limited to those. For example, a boy and girl start dating. Eventually, she sends him nudes - maybe they discussed it offline, so there's no written record of consent, or maybe she correctly guessed he'd like them. But then they meet, and he pushes her to have sex, saying he'll claim the nudes were unsolicited otherwise. Or maybe he's white, she's black, and the boy's racist family push him to claim they were unsolicited, to hide the affair, or to get rid of her. > or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared (revenge porn) That is an entirely different matter, that this law will do nothing to help. There are sites devoted to revenge porn, so those pictures are solicited.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Have you read the law? What's the link of the version that you've read please?
    - deogeo 7y ago
      I have not - I'm speculating. As are the posters that claim the law is fine. But "Austin-based attorney J.T. Morris, who specializes in First Amendment cases" shares my concerns.
    - jacques_chester 7y ago
      The relevant Act appears to have been HB 2789[1][2]. I don't see the text in the Texas Penal Code yet. [1] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB2789 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86... [2] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F.pdf#navpanes=0 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F....
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    All of your it-could-go-wrong scenarios are in themselves crimes. Blackmail and obstruction or perversion of justice. If you think these brilliant schemes won't occur to the police or the defence attorney, I have unsolicited photos of a bridge in Brooklyn to send you.
thrav 7y ago
Someone in government’s daughter got one too many pictures sent their way. It happened to my wife at least once that I’m aware of. I was texting the guy on her phone when it happened. It’s extremely jarring, and was completely unprompted and uncalled for. I don’t hate the law, if there’s a good burden of proof on the conversation to show that it was uninvited. As the other comment said, it’s basically flashing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jacques_chester 7y ago
> It'll make sending nudes carry a huge legal risk. Nonsense. You text "do you want to see a nude?". If they say yes, you're in the clear and have a written record. If they so no, you don't send a nude.
traderjane 7y ago
I would also say executive discretion needs to be put under a microscope in an era of cynicism and data.

693471 7y ago

Countdown until the "nudes are free speech" defense

tux1968 7y ago

Because just deleting the nudes and moving on with your life is too difficult? The human body doesn't upset me enough to worry if some man or woman spams their junk at me. But there are images that I find emotionally hurtful, and I do accept that some people include nudity in this category. It still seems a bit dubious that this has become a big enough problem to warrant more laws.

jacques_chester 7y ago
And just because you personally haven't been robbed, and would in fact be just fine with being robbed, doesn't mean we should go without laws against robbery.
- tux1968 7y ago
  The kinda conflates two very different events. I never made a case against something as serious as robbery. The real point is that unlike robbery, nothing very serious has happened when you see a picture of a naked body.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    The real point is that you are assuming that your preferences are a universal moral measurement of harm.
    - tux1968 7y ago
      No more than people who are saying the opposite is true. We should use objective measures. There are tangible real world ramifications for the effects of robbery. People who get offended at nudity suffer some mild discomfort at best. We should be basing our legal system accordingly. For instance, what about people who delight in receiving unsolicited nudes? This law is imposing its universal moral pronouncements on them.
      - jacques_chester 7y ago