4 ms·
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 il
by 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 agoSending 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 agoYou 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 agoHave you read the law? What's the link of the version that you've read please?
- deogeo 7y agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoAll 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 agoSomeone 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 agoI would also say executive discretion needs to be put under a microscope in an era of cynicism and data.