5 ms·

There has long been a debate in the judiciary about the extent to which there exists a privacy carveout in First Amendment rights against disclosure of private

There has long been a debate in the judiciary about the extent to which there exists a privacy carveout in First Amendment rights against disclosure of private information. What this means is that depending on judicial philosophy, either any such law must be carefully tailored (which seems reasonable and desirable), or any such law is inherently unconstitutional (which seems to me to offend common sense): https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1532/revenge-pornography https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1532/revenge-pornog... > Under current First Amendment guidelines, any laws regulating revenge pornography would have to be narrowly drawn and made in pursuit of a “compelling state interest.” Unfortunately, I agree with tiahura that there's little question how the current SCOTUS majority would rule — it's unlikely that they will find a "compelling state interest" in protecting the victims of revenge porn. The result will be that any victim without the resources and circumstances to bring and win a civil suit will be SOL.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Whether there is a debate or not is not what I was addressing. I'm simply pointing out that, under current Federal law, that's not the case. But If you want my opinion as an individual, I wouldn't agree with a privacy carveout. Firstly, because "revenge porn" doesn't qualify under currently prescribed limitations (defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, obscenity, "fighting words", etc.) and I'm skeptical of adding any more. Secondly, most "revenge porn" legislation is overbroad and does not require a mens rea to prosecute. They are strict liability laws in all but name. They amount to prior restraint and violate the requirements of content neutrality and strict scrutiny towards limiting speech. Thirdly, these laws can be used to silence journalists reporting on relevant events (such as the Katie Hill debacle). "Revenge porn" laws do nothing but coerce individuals into becoming bearers of secrets. Even if they had no interest in doing so to begin with. I would also like to add that not every person charged under "revenge porn" laws is the stereotypical ex-boyfriend uploading sex tapes to Pornhub. It's in situation like Bethany Austin's where rights are needed most. https://www.cato.org/blog/picture-worth-thousand-words-prison-sentence https://www.cato.org/blog/picture-worth-thousand-words-priso...
- rectang 5y ago
  Do you support any consequences for revenge porn?
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Before one can answer that, one would have to know what a proper legal definition of "revenge porn" is. If you're referring to today's overbroad interpretation that has swept legislatures across the country, then I would say there should be no legal consequences at all. I'm firmly convinced those laws should be repealed and the cases involved reheard. However, if you're referring to something much narrower and applicable with in the framework of the First Amendment as it is currently, then I could consider a limited and proportionate civil fine appropriate.
    - rectang 5y ago
      For example: a man records a video of his girlfriend performing a solo sex act. Before the recording, they discussed the matter via text and it was clear from the written record that the video was only for their own use and would never be shared with anyone else. Later, he uploads the video to PornHub, in direct contravention of her wishes and their previous understanding. Should there be consequences?
      - esyir 5y ago
        Sounds like a contract violation to me under current law.
      - Dracophoenix 5y ago
        As another commenter examined, that sounds like a contract violation and would already incur a civil fine. In such a case one would have to prove at least three elements: * that there was an oral or written contract * that said contract was made by two informed and sober parties * that one party uploaded the video to Pornhub against the wishes of the other and not anyone else.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

Whether there is a debate or not is not what I was addressing. I'm simply pointing out that, under current Federal law, that's not the case. But If you want my opinion as an individual, I wouldn't agree with a privacy carveout. Firstly, because "revenge porn" doesn't qualify under currently prescribed limitations (defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, obscenity, "fighting words", etc.) and I'm skeptical of adding any more. Secondly, most "revenge porn" legislation is overbroad and does not require a mens rea to prosecute. They are strict liability laws in all but name. They amount to prior restraint and violate the requirements of content neutrality and strict scrutiny towards limiting speech. Thirdly, these laws can be used to silence journalists reporting on relevant events (such as the Katie Hill debacle). "Revenge porn" laws do nothing but coerce individuals into becoming bearers of secrets. Even if they had no interest in doing so to begin with. I would also like to add that not every person charged under "revenge porn" laws is the stereotypical ex-boyfriend uploading sex tapes to Pornhub. It's in situation like Bethany Austin's where rights are needed most. https://www.cato.org/blog/picture-worth-thousand-words-prison-sentence https://www.cato.org/blog/picture-worth-thousand-words-priso...

rectang 5y ago
Do you support any consequences for revenge porn?
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Before one can answer that, one would have to know what a proper legal definition of "revenge porn" is. If you're referring to today's overbroad interpretation that has swept legislatures across the country, then I would say there should be no legal consequences at all. I'm firmly convinced those laws should be repealed and the cases involved reheard. However, if you're referring to something much narrower and applicable with in the framework of the First Amendment as it is currently, then I could consider a limited and proportionate civil fine appropriate.
  - rectang 5y ago
    For example: a man records a video of his girlfriend performing a solo sex act. Before the recording, they discussed the matter via text and it was clear from the written record that the video was only for their own use and would never be shared with anyone else. Later, he uploads the video to PornHub, in direct contravention of her wishes and their previous understanding. Should there be consequences?
    - esyir 5y ago
      Sounds like a contract violation to me under current law.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      As another commenter examined, that sounds like a contract violation and would already incur a civil fine. In such a case one would have to prove at least three elements: * that there was an oral or written contract * that said contract was made by two informed and sober parties * that one party uploaded the video to Pornhub against the wishes of the other and not anyone else.