4 ms·
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
by 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 agoDo you support any consequences for revenge porn?
- Dracophoenix 5y agoBefore 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 I'm firmly convinced those laws should be repealed and the cases involved reheard.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 agoFor 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 agoSounds like a contract violation to me under current law.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoAs 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rectang 5y agoWell, although civil suits are an utterly inadequate stratagem given the scope of the problem (which includes millions of victims who are not practially in a position to pursue and win a suit), at least it's something.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoCriminalizing speech would not solve the issue. The example you cite involves two private parties engaged in a contractual dispute. There are millions of those every week. Barring the involvement of criminal behavior such as theft or extortion, a civil court is the only forum to adjudicate these matters. The point of a court, criminal or civil, is not to invent legislation favorable to the most sympathetic party. The point is to interpret the law within the constraints it was written under.