Florida governor signs bill that outlaws online 'revenge porn'

[Little Tich]

Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters

TALLAHASSEE (Reuters) - Governor Rick Scott signed legislation Thursday making it illegal in Florida to post "revenge porn" on the Internet, joining more than a dozen other U.S. states.

The "sexual cyberharassment" bill that takes effect Oct. 1 makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to transmit nude pictures with identifying information about the subject of the images, without that person's consent.

Repeat offenses would be felonies, carrying penalties up to five years in prison.

With the addition of Florida, 17 states have adopted laws since 2013 against posting nude images or depictions of sexual activity without a person's consent, according to the "End Revenge Porn" campaign organized by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/florida-governor-signs-bill-outlaws-online-revenge-porn-223615355.html

[FLPanhandle]

1. Probably the first thing Rick Scott did that I approve of

I suspect the count will remain at 1 for the remainder of his term.

[JeffHead]

2. Breaking News: After 5 years in office Rick Scott finally does something right. nt.

[iandhr]

3. Broken clocks are still right

Twice a day

[darkangel218]

5. Once in 5 years, in this case.

[steve2470]

4. stopped clock, he's still a rat bastard criminal alien nt

[Android3.14]

6. Hmm. Not so fast

"nude pictures with identifying information about the subject of the images"

That's a qualifier that will allow this to continue. This legislation has no teeth.

[Xithras]

9. That part is required to make it Constitutional.

One of the biggest hurdles to outlawing this stuff has been the fact that federal copyright law says that all rights to an image belong to the photographer. Unless a crime was committed in the photos creation (child porn, hidden cameras, that sort of thing), or an agreement otherwise exists assigning copyright to either the subject or a third party, the photographer OWNS the photo and can do anything they want with it. Model releases are a protection against civil suits, nothing more. Contrary to common belief, I am not required to get your permission before using your image. You can sue me in civil court if I profit from your image, but that's it.

Because of this condition, a law that says "you can't distribute a photo of another nude person without their permission" would essentially be telling photographers that they cannot distribute their own legal artwork for which they own all rights. Legally, laws attempting to do so will all be struck down because the courts are never going to allow governments to censor photographers from distributing their own creative works.

BUT. If you include clauses like "with identifying information", you change the whole ballgame. At that point, you aren't criminalizing the distribution of perfectly legal photographic material, but are criminalizing the HARASSMENT the distributor is attempting to carry out against the subject. The clause completely eliminates any debate over the constitutional, copyright, and ownership issues surrounding these prohibitions because you're not prohibiting the photos owner from selling or giving away creative works, but are simply prohibiting them from doing so in a way that brings harm to the subject. THAT is constitutional.

[WestSideStory]

11. Isn't any image identifying?

[Xithras]

12. Not really.

There are countless billions of photos on the Internet, and many billions of human being on the planet. The odds of connecting any individual person with any individual image, without any kind of accompanying personal information to narrow things down, are infinitesimally small.

For example:



This is a random photo of a person I found on the Internet. The odds that you could identify her based on that photo alone are incredibly tiny. You have no idea what nation she is from, how old the photo is, etc. The odds that anyone who knows her would ever stumble across this are equally as remote. She is, for all intents and purposes, an anonymous human face. Her being naked wouldn't change that. In fact, it's been estimated that there are already BILLIONS of nude images on the Internet just like that one...completely anonymous and untraceable back to the original subject. Unless the subject is famous enough to be recognizable, the chances of someone in her relatively tiny social circle coming across the image are nil.

But if a naked photo of her were plastered across the Internet with her name, home city, and other identifying information attached (which is exactly what "revenge porn" sites do), the story would be very different. People would see that image and KNOW IT WAS HER. That would bring personal embarrassment to the subject, and depending on what the image showed, could bring both real and perceived harm to her. Posting the image in that situation would constitute harassment, and harassment is illegal.

[Chemisse]

13. But people who know her who happen to see this, can identify her.

So a person could stay within the law by posting nude pictures of someone in a location (such as web site) where people who know her can stumble across it.

[Xithras]

14. Theoretically yes

The law probably ignores that loophole simply because it's never happened. Revenge porn sites require personal information on the victim, and posts via Facebook, email, and other tools meant to "expose" the victim to their social circles all identify the victim by their very nature (and all would be illegal under this law).

I suppose that it would be theoretically possible to post an image on a website where you knew that someone in the victims social circle visited, minus any other identifying information, with the idea that the visitor would see and recognize her. I've never heard of that happening though. Of course, if it could be proven that the image was posted there on purpose, then the image might actually qualify as its own identifying information, because the poster placed it there specifically so it would be identified.

[JMolina]

7. Not a fan of Scott

But revenge porn needs to be outlawed everywhere.

[BadGimp]

8. I think the very idea of "revenge porn" legislation is wrongheaded regardless of how well intended

If I have image or video content from a relationship past or present, I can not share unless I get prior consent, BECAUSE I was in the relationship right?

Yet a writer, newspaper, TV show etc can share the same content they somehow obtained and it's legal because they were not a party to the relationship? Am I right on this point?

If a politician shares content they somehow obtained of a political foe with the intent of destroying that opponents campaign chances, is THAT illegal, of course not. That Business as usual.

If the law applies to the people in the relationship, then it should apply to everyone. Which means no image or video content of a sexual nature can be shared without the prior consent of the parties depicted. Good luck enforcing that law.

[Bjorn Against]

10. It does not matter whether you were in a relationship or not

The law says it is illegal to publish pornographic images of a person without their consent, it does not say this law only applies to people who were in relationships together. Newspapers or television shows would not be allowed to publish pornographic images of people without their consent either.

Edited to add: As far as your point about political campaigns, I would certainly hope that no campaign would publish pornographic images of their opponent but if any campaign did stoop that low I would certainly support criminal prosecution of the candidate that approved the publication of those images.