Judge rules that publishing of revenge porn is protected by First Amendment

[unblock]

44. i recognize that that's the way it *is*, but not the way it has to be.

if information is of a purely prurient nature, it's not in the public interest and there's no reason to violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy and confidentiality even if it's a public figure.

if there's a legitimate newsworthy aspect, then that can be balanced against the privacy rights (which are somewhat less for a public figure, but it's not zero).

afaik, there's nothing newsworthy about these photos other than that haha, she's nekkid. that's prurient interest only and not newsworthy.

any reasonable person should know it's private and confidential and should respect that. particularly journalists.


a public figure's private emails that show them abusing their office or something like that is entirely different. there's a legitimate public interest in that situation, so the balance tips towards allowing the disclosure.