Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cstanleytech

(28,327 posts)
14. Your not making any sense, this law is about stopping people from sharing private photos and
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:20 PM
Jun 2016

and films that a consensual adult made and sent to someone else its not about commercial porn.
For example say Dan had a girlfriend named Bonnie and Bonnie as a surprise to Dan made a video of herself playing with a very adult toy and send it to Dans phone, ok?
With me so far?
Now Dan and Bonnie are happy for many months but then suddenly they start arguing and Bonnie dumps Dan because hes acting like an asshole, Dan though being in his asshole mood decides to post the video Bonnie sent him of her playing with her very adult toy online.
Now the question is even though Dan is an asshole for posting the video online is he criminally liable? This new law would make him liable even though he didnt ask her to send the video to him she did that on her own free will and its in his possession and in the past it would have been considered his property.

But what if Dan one day was rifling through her drawers when she was in the kitchen making dinner and found the video and stole it and posted it you ask? Well then Bonnie has a legitimate gripe because thats not consensual on her part since Dan would have stolen it and existing law already covers most of that.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Gotta agree if they arent careful any law they pass could get thrown out as being to broad. nt cstanleytech Jun 2016 #1
The bill may not be perfect, but something needs to be done. inanna Jun 2016 #2
constitutional rights should not be discarded because "victims". Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #4
Agreed Sherman A1 Jun 2016 #5
Agreed something does need to be done but what exactly can be done in this situation cstanleytech Jun 2016 #6
Please point me to anything about victims in the Constitution jberryhill Jun 2016 #36
Seems like a violation of first amendment rights. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #3
there's no first amendment right to violate someone else's right of privacy nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #7
Except the complication is this isnt about films and or videos being taken or given without consent cstanleytech Jun 2016 #8
is there a link to a specific statute? geek tragedy Jun 2016 #11
People react without reading the actual statutory language all of the time here at DU jberryhill Jun 2016 #30
If I give you a picture of me, it is yours. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #9
1) the picture can be taken without consent; 2) sharing a picture geek tragedy Jun 2016 #10
1) no it can't. NT. Warren Stupidity Jun 2016 #12
So no photo has ever been taken of someone without their knowledge or consent? nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #13
Your not making any sense, this law is about stopping people from sharing private photos and cstanleytech Jun 2016 #14
when you buy a Blu-Ray, under US law do you have a right to put its contents geek tragedy Jun 2016 #15
There are limits to copyrighting private photos and videos. cstanleytech Jun 2016 #16
That's current copyright law. The state is more than able to pass additional laws geek tragedy Jun 2016 #17
+1 inanna Jun 2016 #19
Not if it violates the Constitution they cannot which is the problem here if cstanleytech Jun 2016 #20
every law is suspectible to challenge if it's overbroad. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #21
I think scotus is going to have to decide this one. nt cstanleytech Jun 2016 #23
other states have successfully passed them and used them to convict geek tragedy Jun 2016 #24
Did that case go all the way to SCOTUS? cstanleytech Jun 2016 #25
defendants didn't bother to appeal, but it was a very narrowly tailored statute nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #26
Ah, still would be interesting to see if it would survive a SCOTUS challenge because if it cstanleytech Jun 2016 #27
34 states have such laws. Some did overstep, like Arizona nt geek tragedy Jun 2016 #28
Also, laws have been passed in Canada and the UK. inanna Jun 2016 #29
Okay, so, some pervert flashes himself at a woman on the train... jberryhill Jun 2016 #31
no expectation of privacy, he would waive any such claims by committing that crime, and also geek tragedy Jun 2016 #34
lol - How do you know his hands were unclean? jberryhill Jun 2016 #35
here's the bill, looks like the big problem would be vagueness-- geek tragedy Jun 2016 #37
It crimininalizes a Pulitzer Prize winning news photograph jberryhill Jun 2016 #39
as I said, I wouldn't want to defend that particular statute geek tragedy Jun 2016 #41
+1000 smirkymonkey Jun 2016 #42
Definition of "revenge porn" inanna Jun 2016 #18
The first one with images and or video obtained without consent are areas were cstanleytech Jun 2016 #22
In fact, you could make each successive purchaser pay you jberryhill Jun 2016 #32
Can you please post the statutory definition in question here? jberryhill Jun 2016 #38
The whole problem is solved by mandating written consent. JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #33
"The ACLU is not helping those that need it the most." jberryhill Jun 2016 #40
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Bill to outlaw 'revenge p...»Reply #14