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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Bill to outlaw 'revenge porn' sent to R.I. House floor [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)24. other states have successfully passed them and used them to convict
California, for example--and its final version wasn't even challenged by the ACLU.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Gotta agree if they arent careful any law they pass could get thrown out as being to broad. nt
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#1
Agreed something does need to be done but what exactly can be done in this situation
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#6
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
People react without reading the actual statutory language all of the time here at DU
jberryhill
Jun 2016
#30
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
That's current copyright law. The state is more than able to pass additional laws
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#17
Not if it violates the Constitution they cannot which is the problem here if
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#20
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
no expectation of privacy, he would waive any such claims by committing that crime, and also
geek tragedy
Jun 2016
#34
The first one with images and or video obtained without consent are areas were
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#22