Latest Breaking News

Xithras

(16,191 posts)

107. State law cannot supercede federal law. It will be struck down very quickly.

Thu Jan 1, 2015, 09:14 PM

Jan 2015

California is an example of a legally acceptable way to ban revenge porn publication. The state banned the posting of revenge porn with the intent to harm or harass the subject. The state didn't ban the publication, but tied it into existing harassment laws based on INTENT.

The problem with the Illinois law is that federal copyright law is fairly clear...the photographer owns copyright, unless the photos are taken on behalf of another (an employer, for example), or an agreement is in place reassigning copyright to the subject or a third party. The photographer, not the subject, owns the photos. No state law can change that, because those rights were granted by Congress. The First Amendment prohibits state governments from preventing citizens from distributing photos that they legally own. The states can ban activities related to that distribution, but cannot directly ban the distribution itself (Again as an example, California's law bans Internet based photographic harassment, and not the actual distribution of the photos). They can also ban the distribution of photos that were taken illegally, because they are the result of a crime, preventing the photographer from asserting copyright.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Quinn signs 'revenge porn' ban into law [View all] inanna Dec 2014 OP

I suspect the IL Supreme Court will strike it down, after staying enforcement immediately. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #1

I sincerely hope so BadGimp Dec 2014 #4

So do I. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #5

this has nothing to do with thought police. seabeyond Dec 2014 #13

It's stifling the right of free speech. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #24

Why is "revenge porn" free speech? chervilant Dec 2014 #53

If these were photos or videos being taken illegally cstanleytech Dec 2014 #54

If "these were photos or videos" "obtained legally and with consent," chervilant Dec 2014 #59

Because people are posting them to humiliate an ex thus the revenge portion but cstanleytech Dec 2014 #64

Well, durn, stanley... chervilant Dec 2014 #67

I never said they had intent for them to be posted online. cstanleytech Dec 2014 #69

Apparently, chervilant Dec 2014 #91

Assuming it doesnt get tossed out by the courts which could happen, we are just going to have to cstanleytech Dec 2014 #92

Does it not occur to you that the legislation chervilant Dec 2014 #94

All of that is irrelevant to what the court decides about the law chervilant. cstanleytech Dec 2014 #95

Yes, and don't we have such a lovely bunch sitting on the benches these days.... n/t chervilant Dec 2014 #96

If you mean SCOTUS nope. Best hope it has is in the lower courts and that they throw it out and cstanleytech Dec 2014 #97

If people must do this treestar Jan 2015 #109

Actually actors do let their images be used but you just have to pay them cstanleytech Jan 2015 #113

But if you don't pay, you can't use them treestar Jan 2015 #123

And if the images and video under discussion were ones that were taken without consent I cstanleytech Jan 2015 #124

Consent to use publicly treestar Jan 2015 #125

Ya but in general you cant grandfather in such a thing for older content. cstanleytech Jan 2015 #126

Because omg the menz are being oppressed!11!, pretty much. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #57

yup. nt seabeyond Dec 2014 #60

That's rather what I thought when I read some of the chervilant Dec 2014 #61

It's telling what people start pulling the "it is my sacred right to do this thing" card, isn't it? Posteritatis Dec 2014 #66

Oh I agree these videos can destroy lives but also people need to really think things through cstanleytech Dec 2014 #71

What people need to do is not distribute them maliciously, full stop. Posteritatis Dec 2014 #76

Except I can imagine some people using it to setup their ex. cstanleytech Dec 2014 #78

Oh, for - ... yeah, I can see this will be pointless. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #79

Yes I agree. nt cstanleytech Dec 2014 #81

Because, it's NEVER a malicious, jilted guy choosing chervilant Dec 2014 #93

that is so ridiculous I have to post. Your idiotic scenario is easily -EASILY- avoided by just not KittyWampus Jan 2015 #115

I agree it "should" remain private but just because it should doesnt mean it will so everyone cstanleytech Jan 2015 #122

False equivalencies do not help your argument. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #82

You just keep telling yourself that... chervilant Dec 2014 #90

And you keewp believing whatever helps you get through the night, too... ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #98

It has everything to do with hate crimes as the law recognizes INTENT as part of the equation KittyWampus Jan 2015 #116

They "might" stand a chance with that method I admit cstanleytech Jan 2015 #127

not fantastic :( PatrynXX Dec 2014 #2

People's lives and careers have been destroyed over this BS. inanna Dec 2014 #3

How so? ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #6

There have been many cases where computers/phones have been HACKED inanna Dec 2014 #7

How much jail time should have been served by the person who received Anthony Weiner's photographs? jberryhill Dec 2014 #9

You'll have to forgive me but I don't know who Anthony Weiner is... inanna Dec 2014 #12

Okay jberryhill Dec 2014 #18

Presumably the woman would share the photos with a court of law. geek tragedy Dec 2014 #26

Was Weiner stalking that person? I thought they were having an affair. Ash_F Dec 2014 #101

weiner sent his pictures out seabeyond Dec 2014 #14

of his weiner Skittles Dec 2014 #29

wiener himself put the pics of him out there JI7 Dec 2014 #37

No jberryhill Dec 2014 #41

Then go after the thief or hacker, not your ex-. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #11

so consent is insignificant to you? seabeyond Dec 2014 #15

They gave consent when they sent their photos to someone else. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #17

so it is the victims fault? shouldnt have trusted that hubby or bf? he couldnt help himself? seabeyond Dec 2014 #20

It is, ultimately, the sender's fault. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #21

and now, becuase of this law, if a person is "gifted" they better say thank you and hold seabeyond Dec 2014 #22

+++++ inanna Dec 2014 #23

I doubt anyone will ever be prosecuted. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #25

calif passed the law at least a yr ago and have used it at least twice for prosecution. seabeyond Dec 2014 #33

That's California. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #35

lol seabeyond Dec 2014 #36

I'm glad you find that amusing. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #38

you are all up in arms freedom of speech you yell. another state has the laws on book, seabeyond Dec 2014 #39

Other states don't have Illinois' constitution, now does they? ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #40

The theory isn't incorrect JonLP24 Dec 2014 #42

Thanks for your thoughts. inanna Dec 2014 #43

point is, he is throwing out a guess as fact. i have a state that has the law and has seabeyond Dec 2014 #48

California won't be the standard used JonLP24 Dec 2014 #49

No but it is encouraging. inanna Dec 2014 #50

yes. i understand that. and my point is the poster was adamant it would be thrown out. seabeyond Dec 2014 #58

restrictions on 'property' are part of living in any free society geek tragedy Dec 2014 #28

"do not publish without consent" is the general rule-- wrong! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #31

you are massively and completely incorrect on this. geek tragedy Dec 2014 #46

Wow, haven't seen a victim-blaming statement that straightforward here in awhile. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #62

"a victim-blaming statement that straightforward" ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #85

Legally, that is 100% wrong. You clearly don't understand how copyright works. Xithras Jan 2015 #108

Legally, it is you who is wrong. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #111

You really should read the law. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Xithras Jan 2015 #112

You should really learn how to do legal research, rather than copy and paste. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #114

Here is a question for you. cstanleytech Jan 2015 #128

They most certainly did NOT give consent for their image to be used PUBLICALY. KittyWampus Jan 2015 #119

Yes they did. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #121

And when this happens with spy cameras? inanna Dec 2014 #16

That's never been legal. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #19

Already illegal. The problem here though is this law is meant to curb people posting photos and cstanleytech Dec 2014 #56

Legal or illegal - why is this a problem for you? inanna Dec 2014 #63

The problem the videos are legal and they are in essence trying to take away your rights to do with cstanleytech Dec 2014 #68

Well...I guess one can always hope and pray.... inanna Dec 2014 #70

There are already laws on the books to deal with some of that like you can sue someone cstanleytech Dec 2014 #72

Yeah. But this is a new law that will totally inanna Dec 2014 #73

Problem is though that I suspect the courts might not agree with that cstanleytech Dec 2014 #75

I don't get it Skittles Dec 2014 #30

I've never understood it, either. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #32

For the same reason that people who can see someone dressed JimDandy Dec 2014 #47

If you don't want your naked photos..... LovingA2andMI Dec 2014 #44

It's Chattel Property Law is Chattel Property Law Underground. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #45

Does that level of naivete come naturally, or do you need to train for it? (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #55

You obviously understand nothing about chattel law. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #84

You send an intimate pix that is INTENDED for private use, then recipient using for PUBLIC use KittyWampus Jan 2015 #118

Sorry, but free speech zealots need to grasp that free speech also involves consent when it comes KittyWampus Jan 2015 #117

I'm sure it's a good law (1-3 years seems high), but I can't help think that those who will C Moon Dec 2014 #8

good. more and more states will do this. hasnt calif passed this law? already prosecuted a seabeyond Dec 2014 #10

Well, I just found this via Google: inanna Dec 2014 #27

yes. i have read about two prosecutions in calif, one just recently. all states will seabeyond Dec 2014 #34

Whatever. bluestateguy Dec 2014 #51

For eveyone not in IL, file a standard DMCA takedown request. ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #52

What if they just gave a broad consent of "yes you can film me having sex with you"? cstanleytech Dec 2014 #80

Interesting. If thats true (and I am not calling you a liar) then that could be one way to legally cstanleytech Dec 2014 #86

That is how most videos get removed from the web. ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #88

ummmm jberryhill Dec 2014 #99

People who want "vengeance" this badly do not need porn sites. inanna Dec 2014 #65

A good law. nilesobek Dec 2014 #87

Very sorry to hear that. inanna Dec 2014 #89

ILCU opposes 'revenge porn' bill. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #100

Agree about the broad part JonLP24 Dec 2014 #102

It's a very flawed piece of legislation. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #103

More from Huffington Post: inanna Dec 2014 #104

Great law! Politicub Jan 2015 #105

Yes. That would be ideal. n/t inanna Jan 2015 #110

Fantastic law. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #106

State law cannot supercede federal law. It will be struck down very quickly. Xithras Jan 2015 #107

Looking at some cats or dogs or pigs or bulls could be porn to some people JDDavis Jan 2015 #120