Revenge porn banned in California

[Hilander]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups.

"Revenge porn" banned in California - CBS News

I agree with this law but what I don't understand is how the ACLU and others think this infringes on Freedom Of Speech. If someone lets you take a picture in private and thinks it will remain private why should you be allowed to post it online. I also think these websites that advertise post your girlfriends nude pictures should be held responsible as well. They should be at least required to get a certified letter from the person in the picture along with a copy of their drivers license to be sure it is okay with them and they are at least 18.

 

[idisrsly]

People actually do this? :-o

I agree with you though Hilander. If someone allows their partner at the time to take nude pictures of them in the assumption that it will stay private, that privacy should be respected. There should be a law preventing people from posting such pics, whether it is done out of revenge or not. If the person in the picture did not agree to it being used anywhere other than in private, it is a violation of their privacy.

That said though, people might want to think more carefully before letting anyone taking nude pictures of them anyway. It's so easy to put pictures all over the web these days, and once it's been put out there, the damage is done. You might hear about something like this from your friends long before you realize it yourself. That's a scary thought.

 

[Merc]

I've always been split on this sort of thing.

I think people are stupid in the first place for making videos or taking such photos of themselves and are automatically risking exposure. If you allow someone to film you, you're accepting the possibility that it gets out. But here's an interesting thought, first the actual ban:

Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

So the following things should now be an offense:

- Paparazzi posting photos of celebrities nude or partially nude
- Websites like People of Walmart that post embarassing photos of nude/partially nude people

I think something like this is extremely vague.

 

[idisrsly]

- Websites like People of Walmart that post embarassing photos of nude/partially nude people

I don't agree with this statement specifically though. If people are going to go out in public, ie to Wal-Mart, half nude or exposed in embarrassing ways, they are intentionally exposing themselves to this. They were already in public that way, so it stands to reason they are not bothered by being seen like that.

I do agree though that people doing this in private are stupid for allowing it in the first place, knowing there could be a risk of it going out. But it's likely to be done based on trust of the other person not sharing such photos, and when that trust is broken, there is a violation of privacy.

 

[Hilander]

I think people are stupid for letting someone take nude pictures of them especially if you haven't been married or in a relationship for years. Even then its a risk if you get a divorce or split up. People need to stop and think, maybe things are great now but what about next week or how trustworthy this person you are letting take them really is. Lets face it there are some people I don't care how long you have know them they will never be trustworthy. That's another thing to consider and I think its best if you just don't do it.

I don't see posting pictures of people in Wal-Mart the same because they chose to go out in public like that so it must not bother them. There's a difference between public and private. If you are nude in a public place you have no reason to expect privacy.