California moves to outlaw "revenge" EXGF Porn
 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/27/46...w-revenge-porn

Today, the California State Assembly takes up a bill to create new criminal penalties for so-called "revenge porn" sites, which host amateur nude photos usually uploaded without the subject's permission. As The New York Times reports, the new bill would raise the stakes for the rarely prosecuted crimes, targeting uploaders with up to a year in prison in addition to the civil penalties that often face the hosting sites. The bill would also single out videos or photos taken in private and "in a state of full or partial undress," as legally distinct, and carrying particular penalties if they're shared without the subject's consent.

The sites have faced legal action before, as they often veer into extortion, but criminal prosecution is still rare. Advocates like End Revenge Porn have been calling for new legislation to address the unique new form of harrassment, but New Jersey is the only state where a law targeting the sites is currently on the books. Critics say the bill duplicates previous anti-stalking efforts and may have unintended consequences on free speech if applied to consensual nude photos or public protest art, but advocates are undeterred. As law scholar Danielle Citron told the Times, "It signals taking the issue seriously."

Hope all you thieving 2257 non-compliant exgf site owners get whacked!

There is no free speech issue here at all because there is no public need to know that some unknown chick some where fucked some shit face ass that made a video of it to post on the internet.

:1orglaugh

:thumbsup:thumbsup

i guess thats good

:thumbsup

general porn industry has nothing to worry about.

Its all BS photos and videos anyway

while these guys are annoying.. how is 'revenge porn' that much different than 'model regret'?

Because they dont have signed model releases. Its private things not meant for the public and its the real name.

I WILNOT have ANYTHING to do with that kind of shit on my paysite network. Hope the law passes.

Love ittttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i hope it goes that way

http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/...iend-quote.jpg

:stoned

ADG

Surprised it took them this long.

nice chuckle from that thanks :1orglaugh

So the person who has full copyright to the photos can't execute his property rights?

Lame.

If you're publishing nude photos you should have the subject's consent to do that.

yea because misinterpretation and abuse of the law has never happened before

why would it start now

What if you are publishing non-nude photos?

And what if you're just publishing photos of your private home and the nude subject just happened to stumble in the photo?

This law is based on bullshit premise.

I think the premise is just that in order to post nude or sexually suggestive photos taken initially in confidence without the expectation of them being published you need to get permission first to do so. It seems reasonable to me. It's been a big problem and it's destroyed lives.

How do you know the photos were taken in confidence without the expectation of them being published? Because some dumb twat said so a year later?

most witch-hunt laws usually are

chuckle worthy tho!

some US countries are starting to look more and more to Russia...

1. If it's in a public place, no worries?
2. If it looks like a private photo you better have a model release or something.

funny visual :)


however your point of view...leaves a little to be desired

That's the way I see it. They are infringing on your property (restricting you to execute your rights).

And what about all the other dumb attention whores to post hundreds of their photos to facebook, twitter, flicker, etc. Are they gonna be required to upload a permission from themselves?

It's fucking stupid. They would be better making some laws that would require these sluts to get some education.

'i was drunk when i wrote that release'

Lichen - do you run a exgf site or something?

No i don't. I just smell a stupid law from a mile away. Especially the one that limits your constitutional rights.

So you can actually say, with a straight face, that the subject of a photo/video has no rights..only the person holding the camera?