Yall better watch exposing people now...they trying to make it a crime
Options
2stepz_ahead
Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 32,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
Revenge porn' should be a crime
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/citron-revenge-porn/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
"Jane" allowed her ex-boyfriend to take her naked photograph because, he assured her, it would be for his eyes only. After their breakup, the man betrayed her trust.
On the revenge porn site UGotPosted, he uploaded her naked photo and contact information. Jane received calls, e-mails, and Facebook friend requests from hundreds of strangers, many of whom wanted sex.
After the site refused to take down the post and the anonymous calls and e-mails intensified, she turned to law enforcement. According to the officers, nothing could be done because her ex had not engaged in a harassing "course of conduct," as required by criminal harassment law, and because he had not explicitly solicited others to stalk her.
Criminal law should have a role in deterring and punishing revenge porn. It's not new that certain types of privacy invasions are crimes. Many states prohibit the nonconsensual taking of sexually explicit images -- the disclosure of someone's naked images should be criminalized as well.
But in all but one state, New Jersey, turning people into objects of pornography without their permission is legal. A single post, however, can go viral and ruin someone's life.
Revenge porn and its ilk raise the risk of offline stalking and physical attack. Fear can be profound. Victims don't feel safe leaving their homes. Jane, who is a nurse, did not go to work for days. As many victims have told me, they struggle especially with anxiety, and some suffer panic attacks. Revenge porn victims withdraw from online engagement, shutting down their social media profiles and blogs to prevent strangers from finding them online. They cannot participate fully in our networked age.
The professional costs of revenge porn are steep. Because searches of victims' names display their naked images, they lose their jobs. Schools have fired teachers whose naked photos appeared on revenge porn sites. A government agency terminated a woman's employment after a co-worker circulated her nude photograph to colleagues.
Women sue revenge porn website
'Revenge porn' site founder defends site
Victims may be unable to find work at all. According to a 2009 Microsoft study, more than 80% of employers rely on candidates' online reputations as an employment screen. Common reasons for not interviewing and hiring applicants include concerns about their "lifestyle," "inappropriate" online comments, and "unsuitable" photographs, videos, and information about them.
Recruiters don't contact victims to see if they posted nude photos of themselves or if someone else did in violation of their trust. The simple but regrettable truth is that after consulting search results, employers don't call revenge porn victims to schedule an interview or to extend offers. It's just seen as good business to avoid hiring people whose search results would reflect poorly on them.
Revenge porn is a harmful form of bigotry and sexual harassment. It exposes victims' sexuality in humiliating ways. Their naked photos appear on ? shaming sites. Once their naked images are exposed, anonymous strangers send e-mail messages that threaten ? . Some have said: "First I will ? you, then I'll ? you." Victims internalize these frightening and demeaning messages.
New Jersey is the only state to make it a felony to disclose a person's nude or partially nude images without that person's consent. The New Jersey statute is a helpful model for states like California that are considering proposals to criminalize revenge porn. Congress should amend the federal cyberstalking law, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, to cover the use of any interactive computer service to produce or disclose a sexually graphic visual depiction of an individual without that individual's consent.
What about First Amendment objections to legislative proposals to criminalize revenge porn? A narrowly crafted criminal statute like New Jersey's can be reconciled with our commitment to free speech. First Amendment protections are less rigorous for purely private matters because the threat of liability would not risk chilling the meaningful exchange of ideas.
Listeners and speakers have no legitimate interest in nude photos or sex tapes published without the subjects' permission. That online users can claim a prurient interest in viewing sexual images does not transform them into a matter of legitimate public concern. Nonconsensual pornography lacks First Amendment value as a historical matter, and could be understood as categorically unprotected as obscenity. Although the Court's obscenity doctrine has developed along different lines with distinct justifications, nonconsensual pornography can be seen as part of obscenity's long tradition of proscription.
Criminalizing revenge porn is a crucial step in protecting victims from real and profound harms to their physical, emotional, and financial health and safety. It would deter damaging privacy invasions and send the powerful message that posting someone's most private moments, most often in a breach of their trust and without their permission, is unacceptable.
That lesson needs to be repeated early and often before online users, especially young people, think that shaming and terrorizing individuals is an acceptable practice. We need a "cyber civil rights" agenda to combat bigoted online abuse. The criminalization of nonconsensual disclosure of someone's naked images is an important part of that agenda.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/citron-revenge-porn/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
"Jane" allowed her ex-boyfriend to take her naked photograph because, he assured her, it would be for his eyes only. After their breakup, the man betrayed her trust.
On the revenge porn site UGotPosted, he uploaded her naked photo and contact information. Jane received calls, e-mails, and Facebook friend requests from hundreds of strangers, many of whom wanted sex.
After the site refused to take down the post and the anonymous calls and e-mails intensified, she turned to law enforcement. According to the officers, nothing could be done because her ex had not engaged in a harassing "course of conduct," as required by criminal harassment law, and because he had not explicitly solicited others to stalk her.
Criminal law should have a role in deterring and punishing revenge porn. It's not new that certain types of privacy invasions are crimes. Many states prohibit the nonconsensual taking of sexually explicit images -- the disclosure of someone's naked images should be criminalized as well.
But in all but one state, New Jersey, turning people into objects of pornography without their permission is legal. A single post, however, can go viral and ruin someone's life.
Revenge porn and its ilk raise the risk of offline stalking and physical attack. Fear can be profound. Victims don't feel safe leaving their homes. Jane, who is a nurse, did not go to work for days. As many victims have told me, they struggle especially with anxiety, and some suffer panic attacks. Revenge porn victims withdraw from online engagement, shutting down their social media profiles and blogs to prevent strangers from finding them online. They cannot participate fully in our networked age.
The professional costs of revenge porn are steep. Because searches of victims' names display their naked images, they lose their jobs. Schools have fired teachers whose naked photos appeared on revenge porn sites. A government agency terminated a woman's employment after a co-worker circulated her nude photograph to colleagues.
Women sue revenge porn website
'Revenge porn' site founder defends site
Victims may be unable to find work at all. According to a 2009 Microsoft study, more than 80% of employers rely on candidates' online reputations as an employment screen. Common reasons for not interviewing and hiring applicants include concerns about their "lifestyle," "inappropriate" online comments, and "unsuitable" photographs, videos, and information about them.
Recruiters don't contact victims to see if they posted nude photos of themselves or if someone else did in violation of their trust. The simple but regrettable truth is that after consulting search results, employers don't call revenge porn victims to schedule an interview or to extend offers. It's just seen as good business to avoid hiring people whose search results would reflect poorly on them.
Revenge porn is a harmful form of bigotry and sexual harassment. It exposes victims' sexuality in humiliating ways. Their naked photos appear on ? shaming sites. Once their naked images are exposed, anonymous strangers send e-mail messages that threaten ? . Some have said: "First I will ? you, then I'll ? you." Victims internalize these frightening and demeaning messages.
New Jersey is the only state to make it a felony to disclose a person's nude or partially nude images without that person's consent. The New Jersey statute is a helpful model for states like California that are considering proposals to criminalize revenge porn. Congress should amend the federal cyberstalking law, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, to cover the use of any interactive computer service to produce or disclose a sexually graphic visual depiction of an individual without that individual's consent.
What about First Amendment objections to legislative proposals to criminalize revenge porn? A narrowly crafted criminal statute like New Jersey's can be reconciled with our commitment to free speech. First Amendment protections are less rigorous for purely private matters because the threat of liability would not risk chilling the meaningful exchange of ideas.
Listeners and speakers have no legitimate interest in nude photos or sex tapes published without the subjects' permission. That online users can claim a prurient interest in viewing sexual images does not transform them into a matter of legitimate public concern. Nonconsensual pornography lacks First Amendment value as a historical matter, and could be understood as categorically unprotected as obscenity. Although the Court's obscenity doctrine has developed along different lines with distinct justifications, nonconsensual pornography can be seen as part of obscenity's long tradition of proscription.
Criminalizing revenge porn is a crucial step in protecting victims from real and profound harms to their physical, emotional, and financial health and safety. It would deter damaging privacy invasions and send the powerful message that posting someone's most private moments, most often in a breach of their trust and without their permission, is unacceptable.
That lesson needs to be repeated early and often before online users, especially young people, think that shaming and terrorizing individuals is an acceptable practice. We need a "cyber civil rights" agenda to combat bigoted online abuse. The criminalization of nonconsensual disclosure of someone's naked images is an important part of that agenda.
Comments
-
long story short....
stop taking but nakked with and for anyone..
an yall ? need to stop being butt hurt after she moves on -
ONLY JG IS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO RECEIVE NUDES
-
*heads to this ugotposted.com*
-
a law against simp ? and for skeez hoes
-
IC ladies (except Loca),feel free to inbox me your nudes. I promise never to send them around.
@evilchuck and @MzGrahamBitches I expect yours first. -
? if a girl did that to me id probably say "thanks" cause damn it's hard out here for a ?
-
It immediately popped up on my search. Lmaolong story short....
stop taking but nakked with and for anyone..
an yall ? need to stop being butt hurt after she moves on
I concur.. -
So no new nudes....
I'm sad....
) -
Less laws, less government.
-
-
What's it gonna be called - the Kim Kardashian Act ?
Would it only be illegal to post it online ?
What about showing it to other people, without posting it on the net ?
? law, it's still ok to be a paparazzi though. -
What's it gonna be called - the Kim Kardashian Act ?
Would it only be illegal to post it online ?
What about showing it to other people, without posting it on the net ?
? law, it's still ok to be a paparazzi though.
Bolded for emphasis. -
kat kardashian act?
-
kim katdashian?
-
Ahahahahaha...This Cabernet and these steak burritos is gonna make me ? the Internet tonight....
-
Knew this law was coming one day and i'm not really against it
-
Ok I won't.
-
Hell...If any these guhs ever posted my ? pics online...
-
Got damn work WiFi blocked that ?
-
Revenge porn is some weak bitter ? ? . I blame the woman for taking the pics/videos but at the same time too.
So if this law appeared I wouldn't be mad, Im not actively supporting it either though. -
Just say no to sex tapes.
-
Miley's is coming out soon though Kat. I'm tryna see that
-
I believe if the victim had a "reasonable expectation" that the material would not be published or made public without their consent, they should be able to file a civil suit. Revenge porn being posted by an ex would fall within this category. If victims are losing their jobs and suffering from panic anxiety over this, they should have the right to file for monetary damages and emotional distress.
American law is slow as molasses when it comes to keeping up with technology. I've no doubt it will be criminalized eventually, but this should have been addressed years ago.
-
*Goes to website to look for porn*
-
? site timed out when I tried looking at local girls.