• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

Deacon923 said:
Here's the DC definition of revenge porn:
Knowingly disclosing one or more sexual images of another identifiable person when:
The person depicted did not consent to the disclosure of the sexual image;
There was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and the person disclosing that the sexual image would not be disclosed; and
The person disclosed the sexual image with the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain.

So what you are arguing is that a sexual partner of a "powerful person" is free to disclose intimate photographs from the relationship to "bring down" that powerful person?

Note that the definition of "revenge porn" would not include, say, a Russian kompromat video of a prominent American politician engaging in unsavory activities, taken without that politician's knowledge and therefore without the agreement of that person that it would be secret. Taking such a video would be illegal for various reasons under US law, but if the Russians sent it to a US media outlet which published it (ewww) nobody would be guilty of violating the revenge porn statute.
Click to expand...

I'll just put this back up since I thought it was a serious argument. Not clear if it passes the junebug serious argument test.
 
Deacon923 said:
Some "serious" reading on the Katie Hill situation: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/katie-hill-and-many-victims-revenge-porn/601198/
Click to expand...

Good read. I'd pretty much had my say in this thread, but this article illustrates what I think is the most disturbing thing about this incident - the ability to destroy a younger woman's political career via digging up nude or suggestive photos and effectively slut-shaming said woman into quitting. You know GOP operatives would kill to get their hands on some compromising pics of AOC or other members of "The Squad." And for what it's worth, I don't doubt that some Democratic operatives would do the same, although I suspect that the main targets of this type of attack will be younger, female Millennial liberal politicians.
 
Maybe we’re all talking past each other but you’re not saying that there’s no criminal act involved if Hill never consented to pictures posted on the Internet right? Just that people subsequently using them for whatever gain that doesn’t also involve a crime (extortion) aren’t culpable for something akin to stolen property or whatever. I agree the latter isn’t a crime.
 
Just because she’s an elected official doesn’t mean it’s fair game to hack a computer or phone, post her pictures, and then claim first amendment protection. That’s silly
 
Junebug said:
No one is claiming that. See my statement about burglary not being expressive activity.

I am claiming that, if the husband released the photo of her brushing the paramour's hair, for example, which he presumably obtained with Hill's consent, the First Amendment would provide a defense to his prosecution under the revenge porn statute because releasing that photo is expressive activity about a matter of public concern.
Click to expand...

this is how you choose to spend your night
 
Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Katie Hill Destroys the Republic

Junebug said:
What do either of these hypos have to do with my argument that releasing these photos is protected speech?
Click to expand...

They are the release of documents whose release are protected by law. Would you also consider them free speech?
 
Pro tip: Junebug's motivation makes a lot more sense if you end his posts with "to own the libs."

Junebug said:
You've never heard the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"? Of course showing a photo to someone can be expressive activity to own the libs.
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
You're confusing "Has a real job and life that preclude him from dicking around on the Internet for 16 hours a day" with "backed into a corner" to own the libs.
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
I mean, what is your argument? You aren't contesting what I'm saying about the First Amendment. The DC statute would be ruled unconstitutional in certain applications to own the libs.
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
What do either of these hypos have to do with my argument that releasing these photos is protected speech to own the libs?
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
No one is claiming that. See my statement about burglary not being expressive activity.

I am claiming that, if the husband released the photo of her brushing the paramour's hair, for example, which he presumably obtained with Hill's consent, the First Amendment would provide a defense to his prosecution under the revenge porn statute because releasing that photo is expressive activity about a matter of public concern to own the libs.
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
No, it's how I choose to spend the 10 minutes I'm taking a dump to own the libs.
Click to expand...
 
Junebug said:
No one is claiming that. See my statement about burglary not being expressive activity.

I am claiming that, if the husband released the photo of her brushing the paramour's hair, for example, which he presumably obtained with Hill's consent, the First Amendment would provide a defense to his prosecution under the revenge porn statute because releasing that photo is expressive activity about a matter of public concern.
Click to expand...

That’s what I wanted to clarify. Yeah people are talking past each other.

Also we don’t know that he presumably obtained her consent. That’s the entire question isn’t it? And the reason it wouldn’t be revenge porn doesn’t even need first amendment analysis does it? It’s because she consented so it can’t be “revenge” anything.
 
Junebug said:
I mean, what is your argument? You aren't contesting what I'm saying about the First Amendment. The DC statute would be ruled unconstitutional in certain applications.
Click to expand...

i would agree that there are some circumstances where the First Amendment would trump a state revenge porn statute. your posts, which perhaps did not contain the level of detail you intended, implied that any release of photos to "bring down a powerful person" would be legitimate. I don't think the First Amendment goes that far. For example, there is a difference between an intimate partner releasing compromising photos that prove illegal or unethical behavior, and releasing photos of completely legal behavior that may nonetheless be disapproved of in a nation that is full of prudes. I would further argue that there is a big difference between releasing photos to a law enforcement or other investigative agency seeking to prove a crime or ethics lapse, and just throwing them out there on the internet to cause maximum shame and embarrassment and claiming "First Amendment!" The first is no doubt protected by an exception in all these revenge porn statutes. The second has dubious value as expressive activity in my view.

As a practical matter, from what I read it seems that nearly every American adult under the age of 30 has taken naked pictures of themselves and/or others with a smartphone. The next generation of politicians is going to be extremely vulnerable to bad faith vengeful releases of this kind of material. Better hope your college hookup doesn't grow up to be a supporter of the other party.
 
Junebug said:
I don’t know what I think about that. Leaking a tax return or medical records is quite different from showing a photograph to someone, but my inclination is to think that the act of leaking these types of documents is speech. Whether that speech is protected, however, is a separate inquiry.
Click to expand...

I'm confused why you think its so cut and dry with a photo, but not with written documents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top