I’m not saying she presumably consented to the release of the pictures. I’m saying she presumably consented to them being taken. That seems to be a predicate for these revenge porn statutes.
How did you form that belief? California’s revenge porn statute in part:
“A person who intentionally distributes the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, or an image of the person depicted engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual penetration, or an image of masturbation by the person depicted or in which the person depicted participates, under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private, the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress.”
My post about bringing down powerful people was in response to your nonsensical suggestion that I was invoking the First Amendment to protect powerful people. Come on, man.
Regardless, I’m glad that you agree with my points that showing photographs can be speech and that the First Amendment can, in some situations, trump revenge porn statutes. It’s actually a pretty basic argument, and I get the sense that the reason people are fighting it is because Junebug.
It’s pretty telling about the way people on here approach arguments—the most important thing isn’t the logic involved. It’s who’s making it.
if you read this statute and the one i posted from DC, both of them involve consensual photos. Naked photos taken without the consent of the person depicted are usually illegal under different statutes (peeping tom or whatever). Revenge porn statutes were specifically enacted to deal with the problem of intimate partners taking photos with permission during the relationship and then putting them on the internet after a breakup, because the existing peeping tom and surveillance statutes weren't enough. That's what he is referencing and I think he is correct.
Theory and reality are often different. In theory, the First Amendment protects everyone. In reality, (a) men have most of the power in our society; (b) men are much, much more likely to take, possess, share, and publish compromising images of women; and (c) when compromising material is released, women are shamed and punished, while men are often able to overcome the release and continue their careers (compare and contrast the life outcomes of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton).
Therefore, broad arguments that attempt to validate revenge porn as protected speech are absolutely going to negatively impact women - especially the rising generation of young women leaders like Katie Hill - more than men.
Theory and reality are often different. In theory, the First Amendment protects everyone. In reality, (a) men have most of the power in our society; (b) men are much, much more likely to take, possess, share, and publish compromising images of women; and (c) when compromising material is released, women are shamed and punished, while men are often able to overcome the release and continue their careers (compare and contrast the life outcomes of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton).
Therefore, broad arguments that attempt to validate revenge porn as protected speech are absolutely going to negatively impact women - especially the rising generation of young women leaders like Katie Hill - more than men.
Theory and reality are often different. In theory, the First Amendment protects everyone. In reality, (a) men have most of the power in our society; (b) men are much, much more likely to take, possess, share, and publish compromising images of women; and (c) when compromising material is released, women are shamed and punished, while men are often able to overcome the release and continue their careers (compare and contrast the life outcomes of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton).
Therefore, broad arguments that attempt to validate revenge porn as protected speech are absolutely going to negatively impact women - especially the rising generation of young women leaders like Katie Hill - more than men.
She seems pretty cool, but not because of her sexual proclivities. It's possible for a woman to be cool just for the shit she says and does outside of the bedroom. Let's pause for that.
I'll pause to add that post awards you +7.5 Woke Points.She seems pretty cool, but not because of her sexual proclivities. It's possible for a woman to be cool just for the shit she says and does outside of the bedroom. Let's pause for that.
She seems pretty cool, but not because of her sexual proclivities. It's possible for a woman to be cool just for the shit she says and does outside of the bedroom. Let's pause for that.
Wow, that so liberated of you to think that. Did you just recently come to this realization that such a thing is possible ? Do you want a cookie ?
yeah really; now that we're done with her we can all agree that sometimes women can be kinda cool
I don't understand this at all. Help me some more Captain. How do I reach your level of Wokeness? Threats are everywhere for this OWG