Court rules 'revenge porn' law violates First Amendment
77 replies, posted
the courts are stocked with so many old guys and right bent pro police state judges that the 4th amendment and a right to privacy do not exist anymore, case in point they treat biometrics as public data so any phone with a fingerprint reader is no longer subject to a warant, and then there was the CLOUD act or the FUCKMICROSOFTBECAUSEWEDONTUNDERSTANDTECHNOLOGY act
Like, I agree that sharing someone else's pornographic photographs is morally depraved and should, if possible, be stopped, but I have yet to hear a compelling legal argument that isn't either arbitrary and conflicting, or something that will severely damage the way we create and share media.
To anyone by that service. If I send you a pic through facebook messenger, that doesn't allow you to post that on pornhub
Do you even fucking know what defamation laws ARE?
No, it doesn't say anywhere in any messenger app's terms of service that it's exclusive to that platform. Once you license it as being shareable to anyone, that means /anyone/
So who's reputation is damaged by you sharing a meme, eh?
If someone's reputation is damaged, then that is a civil court issue, not a legal one.
If you didn't get permission to put it somewhere, then yes
When you accept the terms of service of the platform, the permission to post it anywhere is absolutely necessary to even let you send it to someone.
I'm not referring to truth, I'm referring to you consenting to have your image taken, and then trying to revoke said consent after the fact.
When you send that photo to someone else, you're giving them the right to do whatever they want with that photo, be it save, delete, or share it. If you couldn't do that, then facebook or twitter or any social media would not be able to exist.
But the law is quite clear about how to try people for defamation, it isn't like the first amendment died all those years ago when they decided the guidelines for proving defamation along with the defenses. If you publish material, words, pictures, anything, that damages reputation (typically resulting in monetary loss or something REAL), you are open to a defamation case. There is NO way that revenge porn doesn't fall into that purview.
you're acting like the world would just fall apart if bill the disgruntled ex cant show his ex's nudes to people. get over yourself jesus.
Just as you can't spread TRUTH (because it damages reputations, along with the consideration for malice) willynilly, neither should you be able to spread pictures that were taken in good faith (because it damages reputations, along with the consideration for malice)
I will engage you in discussion when you provide a real response instead of whatever this garbage is.
Defamation is a civil issue, not a legal one.
The core tenant behind the principle of free speech and why we defend it so vigorously is so that ideas and concepts can be freely expressed without fear of retaliation and silencing. Sharing nude pictures of your ex-girlfriend online serves the singular purpose of being evil and publicly, globally humiliating and shaming a person by violating their trust. The idea that it's a "free speech" issue banning people from doing that is insanely fucking dumb dude. Even if there were any merit to your legal argument, there's absolutely zero merit to any ethical argument here, so if anything it should point to a need for reform in the law. If the law really, genuinely protects sharing revenge porn (and I don't think it does), then there is a serious flaw in the law and it needs to be changed or given special consideration.
So you believe people should have the right to revoke consent for any likeness of theirs being shared, regardless of the consent they provided at the time of providing their likeness.
Okay so say i call you an idiot on this forum. That means your public image has been degraded, and both facepunch and I could be held criminally responsible and could be sent to jail and shut down, should your train of logic apply here.
In fairness I haven't read the EULA/ToS of every chat application on the planet, but this is mega-bullshit. Sending your photo over Facebook Messenger grants FB the right to host the image, probably do creepy analytics on it, etc., but is not a blank check for Facebook to put it on PornHub, nor is it a license for the chat recipient of the photo to put it on PornHub. You're talking out of your ass.
If you are literally spreading something that damages reputations with malice then you should be punished, and the person should not have to sit back and accept it because they let them take the picture at some point, or because they agreed to some terms of service on some website.
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
I agree with this in principle but you need to answer my question if you want to actually get down to how we accomplish this fairly.
Permission of the platform to use it, not the recipient
just because you can't go to jail for it doesn't mean you can't be held civilly liable.
If you could not grant other people you send the photos to that same license, then they would not be able to legally receive that photo.
Yes, you grant Facebook an IP license to use that media. That license doesn't magically transfer to the image recipient.
If you consented to your photo being shared in all sorts of ways, then sure, you shouldn't be able to revoke that permission. I don't think that ToS or EULA's count as consent for that person to share your photo, they aren't an agreement with the person you're sending it to, and no one ever reads them anyway.
Yes it does. Read the post
you're the one who wont listen to why allowing one right to invade another's is not horrible. All I've heard so far from people wanting this shit is "well you should have known better" or "Good, we don't need our speech limited". both are asinine because the first is a private conversation and piece of media between two people, with one later using it as blackmail/malicious intent. The other is even worse, because you're invading on a person's privacy and attacking their character. What do you lose if revenge porn is banned? Less hostile porn videos, oh woe is me, how will people ever survive. What do you gain? privacy and protection from malicious intent from others.
Again, before you want to just repeat the same two arguments, look at the bigger picture and see how ridiculous you sound actually defending something that does nothing but hurt another person's livelihood.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
