Court rules 'revenge porn' law violates First Amendment
77 replies, posted
Uh, no? I don't know what kind of goofy legal road you're trying to traverse here but this isn't true. You don't require a legal license to view/access all media in the history of media. If someone hosts an image on a website without providing me a ToS or license agreement, I can still view the image. You're, again, talking out of your ass.
With all due respect, how does intentionally taking a photo of yourself and giving that photo to another person not constitute consent?
I can see a case where someone said "I'll send you a photo if you agree not to share it with anyone", and the person agreed but still shared it, and they'd be liable. I think that's reasonable.
But just sending someone a photo doesn't carry that same weight. You're giving them the image. You are granting them the unfettered ability to do whatever they want with it.
No, it doesn't.. Facebook retains the IP license to host and save that image, your bolded section only implies that if a recipient still has that message saved, Facebook must retain the IP license in order to continue serving them the image. Nowhere in the license agreement does it say that Facebook's expansive IP license transfers to the recipient automatically.
Meh, it doesn't actually say that this IP license surviving because of someone else's maintenance of your shared image means that THEY (the person keeping it) are granted the "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license", it expressly states "us" (Facebook) are granted that ability, and no where does it say that they transfer it to people you share it to, only that YOUR IP License on your material survives.
You seem to be making the assumption that sharing an image implicitly grants the recipient rights to do anything with the image. Why is that any more valid than the idea that sharing an image implies you are granting only the rights to view the image? I think it's fairly obvious that when sending a photo to someone, you're saying "hey, check this out. You can look at it.", that doesn't necessarily mean you are consenting to them distributing the photo.
Uhh no. Every time you share something on a social media platform, you grant the platform and everyone you send it to a license to hold onto it and use it for whatever purposes. If it becomes a commercial use issue, then it falls into copyright law. If it becomes a defamation issue, then it falls into civil law. The point I"m trying to make here is no one should ever be held criminally responsible for sharing something SOMEONE ELSE WILLINGLY GAVE THEM.
Well how is it that telling someone that you have a disease, like AIDS, not "constitute consent"? Consent for what? No one wants you to go around sharing their private details, any REASONABLE PERSON would know that, something relevant in law.
Jesus christ, people.
Knowingly showing somebody else a lewd photo is one thing.
Giving consent for that person to share that photo is a completely separate consent issue.
Is this really so difficult?
Apparently it is to some people, God knows why.
Um, why? Can someone explain to me why exactly it's such an egregious infringement on freedom of speech to make it illegal for people to share revenge porn? Free speech isn't universal, we grant exceptions to free speech when the use of "free speech" infringes on other people's rights. That's why you can't threaten someone's life, make terrorist threats, etc. even though they are "free speech issues". Why is it that people are having such a hard time accepting the idea that revenge porn should fall into this category of exceptions? What merit is there to the sharing of revenge porn such that it needs defending??
I hope the Supreme Court issues (or gets to issue?) a Writ for this case, would be nice to have them make a final decision.
I'm just amazed some people here are making such a concerted effort to do some armchair legal analysis and find some way to justify sharing private pornographic images that are shared in confidence.
Consent to HAVE that picture yes. not consent to give it to others
Going to post an embarrassing video of FurrehFaux gargling some 'icecream' out of a man
its not my fault I posted them, after all if I never had access to them this wouldn't have happened
People should start being more aware that nothing is ever safe - especially on the internet. Don't get me wrong, people shouldn't be sharing nude images that you did not consent to but that doesn't stop people. A good rule of thumb is when doing anything on the internet expect one day it will be public. Don't be sending nudes unless you're comfortable with the possibility of everyone seeing it.
And even if you want to proof some technical reason why there's legally nothing wrong with sharing nudes, the point is that, until recently, they had removed the ambiguity and made it explicitly illegal, as it should be.
The article linked in the OP is sensationalist; the court ruled the law, as it was written, was overly broad and thus unconditional. That is entirely different from ruling revenge porn is itself protected by the 1st amendment.
Here's the actual ruling: http://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=204e054a-d329-4780-81ed-0603fd4d4fff&coa=coa12&DT=Opinion&MediaID=e2e7d674-d2ef-4ae7-a896-c8c3698be11b
There's a plain english example of what the court views as possible under the law (pg. 7):
Adam and Barbara are in a committed relationship. One evening, in their home, during a moment of passion, Adam asks Barbara if he can take a nude photograph of her. Barbara consents, but before Adam takes the picture, she tells him that he must not show the photograph to anyone else. Adam promises that he will never show the picture to another living soul, and takes a photograph of Barbara in front of a plain, white background with her breasts exposed.
A few months pass, and Adam and Barbara break up after Adam discovers that Barbara has had an affair. A few weeks later, Adam rediscovers the topless photo he took of Barbara. Feeling angry and betrayed, Adam emails the photo without comment to several of his friends, including Charlie. Charlie never had met Barbara and, therefore, does not recognize her. But he likes the photograph and forwards the email without comment to some of his friends, one of whom, unbeknownst to Charlie, is Barbara’s coworker, Donna. Donna recognizes Barbara and shows the picture to Barbara’s supervisor, who terminates Barbara’s employment.
In this scenario, Adam can be charged under Section 21.16(b), but so can Charlie and Donna. Charlie has a First Amendment right to share a photograph.
In short, unwitting third parties can be charged due to the way the law was written, which the court finds to be unconstitutional, and frankly I think is the logical conclusion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
