Home / Civil Rights / Revenge Rape and the First Amendment
Print Friendly and PDF

Revenge Rape and the First Amendment

Written by Brian Wilson on October 4, 2013

Long dead English playwright William Congreve penned the famous (paraphrased) line: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Thanks to today’s cell phone technology and wandering morals, we will see if the First Amendment’s “free speech” will withstand the latest furious onslaught from one Holly Jacobs (nee Thometz).

Ms. Holly claims to be a victim of Revenge Sex, the new train wreck of social media morality, privacy rights, private property rights and individual responsibility when, in 2006, she sent nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. When the relationship went south two years later, Ms. Jacobs subsequently found those pictures on over 200 “revenge porn” web sites.

For the uninitiated, Revenge Sex is the sharing of intimate pictures and videos young women (GF) create for their new love interest (BF) using the features of their latest Smart Phones while ignoring the old technology of Thought (DUH). As with many marriages, these hook-ups end early and badly, with the GF leaving and the BF nursing his rejection – but still in possession of those revealing and usually salacious videos. You can see where this is going…

BF uploads said pics and vids to web sites specializing in Revenge Porn. At some point, former GF learns that more of herself than she ever imagined was spread across the Internet courtesy of the old BF. That is Revenge Sex.

A Google search for “Holly Jacobs Revenge Porn” returns 1.3 million results, most of which recount her travails after learning what her “ex” (allegedly) did after he became “ex’d”. While her experience was horrific in many ways, Ms. Jacobs’ “revenge” is to not only continue as an activist/spokeswoman against Revenge Sex, but push for laws against it. While noble on the surface and accompanied by a compelling emotional pull, the coming collision with the First Amendment (and others) should be everyone’s primary concern. Ms. Jacobs states “This material was only meant for the eyes of the person I shared it with.” Aye! There’s the rub! (So to speak). Because, there is no statement from Ms. Jacobs her graphic displays came with a caveat or a statement on Limits of Distribution or Retention of Ownership. Police provided no satisfaction citing Ms. Jacobs was over 18 and was responsible for sending the “material” in the first place.

My friend and occasional broadcast partner, FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano correctly points out: “The Government has no business deciding which speech should be heard…spoken or, in printed or digital form should be viewed. Criminalizing that which was freely given and freely received would be invalidated under the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not the guardian of taste.”

(For the rest of the article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on brianwilsonspeaks.blogspot.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

15 thoughts on “Revenge Rape and the First Amendment

  1. Um, the creator of an image is invariably owner of its copyright. E.g., if a photographer shoots pictures of a house put on the market for sale, the photographer retains all distribution rights in the photos except those granted to the agent and/or owner for distribution in advertising.

    For the same reason, museums bar photographs during tours precisely because they want to preserve complete control over images which may be distributed of original art works, whether for profit or not. If some young woman takes images of herself, she's the copyright owner. If the BF takes them, he is.

    Sending someone a photo you took yourself is your right as creator, but does not imply the person receiving it can re-distribute it unless you express your intention to convey that right. No copyright notice needs be attached. The US is signatory to the Berne Convention, and as it applies to photographs:

    "If the author is unknown, because for example the author was deliberately anonymous or worked under a pseudonym, the Convention provides for a term of 50 years after publication ("after the work has been lawfully made available to the public"). However if the identity of the author becomes known, the copyright term for known authors (50 years after death) applies" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_fo

    This is not a First Amendment issue. It's a copyright issue for civll litigation (which the owner must privately pursue.)

  2. We all know that what is on the Internet is NOT private. It is public. Therefore, the imature BF is at fault for acting like a child just entering puberty. The I will show you, then you will feel sorry for me. Well, it backfired.
    It states that there were 1.3 million responses. She must be one very attractive woman.
    Revenge rape is childish behavior. Those that practice it ought to obtain professional help.

  3. Once again, distract the masses with titillation and sex to take their minds off the fact that life goes on and the sun rises every day, even without all these parasitic government agencies open for business.

    This Holly Jacobs is the stand-in for Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky of an earlier era when the corporate media needs to distract Americans from pressing issues we should be paying attention to as a nation.

  4. awkingsley says:

    Hysterical! This is about the lady was not only a tramp, but she was an idiot besides. Only if she had a copyright on her porn could she control distribution rights. Hopefully this case will teach foolish sluts to be more cautious about placing themselves in compromising situations. The Ex on which she was trying to get revenge needs to be given a medal for exposing the sexual exploits of such a foolish woman.

  5. Ms. dumbass never should have taken pictures.

  6. exbuckeye says:

    So many who posted here ignored the DUH factor LOL

  7. As my history teacher would say, "Engage brain before opening mouth."
    And haven't i've seen your username before?

  8. Stuart Shepherd says:

    I hope the BF wasn't exposing his OWN shortcomings, as well!!!

  9. bhovell2, you couldn't understand law if it was written down and you actually read it, I.E. The United States Constitution.

    Did the recipient enter ANY agreement whatsoever? NO. Was the image, or its creator, as a corporation, registered with a "copyright" ? NO. Case closed and no compulsion to comply or perform existed !

    You need a rectal decraniotomy!

  10. Because you prefer to see young men's "longcomings" right ?

  11. The United States Constitution permits the USG the sovereign power to enter into treaties with other sovereign powers. In this case, the binding treaty signed by the USG is the Berne Convention. This matter of fact would only be thought by a moron to be controversial.

    There is no necessity to "enter into an agreement". There is no necessity to file with the copyright office. Copyright notice is optional. The right exists automatically and is not waived owing to distribution of the copyright work by the copyright holder.

    This is a summary of these rights by a lawyer specializing in the field:

    In simple terms, copyright for photographers means owning property. With ownership, you get certain exclusive rights to that property. For photographic copyrights, the ownership rights include:

    (1) to reproduce the photograph;

    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the photograph;

    (3) to distribute copies of the photograph to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

    (4) to display the photograph publicly;

    Found in the U.S. Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. 106 <a href="http://(http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106)

    Source: http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyrigh

    You (and others) would be unwise to post again on this topic until you have at least gained some rudimentary knowledge of the applicable law.

  12. Well, DUH ! Don't send photos over the internet that you might not want others to see. You can't cure stupidity.

  13. old_salty_dawg says:

    Sounds like another LIBERAL IDIOT whining because of their own STUPIDITY. If you are STUPID enough to make such a video or take such pictures and are sending them to someone else well you reap what you sow. Stupid is as STUPID does.

  14. Any one who allows themselves to be photographed during sex is an idiot, even if they are alone with their spouse when they do it. Once made, pictures can go anywhere. Someone can break in the house and steal it, so the trustworthness of the partner is not an issue.

  15. Like the old Omni sci-fi story in which an obscure, profligate baroque composer was brought in to the future for purposes of mucisal history study. When he went to the beach and saw a nude woman, this 16th century rake said, "Get me that woman." The host told him, "I can't get any woman for you to 'have.'" The composer answered, "Nonsense! She goes naked. She belongs to anybody."