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.)