Another controversial law was signed by Governor Jan Brewer this week in Arizona. The new legislation means Arizona will be the first state to make posting “revenge porn” online a felony offense. The Arizona Legislature unanimously passed the bill one week ago and the governor signed it into law last Wednesday.
“Revenge porn”, also referred to as non-consensual pornography, is the dissemination of sexually explicit images of an individual without their permission. The act of posting private pictures without permission of all parties can be an emotionally crippling experience. Especially considering those private images or videos were meant for the eyes of a lover, but are now revealed to the world. Revenge porn can also seriously damage one’s reputation and hurt future career aspirations.
The text of House Bill 2515 reads as follows:
It is unlawful to intentionally disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise or offer a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording of another person…if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.
Arizona is the ninth state to pass a law against revenge porn, but they are the first to make the practice a felony. Revenge porn is a disturbing societal trend, but is the best path to limiting the act by punishing the practice through the criminal courts?
The Arizona law and similar laws in other states could have unintended consequences on constitutionally protected free speech. The conduct of posting a picture online, even without the consent of the person pictured, is speech. Speech is supposedly protected by the First Amendment. Criminalizing certain forms of speech in this manner could lead to other acts of speech being limited on the internet. Sharing non explicit, but possibly embarrassing photos or videos without an individual’s consent could be the next act of speech limited by overreaching courts. Where would the assault on speech stop?
Revenge porn is disgusting, but the answer to society's problems is NEVER the government.
This is a vile issue needing some attention but this is not the answer……
Well then, how about "Revenge" posting of private, racist statements?
Here's just an idea for how to solve this problem without bringing the government into it. Someone who is the victim of revenge porn pays a relatively small fee (I'm thinking $50) to an internet company who adds the offender to a verified registry of revenge porn offenders. For a larger fee, perhaps $200-500, the company will use some basic internet research skills to check up on the offender once a month, on into the future, to find out whether they are in a new relationship. If they are, the new relationship is notified that the person they're dating is a revenge porn offender. This would be enough of a sanction to totally kill the idea.
I love the precious facts you provide inside your content articles. I am going to take a note of your current web site and check once more the following on a regular basis. I’m just relatively confident We’ll learn plenty of brand-new products perfect here! Best of luck for!
The issue the statute is trying to address is legitimately something of concern. This statute may be OK; it may be, however, overbroad. People who put pictures of ex-lovers into public view are doing it for no good motive and there are no serious free speech considerations. The matter that should be of concern is efforts in the Congress, especially by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, to limit freedom of the press to those who own established newspapers or TV networks.
I agree with everything you said. BUT…do you trust the government or special interests you don't like not to use this as the thin end of the wedge? Which I believe comes down to the question of "Do you believe there's such a thing as limited government?" I'm afraid I'm long past believing in limited government. ANY government at all is an invitation to more.
Revenge porn does not fall into the category of free speech. It is sexual assault. Free speech is never absolute and never has been. Societies' sexual morals have fallen so low that no one recognizes this in the realm of sex. The government, which ever one, can prosecute sexual crimes without over-stepping the bounds of limited government, even if they were concerned about any kind of limiting action, which they aren't. Anyone, even celebrities and porn actors, should have the right to sue if sexually explicit images are published without their full consent.
"I'm afraid I'm long past believing in limited government. ANY government at all is an invitation to more. "
You and me both. Once a a government is created, it ALWAYS grows. I've never seen an exception to this.
The 1st Amendment ought not protect people when they commit such a crime any more than the 2A gives you the right to shoot people.
And who's going to enforce that? Government? You're back to square one.
Personal responsibility is a solution that doesn't involve the government.
These are Moral problems and will not be solved by government .. When we allowed GOD to be withdrawn from Public places, it was the first step towards even more "Morale" misbehavior ..Man who was created perfect, quickly gave in to satan .. We have been suffering the consequences ever since ..
Just think if this had passed 10 years ago NO one would have ever heard of Kim Kardashian. LOL
Good law.
59% unemployment, verge of WWIII with Russia and/or China, bankrupt empire run out of steam, but YES! we're going to make sure you don't post naughty pix of your ex on the web! Pathetic.
This law may or may not be right, but I need input, does it appear that Gov. Brewer has taken a different path and is shying away from the issues of the border. IS it possible Obama got to her? Is she now a person of divert and confuse issues, Like the Islamic Marxist Obama criminal organization.
Threaten to file a lawsuit against the site and ask the take it down as being posted without "your" permission.
Bad Law as people have to be responsible for their own actions not the government.
The only time this should be a consideration is if the photos themselves were non-consensual. I'm sick of those who want to expose themselves for private reasons and then claim it's society's obligation to protect them from their poor judgment. This is a bad law for many reasons and will likely be used more to stifle perfectly legitimate images of bad behavior by cops and officials, than to protect private citizens.
Brewer was never a Constitutionalist. She is a political animal and will follow her self interest in all things.
So true!
It is DEFINITELY overbroad.