♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 3, 2013 3:18:36 GMT
If someone such as an ex partner, spouse or anyone posts nude pictures online to humiliate or harass that person he/she will face charges in California. In most states the anti-stalking laws may cover this act of harassment. Some states have ruled that if you give someone naked pictures of yourself it becomes his/her property and he/she is free to whatever they want with them.
An interview with one of the victims of "revenge porn" can be heard on the audio link. Imagine having your online pictures hacked and replaced with nude photos. Click here: www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=228551353&m=228554581
|
|
|
Post by synonym on Oct 7, 2013 14:24:11 GMT
"Some states have ruled that if you give someone naked pictures of yourself it becomes his/her property and he/she is free to whatever they want with them."
That's an interesting comment. But you can give things to people on an understanding that they won't be used in a particular way.
When a DVD rental store gives a DVD to a customer it is on the understanding that the customer is expected to give it back in two days or so. When a shop gives a music CD to a customer it is on the understanding that it is for private use and not to be used in such ways as making copies and selling them to your friends.
So the act of handing an item over for someone else to possess, does not preclude strings being attached on its usage.
So I think that when it come to private nudity and sexual photos and homemovies, the presumption in law should be that consent to distribute must be given beforehand, and is not to be assumed just from the act of giving the material to someone.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 8, 2013 15:06:45 GMT
"Some states have ruled that if you give someone naked pictures of yourself it becomes his/her property and he/she is free to whatever they want with them." That's an interesting comment. But you can give things to people on an understanding that they won't be used in a particular way. When a DVD rental store gives a DVD to a customer it is on the understanding that the customer is expected to give it back in two days or so. When a shop gives a music CD to a customer it is on the understanding that it is for private use and not to be used in such ways as making copies and selling them to your friends. So the act of handing an item over for someone else to possess, does not preclude strings being attached on its usage. So I think that when it come to private nudity and sexual photos and homemovies, the presumption in law should be that consent to distribute must be given beforehand, and is not to be assumed just from the act of giving the material to someone. Unless the person who posts the revenge porn incriminates himself prosecutors will have trouble proving the malicious intentions of the revenge porn poster which is necessary for a conviction.
|
|
|
Post by synonym on Oct 8, 2013 16:39:03 GMT
My understanding is is that you cannot release homemade porn commercially without the participants signing off on it. So the Paris Hilton tape could only have been released with her consent.
So if that is the presumption in law for all porn, whether released for profit or not, then if the submitter cannot produce evidence of consent then they have none, and so will have broken the law.
It would be for the submitter to produce a signature or otherwise prove consent.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 8, 2013 18:32:11 GMT
My understanding is is that you cannot release homemade porn commercially without the participants signing off on it. So the Paris Hilton tape could only have been released with her consent. So if that is the presumption in law for all porn, whether released for profit or not, then if the submitter cannot produce evidence of consent then they have none, and so will have broken the law. It would be for the submitter to produce a signature or otherwise prove consent. Speaking of Paris Hilton...She has on occaison gone in public without her panties and "accidentally" exhibited herself to the paparazzis. I've been told you can see these images by doing an unfiltered google search of "Paris Hilton vagina", but please don't try it because you're begging to get a virus on your computer.
I doubt that Paris will get any compensation for these images because a court would deem that she's in a same boat with an exhibitionist, who got photographed in public. Plus she got Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears to do this silly pantieless number too, which she copied from Naomi Campbell.
|
|
|
Post by synonym on Oct 8, 2013 20:33:54 GMT
You're a bad woman, Anna. I just had to go and google that search you sort of suggested. But anyway, given that PH would have had to have signed off before the tape was released for sale, then I doubt she can complain now.
This is what I think ought to happen for all published porn. The consent of the participants must be explicitly given in some way. And not just that the releaser claims it was given.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 11, 2013 13:18:02 GMT
You're a bad woman, Anna. I just had to go and google that search you sort of suggested. But anyway, given that PH would have had to have signed off before the tape was released for sale, then I doubt she can complain now. This is what I think ought to happen for all published porn. The consent of the participants must be explicitly given in some way. And not just that the releaser claims it was given. Gosh Synonym! I hope your PC didn't get a virus! Even the best anti-virus software doesn't always protect well if you do these unfiltered searches.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Oct 12, 2013 1:02:46 GMT
Paris Hilton definitely falls into the slut category. Who cares if she puts her overused and overexposed vagina on the internet? So many people have already seen it that it's nothing new and nothing special.
It's an entirely different story if some guy talks a sweet young thing into bed, and then into a video, and then embarrasses her by putting the video on the internet after she dumps him because he's weird. No sympathy for that guy.
|
|