backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by dxf2891.. on Oct 4 at 11:20 AM


  (Source: img.ibtimes.com)
It goes into effect immediately

A new California law has made it illegal to post "revenge porn" online, which is an extension from a previous law that bans sexually explicit photos or video images taken of a person without their consent or knowledge. 

The new law, which passed both houses of the Democratic-led state legislature last month and was signed into law Tuesday, will make it a misdemeanor for those who post revenge porn -- or sexual pictures/video taken (usually by a former spouse or ex-lover) and posted on the Internet to humiliate exes.

The law goes into effect immediately, and violators face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for a first offense.

"Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims," said state Senator Anthony Cannella, the legislation's chief sponsor. "Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted."

Sexually explicit content has been a big topic this year, especially in the United Kingdom, where its target is a little less focused. Instead of banning specific types of porn, the UK wants all porn to be off-limits unless users opt in for it through their Internet service provider (ISP). 

Reuters referred to the latest California legislation as the "first of its kind."

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Gee ....
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 12:14:37 PM , Rating: 4
You mean it wasn't illegal to post porn on the Internet featuring someone who did not consent to posting it?

LOL!




RE: Gee ....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/3/2013 12:16:08 PM , Rating: 4
In before "you shouldn't have let someone take compromising pictures of you"


RE: Gee ....
By invidious on 10/3/2013 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 3
Just wait until protective parents start imposing their judgement as to what constitutes a "sexual picture" when it comes to their underage daughter. Parents in California need to have a serious talk with their sons about not sharing pictures of their female friends doing anything anything even remotely suggestive on social media sites.


RE: Gee ....
By GulWestfale on 10/3/2013 12:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
wait til my friend biggus dickus hears of this!


RE: Gee ....
By Screwuhippie on 10/3/2013 5:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
or his wife ... Incontinentia Buttocks


RE: Gee ....
By Cypherdude1 on 10/4/2013 2:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
Is this law really enforceable? A person being prosecuted could simply say: "well, the subject consented while it was being recorded and posted. Now the subject has changed their mind."

I think most defense lawyers will use the above statement.


RE: Gee ....
By dxf2891 on 10/4/2013 11:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
The argument will be that the subject consented to the picture being taken or the video being recorded for the couples own private viewing and not for public consumption. Even if it's a video with the subject looking into the video camera stating how hot this session is, an attorney could still argue that it was intended for private use only.


RE: Gee ....
By flatrock on 10/3/2013 3:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think the law is a bit more explicit, and if they are taking nude pictures of underage girls the child porn charges they would be facing would likely be of a lot more concern than violating this law.


RE: Gee ....
By othercents on 10/3/2013 1:11:11 PM , Rating: 3
You mean like the panty-less women who step out of the car and show everything to the press? Those can't be posted on the internet anymore?


RE: Gee ....
RE: Gee ....
By Breakfast Susej on 10/3/2013 2:54:53 PM , Rating: 3
Outrage! Protests! Unacceptable!

How is Lindsay Lohan supposed to maintain relevancy in Hollywood under these conditions...


RE: Gee ....
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 3:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, those are ok.
They aren't not revenge porn.


RE: Gee ....
By Breakfast Susej on 10/3/2013 3:51:50 PM , Rating: 4
I think that's technically called updating your resume in Hollywood.


RE: Gee ....
By Dr of crap on 10/3/2013 12:30:05 PM , Rating: 3
Darn and I was going to post some pictures, but this law, well I mean gee, I just don't know.


RE: Gee ....
By retrospooty on 10/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Gee ....
By GulWestfale on 10/3/2013 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 5
if you could legislate away the assholes, then you wouldn't have a functioning government anymore. oh, wait.


RE: Gee ....
By retrospooty on 10/3/2013 2:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
DOH!

+1


RE: Gee ....
By daboom06 on 10/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Gee ....
By retrospooty on 10/3/13, Rating: 0
RE: Gee ....
By jimbojimbo on 10/3/2013 1:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
The law sounds dumb. Just don't post it with the sole purpose of humiliating her. Post it with a tag saying "hires photos for $1" or something and your intent could be to make money, not necessarily humiliate.


RE: Gee ....
By GulWestfale on 10/3/2013 1:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
you're not allowed t sell pictures of people without their consent. you'd need a model release form for that.


RE: Gee ....
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
In triplicate.


RE: Gee ....
By Yojimbo on 10/3/2013 2:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe pictures taken in private.


Just like california
By Ammohunt on 10/3/2013 1:17:12 PM , Rating: 3
To attempt to legislate morality and personal responsibility. How about not taking pictures of your junk in the first place hmmm?




RE: Just like california
By RocketChild on 10/3/2013 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 5
You miss the point completely. This is giving some threat to those that violate trust. People go into something with trust or else they wouldn't have allowed the other person to take or have questionable material to begin with.

This is no different than rules saying you can give your bank money, but if the bank decides to expose your financial records publicly, you can go after them.

Sure banks are immoral, too, but there are consequences for actions of violating trust.

Sure it could be hard to stop people whom might use TOR to hide who really uploaded the photo and if someone does it in another state. But, it is a first step to protecting people that want to have fun, being adults, and getting burn. This is a way to allowing people the chance to be fun without always having to think there is no way to protect yourself later.

It will start to suck in 20 years, if laws were never put in place, it is the wild west and couples are to afraid to ever share anything fun because of the potential backlash later.

This is a good move. The penalties are low, which is nice to send a message without killing a mosquito with a bazooka.


RE: Just like california
By Ammohunt on 10/3/2013 2:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
I understand the issue completely i am just unsympathetic to people that put themselves in these types of situations they are not victims by any stretch.


RE: Just like california
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 2:39:09 PM , Rating: 4
So let me get this straight...

You think married couples should not record their amorous activities for private viewing? I really hate to point this out to you but it happens. A LOT. Whether it upsets your nanny sensitivities or not, it is not illegal or immoral. A married couple there is expected to be total mutual trust.

Now assume that he gets caught screwing around on her, they get a divorce. She gets the house, the car, the kids and the dog. He gets child support and the clothes on his back.

But that wasn't enough for her. Women can be extremely vicious and wants to really hurt him so she posts that private video up on the internet.

Are you saying the guy is not a victim here? He has no rights at all simply because they made that video in the privacy of their house and with assumed trust?


RE: Just like california
By Ammohunt on 10/3/2013 5:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
Look how a similar scenario worked out for the Kardashians. Just because someone thinks they are a porn star doesn't mean they should film themselves like they are one.


RE: Just like california
By ClownPuncher on 10/3/2013 7:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh kay.


RE: Just like california
By RocketChild on 10/3/2013 4:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Victim might be two strong of a word but really they kinda are. Sure, they did put themselves in this situation in some regards. Really, this just puts teeth into keeping honest people honest. The person in the picture/video have no power to take back a mistake. This is not something like a girl posting pictures of herself on her own facebook page getting hammered and wonders why she doesn't get respect. This is about someone that might be a good person, keeps things private in their lives, and gets screwed over because their abusive boyfriend (that seemed fine in the first few months) wants to do more damage after she realizes they are a jerk. The person may have had a verbal contract that the other person would delete this stuff afterwards. Well, that turns into a he-said/she-said in court. But, really, at least this makes 'some' attempt to keep someone that tired to keep things private, from getting burned for decades after.
In someways, you could say someone posting pics is abusing someone emotionally for years...what is a restraining order going to do after the cat is out of the bag? This is to help keep the cat from getting out of the bag in the first place.


RE: Just like california
By Fleeb on 10/3/2013 2:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
If you RTFA, it's not about taking picture of your own junk. So RTFA.


RE: Just like california
By Ammohunt on 10/3/2013 2:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
*Tip: There are sources other than Dailytech for information of this type you might want to seek it out before you post again.


RE: Just like california
By ipay on 10/3/2013 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
You're just upset because you need a macro lens.


RE: Just like california
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/3/2013 3:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
lol

How do you know?

Sorry - but I just had to ask.


RE: Just like california
By ipay on 10/3/2013 4:20:59 PM , Rating: 3
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident"


By YearOfTheDingo on 10/3/2013 2:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
'cause all my ex's live in Texas




Huh?
By bitmover461 on 10/3/2013 2:57:38 PM , Rating: 1
It was illegal, but now it's REALLY illegal?




RE: Huh?
By Argon18 on 10/3/13, Rating: 0
"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki