Should Revenge Porn Be a Crime?

Romantic breakups are never fun—but add revenge porn to the mix and things can get downright cruel. Revenge porn is defined as the dissemination of sexually explicit images of an ex-lover without their permission. It can often be emotionally devastating and have lasting effects on a person's reputation and employability.

That's exactly what Nicole Coon, a 25-year-old Virginia nursing student, experienced last November when she found a sexually explicit video of herself on the Internet. Coon had filmed and sent the video to her boyfriend of 8 years; however, once the relationship went sour he allegedly posted the video online. The website where he allegedly posted advertises as a platform for revenge porn.

Coon's sexuality—intended only for the eyes of her partner—was now being seen by family, friends, and potential employers.

"I did it because I was happy and in love and I trusted someone," says Coon, "the experience has changed me as far as trust goes. My trust [in people] has gone down tremendously."

Coon contacted the website asking for it to be taken down. The website would only comply in exchange for $500. Coon declined to pay, feeling that she shouldn't be financially burdened for what was a cruel invasion of her privacy. 

The nursing student fears for her future employment opportunities. 

"My reputation is everything. I don't want this situation to alter anything in the future. I don't want [people] to look at me any less."

Virginia Delegate Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church) wants to deter this behavior in his state. He introduced House Bill 49 last December that would make revenge porn a state crime. Since then his bill has been incorporated into Delegate Robert Bell's (R-Charlottesville) House Bill 326. Bell's legislation overwhelmingly passed both chambers and was signed by Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe in March.

The legislation will go into effect this July and makes it unlawful for "any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells" an image which depicts another person in a "state of undress" where "such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized" to disseminate. The new law classifies any violation as a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine and up to a year in jail.

Virginia, Utah, and Idaho have all enacted legislation this year criminalizing revenge porn; they join New Jersey and California which were the first states to do so. Nineteen other states have proposed similar legislation. 

While most people sympathize with the victims, some fear criminalizing this behavior will have dire consequences on constitutionally protected free speech.

"The Supreme Court's position, rightly, is that all speech is by default protected by the First Amendment," says Lee Rowland of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

"We always start out with the presumption that speech is protected by the First Amendment. It's a messy, beautiful element of our constitutional tradition. Where the Supreme Court has acknowledged that you can assign penalties to behavior, it's when that behavior is conduct rather than speech. And that's what makes revenge porn so difficult, because the conduct is speech. The conduct of posting a photograph without someone's consent is speech."

Rowland argues that most state laws that have tried to grapple with revenge porn end up criminalizing the posting of an image.

Revenge porn, according to Rowland, is better handled under civil law. In most states, civil laws are already on the books that make it unlawful to maliciously cause emotional distress, intentionally invade someone's privacy, or participate in extortion and harassment. Expanding civil laws to include revenge porn where they don't, Rowland says, is a better solution than criminalizing it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • antisocial-ist||

    "I did it because I was happy and in love and I trusted someone," says Coon

    That was your first mistake.

    Also, remember the advice of the philosopher Herm Edwards. "Don't press send".

  • Drake||

    First 3 mistakes.

  • Sudden||

    Herm Edwards, for all his failures as a coach (notwithstanding his talent for drafting/recruiting, especially defensive backs), has a quote for almost every occassion.

    "Nothing good ever happens after 1 AM."

  • Agammamon||

    That's not just him - that's every officer who ever made CO, ever.

    Of course, *until* they made CO, *all* the good stuff happened after 1 am.

  • ||

    EXACTLY.

    As I watched this I couldn't shake the fact that these people WILLINGLY do this sort of stuff and likely never considered the CONSEQUENCES of these actions. Criminalizing it is not an answer. If anything, you've just enabled stupid behavior.

    I think the ACLU girl is more on the cue here.

  • sarcasmic||

    The porn that's never made is never shared.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that transmitting images of anyone in a sexual situation without getting a legal release from the model is begging for bankruptcy.

    -jcr

  • R C Dean||

    On what basis?

    Its not libel or slander, as the pictures are true (or at least speak for themselves).

    Its not fraud.

    So what's the legal theory for liability, here?

  • Agammamon||

    The only thing I can see is a sort of informal contract here - an expectation that the photos are only intended to be shared between the parties involved.

    If you can sue over a hand-shake agreement then you can sue over this.

    I do think that tort-court (ha!) is a better venue for this than criminal. That shit ain't coming off the internet anyway so you may as well try to bankrupt the fucker what done it.

  • R C Dean||

    If you can sue over a hand-shake agreement then you can sue over this.

    What agreement? There has to be a meeting of the minds, and there has to be some record or action of that meeting.

    You send me a picture. Or I take a picture, makes no diff. Like happens in 99.9% of these cases (not including professional photogs and models), nobody says or does anything that would indicate that an agreement of any kind has been reached.

  • John C. Randolph||

    On what basis?

    Invasion of privacy, misuse of likeness, etc. If the model's not fucking in public, and I was on a jury hearing such a case, I'd vote for punitive damages sufficient to deter any repeat of the odious behavior.

    -jcr

  • R C Dean||

    Invasion of privacy,

    If you let me take the picture, or sent me the picture, what privacy claim do you have in the picture, exactly, that you haven't waived.

    misuse of likeness, etc.

    I'm still looking around for our agreement on what use of my likeness is allowed.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Defamation perhaps

  • R C Dean||

    Truth is a defense to defamation.

  • wareagle||

    this is why people don't like lawyers, RC.

    nobody says or does anything that would indicate that an agreement of any kind has been reached.

    the agreement is implied and while I realize that does not pass legal muster, the name "revenge porn" pretty well indicates that the images were not meant for public dissemination. It's a dick move, illegal or not.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Don't most states have a tort for public disclosure of private facts? And, of course, there could be a copyright claim, depending on who shot the video. Maybe.

  • ||

    Apparently she shot the video herself and emailed it to him. So she could have copyright.

  • JD the elder||

    Copyright, if nothing else. If I made the photo/video, I have the copyright. Sending you a copy doesn't give you permission to distribute it.

    This gets a lot more complicated in situations where the person doing the distributing actually took the photo, of course...

  • Sigivald||

    People have ownership rights over their performance, of course - and if she took the picture herself, she has copyright on it.

    No release? No contract? No right to use their image (from a non-public place, at least).

    "Sending person X a copy of the image" does not remove copyright ownership or any other rights, either.

    (The argument below that "you didn't tell me I couldn't give it or sell it and therefore I can do whatever I want" also fails; rights don't go away like that.)

  • R C Dean||

    I'm no copyright expert, but I seem to recall that you have to give notice of your copyright to have an enforceable claim.

    There's this:

    You must register your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office before you are legally permitted to bring a lawsuit to enforce it.

    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ov.....forcement/

    And this:

    Although it is unnecessary to register a work with the U.S. Copyright Office for protection to apply, a timely registration enhances an owner's legal remedies.

    Works published prior to March 1, 1989 were required to contain a valid copyright notice to receive protection. Under current copyright law this is unnecessary, but notice does increase the likelihood of a claimant winning a copyright infringement lawsuit and makes it easier for others to ascertain the owner.

    http://smallbusiness.findlaw.c.....ement.html

  • SlV||

    Model releases are for commercial use.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I would imagine most revenge porn sites are collecting advertising dollars. In effect they are using someone else's image to make money.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Yeah, either give the "model" a cut at a mutually-agreed-on rate, or if the "model" won't agree, don't use it for commercial purposes at all.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Where does that end? If I make money taking a picture of a crowd and you're in the crowd, do I owe you money?

    How about newspapers making money off of images of people without their consent? The paparazzi?

    Can 'o' worms.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Good question. IIRC, a magazine put some black guy's photo on the cover to illustrate a story about black professionals - he hadn't consented, so he sued. I forget how it worked out.

  • gimmeasammich||

    Was it the Michael Jordan story from a few weeks ago?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Many years ago. I can't find the story now.

  • JD the elder||

    Those people are in public places, so the situation is not at all analogous. The courts have mostly held that if you're in a public place, you don't have any expectation of privacy.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I was responding to Scruffy's implication that making a profit on said pictures was a determining factor. I was simply saying that I don't think that's a good argument.

  • Sigivald||

    Crowds are public places, likewise paparazzi work in public.

    Someone who's having sex in public would also have no protection here from having the image shared.

  • OldMexican||

    Should Revenge Porn Be a Crime?


    I'll defer judgment until I have had the opportunity to study the evidence very closely. I want to leave no stone unturned.

  • VoluntaryBeatdown||

    No *stones* unturned?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    ""The Supreme Court's position, rightly, is that all speech is by default protected by the First Amendment," says Lee Rowland of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."

    Shorter ACLU: It's not as if these revenge porn guys are trying to exercise *religious* freedom!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What if they're pictures of sacred sex? Like tantra or something?

  • ||

    Then if you don't buy the porn on behalf of your Hindu employees, because your a Christian conservative, you are violating their religious rfreedom.

  • R C Dean||

    That's not really the Supreme Court's position.

    There's the "commercial speech" exception to the 1A.

    There's also the various burdens imposed on free expression in the name of pro-diversity legislation (hostile workplace, etc.).

    And, of course, the most heavily regulated of all: political speech.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "That's not really the Supreme Court's position."

    No, I should have made clear, it's the ACLU's fantasy of what the Supreme Court's position ought to be.

  • Tonio||

    Can we have a discussion without Eddie popping up to whine about the poor oppressed religious folks? Just one?

  • ||

    It's pretty much all he does, so...no?

  • 110 Lean||

    Who the fuck is Eddie?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Me. And you gotta learn to indulge my little fetishes.

  • Acosmist||

    Scroll wheel on your mouse broken?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'm like a car wreck on the side of the road, you just have to look.

  • Sudden||

    I think I still have an image or two of my ex wife posed sexually in underwear on my old phone (she was always against fully nude pics, probably for this very reason). I should made it available to the reason public domain.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Why would you do that?

  • gimmeasammich||

    So we can add another line to Sudden's grading rubric?

  • Ice Nine||

    That must have hurt.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "I think I still have an image or two of my ex wife posed sexually in underwear"

    I think I do, too. Of your ex-wife, that is.

    /bad joke

  • Weygand||

    Were you married to a lilliputian?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "state of undress"

    Good luck with that murky concept.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    What kind of family is out there rummaging through revenge porn sites looking for pics of their daughter?

    She and others like her embellish their stories and hype their "damages".

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Maybe daddy was out cruising the world of internet porn and happened into a video with some quite familiar actors.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Let's hope he stopped what he was doing at that point.

    And does he call mommy in to show her?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Wow, who's the hot...barf!!"

  • ||

    Only if he's a Heinlein fan.

  • ||

    And does he call mommy in to show her?

    Any woman who's been around a man for any length of time and is completely oblivious to his porn habits; while simultaneously raising a child that gets herself posted naked on the internet has pretty much earned that reality bitch-slapping.

  • Coeus||

    Some of the revenge porn sites have a lively sub-culture of basement dwellers who like to send the pics to friends and family after identification.

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    Since Mr. Buttplug says "no harm, no foul" clearly it's no big deal.

    It honestly didn't occur to you that someone might contact the family about the pictures? Seriously, have you not heard of the internet? 4Chan mean anything at all to you?

  • Jordan||

    Should Revenge Porn Be a Crime?

    Should it? Nope. Will it be? Probably, and anyone who opposes it will be tarred with the WAR ON WOMYNZ bullshit.

  • Jordan||

    Should it? Nope. Will it be? Probably, and anyone who opposes it making it illegal will be tarred with the WAR ON WOMYNZ bullshit.

    Edited for clarity. Where's my edit button?

  • Agammamon||

    This is a difficult one - not because I think the RP guys have any sort of legal/moral leg to stand on but because I don't trust our legislators to be up to the task of drafting a law that will deal with this issue appropriately and without a fuck-ton of 'unintended' consequences, along with lading the bill down with a ton of pork while they're at it.

    This is something that will take careful crafting to meet strict scrutiny standards and those fuckers in *every* legislature in the country are incapable of taking that seriously.

  • waffles||

    I agree. Any "revenge porn" bill is eminently porkable.

  • ||

    How the fuck can you possibly determine if this "crime" has been committed? Wouldn't it be based solely on the opinion of the "victim"? Which could change at any time?

  • RBS||

    Freshman year: Here baby, I made this just for you.
    Senior Year: That fucking asshole.

  • R C Dean||

    Here's the deal: You send someone a picture, you are giving them that picture unless you have a licensing or other enforcable agreement with them. Its theirs to do with what they will. If they publish it all over the interboobz, well, tough shit. Its theirs now, they can do with it what they want.

    No crime. No legal liability.

    Don't like it? Don't be a fucking idiot who sends nude pix of yourself to the interboobz.

  • Tonio||

    Well, a lot of those pictures are taken by someone other than the person depicted therein, but otherwise your points stand. Don't let yourself be photographed nude unless you're willing to have that show up on the internet.

    Now, if coercion, fraud or privacy violations were involved in the taking of the picture that's another story.

    As was covered here sometime recently new cameras and phone-cams are required to make that shutter-click noise when you photograph something so as to give warning.

    (Anyone know how wildlife photogs get around this?)

  • Zeb||

    Is that really a thing now? Is there some law or is it an industry agreement sort of thing? I hate the fake shutter sound.

    I would be quite shocked if real professional cameras (and consumer SLRs) didn't at least have an option to turn that off.
    Such cameras also have a real shutter, so make a real shutter sound when used.

  • ||

    You used to be able to turn it off, but I noticed in my latest Android phone that there didn't seem to be that option any more. Which seems extremely retarded.

  • ||

    Which seems extremely retarded.

    Right? I can't take stills without giving away the fact that I'm snapping a photo, but I can collect hours of full HD and sound in dead silence.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is there some law or is it an industry agreement sort of thing?

    If I remember correctly, in Japan and Korea it is. Something about a moral panic involving upskirts on their notoriously crowed trains/subways.

  • gimmeasammich||

    But I thought the blatant groping on Japanese subways was a dead giveaway that something "immoral" was going on. You're telling me that is just in online movies? #betrayed

  • Zeb||

    So, probably just on phones, I'd guess.

    I can't see any remotely serious photographer, amateur or professional, putting up with that stupid shit.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, a lot of those pictures are taken by someone other than the person depicted therein,

    I honestly don't see much difference between sending someone a picture and letting them take that exact same picture themselves.

  • ||

    So, if I send anything to anyone, mistake or not, I'm completely powerless to retrieve it?

    So, if I happen to be a nude model of one sort or another and a partner, photographer, fluffer, whatever, 'borrows' my property and sends themselves the photo, the onus is on me to come up with a contract or otherwise prove that I didn't send it to them?

  • Surly Chef||

    Yes. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. At least in theory.

  • Tonio||

    Professional models generally know about releases and rights. As do professional photographers. No shutter shall snap without properly executed releases.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Here's the deal: You send someone a picture, you are giving them that picture unless you have a licensing or other enforceable agreement with them. Its theirs to do with what they will. If they publish it all over the interboobz, well, tough shit. Its theirs now, they can do with it what they want.

    I think that's the right answer. Same if you voluntarily let them take your pic without an agreement.

    The question is then, what about where it isn't voluntary? Paparazzi?

  • Tonio||

    Paparazzi generally photograph their subjects in public where there is no expectation of privacy. Otherwise they risk citations for trespass, getting roughed up by security, etc.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Fair enough.

  • JD the elder||

    "You send someone a picture, you are giving them that picture unless you have a licensing or other enforcable agreement with them."

    No. Not under current copyright law, that's not how it works. Under current copyright law, if you make the work, you own the copyright. Saying, "Here, look at this" does not constitute a transfer of rights. In practice, I agree that enforcing this can be a huge can of worms.

  • kinnath||

    And copyright violations are civil not criminal.

  • OneOut||

    Saying, "here look at this", isn't the same as sending someone a copy of it.

  • JD the elder||

    So you're claiming that sending someone a copy nullifies all copyright? Do you think that argument works for books or audio recordings or movies?

  • gimmeasammich||

    When these types of stories come out, how many more people end up seeing the media versus before when it was just another drop in an endless sea of videos/pics?

  • gimmeasammich||

    *Googles 'Nicole Coon tape'*

  • Jordan||

    RACIST!

  • Tonio||

    Streisand Effect, FTW.

  • Real American||

    two thoughts. First, you should have to get permission to post homemade porn on the internet.

    Secondly, if you're the kind of person making homemade porn, you should be aware that it will eventually find its way online, especially if you breakup with the person with whom you're making it.

  • Tonio||

    Fuck off, Merkin.

  • R C Dean||

    First, you should have to get permission to post homemade porn on the internet.

    You're saying it should be illegal to post homemade porn on the internet without permission?

    What counts as "homemade porn", and what counts as "permission"?

    What sort of penalties do you think should be imposed?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And Carrie Prejean's sex tape never leaked.

    What a bummer.

  • Jake Badlands||

    Why do you want to see an old nun doing it, anyway?

  • Agammamon||

    Corollary 1 to Rule 34 dude.

    There's porn of it because someone faps to that stuff.

  • ||

    "I am truly concerned that the new wave of revenge porn laws will create far more problems than solutions," says Rowland.

    A sage indeed.

    I agree that the victims frequently hype their victimization, but I'd also say that they have civil legal ground to pursue websites who have acquired profits from material of questionable ownership.

    I almost wonder about a couple preying on revenge porn sites by putting up material that is explicitly owned by the model.

  • Tonio||

    I would imagine that the RP sites have terms of service that say that by uploading an image that you declare that you are the owner of said image and that you assign rights to the RP site. That's fairly standard for any website.

  • Agammamon||

    Not to mention that recent court cases (Prenda Legal for example) have come down on the side that if you own it and upload it, you can't sue others for sharing it.

  • ||

    True enough. I've been keeping up with the cases elsewhere IDK why my brain didn't make the leap to this story.

  • Sigivald||

    Prenda lacked standing for their copyright claims, is all I know.

    Where do you get "you can't sue others for sharing [things you uploaded]"?

    (Certainly that's not generally so, since any streaming source or legal download is "something the owner uploaded", but one can certainly sue others for "sharing" those once they have them...

    If uploaded by the rights-owner to a public file sharing site, we're closer; I can't see how that's not an implicit license to download, though not obviously to re-share.

    Or do you mean you can't sue the site you uploaded it to for letting people download it?

    That's perfectly sensible, assuming they were clear about being a site that lets people download what you upload...)

  • Agile Cyborg||

    In spite of its secret affairs with them society punishes the normal person who's been outed fucking on camera. I think until this ridiculous inhibition matures into something more accepting and gracious people who release damning sex files should be held liable for what is proven to be a career killer. Unless you are 11 how can someone NOT know that releasing compromising sexual images is a way to sully another person's character?

  • Tonio||

    Sully? For some of us it only improves the reputation of that person.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Do you think everyday, as she rolls around naked in a pile of gold-pressed latinum, Gul Kim Cardassian secretly thanks Ray J for "leaking" her sex holo?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    What is normal about Kim Kardashian? I use the word 'normal' for a reason. I'm talking about everyday people who work everyday jobs who get their lives destroyed.

  • John||

    Lets make one distinction clear, peeping Toms are not revenge porn. If someone consents to their picture being taken, I don't see how you can then criminalize the person who took its misuse of that photo. Yeah it sucks when that person shows the nude picture to the world. But the subject of it consented to have the picture taken. That means they assume the risk that the other person might misuse it. Is that misuse a tort? I would say that it is under most circumstances intentional infliction of emotional distress. Is it can it be or should it be a crime? Hell no.

    If it is now a crime to put naked pictures you have of someone on the internet, why then isn't it also a crime to put the love letters they wrote up there as well? I think an ex wife publishing her ex husband's letters to her where he confesses to trying on his mother's underwear or that time he got drunk in college and there was that think in Guatemala that his father's best friend from college had to help him get out of is just as or more humiliating as posting revenge porn.
    life.

  • John||

    People as they often do get wrapped up on the porn aspect of this. Revenge porn is not about porn. It is about a breach of trust. It is someone breaching a friend or lover's trust in order to humiliate them publicly. Porn is just one of many ways that can be done. While that is a pretty lousy thing to do and is probably a tort in most cases, it is not and should not be a crime. This is really no different than making adultery illegal again. Both revenge porn and adultery are breaches of trust that subject the victim to emotional distress and public humiliation.

    Maybe I missed the memo, but I thought progs spent the last 50 years trying to get the government out of my bedroom and out of my love

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Not every dumb ass thing someone does has to be protected from happening. I mean with all the free speech unintended consequences its probably best to with hold all your self made porn unless you intend to make money off of it.

  • R C Dean||

    I'd also say that they have civil legal ground to pursue websites who have acquired profits from material of questionable ownership.

    Who owns the pictures on your phone? How do you prove who owns a given picture, if we aren't going by possession and there are no contracts in view that might settle the question?

    Take the boobs out of it for a minute. I took a picture the other day of a truly cool tricked out off-road vehicle. It had Rhino Hide instead of paint, etc.

    Is that my picture? If not, whose is it?

    Can I post it to a webpage? If not, what legal documentation do I need? If I post it anyway, who can sue me, for how much, and on what grounds?

    Rather than creating an impassable thicket of legalistic bullshit, howsabout we just . . . . do nothing? Maybe let people bear the consequences of their own stupid decisions? I know, its crazy, but maybe worth a try.

  • Lord Humungus||

    that's crazy talk!

  • John||

    That is the other thing. I don't see how you prove this is "revenge porn". I take pictures of my girlfriend and put them up on the net. She says it is revenge porn. I say she loved it and wanted me too. Short of some written agreement or evidence of her telling me that, how do we know who is telling the truth?

    All this is is another step in feminists long running effort to weaponize the justice system such that every man is subject to criminal liability at the whim of any women in his life.

    Make this illegal and any women, though it could sometimes be men, who gets into their significant other taking naked pictures of them and putting them on the net now has the power to have that significant other arrested any time they like.

    Hell, any wife or girlfriend who is sufficiently angry and evil enough could just talk their husband into taking naked shots and putting them on the net for the single purpose of calling the police and charging him with revenge porn. How would such a guy prove that she consented?

  • ||

    To be fair, the websites names leave little to the imagination that the porn contained on them was put there out of revenge.

  • John||

    That doesn't make any difference. Just tell him you get off on it being posted there.

    Hell, hack his computer and post it yourself.

    That is the other issue no one is talking about. How do you prove the guy actually uploaded it. The best you could do is show that someone using an IP address associated with his name uploaded it. That doesn't prove it was him.

    What is to stop women from posting pictures of themselves and then calling the cops on their ex boyfriends? If you both have copies of the picture, the cops are going to find it on his computer. How does he prove it wasn't him that uploaded it? Pretty damned hard to do.

  • ||

    Oh I definitely don't agree with making them illegal, especially for the points you've brought up.

  • Zeb||

    But as with almost everything else about porn, just because it is called that doesn't mean that is necessarily what happened.

  • John||

    Zeb,

    You mean all of those videos of "girls auditioning for porn movies for the first time" are not really girls doing that but instead professional porn actors?

    You killing my faith in humanity Zeb. If you can't trust porn, what can I trust.

  • Zeb||

    I know. It's a sad state of affairs. I can never believe in anything again.

  • ||

    You mean male strippers don't get it on with all of the hot chicks at bachelorette parties?

    Yeah, I didn't think about that before I posted.

  • Lord Humungus||

    You mean the girls they pick up on the side of the road are just acting? ZOMG! I've been lied to!

  • John||

    And those "hot, cheating house wives" are not really house wives.

    /leaves room sobbing.

  • Skip||

    How could the Milfhunter have deceived me like that?!

  • Loki||

    the websites names leave little to the imagination that the porn contained on them was put there out of revenge.

    And most of the "revenge porn" on said sites is "fake" in so far as it's not really amateur porn put up by a jilted ex. Either that or a lot of professional pornstars are letting their real life boyfriends film them and then those boyfriends are putting it on the net after they break up.

  • John||

    The frenzy over revenge porn reminds me of the frenzy various SOCON media outlets had over the Ashley Madison site, which claims to be a dating site for married people wanting to cheat.

    I was always skeptical there were very many women who wanted to cheat with some stranger in a public way. I figured the "oh my God, there are however many thousands of profiles on that site" scare stories were counting bogus accounts set up by spamers or the site itself.

    Sure enough a couple of weeks ago some former employee came out and admitted that the site sets up fake female accounts as a way to get dumb men to pay for access.

    I think the same thing is going on here. People are seeing "revenge porn" sites and assuming it is real rather than just another pornography scam. I bet the number of actual revenge porn cases in this country is less than a hundred and maybe less than 20.

  • Cyto||

    That being said, I did have a co-worker who found out that there are a great number of married women looking for a hookup on line. He had a personal profile on a professional networking site that included his status as a single parent and the phrase "I'm just looking to have fun."

    He had dozens of women propositioning him every week. Many were a-list hot. Some were wives of professional athletes or other wealthy guys. Many sent nude photos. Most were from out of town. They were looking for risk-free hookups away from their home town. He'd meet up with them somewhere between his home base and their home for an evening of untraceable fun.

    This was kinda the online anti-dating. No date, no relationship, no personal contact other than the occasional hook-up. This doesn't mesh with my version of reality, but I can't argue with the evidence.

  • gimmeasammich||

    Take the boobs out of it for a minute.

    That kind of talk will get you slapped in a lot of localities.

  • John||

    It is a valid point. People get distracted by the boobs into thinking an ordinary breach of trust in a love relationship should somehow be criminal.

    If that is true, then we need to go back to adultery being a crime. I don't think the feminists who support this would like that very much.

  • Virginian||

    I don't think the feminists who support this would like that very much.
    reply to this

    They'd like it fine if it would only be used against men.

  • gimmeasammich||

    It is a valid point. People get distracted by the boobs into thinking an ordinary breach of trust in a love relationship should somehow be criminal.

    It's the emotions that get involved, and we all know how well those decisions turn out...

    I think about it this way. If I hear about a guy who walks in on his wife in bed with another man and he beats the guy up, it's easy to say that he shouldn't have done that. But if *I* walked in on my wife in bed with another man, I can't honestly say that I'd keep the coolest of heads, legal or not. It's about street justice from my viewpoint only.

    Or like Virginian said below, as long as their (the feminists') version of justice is carried out they will consider it "justice served."

  • John||

    I totally agree. A guy who does this ought to get his ass kicked by the women's brother or father or new boyfriend.

    The way to deal with this is through social sanction not criminalizing it. The real issue is how have we created a society where such douche baggery is at least in some quarters approved of.

  • ||

    I wonder what percentage of those postings are revenge for a cheating partner.

  • John||

    There is that. And there is the valid point above about how much porn is fake. The way the professional porn makers have reacted to the wave of free amateur porn is to make their porn look like amateur porn only better.

    I bet a large percentage of the stuff that claims to be "revenge porn" is actually regular porn that has labeled itself as such for marketing.

  • ||

    I could definitely see that.

  • ||

    The real issue is how have we created a society where such douche baggery is at least in some quarters approved of.

    Uh... does consumption imply approval?

  • John||

    No. What is the point of doing it unless someone who knows the girl sees it? And if they know who she is, they know who the guy is. If it wasn't approved of in some quarters, no guy would want to do it because doing it would damage his reputation more than hers.

  • Loki||

    Take the boobs out ... for a minute.

    WAR ON WYMENZ!!! PATRIARCHY!!!! MISOGYNIST!!!1!!!

    Maybe let people bear the consequences of their own stupid decisions?

    You want people to actually have to face the consequences of their stupid decisions? What kind of monster are you?

  • Hugh Akston||

    What I'd like to do is start a site where women can submit names, photos, and phone numbers of guys who have submitted their naked pics to a revenge pr0n site without their consent.

  • John||

    that is a good idea.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The only solution to revenge porn is more revenge!

  • John||

    If some guy posts naked pictures of a woman without her consent, it seems pretty fair that she should be able to post his name outing him for doing it.

  • gimmeasammich||

    According to the Law of Unintended Consequences this would lead not to the guy being ridiculed, rather hi-fived for weeks to come.

  • John||

    Probably so. It would also lead to his future girlfriends being less likely to pose nude for him.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Or it would set off the douche alert if future dates google him first.

  • ||

    And as much as girls decry their victimization, I can guarantee you family/friends/employers would be skimming sites that out revenge posters.

  • gimmeasammich||

    Not even just revenge posters. Petty bullshit. When my wife was still my girlfriend, she had a shitty roommate for one year in college. After she (my wife) and some friends parted ways with this chick and graduated, they were sitting around talking about this shitty roommate. They were wondering if she had even graduated, so they started checking Facebook and the university's website for graduation lists by year and name. They couldn't find her name, so my wife excitedly called me to tell me this. My response was along with lines of, "OK. When are you coming home?" Like, seriously, who gives a shit? How much time did you waste looking up this information? Move on.

  • Loki||

    this would lead not to the guy being ridiculed, rather hi-fived for weeks to come.

    Maybe by some of his bros, but good luck to him ever getting laid again once enough women find out what a sleeze he is.

  • gimmeasammich||

    It's a big world. Some girls like sleaze. Others are ignorant to it. Contrary to popular belief, not every girl is completely consumed by Facebook, Twitter, MySpace (is that even a *thing* anymore?), etc.

  • ||

    so you can inquire if they have more?

  • ||

    What I'd like to do is start a site where women can submit names, photos, and phone numbers of guys who have submitted their naked pics to a revenge pr0n site without their consent.

    I can't believe the technology isn't out there to hook some binary onto the end of a video file that causes the player or lower-level system do delete the file or even just the naughty bits.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Speaking of possible crimes, attention DC area Reasonoids; This man is a wanted fugitive from Prince George's County. Please be cautious!

  • John||

    His friend clearly ided the wrong person as the guy who stole his gun.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I love how the reporter didn't get that the word on his forehead was "YHWH."

  • Zeb||

    I don't see how he took the first H for a W. If you don't know what the tetragrammaton is, I could see the initial X.

    The secondary reporter thinks it's an abbreviation rather than a transliteration from Hebrew, but that is more forgivable.

  • ||

    He's probably got him confused with someone else, maybe a friend or a co-worker with an XWWH tattoo on his or her forehead.

  • Zeb||

    I'm sure it happens all the time.

  • ||

    Don't think for a minute that the cops won't shoot up a truck driven by a white elderly woman "by mistake", though.

  • Loki||

    They gotta shoot at someone, and you wouldn't want them to shoot at the criminal with the gun, would you? I mean, he might shoot back and them some poor cop might not get to go home safe at the end of his shift, which is all that really matters.

  • Agammamon||


    Cops in Maryland are hunting this gun crime suspect who has a face full of distinctive tattoos.

    Antoine Petty is accused of stealing a pistol from a pal in Largo last week.

    Why would the 'cops in Maryland' be chasing this guy? Unless its a really expensive gun wouldn't this be misdemeanor theft?

  • sarcasmic||

    IT'S A GUN! A GUN! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? IT'S A GUN!

    Seriously though, the fact that there's a gun involved probably makes it a felony.

  • Virginian||

    When a gun was stolen from me, eight cops were there in five minutes. They stood around on my lawn while one of them filled out a report.

    And nothing else happened.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Were donuts involved?

  • Virginian||

    No, but it was afternoon. I was really unhappy with the way it was handled, because I called the non emergency number, and was very clear that I just needed to fill out a stolen property report, nothing more.

    Still...four cruisers, and they all got out and stood around me while I answered the one's questions. I spent half an hour after they left talking to neighbors.

  • kinnath||

    Life's ugly lessons:

    The 90s: Don't send any email message unless you are ready to read it on the front page of the newspaper.

    The 00s: Dont' fuck in front of a camera unless you are ready to watch it on the web.

  • kinnath||

    Coon had filmed and sent the video to her boyfriend of 8 years;

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  • John||

    Yes. The other issue is that cameras have gotten so small, I really don't see how you can ever stop someone determined to get a picture.

    The best way to deal with this "problem" is stop making such a big deal about it. Chances are most of the people who actually know that woman will never see the tape and won't care one way or the other if they do. If we stop making a big deal about it, angry boyfriends won't see posting naked pictures as such effective revenge.

    Criminalize it and you just tell men that it is the most damaging thing you can do to her if you are willing to chance it. That doesn't sound like a very good message to send.

  • kinnath||

    This case is easy. She sent the video.

    The law does need to be very clear on photos or videos taken without the knowledge of the person being recorded when that happens in a place where there is an expectation of privacy.

    Revenge porn it generally not that problem.

  • John||

    I totally agree. I am just saying that even stopping the peeping tom stuff is already or will soon be damn near impossible, given the state of technology.

  • kinnath||

    Yup.

    That's why we need to NSA to track every byte of data loaded by every person to every computer in the world.

    Or we could stop treating sex like an abomination (at least publicly).

  • John||

    There is always that. Maybe if no one cared guys wouldn't view this as revenge and thus wouldn't do it?

    It is so crazy it just might work.

  • Zeb||

    Ignoring it would be the best way to deal with finding out that you are on one of those sites.
    Complaining about it publicly is only going to make more people want to see it.

  • ||

    Yeah, um, defending the rights of guys who want to post nude photos of their ex girlfiends on the internet is not high on my list of priorities.

    I know libertarians are a tad tone-deaf to public sentiments at times, but seriously, is THIS the hill you want to die on?

  • sarcasmic||

    Your concern is noted.

  • Virginian||

    We also defend the rights of child molesters, virulent racists, telemarketers, and nicole. Defending everyone's rights, no matter how reviled they are to the rest of the world, is kind of what we do. It's what makes us better people than those who are willing to throw people in jail for violating their sensibilities.

  • Tonio||

    ^This.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    nicole is the worst.

  • kinnath||

    is THIS the hill you want to die on?

    Yes, Fucking Yes, Absolutely Fucking Yes.

    The purpose of the law is not to shield dumbshits from the consequences of being stupid.

    This is exactly the kind of emotional bullshit that allows do-gooders to nibble away at fundamental freedoms.

  • Tonio||

    ^This, too.

  • John||

    Hazel,

    I am not defending the rights of guys who post pictures of the g/fs on the internet.

    I am defending the principle that private breaches of trust should not be criminalized. That is a big difference.

    I am also defending the principle that we shouldn't pass laws that are impossible to enforce. Again, how do we enforce this law without just making it such that any woman can send a guy to jail by just getting him to post a naked pic of her on the net and then calling it revenge porn?

    The only way anyone could defend this is to get wrapped around the axle over porn and think not doing it is just defending creepy guys. If you go beyond that and see the larger issues and precedents involved, you clearly see what a bad idea this is.

  • Loki||

    If you go beyond that and see the larger issues and precedents involved, you clearly see what a bad idea this is.

    That might require putting more than 2 seconds worth of thought into it. Something most people are incapable of the second they hear/ see the words "revenge porn."

  • Dixon_Sider||

    MAH FEELERZ GOT ALL WERKED UP!!!!!!!!1

  • Zeb||

    I'm going to say what I think. I don't think anyone here is going to start some crusade to defend it.

  • gimmeasammich||

    So does this mean that you have less-than-flattering pictures floating around the interwebz that you are trying to get taken down, Hazel?

  • Fluffy||

    Yes.

    Public sentiment here is entirely emotional and has no reasonable basis.

  • Carnival||

    That is also true of literally every single thing you believe. You think you're 'rational' and beyond the petty human construct of feelings, but you are just as much a pathetic slave to your own limbic system as everyone else.

  • Fluffy||

    Also, this is part of the increasing tsunami of nonsense coming from people who entirely misunderstand the concept of privacy.

    More and more, people INSIST that information they freely share with me someone still belongs to them.

    It doesn't.

    If we engage in a transaction (say, you send me a nude picture of yourself) that's no longer your private information. That becomes my private information. If I want to share it, that's up to me now, and not you. Whether we're talking about pictures or about website hits or whatever.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Agreed. Unless they make an agreement with you to not share it.

  • kinnath||

    This is one area where digital rights management could actually be of value. We need to have some way to encrypt content with a "for your eyes only" contract that is provable in court if the content is released outside the contract.

    I smell a patent ;-)

  • MJGreen||

    Does the agreement need to be explicit or in writing?

    It seems reasonable that this kind of information and media is conveyed in confidence. Criminalizing this shitty behavior is too far, but I think the victim has a good case to say he/she is owed damages.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    No, but if it isn't in writing, how do you prove it?

  • ||

    Fuck the public?

  • Loki||

    So, which site was your nudie pic uploaded to? /sarc

  • Loki||

    "I did it because I was happy and in love and I trusted someone," says Coon

    "You fucked up! You trusted us him!"

  • 00=======D||

    Frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

  • Lord Humungus||

    It's a long and complicated issue.

  • 00=======D||

    Then be a dear and handle it for me?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Your zeroes are off by ninety degrees. Is that some kind of birth defect?

  • Brian D||

    The nursing student fears for her future employment opportunities.

    "My reputation is everything. I don't want this situation to alter anything in the future. I don't want [people] to look at me any less."

    Don't fret, my dear, I for one don't want to look at you any less either."

    /Groucho

  • John||

    There is so much porn on the internet, I fail to see how any perspective employer would find it. Any employer who trolls the revenge porn sites checking to see if a female applicant is on one of them is probably not someone she should want to work for.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "It's OK, honey, I'm just doing background research on some potential employees."

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    True, but someone will eventually stumble on it...and word will spread. (More a a factor after one is hired)

  • John||

    Maybe. There is a lot of porn on the internet. Also, even if someone does, how do you go about passing around porn at a workplace? In the day and age of sexual harassment law, I can't imagine how I would pass such stuff around even if I had it. Certainly doing so would be giving my employers grounds to fire me if not creating the business need to do so.

  • Loki||

    I know if I found some vids/ pics of a female co-worker I'd keep that information to myself. Partly for the reason you alluded to (sexual harrassment/ fear of getting fired myself), but mostly out of respect for my co-worker's privacy and whatever's left of her dignity. Basically, she doesn't need to know that I saw her goods on the internet, and neither does anyone else.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Doesn't have to be at the workplace. Most don't surf porn at work. They do it at home. I certainly have a number of coworkers personal email...

    Hey, look what I found...

  • John||

    Doesn't matter. Passing it around outside of work is going to get me fired and for good reason.

    Imagine the sexual harassment suit involving the company that allowed its male employees to pass pornographic videos and pictures of a female employee around. Talk about a target rich environment. That employer, if it new and did nothing, would get obliterated in court.

  • John||

    Also, what Loki said above. You would have to be a pretty big crap weasel to pass such stuff around. I would think you would be better off not working at such a place.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's public. Your company is not responsible for what porn sites you frequent or who you associate with outside of work, anymore than a school is responsible for you hurting yourself playing in your neighbors yard while waiting for the bus.

    Sure, if they want to fire you for that, they have every right to, but they can't be sued for what their employees do outside of work. Looking at pictures of a coworker that she made available isn't grounds for shit.

  • John||

    Sure, if they want to fire you for that, they have every right to, but they can't be sued for what their employees do outside of work

    Your nievty about the nature of employment law amuses me. If a company allows its employees to harass someone such that they can no longer work there, they are going to be screwed even if the harassment happens off the job.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How is sharing a public picture, off the clock, harassment?

  • OneOut||

    FYTW

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    +1 elephant in my pajamas

  • Loki||

    "My reputation is everything..."

    Perhaps she should have thought of that before sending a nudie video to her skeevy ass boyfriend.

  • John||

    I am going to go out on a limb here and say that making this video isn't the only or even worst thing Ms. Coon has done to hurt her reputation.

  • Loki||

    For starters, now any prospective employer who googles her name will probably find this article and know that she has a video on the internet. Most of those revenge porn vids are anonomous. You'd have to actually watch the video and go "wholly shit, that's the girl I just interviewed the other day" to know it's her. Now all they have to do is google her name.

    IOW, she would have been better off, reputation wise, if she'd just kept her mouth shut and if anyone did ever find it, just deny that it's her. Claim it's someone else who looks a lot like her, and if she gets harrassed over it at work, then sue the shit out her employer.

  • John||

    You are correct. It makes me wonder if this woman just so stupid she didn't realize that or does she just love the attention that much?

  • gimmeasammich||

    I think it would depend on the potential employer's level of sleaze if it affects her reputation negatively. Is this employer a family man/decent human being that knows that everyone makes mistakes? Or is he the type of guy that would see this and think, "Heh. She's down to clown," and hire her just to see if he can get her in the sack some day.

  • Weygand||

    And then you call a social justice outfit and tell them your boss surfs the web with the search term 'coon'

  • kinnath||

    I am perfectly comfortable with Nicole Coon's brothers, uncles, whatever finding the guy that posted the video and beating the crap out him. Not every violation of trust must become a government matter.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Coon's sexuality - intended only for the eyes of her partner - was now being seen by family, friends, and potential employers.

    Yeah, yeah. So explain why her Facebook has photos of her ass on display for me to jac...um observe? (SFW)

  • ||

    "That's just me being me with my friends. It's not the same!!!1!!!11!"

  • Anonymous Coward||

    She does have a nice ass.

  • OneOut||

    I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Notice the wedding ring on the guy's left hand ?
    She's now a skank cavorting with married men.
    And she's worried about her reputation ?

  • John||

    So another women went out and did a lot of fun things but now wants to be totally immune from any consequences for it. Color me surprised.

    And yeah, she has a nice ass.

  • kinnath||

    off topic, but can't wait till the PM links

    http://timeisaflatcircus.tumblr.com/

    Time is a flat circus

  • John||

    That is a thousand shades of awesome Kinnath.

  • kinnath||

    Thank Slate, that's how I found it.

  • SugarFree||

    I watched the Coon video on my phone. The quality and lighting are so low, I doubt anyone could tell it was her in the first place. Only her name on it would alert anyone that it might be her.

    Does revenge porn laws have a remedy for attributing a video to someone that no one can tell is really her or not?

  • John||

    That is a good question and further points to the impossibility of actually making this law work. In many cases, how would you go about proving the porn was actually the victim. Are we going to expect victims to provide the jury photos of their actual body parts in order to prove it was actually them in the video? If not, how does the government prove it? If so, I don't think these women are going to like going to court very much.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    hard to prosecute..yes..wrong to prosecute...not always.

  • John||

    I would say always. Again, you are criminalizing private breeches of trust. That is a terrible idea.

    Moreover, if it is obvious that a law is nearly always going to be impossible to prosecute, it is most likely a bad law. Every law creates the potential for unjust application or prosecutorial abuse. There has to be a good chance of the law being used for good to justify that risk.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    if you blackmail somebody, its criminal, there are also criminal harassment/stalking statutes...if a law clarifies that this falls under one of those, im not sure I disagree with it

  • John||

    This doesn't clarify anything. Blackmail is a crime as old as the common law. If the person is blackmailing someone, then charge them with that.

    And the harassment and stalking statutes are really bad laws on their own. Passing another bad law won't make them better.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Its clarifies that publicizing images or videos of someone in state of undress without their consent is a form of harassment...which it is.

  • John||

    Its clarifies that publicizing images or videos of someone in state of undress without their consent is a form of harassment...which it is.

    No, it is a form of breaching personal trust. If it is "harassment", then so is publishing love letters or cheating. The only reason you have to clarify the harassment laws to include this sort of behavior is because it isn't "harassment" by any ordinary meaning of the term and no rational judge or jury would find so without being told to by the legislature.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    cheating doesn't involve the third party nor is it public. Publishing love letters could be a form of harassment if the public standards justified it.

    The courtroom is full of tricks and loopholes that defense attorney's exploit and juries are nt made up of our peers but peons that want things written down for them.

  • John||

    cheating doesn't involve the third party nor is it public.

    Think about cheating not involving a third party for a moment.

    And maybe you missed it, but affairs often become public causing great humiliation to the aggrieved spouse.

  • R C Dean||

    Its clarifies that publicizing images or videos of someone in state of undress without their consent is a form of harassment...which it is.

    So much for mens rea, I guess.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    a person has to know its wrong, yes...but many things that are now convictable don't depend on mens rea until after the law is passed. Otherwise, speeding would also fail your mens rea test...

  • gimmeasammich||

    I watched the Coon video on my phone.

    This just answers my question/proves my point from earlier. There is reasonably no way you would have ever seen this video had she not started complaining about it being posted online.

    Even if you had, it's not likely that you would really even remember it or even cared about it much in any way after it was over. It's not like there are only like 20 videos floating around the entire internet.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Forgive me if this point has already been made. I've read some articles about these sites and the criminality isn't always about an ex-lover putting a video up on the internet. If it was done anonymously, theres so much porn, nobody would really ever guess. What these sites do is put up a video an then send emails to everyone the victim knows to try and find ways to ruin the victims life. Also, these sites often hack computers looking for porn of the victims just to screw with them. A woman had a priate video she made and kept on her own computer stolen and posted on the internet, claiming it was revenge porn when really it was theft and distribution. Also, some of these sites are so odious, they photoshop regular pictures of these women onto pornographic photos, making it a complete misrepresentation of the women.

    I'll grant that alot of the consequences are more about our puritan society rather than the actual images/videos alone, but the criminality of many of these acts could not be denied and most fall under harassment and almost stalking statutes as these women (and I'm sure a few closeted gay men) are harassed and breated and have many evil things perpetrated onto them.

    Don't be so quick to jump to first amendment arguments when it comes to this. I'm not sure about the proposed legislation, but alot of these sites owners need to go to jail for many different reasons.

  • John||

    The examples you list involve a lot of behavior that is already criminal. If some website is hacking into women's computers and stealing their pictures, there are about a dozen laws already on the books available to prosecute them. Given that, why pass another law? Especially one as broad and ripe for abuse as this one?

    As far as the asshole who publishes the picture and then sends the email to all of the friends, that sucks. That is however, assuming the women made the video willingly, a breech of trust. Its a bad thing and probably a tort. But if doing that should be a crime, so should publishing embarrassing love letters or adultery. Those things are just as humiliating.

    Again, we shouldn't get into the business of criminalizing private breaches of trust.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    if it fell under harassment/stalking criminal level, im just not sure I think its a bad law. It depends on how its written.

  • John||

    if it fell under harassment/stalking criminal level, im just not sure I think its a bad law. It depends on how its written.

    If it amounts to harassment and stalking, then charge that. Why do you need another law that is likely to criminalize a lot of otherwise private behavior and disputes?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    a defense lawyer would argue that because there is no codification of revenge porn as a form of harassment, it cannot be one. Lawmakers are making sure that distinction cannot be made.

  • John||

    You are just begging the question. I don't think revenge porn should be illegal. I don't see how calling it harassment gets around any of the concerns about making it illegal.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Its a form of harassment...whether to be added to the list of things considered harassment or standing alone. Harassment has all sorts of qualifiers on the books so that prosecutors know what the public standard is.

  • John||

    Saying it is so doesn't make it so. And once again, how is publishing these photos any different than publishing any other form of embarrassing material? If this should "harassment", so is publishing a private letter confessing to something embarrassing. Once you say that humiliating someone by breaching their trust is "harassment" and criminal, there is virtually no end to what should be considered criminal. That is a terrible idea and would make for a terrible law.

    Moreover, you will allow any disgruntled wife or girlfriend to frame their ex for "harassment" by posting naked pictures of herself and claiming her ex did it. How is the ex supposed to clear his name there? Guarantee you it would be very easy to get the person arrested and charged even if you couldn't win in court.

    These laws are a horrible idea.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Its all about the public support. Personally, if asked whether I believe this is a form of harassment, I would say yes and agree to convict. You, apparently, would not. I think this is a clear case of what are the public's sensibilities in this case. You can argue most people would disagree that this rises to the level of criminality. Thats your case. I would agree with the legislators tht this is a prosecutable offense.

  • John||

    I think this is a clear case of what are the public's sensibilities in this case.

    I think my publishing love letters would shock the conscience of the public just as much. Moreover, the public thinking this is a good idea doesn't make it one or somehow make the very real possibility of abuse go away.

    Yes there is a lynch mob outside the door wanting the heads of men who do this. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to throw away our sense of justice and commitment to a good justice system and give them that.

    You still haven't made any case why this law won't be abused and amount to the defacto ability of disgruntled ex wives and girlfriends to get their exes charged with crimes. That is really big downside that makes this a terrible law.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    How can the ex-wives and girlfriends get their exes charged with crimes. Will they sneak over and upload themselves to these websites?

  • John||

    How can the ex-wives and girlfriends get their exes charged with crimes. Will they sneak over and upload themselves to these websites?

    Sure. Why wouldn't they? They don't have to do that. Just go to a public IP address near their ex and upload the pics. If the pics are something the ex also has and the police find them on his computer, how does he prove he didn't do it? That is enough evidence to at least go to trial and get an arrest.

    People are evil. There is always someone willing to do something evil to get back at an ex. There are dozens of cases where women have gotten restraining orders and then immediately called the cops and had their ex arrested for owning a gun. Why wouldn't they do this? They would if these laws ever become common place.

  • Carnival||

    [citation needed]

  • John||

    Are you too retarded to use google Carnival?

  • Carnival||

    You provided the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

  • OneOut||

    No.

    It seems like common sense is needed.

    There are legions of cases where people do insane shit to get back at their exes.

  • R C Dean||

    I think this is a clear case of what are the public's sensibilities in this case.

    Well, protection against the public's sensibilities is why we have a Bill of Rights.

  • OneOut||

    People harass others on this web site every day.

    Should they go to jail?

  • Loki||

    What these sites do is put up a video an then send emails to everyone the victim knows to try and find ways to ruin the victims life.

    Which leaves them VERY open to libel and slander torts, I would think.

    Also, these sites often hack computers looking for porn of the victims just to screw with them. A woman had a priate video she made and kept on her own computer stolen and posted on the internet, claiming it was revenge porn when really it was theft and distribution.

    Which is already a crime. Or several crimes.

    If they're already breaking existing laws, why do we need new ones? Prosecute them for the laws they're already breaking.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    they should be...but I don't believe this in any way violates anyone's right to free speech. These laws only recognize the new version of harassment that exists in today's world.

  • John||

    How is it "harassment"? That doesn't make any sense. I took the picture. You consented to me taking it. My publishing it, even though I promised not to, is not "harassment". It is me breaking my promise.

    If you want to say it is harassment, then why isn't it also harassment when I break any other promise?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    because you're breaking the promise is not the harassment, the public embarassment the action creates and the intentional mental distress you are trying to create is the harassment.

  • John||

    My publishing your letters confessing to your love of cross dressing and using a liter box is going to cause a lot more public embarrassment for you than any porn video would. That should be illegal too then right? What is so special about boobs?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    You believe the letter would cause me embarassment to the point of harassment. The public forum disagrees I guess.

  • John||

    LIT,

    So if the public decided that wearing a blue shirt was "harassment" you would be okay with making wearing blue shirts criminal harassment?

    Sorry LIT, you saying "well the public disagrees" is just another way of saying "yes John I have lost the argument and can't defend this law so I will appeal to public sentiment".

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Aren't all crimes based upon public agreement that one individual was damaged by the actions of another to varying degrees?

  • John||

    Aren't all crimes based upon public agreement that one individual was damaged by the actions of another to varying degrees?

    Sure they are. That, however, doesn't make anything that the public doesn't like a good idea to make criminal or in any way logically consistent.

    I am sure the public loves this idea. That doesn't make it any better of an idea.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I disagree with you for all the reasons I've listed above. Don't go uploading videos and pictures of naked people on the internet without their consent. :)

  • John||

    That is not what I am worried about LIT. I am worried about the poor bastard who gets framed by his evil ex wife.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    There are many crimes exes can try and get their former lovers convicted of. It doesn't make those laws wrong. It just makes sure our justice system begin with he assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

  • Carnival||

    I'm pretty sure that demographic is a lot smaller than you think it is.

    You're like those stupid MRAs who always go on about how women maliciously accuse men of raping them, but than never cite any kind of source that such a thing ever happens, beyond "oh, it happened to some guy."

  • John||

    Carnival,

    There are men every year who are freed after being wrongly accused of rape. Women make false rape allegations all of the time.

    Are you stupid or do you just never read the news?

  • Carnival||

    I'm pretty sure that demographic is a lot smaller than you think it is.

    You're like those stupid MRAs who always go on about how women maliciously accuse men of raping them, but than never cite any kind of source that such a thing ever happens, beyond "oh, it happened to some guy."

  • Loki||

    Harrassment, cyber stalking, and hacking are already illegal. Libel and slander are already civil offenses. Why create a new law just for this new special case? It's not necessary in cases where the behavior of some of these website operators already crosses the line into illegality.

    It's illegal to murder someone. If someone invents a laser gun tomorrow, will we need a new law explicitly making it illegal to shoot someone with a laser gun, or does the existing murder statute suffice?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    So nothing would change and those guilty of harassment would be served justice and innocents would be spared...frankly I don't know.

    I certainly don't see this as a free speech issue though. Abusable yeah, like any law...but saying that people deserve to be able to post porn videos of ex-lovers to abusse and humiliate them...not buying it.

  • OneOut||

    "Aren't all crimes based upon public agreement that one individual was damaged by the actions of another to varying degrees?"

    Of course they are not.

    Crimes are based upon the law.

    Public sentiment seems to say that pot should be legal.

    In most places it is still a crime.

  • OneOut||

    How do you know what he believes ?

  • R C Dean||

    Which leaves them VERY open to libel and slander torts, I would think.

    Not really, since truth is an absolute defense.

  • John||

    I think it would be intentional infliction of emotional distress. Publishing private photos specifically to humiliate someone is about the best example of intentional infliction of emotional distress I can think of.

  • John||

    Here is the solution to this. Anyone should have the right to demand that any website that has a picture of video of them without written permission take said video down with in 24 hours. If the website doesn't do that, subject them to all kinds of statutory damages and attorneys fees.

    Loki made the good point above that the worst thing this chick did was to make a big deal about this. Now every time someone googles her name, they will find out about the existence of the video.

    If you call the cops and get your b/f who did this thrown in jail, that just ensures everyone you know finds out about the video. The best response is to quietly demand the thing be taken down and disappeared from the internet. Make it so any website that puts up pornography has to take it down if the person in it says they didn't consent and you give the victims of this a real way to limit the harm, no cops or DAs needed.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    John,

    Anything quietly happening is not possible because that's in opposition to the philosophy of these sites, which is to scream loud and clear that they don't give two fucks about the people they damage..and no amound of torts will stop them.

  • John||

    After you made the sites liable for attorneys' fees and statutory damages, the "philosophy" of those sites would change very quickly. They only are assholes now because there is no danger of ever being sued. Change that and their behavior will change very quickly.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    i imagine they will be sued...

  • John||

    Without statutory damages and attorneys fees, they will almost never be sued. You could never recover enough damages to justify the cost of suing.

    Your problem is that you want to have law get into people's private lives and all sorts of grey areas that are nearly impossible to prove. That is a road to abuse and injustice.

    You pass a laws that whenever possible depend on objective and easily established facts. That makes it easy for courts to get the right results. So instead of litigating over sticky issues whether the women really consented or if the guy really was the one who uploaded it, you litigate over easy objective ones like is this you, do you want it taken down, and was it on the website and did they refuse. That is easy and will result in courts doing the right thing and also make this stuff harder to do and less damaging when it is done.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    The easy and established fact is that the person uploaded the video (if proved). The fact that the person in the video consented at some time then has to be proved.

    Maybe you should stop uploading naked videos of your exes online...

  • John||

    The easy and established fact is that the person uploaded the video (if proved).

    There is nothing easy or established about that at all. The best you could ever get is that the video was uploaded from an IP address. You could never prove who was using that IP address at the time even if it was associated with the accused.

    An angry ex could very easily upload pictures of herself using her ex's IP (say hack into his wireless since she probably knows the password) and accuse him of revenge porn. Absent a confession proving that would be very difficult and impossible in most cases.

    Maybe you should stop uploading naked videos of your exes online...

    Of course. The fact that I think there might be bigger issues here clearly means I must just want to do it. That is just like everyone who thinks accused terrorists deserve a trial must be terrorists themselves.

    Really?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    If you want to show that proving malfeasance on the internet is hard, congratulations. So is proving all sorts of crimes.

  • John||

    Yes LIT,

    It is often very hard to prove behavior in court. That is why we need to be careful about what sorts of behavior we criminalize. It is always a bad idea to criminalize behavior that is hard to establish.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Often murder ishard to establish, but you're not proposing we do away with prosecutng it...

  • R C Dean||

    Maybe you should stop uploading naked videos of your exes online...

    Or, maybe, just maybe, people should stop with the whole naked video thing, given the obvious danger of them escaping into the wild.

  • Loki||

    You could never prove who was using that IP address at the time even if it was associated with the accused.

    Wellll, if the computer has a webcam, you could take the IP address, the timestamp of when it was uploaded, and the NSA could tell you who was sitting at the computer at the time...

  • lap83||

    Someone who posts nude pics of their ex to get revenge is a douche, but the person who gave them the nude pic in the first place is an idiot. So clearly such awful people belong together and who are we to interfere with their douche-y idiotic mating rituals?

  • Coeus||

    There was a woman who accused a man of incapacitating and raping her at a "Skeptic" convention. There were no charges pressed, but he's being tarred as a rapist in the "Skeptic" community. He posted a picture of the night in question with her on top and covering her face. No naughty bits visible. He can be prosecuted under these laws for defending himself against false accusations.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    No naughty bits visible? Does it meet the statute of undress then? And if he was immediately tarred and feathered by the "Skeptics" without any proof other than her yelling, what did he need to prove...that he should be vindicated by a group of idiots?

  • Coeus||

    what did he need to prove...that he should be vindicated by a group of idiots?

    He's a professional public speaker.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    well then he's speaking to the wrong people. He can always sue her for false accusation. Uploading a picture of her in the midst of coitus is not a very responsible response.

  • Coeus||

    He can always sue her for false accusation.

    He did. She opened a fund and raised a ton of money for a good lawyer, while spreading further allegations.

    He opened a legal donation fund and got almost nothing. Then he released the proof he had and is almost to half her legal fund level now.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    *shrug*

  • Coeus||

    Does it meet the statute of undress then?

    Facials don't, but if they're not covered under a state's specific statute, you can bet that loophole will be closed soon. In the most expansive way possible.

  • Hadley V. Baxendale||

    The article should address at minimum these two situations: (1) Where computers are hacked and photos are taken from the hacked hard drives without the owners' permission and (2) where photos are photoshopped by adding naked bodies to the heads of unsuspecting victims. Arguably, doing the foregoing should be criminal.

  • John||

    The first one doesn't need to be addressed. That is already a crime. Prosecute the person for hacking. That is a federal felony.

    The example is a bit harder. I am left wondering, what is so special about boobs. What is going on in that example? You are photo shopping someone into a picture that humiliates them. That is bad. If putting their head on a naked body should be a crime, shouldn't putting their head on a Nazi uniformed body at a Klan rally also be criminal?

    It seems to me criminalizing photoshop has the same problem criminalizing revenge porn does. We are taking nasty and humiliating behavior and making it criminal if it involves boobs because boobs are special or something. I just don't see it.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    I guess photoshop depends on how lose you try to come to depicting reality rather than satire. Murky waters..yes, but depending on the situation, possibly I could see criminal intent.

  • bassjoe||

    Crime? No. As reprehensible these jilted lovers' actions may be (and, apparently, politicians are tripping over themselves to condemn the reprehensibility), this is definitely an area that the First Amendment protects from criminal sanction (or at least should protect).

    However, I think there are ample civil causes of action. The jilted lovers' actions are done out of malice which may give an easy route to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Possibly, placing the pictures on a "porn" website might give the woman a way to argue libel: she isn't a porn star and, as such, the offending party is spreading a falsehood about her which is harming her reputation.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, I didn't read every post, but would someone care to define "porn"?

  • concerned cynic||

    Nobody should be exhibited on the internet without their consent. Moreover, the person depicted should be allowed to revoke consent at any time. To charge money to carry out such a request should be illegal. All this follows in our having a property right in our explicit sexuality.

  • ||

    And criminalizing it is wise because...?

  • ||

    The way I see it, once you've been given a photo or video or whatever, you have ownership over the use of it. Unless there was some sort of explicit arrangement that the receipt of the image was predicated upon agreeing not to disseminate it, I fail to see the criminality. This would be sort of like saying that once you buy a book, you should be sued if you loan it to a friend to read.

  • ||

    As far as I can tell, these are consenting adults who later had a falling out with their lover. If they were tricked or recorded without their knowledge or consent then they should absolutely have legal recourse. Otherwise, they are asking us to criminalize the actions of the person they previously were happy and willing to record themselves having sex with.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE