Pornography

Facebook Gets Its First Revenge Porn Lawsuit

|

A Texas woman is suing Facebook for $123 million dollars. Allegedly, the social media company failed to take down a fake profile that was created with the intent to publicly humiliate her. The woman, Meryem Ali, claims that the profile displayed her name alongside photos of her face photoshopped onto pornographic images. 

Earlier this year, Reason TV investigated the question of whether revenge porn should be criminalized. Originally published on April 15, 2014. Initial text below:

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.

The nursing student fears for her future employment opportunities. 

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). 

About 6 minutes.

Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Joshua Swain, Jim Epstein, and Winkler. Narrated by Alexis Garcia.
 

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.

197 responses to “Facebook Gets Its First Revenge Porn Lawsuit

  1. Time for some strict scrutiny!

  2. Fake scandals aplenty!

    All you aggrieved types need to grow up and and quit faking damages that don’t exist.

    IRS!! BENGHAZI! FAST AND FURIOUS!! FACEBOOK TOOK MAH HUMANITY!!

    1. *checks under bed for GOP aborto-freaks; breathes heavy sigh of relief*

    2. *checks under bed for GOP aborto-freaks; breathes heavy sigh of relief*

      1. Was that on purpose or are the squirrels getting ironic?

        1. Squirrelz.

      2. Why did you check twice? Were you not sure the first time?

    3. Bergdahl swap declared unlawful by GAO- fake

      Playing a lot of golf after Foley execution – fake

      Admitting to torturing some “folks” – fake

      Vets dying while on waiting lists – fake

      Increasing the supply of military equipment to the police – fake

      Black unemployment and poverty level at record highs – fake

      These aren’t fake scandals. They’re “phake”.

      1. Boooooooosh!

  3. Huh, Reason seems to have disappeared our beloved Smack from the Dalmia post. We will miss him.

    1. You’ll see her again. You can count on it.

      1. Are you certain it’s Mary?

        I guess I haven’t been here long enough to tell.

        1. I’m in the “yes” column.

          1. There are some strong similarities=

            – insistence that IT is libertarian, and yet all other ‘libertarians’ are ‘doing it wrong’ (call it the ‘Party of One’)

            – clear psychopathic fixation on Reason.com as being its ‘arch enemy’

            – reduction of complex ideas to simplistic formulae which it thinks endlessly repeating constitute ‘proofs’ that obviate any further actual thought about the matter. VICTORY!!!!

            Problems:

            – it seems more male
            – it has a ‘property-centric’ view which is at odds with Mary’s primitivist anarcho-commutarianism
            – there are instances where Smacky actually ‘talks’ with mary

            (*note i think it is entirely possible it talks to itself; thats just how that kind of crazy-stupid rolls)

            1. Didn’t she used to respond to herself in different characters?

              Anyway, she probably believes she’s talking to someone else.

            2. Plus he felates cops as well as “Kizone Kapow” does on her google page.

            3. There is no problem if you talk to yourself.

              There is no problem if you answer back.

              If you lose the argument, THEN you have a problem.

            4. it has a ‘property-centric’ view which is at odds with Mary’s primitivist anarcho-commutarianism

              I’m not sure it is accurate to say that Mary has any real ideology beyond opposing whatever HnR’ers believe.

              1. “I’m not sure it is accurate to say that Mary has any real ideology”

                Well, Mary and/or Godeski were united in an anti-H&R rampage that lasted at least a year or 2, which was based in some ‘deconstructionism-for-retards’-rationale that TRUE LIBERTARIANS reject all formal contracts /’rights and duties’/ property rights/ state boundaries because all these things require Government Force to enforce their existence and TRUE RADICAL LIBERTY was like, all based on primitive voluntary association and barter… and there’s no difference between ‘minarchists’ and BIG BROTHER TOTALITARIAN FASCISM.

                When told that this was fucking stupid, and it was explained that the world they conceived would be dominated by Force Alone (i.e. See “the incredibly violent lives of Tribal Societies throughout history”), they stopped trying to ‘paleosplain’ and then resorted to terroristic attempts to shitbomb every single thread, accusing people here of being ‘fascists’ for demanding some kind of limited Order. (*registration followed)

                A good example of the level of DERPitude these creatures engendered

                The highlight is when Shrike (buttplug) suddenly reveals himself to be rational when required (even he had enough of the loons)

        2. So what about Michael Hinh? Is he real or has Mary jacked him like Godesky?

          The fact that either a septenarian is acting so childlishly online or that Mary is attempting to rationally critique Reason is too frightening to contemplate.

          1. I think Hinh’s a real guy.

          2. Yeah, I’m not sure I want to know the truth.

          3. The writing on his post is more coherent than it is here. Might be Mary.

          4. Better watch out, if he sees you mentioned him he’ll call you a stalker.

            1. Sounds like Mary…

              1. I mean the whole accuse other people of being “stalkers” part.

                1. Yeah, I got that vibe too, but it’s even creepier if it ISN’T Mary.

        3. The second she referenced puppets dancing to GILMORE I suspected. Too coincidental. She almost used the exact words she once posted on her webpage.

          1. i noticed this.

            Which (as per above note) may support the ‘crazy person inventing alternate personalities to play with itself’-theory.

            Oh, but Hinh is a real person.

            if there are similarities, im going to guess its this =

            They’re both (all?) old people who are basically shut-in misanthropes who are pissed that ‘libertarianism’ is now something that younger, more ‘policy-centric’ people now represent. Its not just a club for your odd philosophy-weirdos to debate arcane interpretations. Now its more like ‘actual politics’. This pisses the fuck out of these people who insist that it remain strictly the way THEY remember it

            (*noting: if you put mary, hinh, and smacky in a room, they’re agree about NOTHING; which isn’t the point so much as that they all hate H&R, which naturally makes them allies in the Retard Rebellion)

            Also – mary back in the White Indian days was quite insistent that her paleo-anarchism thing WAS ‘libertarian’ – the best kind, even. Now she’s of the mind that “Libertarianism” itself has failed her. Whatever. Splitting hairs. Either way these sad people have nothing better to do than throw-poop around these parts.

            1. Goedesky is a real person too.

              Mary has now even created a youtube page for “Mike Hihn” and linked to it on her youtube page. It is definitely that crazy bitch.

              1. Mary has now even created a youtube page for “Mike Hihn” and linked to it on her youtube page. It is definitely that crazy bitch.

                So I guess that settles it.

                So what is Mary’s deal? She seems to have tried to be a libertarian but it didn’t work out for whatever reason (drink!) so she now has a vendetta against Reason and libertarians and her goal in life is to destroy both for having rejected her.

                1. And how many of you guys are the 21 Subscribers to “Kizone Kapow”?

                  1. I haven’t subscribed by I do occasionally visit for the laughs. She is her daily it seems because she seems to post something current on a regular basis.

                    Her deal? Bat shit insane.

                    1. Her deal? Bat shit insane.

                      I’m sure that caused her to be rejected so now she rants about Reason and libertarians all the time.

                    2. I’m not about to visit, for fear shw’s going to start commenting on my blog again.

                      Perhaps I better start looking for more Robert Stack photos.

                    3. And right on cue Mary visits. She’s obviously reading here….

                    4. Holy shit! Ted has a blog?

              2. “Mike Hihn” did put up a video 2 years ago.

                But in his latest video he replied to a commenter like this:


                1) I’m an atheist, and posted for the music and the bagpipers.
                2) Auld Lang Syne is not a religious song, you dumbass.

                This link was sent only to my high school classmates. Do you cruise Youtube looking for places to vent your bigotry? Awakened Mind? (snicker)

                1. https://reason.com/blog/2012/03…..nt_2926810

                  Notice the email address and completely different tone?

                  1. Winston|8.24.14 @ 8:01PM|#
                    https://reason.com/blog/2012/03…..nt_2926810

                    Notice the email address and completely different tone?

                    Thanks for showing what happens without having to defend 7-10 attacks per day, by the gang of 14. Let’s share

                    re: the stigma attached to dropouts

                    Removing the stigma is the fast way — but we need more. It’s called personal accountability.

                    In late 80s,I was elected to a school board by a large margin. When I was attacked for being a libertarian, “Yes, I do believe the replacement of today’s public education is inevitable. But not for quite a while yet, and not while your and my kids are still in school. What can we do NOW for our kids?”

                    In Ohio law, a kid could finish his k-12 education at any time through the age of 23. But we had the same stupid QED program as anyone else. We’d do our cause a lot better if we said, “Let them drop out, if they’re not ready. But let them drop back in if they change their mind within (say) five years.”

                    Some kids really are not ready. At a time when college degrees are used in hiring, even if not needed – we look kinda silly sounding as though a high school diploma is unimportant

                    The email address is Mike@hihn.net, which demolihes all the psychotic conspiracy nuts. I’ve owned the domain since 2012, no George Soros conspiracy there either.

                2. Isn’t the real Mike Hihn like in his 70s? He would have graduated high school in about 1960. So I doubt that is the youtube thread of the real Mike Hihn.

                  1. Oops. This is the domain registry for hihn.net, See “Dates” in the left column for when created.

                    http://whois.domaintools.com/hihn.net

                    But I’m really Mary anyhow. (snicker)

            2. Interesting dialog.

              I would guess most of the page views for Mary and Smacky come from us.

            3. I noticed this.

              I can add a few more. They travel in packs.

              1) Marshall Gill|8.24.14 @ 7:22PM|
              2) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:28P
              3) Winston|8.24.14 @ 8:21PM|
              4) Francisco d’Anconia|8.24.14 @ 6:13PM
              5) DesigNate|8.24.14 @ 7:53PM|
              6) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:42PM
              7) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:40PM
              8) DesigNate|8.24.14 @ 7:26PM
              9) Francisco d’Anconia|8.24.14 @ 6:26PM
              10) Pl?ya Manhattan.|8.24.14 @ 5:58PM|
              11) Winston|8.24.14 @ 5:42PM
              13) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:55PM
              14) Winston|8.24.14 @ 8:01PM|
              16) Winston|8.24.14 @ 11:02PM
              15)Sevo||8.25.14 @ 12:38AM
              17) PapayaSF|8.24.14 @ 11:59PM
              So far

              +13 but at max characters

              Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:42PM|#
              I mean the whole accuse other people of being “stalkers” part

              “How do they stalk me. Let me count the ways.

              1) Marshall Gill|
              2) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:28P
              3) Winston|8.24.14 @ 8:21PM|

              4) Francisco d’Anconia|
              5) DesigNate|8.24.14 @ 7:53PM|
              6) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:42PM
              7) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:40PM

              8) DesigNate
              9) Francisco d’Anconia|
              10) Pl?ya Manhattan.
              11) Winston|8.24.14 @ 5:42PM
              12) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:35PM
              13) Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:55PM
              14) Winston|8.24.14 @ 8:01PM
              16) Winston|8.24.14 @ 11:02PM

              17) PapayaSF|8.24.14 @ 11:59PM
              15) Sevo|8.25.14 @ 12:38AM

              Winston had 8 between 7:28 and 8:01 PM

              Now also stalking me on Facebook

              Marshall Gill|8.24.14 @ 7:22PM|
              Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:35PM
              Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:55PM
              Winston|8.24.14 @ 7:55PM

              Film 11

              1. So now I’m a “stalker” for making a comment? If you’re not Mary, you’re as crazy as she is.

                1. So now I’m a “stalker” for making a comment? If you’re not Mary, you’re as crazy as she is.

                  YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN! What was the “comment?” (lol)

                  YOU’Ve ALSO DEFENDED *SLANDER* IF IT COMES FROM A FELLOW GANG MEMBER. I should “chill” you say, when a gang member acuses me of being a “holocaust denier,” REFUSES to document it, and even repeats it here. Slander. iS their ANY shame or decency in your tribe?
                  PapayaSF|8.25.14 @ 12:49PM

                  Here’s your “comment.” Where do you get off talkinng to anyone like that.

                  Hmm, the invective Hihn spewed at me recently could be explained by it being Mary. She hates me because I helped expose her real identity. When she made her butt-hurt YouTube video whining about doxing, I was happy to be listed. She doesn’t grasp that doxing is appropriate in cases of extremely disruptive, rude, and persistent

                  Well, you do defend slander. There was no invective. Excuse me if don’y walk quietly to the gas chambtr

                  Would your patents be proud of how you’ve turned out? Defending slander?

    2. I wasted far too much time yesterday arguing with a brick wall. Next time that happens, somebody hit me.

      1. /makes note

        1. Whoa whoa. We aren’t having anal sex here.

          1. Well then I’m afraid you came to the wrong website.

      2. It wasn’t a brick wall, it was, at best, a troll. All it was interested in was arguing dishonestly and spewing insults.

        Good that you learned from your mistake, grasshopper.

        1. Eh, Smack, whatever it is, strikes me as believing what it says.

    3. Q. How manu comspiracy wackos are here.
      A. At least 20 known, but hard to say. Goobers don’t wear nametags.

      Q. Why are they inventing comspiracies.
      A. They can’t believe so many people would DARE call them out as dumbasses, liars and thugs — and document it — so it MUST be one person with all those aliases.

      Q. Are amy of the aliases real?
      A. No, they really are a street gang of dumbasses, liars and thugs, as most serious commenters spot them.

      Q. How can real commenters spot the thugs?
      A. When you see complete threads, with 15-30 comments, all talking about PEOPLE instead of anything related to the Reason article … like 7 chatty women at a buffet … they PROVE why they’re really here. (lol)

      Q. They don’t know they’re makong a public spectacle of themselves?
      A. Part of being a dumbass!
      Q. Why do they seem familiar?
      A. They’re trained by the Santoprum/Bachman gang.

  4. Making private details public–whether nude photos or damaging private details–would be a worthwhile tort. And that wouldn’t require specific instructions on the part of the subject of the photos not to publicize them, as your standard reasonable person would rightly assume that nude photos between lovers are intended to stay private or at the very least not be published with full details such as the person’s face and name attached.

    But that wouldn’t leave any room for making money or increasing power on the part of the state, so instead legislators have to criminalize the behavior and make it punishable by fines ($$$ for the state) and jail time ($$$ for the state). None of which materially helps the victim of the broken contract, though it does serve to make everyone who’s ever shared naughty pictures online fear state prosecution.

    1. The one silver lining I see about the statute is the criminal intent element would be hard to prove against the distributor.

      1. Unless this goes the way of each image or page view becoming a separate offense leading to the possibility of 1000 years in jail or you can take the plea bargain for 8 months of probation and a fine; your choice, of course.

        1. Overcharging the shit out of defendants has replaced baseball as the national pastime.

    2. Yeah, this is reasonable as a tort.

    3. Agreed. This sort of thing is definitely not OK, but I’m at a loss for why a specific law is needed.

    4. The tort solution doesn’t protect against offenders who have little money to go after. It also requires that the victim first come up with the money to fund a lawsuit — it’s extremely unlikely that a lawyer will work contingency unless there’s a way to go after someone rich as fuck (as in this case with FB).

      I’m totally comfortable with a standard that you can’t post sexually explicit depictions of another person without proof of consent. There is literally zero useful speech that would be restricted under that standard.

      1. Torts aren’t limited to present savings, and the lawyer question is irrelevant. The state has no business criminalizing a private concern and does so solely to feed special and political interests.

        Whether you’re comfortable with that or not is also irrelevant–the question isn’t what’s comfortable, but whether a criminal justice system is superior to a compensatory one.

        1. Not sure what you mean by “private concern”. In this case a person’s right to privacy was violated in the most flagrant fashion by another person. That seems to be the very heart of what the criminal system is supposed to punish, odd ideology about civil vs. criminal domains notwithstanding.

          Yes, I know that tort judgements can compel future payments. So? There are plenty of cases where a lawsuit is not bothered with because you can’t get blood from a stone.

          1. You don’t have a “right to privacy,” but you do have contracts. The woman whose photos were published without her consent had her contract to keep private things private, either formal or implicit, violated by her partner. And that’s why a tort is relevant. In the fictional universe you’ve posited where she can’t get a pro bono lawyer or one sans retainer and where no women’s groups exist to represent victims of sexual aggression, it’s a non sequitur that the state then needs to start criminalizing the behavior.

            The idea that objections to criminalizing what is inherently a civil matter–and crimes against people rather than ideas are always civil, as they involve violating someone else’s rights rather than an arbitrary legislative standard–is an “odd ideology” is itself odd. What legitimate cause could the king have for fining one of his subjects for harming another subject with that fine conveniently going into his own pocket? That’s all that criminal law is with a few rhetorical flourishes, and hiding behind a far-fetched theory of universal justice to justify self-serving graft is the odd perspective when you take the time.

            When someone is harmed, the ethical, obvious principle is to compel the harmer to pay the harmee as compensation for the loss and suffering she’s endured, not to make him shell out to some unrelated third party.

            1. No right to privacy? Really? The NSA would love you.

              I don’t give a crap about civil vs. criminal ideology, I care about preventing rights from being violated, whether by govt or others. Not willing to depend on charity to make that happen either, such lame question-begging. It’s a little too easy to offload our philosophy’s real-world difficulties onto private charity.

              Civil actions are great for custom contracts and murky, complex situations that would be impossible to write a law for. They’re awful for protecting basic human rights from obvious aggression.

              When someone is harmed, the ethical, obvious principle is to compel the harmer to pay the harmee as compensation for the loss and suffering she’s endured, not to make him shell out to some unrelated third party.

              For the third time… what if he can’t pay those damages? Can’t get blood from a stone via civil action… but the State can always get blood. That’s what we keep it around for.

              1. No right to privacy? Really? The NSA would love you.

                I take it you’re a new or non- libertarian, because you don’t understand the nature of rights.

                You have a right to buy clothes to hide your naked body, but you don’t have a right to demand that people look away. You have the right to buy a shack and an outhouse, but you don’t have a right to demand that someone avert his eyes if you don’t have those amenities. Privacy is something that you can procure with resources, same as everything else–you don’t get to just demand that everyone treat you like a delicate flower or else.

                I don’t give a crap about civil vs. criminal ideology, I care about preventing rights from being violated, whether by govt or others. Not willing to depend on charity to make that happen either, such lame question-begging. It’s a little too easy to offload our philosophy’s real-world difficulties onto private charity.

                One, you don’t know what it means to beg the question, and two, your not giving a crap about the distinction of whether the victim or a third party gets paid compensation for a crime is inhumane, as is your whole position. You are defending an unjust system that fails to compensate the victims of crimes, and you’re doing it uncritically.

                1. WTF? I have to buy my rights? Are you trying to be a leftist caricature of libertarianism?

                  Anyway that’s a false dilemma. There’s no reason you can’t have both civil and criminal avenues of enforcement, as with murder and wrongful death for the same act. I don’t see Ms Coon railing against attempts to make vengance porn illegal, do you?

              2. Civil actions are great for custom contracts and murky, complex situations that would be impossible to write a law for. They’re awful for protecting basic human rights from obvious aggression.

                A commits a crime against B, so your solution is that C steps in and sucks up some cash from A, while B is left with insurance payments and a sense of smug satisfaction that taxpayers are on the hook for $50k+ a year while A sits in prison. Brilliant.

                For the third time… what if he can’t pay those damages? Can’t get blood from a stone via civil action… but the State can always get blood. That’s what we keep it around for.

                Then he can’t pay it and you take future earnings, if there are any. If there aren’t, then there’s no money outside of insurance money.

                Or do you intend to wave your magic wand so that when the state levies fines for its benefit the criminals somehow find the cash, whereas when it’s a tort all the criminal’s wealth, present and future, just disappears?

                1. As my parting gift to you, be aware that “we” don’t keep the state around.

                  The state isn’t some optional attachment to society that you can secede from when you feel like it. The state keeps itself around because there’s no one there to stop a monopoly on violence, and the fact that it “draws blood” from criminals–always on the dime of a third party who’s forced into paying for something against its will–the act of vengeance does nothing to enrich or compensate the victims of the original crime.

                  To state it simply, your priorities are fucked up. Help the victims rather than trying to screw the criminal.

                  1. To state it simply, your priorities are fucked up. Help the victims rather than trying to screw the criminal.

                    My priorities are screwed up? I’m trying to prevent the rights violation from happening in the first place. Much better than maybe, someday, possibly getting some compensation after your life is ruined.

                2. The solution is to deter A from committing the crime against B in the first place. If this dude knew he was going to have his ass in the clink for five years for this stunt, playing bottoms in a very different kind of revenge porn, my bet is he wouldn’t have done it. Much better deterrent than maybe someday having to make payments, if your victim can find a lawyer willing to work cheap.

                  Notice the alleged victim is suing FB, not the alleged perp here. Why do you think that is?

                  1. In what universe can you PREVENT crime?

    1. He finally did his part to save the planet.

      1. Isn’t David still alive?

        1. My bad. I’ll show myself to the door.

          1. I’m sure Dick was an enviro too but I don’t know what exactly he has said about it.

          2. Richard was Mr. Hammond, the owner of ‘Jurassic Park’.

            1. He directed “Oh What a Lovely War” so he deserves a fawning obit from Reason. Or did no one watch it?

            2. I’d suggest the original Brighton Rock.

      2. Spared no expense.

    2. Everything he did, and Jurassic Park is what he’s being remembered for?

  5. lol, shame on the kangaroo courts for even letting such a frivolous action even waste thier time.

    http://www.AnonCrypt.tk

    1. 2 for 2 today.

      1. To be honest, I wouldn’t agree that her action is frivolous, either under current law or under Libertopian code.

        1. Don’t agree or disagree. Anonbot is sentient today.

      2. So what is anonbot’s deal? Someone is clearly writing its posts.

        1. That’s exactly what it wants you to think.

        2. I guess their English comprehension is getting better?

  6. Who Wears It Better?

    Ukranian Border Defense?….

    …or…

    S1W?

    relative strengths: Latter boast superior dance routines; former boast world-class Drinking Abilities

    1. To be honest, I believe Professor Griff is better armed and more well-trained than your average Ukrainian Border Guardsman.

    2. Re: The UBD – I see where the extra costumes from the JCVD “Street Fighter” movie went to.

      1. Bravo, Susan. Bravo.

        I award you one this.

  7. “any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates or sells”

    So, if your stated intent is to simply get paid, and you don’t care to coerce, harass, or intimidate her, you’re OK?

    1. From the criminal angle: yes.

  8. If the pictures aren’t actually of her, is it still revenge porn?

  9. I would think there would be copyright issues with distibuting (without permission) a video your ex-girlfriend took of herself.

    1. “This pornography is copyrighted by the manufacturer for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the freak-nasty without the manufacturer’s consent, is prohibited.”

    2. Interesting angle. People pass around other kinds of videos that are sent to them all the time, so we’d have to come up with some justification for selective enforcement.

      1. How about “if the owner decides to sue?”

        1. This covers the Nicole Coon case, but of course not if the perpetrator does his/her own “artwork.”

          1. That’s not how copyright works.

              1. Publication is enough to copyright a work. Unpublished works also have legal protection against being ripped off.

                Registration formalities aren’t required for copyright, though they help you get more damages against infringers.

                  1. see below 🙂

                  2. cite

                    You had no idea how copyright works yet decided to falsely nitpick someone else’s statement about copyright? Really?

                    1. Yep.

                      I was mistaken and proven wrong and accept full responsibility for my actions. I thought to copyright something you had to take action to do so and the first source I checked mistakenly confirmed my assumption.

                      To copyright any material that you have created, you must register it with the copyright office at the Library of Congress.

                      Thank you for calling me out.

                1. And is a self taped video “published”?

                  1. I was hoping you wouldn’t ask that – whether sending a copy to a single person is the same as publication. But whether it’s considered a published work or an unpublished work, the unauthorized copier can still be in trouble.

                    1. See p3, upper right hand corner.

                      Publication not required post 1909.

                    2. Sure, published and unpublished works are both protected.

          2. Not to the public he didn’t!

            If I share a manuscript I’m working on with some friends, asking for their comment, I’m not authorizing them to put it on the Internet or to print up and sell a bunch of copies!

            1. Only if you tell them not to distribute. If she did that, you are correct. If she didn’t, it’s his, to do as he chooses.

              1. If you share your Transformers movie with the Cineplex audience, you don’t have to specifically *tell* them not to put the whole thing on Youtube.

                1. I doubt her movie was copyrighted.

                  1. Photos and movies are copyrightable, no matter how amateur.

                    1. See p. 7 of this circular:

                      http://copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

                    2. I just found this:

                      “The reproduction and display of revenge porn victims’ copyrighted images without their permission constitutes copyright infringement. Section 104 of the Copyright Act grants the authors of unpublished and published works the same rights and protections. [97] Limited distribution of a copyrighted work ? to a prospective publisher or a love interest ?has no effect on the exclusive rights granted to an author.[98] The author of an unpublished work retains the exclusive right to decide whether to publish a work, and exercise or authorize any reproduction or display of the copyrighted work.[99]”

                      http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/2014/…..e-porn/#IV

                    3. So if the BF takes the video with her consent, he can post it?

                    4. The copyright law won’t give her protection, but there are various other laws which might help her – or not. I mean, she might try Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress or some such thing.

                    5. Eddie, quit dispensing legal advice, or I shall be forced to report you!

                    6. It’s reportage, not advice. AFAIK, you’re just interested in the story, you’re not wondering what to do about your boyfriend who put your nudie pics on the Internet.

                    7. But if that’s your situation, by all means consult an attorney licensed in your state. Be sure to show them all the photos.

                    8. PS – the last guy to take legal advice off the internet is serving 10 years for tax evasion, so please use internet postings for entertainment purposes only.

                    9. This is not legal advice, but it is good advice. If you are making amateur porn, for distribution or not, this is the only acceptable soundtrack.

                    10. 4 minutes and 16 seconds, HM?

                    11. I’m, if nothing else, a realist.

                    12. There you are!
                      Am I correct that you and the poster claiming to be Hihn got into it over the holocaust and Hihn claimed the evidence was false?
                      (old fart memory)

                    13. Dumbfuck brain. Ask him to prove it as I keep doing. If we don’t see hisn porof here, we’ll have proof that you’re both slanderous slime.
                      (retch)

                    14. Hihn to Sevo

                      Dumbfuck brain. Ask him to prove it as I keep doing. If we don’t see hisn porof here, we’ll have proof that you’re both slanderous slime.

                      Still no proof. The absence of proof is proof that Sevo is a fraud

                    15. Copyrights don’t need to be regisered. All you need to do is prove FIRST ownership. The most common way freelance writers like me is to mail the material back to youself, need not be even registered if you do it right.

                      Copyright means proving the DATE you created or mailed it. Nobody can prove a different date, which is how you defend your ownership.

                      Ask the guy at the post office to HAND stamp the back of the envelope. Most of them know what to do. The three atamps are one at each side of the flap and one at the bottom of the flap, at the edgem “date-sealing” the flap to the envelope.

                      Then the only way to open the envelope requires breaking he “seal” created by the hand stamp.

                      Do the same with photos, videos, whatever, just be sute to “seal” any place the package can be opened.

                      I’ve been doing that for 40 years. But I’ve added a handstamp over a desription of the contents. The only time I had to defend, I walked into the gal’s office, showed both the flap and the contents were “sealed.” She shook her head (an employee did it) and sent me to Accounting for a check.

                      “Sealing” the content description saved a possible trip to courtroom (suing) so a judge can break rhe seals

  10. If I were doing one of those Internet ads, I’d say “you’ll never guess who’s having more children, according to a new study!”

    (and their children are more likely to share their parents’ views)

    http://www.christianpost.com/n…..es-125063/

  11. “It’s a nail polish that doubles as a way to thwart sexual assault – and it’s being developed at N.C. State University: Undercover Colors.

    “The chemistry startup, developed by undergrads, is creating a nail polish that, when exposed to date rape drugs, changes color.”

    http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…..state.html

    1. But how do you get the rapist to wear the polish?

    2. Given that alcohol is the most widely self-administered, most effective ‘date rate drug*’…

      …i can only assume their nail polish warning system is made up of ‘extract of Asian-person’

  12. Anyone want to hear a song about how great Michelle Obama is sung by a terrible girl group?

    Boss Michelle Obama
    Purse so heavy gettin’ Oprah dollas
    Boss Michelle Obama
    Purse so heavy gettin’ Oprah dollas
    Boss Michelle Obama
    Purse so heavy gettin’ Oprah dollas
    Boss Michelle Obama
    Purse so heavy gettin’ Oprah dollas

    C-O-N-F-I-D-E-N-T
    That’s me, I’m confident
    Don’t want yo complimments
    Use common sense
    I’m on my Michelle Obama
    Shhhh Shut your mouth
    Boy I think you know who run this house
    I ain’t thirsty for no bae cuz I already know watchu tryna say

    I also love the idiotic first comment:

    So.. when Britney Spears was butt-naked in “Womanizer”, she got praised. But when Fifth Harmony dressed half-naked in this video, people called them “sluts”, “future strippers”, etc.

    u ok society??

    Yeah, no one ever called Britney Spears a slut. Must be racism.

    1. Incidentally, America is doomed and based on the fact that this song has 13 million views, it deserves to be.

      1. Could be from other countries though. I believe Canadians love Obama far more than Americans do and even more than actual Canadian politicians!

        1. The grass is always greener on the other side of the border.

      2. Yeah, but this video has 27,729,958 views; therefore, your point is invalid.

        1. I literally watched that entire thing and I don’t know why.

    2. Michelle Obama should sue them for this revenge porn.

    3. Yeah, no one ever called Britney Spears a slut. Must be racism.

      If I recall correctly the Republicans loved FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy, the Clintons, Al Gore and John Kerry because they were white.

  13. Okay so I’m pretty sure “Michael Hihn” is also Mary Stack. A couple of reasons (Drink!):

    1:Here “he” refers to HnRers as obeying their “puppetmasters”, which is Pure Mary Stack: https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4726472

    2: Also Marshall Gill mentioned earlier in this thread to the fact that Mary posted to the youtube account of a “Mike Hihn” (who I doubt is the libertarian Michael Hihn) a message about Smack MacDougall being banned fron HnR. Pretty fishy.

    3: “Michael Hihn” spends most of “his” posts attacking HnR’ers which sounds like Mary not to mention the actual contents of the attacks. I’m sure the real Michael Hihn would have a bit to say about the actual people he has worked with over the decades and the LP leaders. And if he didn’t like Reason then why not attack Postrel, Poole, Welch and Gillespie most of the time?

    4: I would think Michael Hihn would have some inside knowledge of the LP over the last few decades. However “Michael Hihn” displays no such knowledge. “Hihn” doesn’t like the Pauls but has little to say about what they have done or said in the past few decades. Wouldn’t he have some things to say about Ron’s 1988 Presidential campaign or the newsletters?

    1. 5: I’m sure the real Michael Hihn has an email address. But the poster “Michael Hihn” just has a link to a website of the real Michael Hihn. Either Mary doesn’t know the Hihn’s email or she didn’t want Hihn to get emailed about her posts as him on HnR.

      6: White Indian was Mary pretending to be Michael Godesky, a real person, so pretending to be Michael Hihn is not without precedent for her. Since Michael Hihn is an actual libertarian then she would be not be banned while posting here as him.

    2. 7. Accuses commenters of being stalkers and claims to have proved they were liars and psychos, Pure Mary.

      1. 1) I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

        2) I’ll see if I can find Mike Hihn’s real email, and I’ll ask him. I feel bad for Goedesky.

        1. I feel bad for Goedesky.

          Why so? Is he no longer a (or ever?) primitivist or because even a primitivist deserves better than to have Mary Stack shit all over their philosophy?

        2. “2) I’ll see if I can find Mike Hihn’s real email, and I’ll ask him.”
          Please do. The “Hihn” posting here does’t sound like someone who has spent years in the trenches of the LP.

          “I feel bad for Goedesky.”
          Dunno why.

          1. I’m going to feel bad if the real Hihn is some nice old guy who spent decades trying to raise money so people with glaucoma could smoke pot.

            Never can tell about people when it comes to the Internet. Even possible that the real-world Sevo takes single Christians and stray cops into his home every Christmas Eve.

            1. …”Sevo takes single Christians and stray cops into his home every Christmas Eve.”

              I DO!
              They go on the spit until they are medium rare.

            2. Knarf Yenrab!|8.24.14 @ 10:35PM|#
              “I’m going to feel bad if the real Hihn is some nice old guy who spent decades trying to raise money so people with glaucoma could smoke pot.”

              BTW, I didn’t beat on the guy (or gal) at first even after some really stupid comments since I had a degree of respect for similar reasons.
              I finally got fed up with the crapola and decided either he’d gone round the bend and deserved it, or it was some sock.

        3. Michael Godesky

          Oh it’s actually Jason, not Michael, but whatever.

        4. 2) I’ll see if I can find Mike Hihn’s real email, and I’ll ask him.

          Winston posted earlier to an earlier reason article from 2012 that linked his email under “Mike Hihn”:

          https://reason.com/blog/2012/03…..nt_2926810

          The email address is valid according to email address checkers.

          This recent reason article has both an unlinked “Mike Hihn” and a linked “Michael Hihn”:

          https://reason.com/blog/2014/05…..ss#comment

          1. Mike Hihn’s facebook page lists Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Reason Magazine in his list of Other Favorites.

            1. Wow. That makes me think Winston’s hit on something.

            2. Yeah, I’d say that’s pretty good evidence that our MH is Mary.

              1. Mary McDougal posted here for some time before the ban hammer landed. I’m curious if she has gotten more clever or the Reason filter has gotten more porous. Note (at least on Firefox) there is now a ‘tech questions’ window in the lower right; I’ve never seen it before and that suggests changes that may extend to ID’ing our fave raving maniac.
                One more piece of info; the “Hihn” posting here was a holocaust-denier. I can’t claim specific knowledge of the other “Hihn”, but that sort of stuff gets you tossed from polite company pretty quickly.

                1. holocaust-denier

                  Where specifically did “he” say that?

                  I’m pretty sure that Mary Stack and American are on a list to be banned immediately. So any suspected sockpuppet of theirs is banned even if they didn’t say anything in that form that is against the rules.

                  So pretending to be Michael Hihn is kinda clever since he is an actual libertarian so Reason will be reluctant to wield the banhammer on someone claiming to be “him.”

                  I don’t know what Mary did that specifically got her banned in the first place but I’m certain White Indian has put her in that position.

                  I’m not sure what American did to get that treatment either but it was probably something racist or anti-Semitic.

                  1. I’m not sure what American did to get that treatment either but it was probably something racist or anti-Semitic.

                    American is a crazy racist white nationalist. This is, of course, assuming that American isn’t actually one of Mary’s characters.

                    American always linked to American Renaissance, a basely racist website, and also really liked VDare which is explicitly nativist.

                    He was very racist, which is probably why he’s been hardcore banhammered.

                    1. Incidentally, here’s the first post on American Renaissance at the moment, just to show you how racist they are:

                      To Understand the Ferguson Riots, Look to Africa

                      We’ve seen this over and over: Trayvon Martin, the Duke Rape Hoax, the Jena Six, Tawana Brawley, the “Compton Cookout”/UC San Diego fraud, and America’s never-ending stream of hate-crime hoaxes. Why do we always fall for the same trick? First, we have Africa in our midst. Second, our rulers don’t realize we have Africa in our midst.

                      See, riots in American cities have nothing to do with unique causes that occur in America. It’s just because the darkies are acting up again.

                      This is a site American constantly linked to. It’s things like that which explain his ban.

                    2. The hilarious thing–and I write this as a citizen and child of the Old South, so I’m not without sympathies to my redneck family and culture–is that black culture is fundamentally the same as white redneck culture, as Thomas Sowell has said a billion times in the past 40 years. Traditionally Scotch-Irish Southerners have been more prideful and bellicose than the more Anglo-Saxon North from pioneer days, and the cultural effects of that still linger today despite widespread immigration between the states.

                      Black American food, language, family culture (especially the macho vision of men as defenders of honor & pride who are quick to fight), and even the emotional timbre of their churches are unmistakably the same as those of the rural South, not some atavistic remnant of African culture.

                    3. (all of which is unrelated to the discussion of the League of Extraordinary Sociopaths who add so much character to the Reason forums, but I’ve always found it funny to hear old Southerners complain about the violence or relative indolence of “those blacks” without seeing the same fundamental problems in their white neighbors, which become so obvious if you ever leave the rural South for a while).

                    4. And yet, how many white redneck riots have there been in the last 50 years?

                    5. You mean other than the Lane Kiffin Riot?

                      White riots seem to have petered out for the most part when lynchings fell out of fashion in the early 20th century. Speaking anecdotally, it looks like they’ve become smaller and less common in black communities as well, so there’s likely an economic justification for that similar to what’s been going on with plummeting rates in all violent crime for the past generation.

                      Now the “riots” are mostly frat-boy shit like we saw after Obama kicked down OBL’s door in the middle of the day and killed him with the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique.

                    6. This is, of course, assuming that American isn’t actually one of Mary’s characters

                      … financed by George Soros, of course, and the Trilateral Commission, and …

                  2. Winston|8.24.14 @ 11:17PM|#
                    “holocaust-denier
                    Where specifically did “he” say that?”

                    Can’t remember the thread and it’s kinda hard to find now that the posts are gone, but Hihn and HM got into it and Hihn was claiming evidence of the Holocaust was false.
                    Don’t see HM on this thread; I’ll ask next time I see a post from him.

                    1. “Don’t see HM on this thread; I’ll ask next time I see a post from him.”

                      Found him up-thread; left a question.

                  3. Winston|8.24.14 @ 11:17PM|#
                    holocaust-denier
                    Where specifically did “he” say that?

                    I’ve beem asking him for days. He’s a liar and you’re still a gullible fool.

                2. “One more piece of info; the “Hihn” posting here was a holocaust-denier. I can’t claim specific knowledge of the other “Hihn”, but that sort of stuff gets you tossed from polite company pretty quickly.”

                  Oh, and wouldn’t it be a more civilized world if defending commies did the same?

                  1. Sevo,

                    HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ANYONE OF BEING A HOLOCAUST DENIER AND REFUSING TO DOCUMENT IT.

                    THAT MAKES YOU THE ABSOLUTE LOWEST FORM OF SCUM ON THE PLANET — AND YOU CLAIM TO BE A LIBERTARIAN?

                    SLANDER IS AGGRESION. WHICH MAKES YOU THE THUG YOU DENY BEING. A TOTAL DISGRACE TO LIBERTY.

                    BUT YOU’TE NOT A STALKER? (OMG) YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN.

                    A LINK TO THESE TWO COMMENTS WILL BE POSTED EVERY TIME YOU REPEAT YOUR SHAMEFUL .

                    IT’S ALSO UNFAIR. I NEVER TOLD ANYONE YOU’RE A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER DID I?

                    1. Chill, dude.

                    2. Chill, dude.

                      Right, Papaya — Now you defend slander. Is there ANY level of depravity you won’t sink to?

            3. DK|8.24.14 @ 10:54PM|#

              Mike Hihn’s facebook page lists Rand Paul, Ron Paul, and Reason Magazine in his list of Other Favorit

              Q. How many sheeple won’t click the link and thus be manipulated.
              A. All of them,eventually. They’re gullible goobers marching in lockstep, right?

              Q. Okay, but how many are too fucking stupid to know there is no Other Favorites list?
              A. Let’s not assume. So far, all we knoe for certain is that DK is that fucking stupid

          2. I found a blog post a few months after the one from 2012 that DR refers to with an unlinked “Michael Hihn” that sounds a lot like our current “Michael Hinh”. Has she been up to this for some time?

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..ph#comment

            1. It’s Tulpas and Marys all the way down in this madhouse.

              No wonder Virginia hates us so!

              1. This is why Postrel hates us.

                I feel like it needs to be made as intense, italicized, and bolded as it can possibly be.

                1. “Now we just have each other!”

                  /John Lithgow in “Cliffhanger”

              2. Hmm, the invective Hihn spewed at me recently could be explained by it being Mary. She hates me because I helped expose her real identity. When she made her butt-hurt YouTube video whining about doxing, I was happy to be listed. She doesn’t grasp that doxing is appropriate in cases of extremely disruptive, rude, and persistent trolls, of which she is one.

            2. NOW WINSTON IS EVEN STALKING ME ON GOOGLE! Undeniable proof of gooberism. (puke)

      2. Check out Motherfucking Columbo up in here?!

  14. OT, but some amusement:

    Napa Valley wineries are, by and large, money fountains. And I’m sure each one has insurance coverage, and I’m also sure that the insurers sent out agents to reduce the possibility of loss (‘risk managers’, right?). And those ‘risk managers’ certainly understand that Napa Valley is both on a fault-line (Bush’s, I’m sure) and on barely stable soil under the best of circumstances.
    So:

    “Sunday’s earthquake in Napa jolted 900-pound wine barrels from racks, damaged winery buildings and warehouses, and smashed bottles of the valley’s best – a painful hit for an industry already struggling with the most severe drought in decades”
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..708999.php

    I’m looking all over for my sympathy mask and just can’t find it.

    1. Well, no business wants to see inventory destroyed, even if it’s insured.

      1. PapayaSF|8.24.14 @ 11:52PM|#
        “Well, no business wants to see inventory destroyed, even if it’s insured.”

        Absolutely, and I’ll bet you have things tied to walls to keep them from flopping if a quake hits.
        And they didn’t?
        I see some risk managers looking for new jobs.

        1. True, it’s stupid if anyone had thousands of dollars of anything that wasn’t secured to at least some degree.

          1. Look, when I set a 900lb barrel down somewhere, I kinda expect it to stay there.

            You people and your earthquakes.

            1. I was in San Francisco during the Loma Prieta quake. If you’re running a winery in Napa and somehow were unaware that you might get hit by a strong quake, despite a daily stream of customers living in San Francisco who also went thru the quake — well, life sucks if you don’t learn from experience.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.