"Strangers on the Internet" Podcast Episode 44: Fighting Image-Based Sexual Abuse and Online Harassment

Prof. Mary Anne Franks lays out the legal changes needed to protect people on the Internet

The forty-forth episode (Apple Podcasts link here) of "Strangers on the Internet" with co-host and psychologist Michelle Lange features Prof. Mary Anne Franks from the George Washington University Law School.

We sit down with our esteemed guest to take stock of the state of Internet safety (or lack thereof) today. Mary Anne explains why "revenge porn" is generally a misnomer, why women are particularly at risk in a variety of online settings, and what has made it so difficult to pass federal legislation to protect individuals from having naked images of themselves distributed nonconsensually.

The law professor and Krav Maga instructor also discusses what readers will find in her forthcoming second book "Fearless Speech," why only criminalization is likely to incentivize potential online abusers to stay put, and what encourages her to continue advocating for women's rights in the face of death threats. Join us for a conversation about both individual safety measures and the broader structural changes needed to prevent further victimization!

(Mary Anne Franks)

Comments

[Social Justice is neither]

If you're giving naked pictures to other people or posting them on the internet consensually you are not a victim of anything but your own stupidity and short-sightedness. Grow up and quit demanding a total lack of accountability and responsibility for your own actions.

[dwb68]

I feel like you have never been in a relationship or experienced puberty. My wife loves it when i send pictures, and she sends them back. I have been married for 27 years, and part of the plan for staying that way is a constant flow of two-way nekkedness 🙂

To be fair, I am in a different position than you are: if my wife is sending around pictures of me, shes bragging.

[John F. Carr]

I remember a Clive Cussler novel where a villain was trying to blackmail our hero with naked pictures and our hero asked for some prints for himself.

The book was written in the days of film cameras when it was conceivable that the evidence really could be destroyed. Do what I want and I'll give you the negatives.

[Yogis_dad]

Common sense, a sense of decency, and prudence all militate against permitting someone to make a compromising photograph of oneself.

[dwb68]

I send all my dick pics with: "copyright, dwb68, all rights reserved. These dick pics are protected under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries throughout the world. Country of first publication: United States of America. No part of these dick pics may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author's spouse."

[John F. Carr]

Did you register the pics with the Library of Congress and hand over archival copies?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also, doesn't copyright go to the person who took the picture and not the subject?

[John F. Carr]

Yes, a mirror selfie is owned by the girl and an action shot on the bed is owned by the voyeur.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other issue here is even if the girl owns the copyright, she isn’t going to have the $100K to take it to court so it becomes a moot issue. And the abusive ex-boyfriend knows it.

Hence the end result is an attempt to have *Federal* criminal law address what ought to be a civil matter. And then the boyfriend’s 5th Amendment (taking clause) rights are violated because he isn’t going to have the $100K to take that to court, either.

(Now as to a property settlement in a divorce....)

Creepy as it may be, he has a legitimate property right in those pictures which goes all the way back to she shouldn’t have posed for them. (A hidden camera is, I believe, a different issue…)

[Ed Grinberg]

The law professor...also discusses what readers will find in her forthcoming second book "Fearless Speech"

I was intrigued, so I Googled it. This came up (apparently the book is based on this law-review article):
https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles/793/
This sure sounds like: "Protect speech I like, punish speech I dislike."
She cites Charlottesville as an example of "speech by white men that silences and endangers women and minorities" (and should therefore receive less protection?). She definitely doesn't see it as "speaking truth to power." Well, we can argue about the "truth" of any "claims" made by the Charlottesville demonstrators, but as far as "power" -- it's hard to find a more powerless group. The cops stood by and watched while they got beat up by the counter-protesters (who greatly outnumbered them). Those who resisted this fascistic attack on a (permitted!) rally got arrested (naturally!). They've even arrested those who attended the tiki-torch procession the night before -- i.e., those who did not participate in ANY violence!
https://vdare.com/articles/democrat-communist-coup-intensifies-soros-prosecutor-jim-hingeley-indicts-charlottesville-tiki-torch-demonstrators-six-years-later
Presumably, By Prof. Franks's lights, this is A-OK!

[Social Justice is neither]

That is what free speech looks like to totalitarian leftists, repressive tolerance and anarcho-tyranny in every facet of life.

[Dan Schiavetta]

An interesting discussion with a law professor but why do you post a picture of someone who looks like a trophy wife at a cocktail party?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s more than trophy wife at cocktail party — there is something in that photo, and I can’t identify what, that screams “I am nuts” to me.

[John F. Carr]

It's overprocessed.

That's a value judgment on my part. I like realistic more than I like soft AI generated art. I do not expect to get a job as a portrait photographer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it's something with her eyes and the way they are orientated.

Now there are a lot of unknowns, starting with if she wears glasses and took them off for the photo and hence can't focus on the camera, but there is something in the orientation of those eyes that isn't "right."

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you think it’s the fact that you’re a misogynistic buffoon?

[Noscitur a sociis]

It appears to be a professional headshot, and the same one posted on her faculty page. What’s wrong with it?

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, I blew it up and looked — her head is turned toward the camera but she isn’t looking at it. In real life, a *sane* person turning her head toward a stimulus would also turn her eyes. In real life, someone who doesn’t do this is impaired in some way.

It's a different story if posed.

[Nige]

Jesus.

[Vryedni]

Just when you think he's run out of new ways to be an imbecilic tool....

[ConservativeProfessor]

Why should it matter if I'm naked in the picture? The real question is the expectation of privacy, right? Imagine I am photographed naked, but it's downtown in public. Now imagine I am fully clothed in my home and someone is using a survelience camera to photograph me while I prance around in unflattering indoor clothes. The second is wrong, whether I'm not naked or not. The first is not wrong, whether I'm naked or not. "Naked" is doing no real work.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"what has made it so difficult to pass federal legislation to protect individuals from having naked images of themselves distributed nonconsensually"

I'd say the problem, as mentioned above, is the nonconsensual part (assuming the person has an expectation of privacy). What laws do we currently have, and what gaps do federal statutes need to fill?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There's also Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, not to mention the First Amendment.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Also, I don’t think every picture of a naked person is a piece of art like Michaelangelo’s David or Rembrandt’s Bathsheba at Her Bath.

We largely have law professors, judges (and sometimes juries) to thank for the jurisprudence of “what is art, anyway?” by which the government generally won’t interfere with pornographic images, for fear of stifling artistic expression.

We need more Potter Stewarts – rather, we need more juries with Potter Stewart attitudes – willing to condemn pornographic images without significant literary, artistic, political or social value. Even if the model signed a release or the image was produced by a pervy AI.

[John F. Carr]

The guest has been featured here before, going on about "neo-Confederate" ideology: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/02/journal-of-free-speech-law-the-lost-cause-of-free-speech-by-prof-mary-anne-franks-miami/

[Dr. Ed 2]

Cynical volcel knows that crazy is crazy and that those who pose for such photos get what they deserve.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The NYPD put it best -- they would have never allowed the two groups to mix. And what did these "anti racist protesters" think was going to happen when they went in and violently confronted another group?

The fact that the Soros DA is now prosecuting the victims is showing just how much the very concept of law is breaking down in this country and that is a very dangerous thing. Anyone who TRULY is anti-racist and/or anti-fascist ought to study a bit of history and understand what led to organizations such as the Klan or the Nazis in the first place.

If this isn't ended -- and soon -- there are going to be some very ugly consequences to the politicization of "justice."

[John F. Carr]

I am thinking of the Dresden Dolls' "Delilah", a song about a doormat of a woman who won't leave her awful boyfriend for long. "And there's no doubt he's at home in his room, probably watching porn of you." The gullible and the submissive woman can end up in an awkward situation just like the schemer and the exhibitionist.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What do they deserve?

[Nige]

‘Soros DA’

Some very normalised anti-semitism here.

'and understand what led to organizations such as the Klan or the Nazis in the first place.'

Racism, anti-semitism, authoritarianism, fundamentalist religion, nationalism, illiberalism.

[Vryedni]

Dr. Ed’s smarmy, puritanical voyeurism, obviously. Isn’t that what we all deserve?