Ct Finds Sharing nude photos of current or ex-partners protected under 1st Amd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGUtley

The Court has long held that nudity is not obscenity -- even pornography. Thus, this is constitutionally protected speech, subject to ownership, minors etc. You can damage someone with your free speech, that happens all the time, the issue is whether it is actionable. Here, as I read the decision, it was vagueness that got them in constitutional trouble.


I'm not sure what that means, but read the decision that then tell me whether you would say the same thing. I try really hard not to be a result-based criticizer. (admittedly, it is difficult). I don't like the result here, either, but you are talking about a content based prohibition of Constitutionally protected speech -- which largely receives the strictest scrutiny. The Texas legislature will tighten it up and the Court will be satisfied with it. I would hope that everybody here would be pleased that we still talk about the constitutional rights of the accused.

---

I don't really have an agenda here and I'm not a lawyer so I'm wasn't trying to mince words.

Simply put, If I'm reading the decision correctly, the court is saying that it's okay to post nudes of your ex lovers. My thoughts were not on the dude who posted the photos and his rights because people do things until they're told they can't. It's human nature.

I'm saying that I'm not surprised because it happened in a Texas court. The State doesn't seem to value women all that much, imo, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to the law.....I guess. But the law is also interpretation so if you're anti X it's easy to come up with an argument to support your position.

I also noted that the decision will result in a better law which I think you determined as well. Of course trying to figure out what a lawyer is saying can be dangerous. hahahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Standing Wolf

I agree that it is the vague nature of the law that - as often happens - ultimately doomed its being upheld. I also believe that some distinction needs to be made between images that are obtained without the subject's knowledge or consent and those for which someone posed.

---

I agree SW, but how do you protect Slick Willy in East Wherever who views this stuff from violating this law while not knowing whether it is or isn't consensual content?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trish

I don't really have an agenda here and I'm not a lawyer so I'm wasn't trying to mince words. Simply put, If I'm reading the decision correctly, the court is saying that it's okay to post nudes of your ex lovers. My thoughts were not on the dude who posted the photos and his rights because people do things until they're told they can't. It's human nature.

---

They'll get him in civil court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trish

I'm saying that I'm not surprised because it happened in a Texas court. The State doesn't seem to value women all that much, imo, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to the law.....I guess. But the law is also interpretation so if you're anti X it's easy to come up with an argument to support your position.

---

I haven't read a lot of Texas jurisprudence, so I can't say one way or the other. I'm all for protecting constitutional rights -- yours, mine, his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trish

I also noted that the decision will result in a better law which I think you determined as well. Of course trying to figure out what a lawyer is saying can be dangerous. hahahaha

---

Trish, I think we are on the same page here. So much of law is precedent-based. If a vague law is let to stand, then it'll be used elsewhere. I am sure the legislature will tighten this up. Nobody wants this (except the porn guys and gals) out there but it has to be in the context of the constitution. I would be jumping up and down screaming if your rights were violated as much as I would if mine were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGUtley

I agree SW, but how do you protect Slick Willy in East Wherever who views this stuff from violating this law while not knowing whether it is or isn't consensual content?

---

You don't criminalize the viewing or possession of such content - just its posting, and only in non-consensual circumstances. It isn't like child porn, where any reasonable person would immediately know that it was not legal. I don't think you do punish a third party, in most cases.

My kid tells me there is an app that allows you to posts and send pictures that disappear after a short time, then they're gone forever. As long as the nude image isn't downloadable by the recipient wouldn't this correct the issue of people retaining nude images for future misuse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmyz

My kid tells me there is an app that allows you to posts and send pictures that disappear after a short time, then they're gone forever. As long as the nude image isn't downloadable by the recipient wouldn't this correct the issue of people retaining nude images for future misuse?

---

Snapchat?

It's a dumb idea to take pictures or let someone take pictures that you don't want to be seen.

I agree with the court. You let me snap a picture of you its my property. If I want to show it to someone I can. Sorry guys but this hasn't changed since forever. Just because there is social media doesn't mean anything. I could show a photo to a 100 people at a party before being online is no different. If it doesn't stay that way who then gets to become the judge of what you can show and what you cannot?

Simply the facts dear sirs, they got it right by law..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texan

I agree with the court. You let me snap a picture of you its my property. If I want to show it to someone I can. Sorry guys but this hasn't changed since forever. Just because there is social media doesn't mean anything. I could show a photo to a 100 people at a party before being online is no different. If it doesn't stay that way who then gets to become the judge of what you can show and what you cannot?

Simply the facts dear sirs, they got it right by law..

---

I'm begrudgingly inclined to agree with this. The exception being if the picture was snapped without consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGUtley

Sharing nude photos of current or ex-partners protected under First Amendment, court rules. This is a shocking rule to me.
Is distributing intimate photos of current or previous sexual partners without their consent protected by the First Amendment? A state appeals court says yes. Now it will be up to the state attorney general's office to defend the state's "revenge porn" law, which was passed in 2015 and punishes those who post intimate images from previous or current relationships online. The Tyler-based 12th Court of Appeals said the law is unconstitutional because it's too broad and infringes on free speech, The Texas Tribune reported. In his findings in the case, Chief Justice James Worthen said the First Amendment usually prohibits "content-based" restrictions. The court also said that the law was vague and infringed on the rights of third parties who might unwittingly share intimate images, according to the Associated Press. The law originated from complaints from women who said they felt violated and abused when their exes posted naked or sexual images online without their consent. One woman, Hollie Toups of Nederland, found dozens of photos of herself online and organized a class action suit against the website where they appeared.


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texa...venge-porn-law

Link to the decision here: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/t...-00346-cr.html

---

If the photos were taken without the other parties consent no. But if you make a sex tape with someone it's theirs forever to do with as they wish, including post without asking you.
Moral of the story is DON'T MAKE SEX TAPES OR let your lover of 8 weeks take nudes of you.
If you can't remember what your partner looks like go have sex with them again instead of pics and videos. i promise it's more fun!
The most ridiculous one i ever heard was the 14 year old who posted topless photos and was charged with ...... child porn. Hopefully the charges were dropped and mom and dad confiscated her electronics until she was 33. But she was facing being labeled a "sex offender" . How's that logic go. She is legally to young to understand the consequences of sex or any sexual act but old enough to understand the consequences of posting semi nude pics of herself without a victim . Apparently she was the perp AND the victim.