User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

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

  1. #1

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 45,977, Level: 52
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 1,073
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    164562
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    11,878
    Points
    45,977
    Level
    52
    Thanks Given
    4,452
    Thanked 9,824x in 5,666 Posts
    Mentioned
    365 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    HawkTheSlayer (04-23-2018),MMC (04-23-2018)

  3. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 463,748, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 67.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    413181
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    141,941
    Points
    463,748
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    81,719
    Thanked 64,154x in 43,836 Posts
    Mentioned
    2154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is crazy.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  4. #3

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 45,977, Level: 52
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 1,073
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    164562
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    11,878
    Points
    45,977
    Level
    52
    Thanks Given
    4,452
    Thanked 9,824x in 5,666 Posts
    Mentioned
    365 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I briefly read the decision. I don't get it either. Maybe it was the broad vagueness. In other words, it could trap some third party that sees / shares it without knowing it was prohibited. But then again, isn't the point of a revenge porn site that it's all prohibited?
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  5. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 160,840, Level: 95
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 810
    Overall activity: 46.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    40576
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    39,308
    Points
    160,840
    Level
    95
    Thanks Given
    12,299
    Thanked 9,567x in 7,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The ruling applies only to about a dozen northeast Texas counties that fall under the jurisdiction of the 12th Court of Appeals, but other courts would likely consider its reasoning, the Tribune reported.....snip~


    Looks like the State is going to appeal. But that is nuts. How can they not think it causes damage to someone. Especially if it is multiple photos.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  6. #5

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 45,977, Level: 52
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 1,073
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    164562
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    11,878
    Points
    45,977
    Level
    52
    Thanks Given
    4,452
    Thanked 9,824x in 5,666 Posts
    Mentioned
    365 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The ruling applies only to about a dozen northeast Texas counties that fall under the jurisdiction of the 12th Court of Appeals, but other courts would likely consider its reasoning, the Tribune reported.....snip~ Looks like the State is going to appeal. But that is nuts. How can they not think it causes damage to someone. Especially if it is multiple photos.
    The issue wasn't that it didn't cause damage, the issue whether it violated the 1st Amendment.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  7. #6
    Original Ranter
    Points: 160,840, Level: 95
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 810
    Overall activity: 46.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    40576
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    39,308
    Points
    160,840
    Level
    95
    Thanks Given
    12,299
    Thanked 9,567x in 7,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    The issue wasn't that it didn't cause damage, the issue whether it violated the 1st Amendment.
    [PDF]Damages: A Remedy for the Violation of

    digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&...
    ... A Remedy for the Violation of Constitutional Rights ... when the substantive cause of action is for harm to other ... first amendment values and the ...
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  8. #7
    Original Ranter
    Points: 160,840, Level: 95
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 810
    Overall activity: 46.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    40576
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    39,308
    Points
    160,840
    Level
    95
    Thanks Given
    12,299
    Thanked 9,567x in 7,246 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    • You have zero right to free speech in a forum owned by someone else. They're entitled to kick you out, delete what you've said, change it, anything.
    • You may not defame someone else. In the US the definition of defamation varies from state to state. This is also called slander or libel.
    • You cannot publish obscene material. This includes line drawings or descriptions of child pornography even when no sexual abuse actually took place. This is governed by the Miller test.
    • You may not claim military honors to which you are not entitled. This is governed by the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
    • You may not incite others to criminal acts or to riot. Brandenburg v. Ohio is the relevant Supreme Court ruling, which sets the standard for what is permissible.
    • You may not participate in a criminal conspiracy even if your only action was speaking or writing. Making an agreement to commit a crime is itself a crime.
    • You may not reveal any classified information in writing or speech.
    • You may not urge people to dodge the draft in wartime.
    • You may not urge support for organizations that the government has designated as sponsors of terrorism, even if you disagree with that designation and give no money yourself.
    • You may not make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.
    • Your right to advertise is limited. No cigarette advertisements on TV.
    • You are required to reveal certain information about food, drugs, and chemical products that you sell. The government can force you to speak.
    • You have a limited right to free speech in the military.
    • You have no right to say anything you have contractually promised not to, such as in a non-disclosure agreement.
    • You have no right of free speech in the workplace, except union organization, which is protected by law.
    • Children have only a limited right to free speech in school.
    • You have no right to threaten anyone with violence.
    • You have no right to speak any time you want to in a courtroom or other public proceeding, and you can be evicted or found in contempt and jailed for disrupting proceedings.
    • You have no right to sexually, racially, or otherwise harass co-workers.
    • You may not induce someone to break a contract they have with a third party. This is called tortious interference.
    • You have no right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    There is a more detailed discussion of these types of limitations here: Freedom of speech in the United States
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (04-23-2018)

  10. #8
    Points: 9,128, Level: 22
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 122
    Overall activity: 44.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsSocialTagger Second Class1 year registered
    Trish's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    6774
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,555
    Points
    9,128
    Level
    22
    Thanks Given
    1,489
    Thanked 1,905x in 1,159 Posts
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not shocked because of where the court resides. Sometimes the most ridiculous decisions can be a catalyst to better laws or maybe even exercising smarter decisions by individuals.
    I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.
    Marilyn Monroe

  11. #9

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 45,977, Level: 52
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 1,073
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    164562
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    11,878
    Points
    45,977
    Level
    52
    Thanks Given
    4,452
    Thanked 9,824x in 5,666 Posts
    Mentioned
    365 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    • You have zero right to free speech in a forum owned by someone else. They're entitled to kick you out, delete what you've said, change it, anything.
    • You may not defame someone else. In the US the definition of defamation varies from state to state. This is also called slander or libel.
    • You cannot publish obscene material. This includes line drawings or descriptions of child pornography even when no sexual abuse actually took place. This is governed by the Miller test.
    • You may not claim military honors to which you are not entitled. This is governed by the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
    • You may not incite others to criminal acts or to riot. Brandenburg v. Ohio is the relevant Supreme Court ruling, which sets the standard for what is permissible.
    • You may not participate in a criminal conspiracy even if your only action was speaking or writing. Making an agreement to commit a crime is itself a crime.
    • You may not reveal any classified information in writing or speech.
    • You may not urge people to dodge the draft in wartime.
    • You may not urge support for organizations that the government has designated as sponsors of terrorism, even if you disagree with that designation and give no money yourself.
    • You may not make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.
    • Your right to advertise is limited. No cigarette advertisements on TV.
    • You are required to reveal certain information about food, drugs, and chemical products that you sell. The government can force you to speak.
    • You have a limited right to free speech in the military.
    • You have no right to say anything you have contractually promised not to, such as in a non-disclosure agreement.
    • You have no right of free speech in the workplace, except union organization, which is protected by law.
    • Children have only a limited right to free speech in school.
    • You have no right to threaten anyone with violence.
    • You have no right to speak any time you want to in a courtroom or other public proceeding, and you can be evicted or found in contempt and jailed for disrupting proceedings.
    • You have no right to sexually, racially, or otherwise harass co-workers.
    • You may not induce someone to break a contract they have with a third party. This is called tortious interference.
    • You have no right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    There is a more detailed discussion of these types of limitations here: Freedom of speech in the United States
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trish View Post
    I'm not shocked because of where the court resides. Sometimes the most ridiculous decisions can be a catalyst to better laws or maybe even exercising smarter decisions by individuals.
    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.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    MMC (04-23-2018)

  13. #10
    Points: 24,385, Level: 38
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 1,265
    Overall activity: 24.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    301033
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    8,813
    Points
    24,385
    Level
    38
    Thanks Given
    1,310
    Thanked 7,136x in 4,149 Posts
    Mentioned
    241 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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.
    "It is a foolish man who believes that he possesses all of the answers unless he is absolutely certain that he has heard all of the questions."

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO