Should revenge porn be legal?

[Ferguson97]

In cases like these, I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to protect people from themselves.

How far are you willing to apply that principle? Should it be legal to murder?

[John Dule]

In cases like these, I do not believe it is the responsibility of government to protect people from themselves.

How far are you willing to apply that principle? Should it be legal to murder?

He said "from themselves," lol.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On top of everything else, people are aware that under current First Amendment jurisprudence obscenity is not protected speech, right? We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not it should be, but the fact is that under current precedent it is not some sort of free speech violation to not be allowed to upload your ex-girlfriend's nudes to ~The Cloud~ without her permission. I fail to see whom exactly framing it as one is supposed to benefit, other than creeps whose lives peaked at "the fappening" and who are too stupid and uncultured to just masturbate to the Venus of Urbino or Barbara Stanwyck's nudes from the late 20s.

[politicallefty]

You don't seem to get that posting revenge porn is a morally abhorrent act.

I understand that perfectly well. I never said I approved of it on a moral basis. That is not relevant. The First Amendment is not about we like or find morally right. It protects that which we do not like and often find morally repugnant. The Roberts Court has upheld the right to speech that virtually no one likes on a personal basis (note both United States v. Stevens and Snyder v. Phelps). I believe the majority was absolutely right in both cases.

On top of everything else, people are aware that under current First Amendment jurisprudence obscenity is not protected speech, right? We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not it should be, but the fact is that under current precedent it is not some sort of free speech violation to not be allowed to upload your ex-girlfriend's nudes to ~The Cloud~ without her permission. I fail to see whom exactly framing it as one is supposed to benefit, other than creeps whose lives peaked at "the fappening" and who are too stupid and uncultured to just masturbate to the Venus of Urbino or Barbara Stanwyck's nudes from the late 20s.

We haven't had a proper obscenity case at the Supreme Court in years. I have made no allusions to hide my view of the First Amendment. I am an absolutist in terms of the rights and protections granted by the Constitution. The benefit is to our Constitution and the rule of law. The way you frame it is exactly why there should be First Amendment protections against these types of laws.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

You don't seem to get that posting revenge porn is a morally abhorrent act.

I understand that perfectly well. I never said I approved of it on a moral basis. That is not relevant. The First Amendment is not about we like or find morally right. It protects that which we do not like and often find morally repugnant. The Roberts Court has upheld the right to speech that virtually no one likes on a personal basis (note both United States v. Stevens and Snyder v. Phelps). I believe the majority was absolutely right in both cases.

On top of everything else, people are aware that under current First Amendment jurisprudence obscenity is not protected speech, right? We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not it should be, but the fact is that under current precedent it is not some sort of free speech violation to not be allowed to upload your ex-girlfriend's nudes to ~The Cloud~ without her permission. I fail to see whom exactly framing it as one is supposed to benefit, other than creeps whose lives peaked at "the fappening" and who are too stupid and uncultured to just masturbate to the Venus of Urbino or Barbara Stanwyck's nudes from the late 20s.

We haven't had a proper obscenity case at the Supreme Court in years. I have made no allusions to hide my view of the First Amendment. I am an absolutist in terms of the rights and protections granted by the Constitution. The benefit is to our Constitution and the rule of law. The way you frame it is exactly why there should be First Amendment protections against these types of laws.

Dule actually used a great example of how confidentiality is already both a social and a legal expectation. Moreover, what you tell your doctor or therapist cannot leave the room unless you or somebody else is in danger. What you tell your lawyer is protected speech—sans cases where the lawyer is being investigated for actively helping you to cover up your crimes, a la Giuliani.

The First Amendment is not absolute and at least some privacy rights do exist. Your right to free speech does not override another person's right to basic privacy expectations, which includes not having personal photos shared with people who were not intended to see them.

[politicallefty]

Dule actually used a great example of how confidentiality is already both a social and a legal expectation. Moreover, what you tell your doctor or therapist cannot leave the room unless you or somebody else is in danger. What you tell your lawyer is protected speech—sans cases where the lawyer is being investigated for actively helping you to cover up your crimes, a la Giuliani.

The First Amendment is not absolute and at least some privacy rights do exist. Your right to free speech does not override another person's right to basic privacy expectations, which includes not having personal photos shared with people who were not intended to see them.

If you read some of my earlier posts on this topic, I said it depends with respect to privacy rights. I would agree there is a level of marital privacy that should be respected. That is a limited and defined right that is respected across this country.

I would argue that the freedom of speech is higher than the right to privacy. The core right is that it is not private. The fundamental aspect of the right is that it must be allowed a disagreement or different viewpoint. There is no right of privacy between random hook-ups. If you start criminalizing this, no one will be safe. These laws are not narrowly tailored in any way.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Dule actually used a great example of how confidentiality is already both a social and a legal expectation. Moreover, what you tell your doctor or therapist cannot leave the room unless you or somebody else is in danger. What you tell your lawyer is protected speech—sans cases where the lawyer is being investigated for actively helping you to cover up your crimes, a la Giuliani.

The First Amendment is not absolute and at least some privacy rights do exist. Your right to free speech does not override another person's right to basic privacy expectations, which includes not having personal photos shared with people who were not intended to see them.

If you read some of my earlier posts on this topic, I said it depends with respect to privacy rights. I would agree there is a level of marital privacy that should be respected. That is a limited and defined right that is respected across this country.

I would argue that the freedom of speech is higher than the right to privacy. The core right is that it is not private. The fundamental aspect of the right is that it must be allowed a disagreement or different viewpoint. There is no right of privacy between random hook-ups. If you start criminalizing this, no one will be safe. These laws are not narrowly tailored in any way.

"No one will be safe"? Have humans completely devolved to the point where all sense of self-control and dignity is lost?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would argue that the freedom of speech is higher than the right to privacy.

Heading towards the 'privacy is for paedos' stance of that one disgraced reporter for the disgraced former Sunday tabloid The News of the World, here.

[Vosem]

No, it should not be, but this is an unprincipled exception to my views on speech in general and I have to admit that reading through this thread I found the arguments of those who think it should not be legal rather ominous. I think I understand where those who worry about a slippery slope here are coming from.

[politicallefty]

"No one will be safe"? Have humans completely devolved to the point where all sense of self-control and dignity is lost?

I do not believe people are safe when the rights of the people are eroded in such a manner. I maintain that a willing adult sending someone a picture or video does not generally grant the sender a level of protection. I would argue that the highest protection one has is their own self-control to not send something to someone that they cannot trust. You can easily think of leaving this in the hands of politicians you trust. I'm far more afraid of leaving these issues in the hands of those I do not trust.

I would argue that the freedom of speech is higher than the right to privacy.

Heading towards the 'privacy is for paedos' stance of that one disgraced reporter for the disgraced former Sunday tabloid The News of the World, here.

No, absolutely not. I believe that minors have rights under the Constitution, but there is an issue of consent in those cases. An adult sending something to another adult has no consent implications. A minor is not capable of consent under most forms of the law. With that said, I am a strong opponent of using statutory rape or child pornography laws against minors sending pictures or videos to one another. A 15 year-old sending a dick pic to another 15 year-old should not be on the sex offender list for life. These issues are not comparable.

[dead0man]

is this one of those rare threads that's starts kind of stupid but then actually turned informative?  Usually they go the other way.  Not only that, but we're most of the way through page 3 and not one mention of Israel, AR15s or race.  Hell, even Trump and Biden have even stayed out of it.  Amazing.

[Mr. Morden]

Not only that, but we're most of the way through page 3 and not one mention of Israel, AR15s or race.  Hell, even Trump and Biden have even stayed out of it.  Amazing.

I definitely think that pornographic photos of Biden and Trump should be illegal, regardless of whether the rest of it is.  The penalty for posting revenge porn of Biden or Trump online should be execution by an AR15-wielding firing squad.

[dead0man]

Not only that, but we're most of the way through page 3 and not one mention of Israel, AR15s or race. Hell, even Trump and Biden have even stayed out of it.  Amazing.

I definitely think that pornographic photos of Biden and Trump should be illegal, regardless of whether the rest of it is.  The penalty for posting revenge porn of Biden or Trump online should be execution by an AR15-wielding firing squad.

this lead me down a horrible train of thought that ended with Trump as a "power bottom".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing about politicallefty's "hookup" point is that "revenge porn", by its very nature as a phrase, implies that the relationship was at least long-lasting and emotionally intimate enough that seeking revenge on the person after it's over makes some degree of psychological sense. The reasonable expectation of privacy would be at least a little stronger there, even in non-marital relationships, than the people advancing the First Amendment absolutist position in this thread are contending, wouldn't it?

[Mopsus]

Freedom of speech should not apply to non-political speech.

[ctherainbow]

If you are a human direct messaging nudes or personal explicit content to another human, there is an implicit expectation that said nudes are for their personal consumption and not unbridled sharing.  The assumption is that they’re intended for personal consumption, and the exception to that rule is if consent is EXPLICITLY GIVEN to share said nudes.

As a queer millennial, this has literally always been common knowledge for me and my community since back when I was first stepping foot into online dating.  Are the str8s really that far behind us on this?  I guess it’s within the realm of possibility; they often lag behind us in cultural fluency.