Revenge Porn Pics Free Speech ....

[GURPS]

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.



Sharing nude photos of current or ex-partners protected under First Amendment, court rules

 

[Hijinx]

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.



Sharing nude photos of current or ex-partners protected under First Amendment, court rules

I will catch hell here again.
If you allow a nude picture to be taken you have to remember that it was taken for a purpose.
Whoever takes it will be looking at it.
They may show it to friends,
They may put it on the internet.
They may just lose it and it is found later by someone else.

Don't do it, don't allow it and you don't have to worry about it.

 

[GURPS]

Don't do it, don't allow it and you don't have to worry about it.

who owns the picture ... :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

I will catch hell here again.
If you allow a nude picture to be taken you have to remember that it was taken for a purpose.
Whoever takes it will be looking at it.
They may show it to friends,
They may put it on the internet.
They may just lose it and it is found later by someone else.

Don't do it, don't allow it and you don't have to worry about it.

Well, that's not quite the way it works.

Not even sure why these brainless "judges" dither about this stuff anyway. No one has the right to disseminate nude pics of you without your permission. The end. Countless celebrities have proven that in court with no problem, so why would this not apply to a private citizen?

That judge needs to be kicked off the bench because clearly he does not understand what "free speech" does and does not include.

 

[vraiblonde]

who owns the picture ...

People own the rights to their image unless they have specifically signed it away. There's some wiggle room in the case of public figures, but private citizens own their image. That's why news people have everyone who is recognizable in a shot sign a waiver so they can air the footage.

 

[Starman]

Well, that's not quite the way it works.

Not even sure why these brainless "judges" dither about this stuff anyway. No one has the right to disseminate nude pics of you without your permission. The end. Countless celebrities have proven that in court with no problem, so why would this not apply to a private citizen?

That judge needs to be kicked off the bench because clearly he does not understand what "free speech" does and does not include.

Here's someone who hasn't read the case.

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's someone who hasn't read the case.

Okay, I'll bite:

What makes you "think" that?

 

[Hijinx]

People own the rights to their image unless they have specifically signed it away. There's some wiggle room in the case of public figures, but private citizens own their image. That's why news people have everyone who is recognizable in a shot sign a waiver so they can air the footage.

I am not talking about rights I am talking about stupidity.

If you don't allow a nude picture this whole post is done. Over.

Ask Tanya Harding if she wanted her honeymoon video posted on porn sites.
Ask Pamela Anderson if she wanted her video taken with Tommy Lee on a porn site
Do they own the video? The world owns them now.

I am not talking about legalities.
What I am saying is that if you are stupid enough to have your nude or sexual pictures taken
Be prepared to have them get out.
If you are stupid enough to allow the picture or video.

Right, Wrong, Judges.-------#### happens.
Do not allow the pictures to be taken in the first place.

 

[Starman]

Okay, I'll bite:

What makes you "think" that?

Your ignorant comments make it obvious you don't understand the issue before the court. Now go read it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Your ignorant comments make it obvious you don't understand the issue before the court. Now go read it.

I did read it.

Tell me what you think is the issue before the court.

 

[Starman]

I did read it.

Tell me what you think is the issue before the court.

Here is the decision. Read it: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4442395/ExParteJones.pdf

 

[black dog]

Charlie didn't know....

 

[vraiblonde]

Here is the decision. Read it: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4442395/ExParteJones.pdf

What do you think it says?

Because I'll tell you what it *does* say:

Texas law states

A person commits an offense if:

(1) without the effective consent of the depicted person, the person intentionally discloses visual material depicting another person with the person’s intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct;
(2) the visual material was obtained by the person or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the visual material would remain private;
(3) the disclosure of the visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and
(4) the disclosure of the visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any manner[.]

The scuzzy ex boyfriend is arguing that that law is unconstitutional and a violation of his right to free speech.
The scuzzy judge agreed.

Strip the legalese and blather, and that's what it says.

 

[Starman]

What do you think it says?

Because I'll tell you what it *does* say:

Texas law states

A person commits an offense if:

(1) without the effective consent of the depicted person, the person intentionally discloses visual material depicting another person with the person’s intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct;
(2) the visual material was obtained by the person or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the visual material would remain private;
(3) the disclosure of the visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and
(4) the disclosure of the visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any manner[.]

The scuzzy ex boyfriend is arguing that that law is unconstitutional and a violation of his right to free speech.
The scuzzy judge agreed.

Strip the legalese and blather, and that's what it says.

So you still haven't read it.

:shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

So you still haven't read it.

:shrug:

Now you're boring in addition to being stupid. Have fun with that.

 

[black dog]

Charlie didn't know...

 

[Lurk]

who owns the picture ... :shrug:

Based on the claim that that monkey owned the selfie he/she took and the court's opinion, it appears that whoever paid for the camera owns the picture.

 

[Starman]

What do you think it says?

Because I'll tell you what it *does* say:

Texas law states

A person commits an offense if:

(1) without the effective consent of the depicted person, the person intentionally discloses visual material depicting another person with the person’s intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct;
(2) the visual material was obtained by the person or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the visual material would remain private;
(3) the disclosure of the visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and
(4) the disclosure of the visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any manner[.]

The scuzzy ex boyfriend is arguing that that law is unconstitutional and a violation of his right to free speech.
The scuzzy judge agreed.

Strip the legalese and blather, and that's what it says.

Now that you've read the law, please read the recent relevant case.

 

[GURPS]

Based on the claim that that monkey owned the selfie he/she took and the court's opinion, it appears that whoever paid for the camera owns the picture.

I thought about that when I 1st saw this article, and wondered when someone would bring that up .....

I always thought YOU Take the Picture YOU Own the Picture .....
in the old days if you wanted to print 5000 copies and hand them out on a street corner or send them to your friends who is going to stop you
No you just post your pictures on line

 

[GURPS]

Based on the claim that that monkey owned the selfie he/she took and the court's opinion, it appears that whoever paid for the camera owns the picture.

Apparently not .......

https://forums.somd.com/threads/323690-‘Monkey-Selfie’-Case?p=5873431#post5873431