States are debating whether revenge porn is protected by the First Amendment. By Deanna Paul Deanna Paul Reporter covering national and breaking news Email Bio Follow May 19 at 11:07 AM Bethany Austin learned her fiance had been unfaithful in late May 2016.
Austin said she then sent friends and family a four-page letter that contained text messages between Rychlik and the neighbor, Elizabeth Dreher, including nude photos of Dreher. Austin had access to all of their conversations and photos because she shared an iCloud account with Rychlik, court documents show. Rychlik and Dreher acknowledged they knew this.
Appeals courts are beginning to take up cases involving the constitutionality of “revenge porn” statutes. Legislation criminalizing these actions has gained traction in much of the country. Forty-five states, including Illinois, have revenge-porn laws in place. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to hear a case on the issue.
“Anytime you restrict speech on the basis of what is said or shown, it’s presumptively unconstitutional,” said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University who wrote a law-review article on the constitutionality of revenge-porn statutes. But the First Amendment allows the government to limit public disclosure of private, often intimate, information.
Those laws limit nonconsensual porn to “harassment,” she said in a statement to The Washington Post, but “[s]ome people do it for profit; some do it for entertainment; still others do it to obtain social status. Some of the most notorious purveyors of nonconsensual pornography are men who did not even know the women whose photos they exploited for financial gain.”
“From a constitutional perspective, it is hard to see a distinction between laws prohibiting nonconsensual disclosure of personal information comprising images of nudity and sexual conduct and those prohibiting disclosure of other categories of nonpublic personal information,” the court wrote in its opinion. “The government’s interest in protecting all from disclosure is strong.”
What the shit is this
8:11 ПП · 19 мая 2019 г.
We can watch a Texas Chain Saw Massacres ALL the Blood and Guts we want any given hour on TV But GOD Forbid we show naked people procreating. And performing Totally NATURAL acts that many times are an exchange of Love and Respect. ONLY IN AMERICA incidentally, Not the World
If she wins this, it’s going to be because the pictures were in her account. It’s not legal if you hack someone else’s but her dipshit bf was dumb enough to store them in their shared account.
Is anybody surprised that any kind of attack on women and girls in the United States is okay?
The problems people go thru especially if they don’t get married first
but not abortion?
Probably the same states that won't let a twelve year old rape victim have an abortion.
Yet cops in Florida spied on 300 men getting consensual handjobs and then tried to disseminate the footage to the press to shame them. That’s not revenge porn?
You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Blackmail and extortion are protected under the constitution? 🙄
Desen un paseo por el pais de los falsos positivos por el cartel de medellin
I bet those states are the same ones trying to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Legal question: Doesn't the constitution protect copyright? And don't photographers have de facto copyright on their photos?
Scoop: As nytimes uncovers Trump/Flynn conspiracy, Separate Investigation Reveals No One Plays Donald Trump's Golf Course; Nothing Made In U.S. via YouTube Biden2020
Interesting that our forefathers were able to anticipate cell phones and revenge porn, but not high capacity magazines for guns or abortion rights. Sarcasm if people can't tell how people bend the Constitution to whatever they need.
Let me guess. Those states are former CSA and/or GOP controlled.
those some need to be guillotined
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: MarketWatch - 🏆 3. / 97 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »