Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/14/2015 4:21:28 PM PDT by nickcarraway
U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ordered Arizona state prosecutors on Friday to stop enforcing the so-called “revenge porn” law. Her decree came as she approved the final settlement in the controversial case Antigone Books v. Brnovich, which challenged the law on constitutional grounds.
The “revenge porn” law, formally titled the Unlawful Distribution of Images statute, was signed by former Governor Jan Brewer last year, and made it a felony “to intentionally disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise or offer a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording of another person in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.”
Those who wrote it wanted to prevent nonconsensual pornography—particularly scenarios in which an angry person maliciously spreads nude images of an ex-lover, hence the term “revenge porn.” But a group of Arizona booksellers, publishing companies, newspapers, librarians, and photographers (including the Voice Media Group, New Times’ parent company) sued the state Attorney General’s Office, arguing that the language of Arizona’s law was “an unconstitutionally overbroad and viewpoint-based restriction on protected speech.”
Though the act may have been well-meaning and intended to prevent “disclosures motivated by revenge,” the plaintiffs state in the initial complaint, “the law is not limited to pornography or obscene images [and] in fact, the motive of the person making the disclosure is irrelevant.”
Arizona’s revenge porn law would make it a felony to publish certain educational materials about breastfeeding, or newsworthy photographs like those taken at the Abu Ghraib prison. It “could have led to the conviction of someone posting a nude photo with no intent to harm the person depicted,” notes a statement by the ACLU, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
(Excerpt) Read more at phoenixnewtimes.com ...
Baloney. If you are posting a photo of someone without written consent or purchase of the image, you are stealing from that person or intentionally harming that person.
Politically motivated publication of an image, such as Abu Graib, is 1st Amendment protected.
Only if breastfeeding is classified as a sexual activity. And the person in the image has not given consent to the image being used.
BJ Clinton appointee.
Think Billy Boys got a video of her?
“Arizona’s revenge porn law would make it a felony to publish certain educational materials about breastfeeding, or newsworthy photographs like those taken at the Abu Ghraib prison. It “could have led to the conviction of someone posting a nude photo with no intent to harm the person depicted,” notes a statement by the ACLU,”
Bullcrap.
Revenge porn is A-OK in Arizona. Go for it!
Only conservative Christianity is unconstitutional in the state. Thanks to Governor Brewer and Justice Kennedy.
As I understand it, the law applies to sexual activity OR a "state of nudity." So, if a breastfeeding image is considered nudity, it could fall under the law. That was likely not the intent of the law, but the law seems to be poorly drafted.
This ruling is not really all that unexpected. And not necessarily wrong. Legislatures often foul up the language of a bill in a way that makes it vague, or restrictive of First Amendment rights, or the like. I'd rather a court do what this court did (send it back to the legislature to try again), than what the SCOTUS did in both Obamacare cases (rewrite the law by itself).
Though the act may have been well-meaning and intended to prevent “disclosures motivated by revenge,” the plaintiffs state in the initial complaint, “the law is not limited to pornography or obscene images [and] in fact, the motive of the person making the disclosure is irrelevant.”
It is absolutely baffling and amazing as to what the courts will find irrelevant.
Racial motives are relevant in murder or assault if the race of the attacker and victim are of the correct racial combination.
But if one is publishing nude photos of a person? Nope no need for permission and honest motives are of no concern.
Some dirtbag is in prison for 25 years for violating California’s version of this law.
Seems overly harsh but I think 5 years would be appropriate.
I guess Judge Bolton won't mind if we Photoshop some fake porn pictures of her, mail them to her home, post them to social media sites, and advertise them on public billboards, then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.