Sharing “revenge porn” could lead to more prison time and a spot on California’s sex offender registry under a proposed law carried by former California Highway Patrol officer.
California in 2013 became the first state to outlaw revenge porn when it made it a misdemeanor to share “intimate images” of a person without their consent. The current penalty for a first offense is six months in jail.
Assemblyman Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, thinks the sentence needs to be tougher. “This is a sex crime and we need to start treating it like one,” said Lackey, a retired CHP sergeant. Full Article
Would this law be nullified by Section 230? Because my gut feeling is no. But for dating sites, wouldn’t under this proposed California bill, that the website’s operates would also be technically in violation? Section 230 is Federal, but California can restrict further with laws? Which law applies? 230? Or the proposed law?
The owners of any website that allows user-contributed content or the ability to change out things like avatars, could be in for a surprise. While I doubt this law would go after Facebook, Google, etc, I do think that our government wouldn’t hesitate to go after any of us who operate websites.
Because the registry is punishment which is why they add it on
Pretty soon it will just be easier to have a list of people who are NOT on the sex offender list.
Dear people, post anything online (messages, pictures, videos, etc) is and will be forever.
Another asinine response to a social problem. Let’s criminalize and stigmatize them too! We’re gonna lose a whole lot of Registrants by next year…
So why not invent a new crime to prosecute and to label in order to replenish that declining Registry? Let’s keep the system tied up with more Registrants to feed the industry!
More prisons to fill! More treatment centers! More tax dollars wasted on a crime that only nosy no-life neighbors care about!
Make America Hate Again!
Let them do it. Asinine laws like this bolsters our arguments against the registry.
This guy is out to make sex itself a crime. 10:1 his wife or girlfriend left him because he couldn’t satisfy her. Now he is on his own revenge tour.
On a tangent note, why can the world access gross gore, such as a beheaded child, a man’s skin stripped from his face, or a woman with her genitalia mutilated, yet this isn’t considered porn. Isn’t the definition of porn that which has little or no social redeeming value? These type of photos do as much harm to the population as looking at a sexualized photo. My opinion.
This reminds me of the case in northern Calif. at a college campus. Homophobe stalkers planted a video camera and recorded gay students having sex, then published it across campus. One of the students in the film committed suicide over it. Personally I think the one to kill would be whoever planted the camera, not self. However, this law may be redundant and unnecessary because of the existing privacy laws.
https://www.shouselaw.com/eavesdropping.html