First conviction made in California's new 'revenge porn' law

[Shawn Knight]

California lawmakers vowed to crack down on “revenge porn” and now nearly a year and a half later, they’re keeping that promise by convicting the first of what’ll no doubt be multiple offenders under the new law.

A Los Angeles man has been sentenced to a year behind bars for allegedly posting a topless photo of his ex-girlfriend on her employer’s Facebook page in March of 2014. Such malicious behavior is in violation of Facebook’s terms of service but it’s the California law that’s landing him in jail.

A jury found Iniguez guilty of two restraining order violations in addition to the revenge porn law. The jury came to its decision after deliberating for seven days.

The man, 36-year-old Noe Iniguez, was additionally sentenced to 36 months’ probation and ordered to attend domestic violence counseling and steer clear of the victim.

The measure to fight revenge porn was first proposed in August of last year before being signed into law in October. It was initially limited to photos taken by someone else although a revision this past August extended its reach to include selfies.

Revenge porn, for those uninitiated, is a term used to describe the act of posting images or videos online of someone else that are sexual in nature without their consent. As the name suggests, it’s often done as a way to “get back” at a former mate.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/59047-first-conviction-made-california-new-revenge-porn-law.html

 

[yRaz]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I'm waiting for when the ex-girlfriend uploads her own photo's to prosecute her ex-boyfriend. Where is his protection against such an offense?

 

[davislane1]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

Not only that, the male victim would probably mocked and ridiculed ad nauseam.

While I don't condone revenge porn*, the punishment doesn't fit the crime as far as I can tell. If you're dense enough to take sexually explicit photos/video and hand it over to a romantic/sex interest, you should be subject to the full liability of your decisions. This include having your images posted on social media. At worst, offenders should be fined $500. Jail time is BS.

*The one exception is in the case of a cheating spouse/SO who tries to play innocent while actively trying to damage your reputation. If they're going to play dirty, skip the foreplay and nuke them from orbit.

 

[dividebyzero]

I'm waiting for when the ex-girlfriend uploads her own photo's to prosecute her ex-boyfriend. Where is his protection against such an offense?

Presumably that would also involve court hearing after an investigation as this was.

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet.

Seems a little simplistic in this case since the guy posted defamatory statements about the victim on her employers fb page in addition to the pictures...oh, and not to forget the history of texting harassment and violating a restraining order imposed four years ago.

Jail time for 4+ years of desperate needy behaviour allied with a basic inability to cover his pathetic tracks might be just the ticket. Plenty of time to become tech literate and find a homebody partner.

While I don't condone revenge porn*, the punishment doesn't fit the crime as far as I can tell.

Dude has been under a restraining order since November 2011. The guy is still acting like a saddo after four years - that's serial killer or folk/country music singer territory right there. I condone a lengthy prison term for either.

 

[yRaz]

Then give the guy harassment charges and throw him in jail for violating a restraining order. Kind of odd they aren't even charging him with those in addition to revenge porn.

edit: Seems like they are charging him with the violations. I wonder if the sentence will be used to set a sentence in future cases.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

Would you say dressing in s3xy clothing to be risky behaviour? Would you say a hot woman showing some cleavage is at fault if she's harassed because she's the one who got her self dressed that morning? I'm trying to stay away from the whole 'she was asking for it' example, but that's the ballpark we're in here.

Except there's a big difference. The victims of revenge porn gave their pics privately to someone they trusted and probably even loved once. Throw on top of it, how damaging nude pics could be to job prospects and personal life and it becomes serious quickly.

It is not some feminist movement, it's common sense. And you're right... it wouldn't happen the other way around because the woman would never keep the pics of the naked dude. If you want some confidence that there isn't a huge double standard, look to the statutory rape cases where a female teacher has s3x with a younger boy. She still gets all the jail time a man would, even though the only damage the boy suffered was from high-fiving everyone in school for the next month.

While I don't condone revenge porn*, the punishment doesn't fit the crime as far as I can tell. If you're dense enough to take sexually explicit photos/video and hand it over to a romantic/sex interest, you should be subject to the full liability of your decisions. This include having your images posted on social media. At worst, offenders should be fined $500. Jail time is BS.

A year seems harsh, yes, but maybe it's to set an example as this is the first case. Also, as @dividebyzero points out... this guy seems pretty crazy, and that probably earned him some extra time.

 

[yRaz]

Would you say dressing in s3xy clothing to be risky behaviour? Would you say a hot woman showing some cleavage is at fault if she's harassed because she's the one who got her self dressed that morning? I'm trying to stay away from the whole 'she was asking for it' example, but that's the ballpark we're in here.

the she was asking for it thing is a farce. I'm saying you have to accept the consequences on your actions. If you drink and drive you risk getting a DUI. If you sell drugs you risk jail time. If you take naked pictures of yourself you risk having them posted publicly.

you don't blame the people buying drugs off you for selling them. You don't blame the cop for arresting you for drinking and driving. I don't see her as a victim so I'm not victim blaming. She knew what she was doing and if she didn't then it is her fault for not understand the consequences of her actions.

 

[davislane1]

Would you say dressing in s3xy clothing to be risky behaviour? Would you say a hot woman showing some cleavage is at fault if she's harassed because she's the one who got her self dressed that morning? I'm trying to stay away from the whole 'she was asking for it' example, but that's the ballpark we're in here.

I treat women with no less assumption of agency or responsibility than I would a man. I simply see no need to adopt a special rule for women that exempts them from the consequences of their decision making. Thus, if a guy gets robbed while strolling thru Oakland, CA wearing an Armani suit and a Rolex, he's a ***** for putting himself in that situation. Yes, the thugs are also at (greater) fault, but he bears responsibility as well. Likewise, if a woman dresses in a manner that advertises her sex appeal, every cat call and grade school pickup line she receives is her partially her fault. If you don't want attention, don't do what attracts it.

Except there's a big difference. The victims of revenge porn gave their pics privately to someone they trusted and probably even loved once. Throw on top of it, how damaging nude pics could be to job prospects and personal life and it becomes serious quickly.

I dated a girl once who ironically offered to let me take provocative pictures of her. Had I done so and later published the pictures, I would be a horrible person, as she would have been devastated. She would also be a ***** for trusting to that degree someone she had only known for a few months. She wouldn't have asked for it, but she would have willfully ignored the obvious risks merely to satisfy her momentary impulse to amuse me.

Revenge porn is despicable. But it's nature as a morally repugnant act does not automatically result in a perpetrator-innocent victim paradigm. Both parties are guilty: one for blatantly violating someone's confidence and trust, the other for being an exceedingly poor decision maker.

A year seems harsh, yes, but maybe it's to set an example as this is the first case. Also, as @dividebyzero points out... this guy seems pretty crazy, and that probably earned him some extra time.

Agreed.

 

[umbala]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

That's a really stupid attitude. So if you're in love with someone, and you're in a relationship with that person, and you happen to take nude pictures or make a video as a way of spicing things up, that gives them the right to take that material once the relationship is over and post it online, thereby embarrassing you and possibly ruining your career? When people are in love, or think they're in love, they tend to do stupid things. When the relationship is over, one party almost always comes away sour about it. That doesn't make it alright to humiliate the other person by publicly posting personal images or videos.

I'm not even going to comment on your "feminists" running California or your example of role reversal. That's just outright *****ic.

 

[yRaz]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

That's a really stupid attitude. So if you're in love with someone, and you're in a relationship with that person, and you happen to take nude pictures or make a video as a way of spicing things up, that gives them the right to take that material once the relationship is over and post it online, thereby embarrassing you and possibly ruining your career? When people are in love, or think they're in love, they tend to do stupid things. When the relationship is over, one party almost always comes away sour about it. That doesn't make it alright to humiliate the other person by publicly posting personal images or videos.

I'm not even going to comment on your "feminists" running California or your example of role reversal. That's just outright *****ic.

Why is it you wont comment on role reversal? You act like women don't try to ruin men's careers as much men do women.

This whole thing to me is two stupid people acting stupid. But now two stupid people acted stupid and one of them is going to jail.

We live in an age where we have no privacy and the only privacy we do have is that which we work to protect. She obviously is not someone who actively protects her own privacy. Of all the information she puts out on the internet she is worried about a picture of her tits?

This person has their priorities so backwards it is ridiculous. They wont do the first thing to protect themselves, but they are worried about exposing the wrong part of themselves. Many people can have their email and banks hacked simply with information posted on social media. Her bank accounts could be emptied and credit ruined from information she probably posts publicly.

I'd love for someone to make the case she does care because those who do don't take nude pictures of themselves.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

And if he wasn't particularly well endowed probably no one would even notice him, not even the female judge.

 

[Alpha Gamer]

Some eight years ago in my region , there was this case of this guy who posted a video of him and a girl in an intimate moment and it totally backfired, you could barely see the girl's face and the only thing worth noticing was how small his hardware was. Living in a small town, it ruined his life, the poor kid eventually moved out of town and nobody ever heard of him again.

 

[Kibaruk]

The thing is, he was not just charged for revenge porn, he was also found guilty of 2 restraining order violations.

You are just focusing on one thing, and probably the not so harmful one.

 

[TheDreams]

violating a restraining order imposed four years ago..

Who keeps nudes for over four years?

 

[stewi0001]

violating a restraining order imposed four years ago..

Who keeps nudes for over four years?

a lot of people apparently

 

[EClyde]

Girls, Boys...Keep your clothes on. Whatever can be used against you will be

 

[cliffordcooley]

I say if two people can't get along and decide to use nude photos to get at whichever one of the other, then both parties should have their packages independently displayed in a demeaning public manner.

 

[davislane1]

I say if two people can't get along and decide to use nude photos to get at whichever one of the other, then both parties should have their packages independently displayed in a demeaning public manner.

Pew research polling on how attractive the general public rates the sexual attractiveness of each subject on a scale of 0-10.

 

[dividebyzero]

Who keeps nudes for over four years?

Obviously the same kind of deranged saddo's that stalk their ex's for years rather than move on

 

[Lady Flame]

You don't blame the people buying drugs off you for selling them. You don't blame the cop for arresting you for drinking and driving. I don't see her as a victim so I'm not victim blaming. She knew what she was doing and if she didn't then it is her fault for not understand the consequences of her actions.[/QUOTE]

Seems pretty simple but I guess I should point out the fallacy of your deductions.
Buying drugs is illegal.
Drinking and driving is illegal.
Taking nude selfies and even giving them away is NOT illegal.
Posting those pictures online without permission of the individual in the picture is ILLEGAL.
Geeze, dude.. Why you think everyone that appears on TV needs a SIGNED release before broadcasting?

 

[Jamesbrah]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

This has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with the fact that this guy put her private images on her COMPANIES facebook page. That's unacceptable. They weren't just leaked - they were explicitly publicized without her consent.

If a couple is together and they are comfortable enough to send eachother photos of themselves - they should NOT be punished for doing so. Plus this guy has a restraining order.. so clearly it isn't just a case of feminism gone wild.

Think before you post.

 

[Jamesbrah]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

That's a really stupid attitude. So if you're in love with someone, and you're in a relationship with that person, and you happen to take nude pictures or make a video as a way of spicing things up, that gives them the right to take that material once the relationship is over and post it online, thereby embarrassing you and possibly ruining your career? When people are in love, or think they're in love, they tend to do stupid things. When the relationship is over, one party almost always comes away sour about it. That doesn't make it alright to humiliate the other person by publicly posting personal images or videos.

I'm not even going to comment on your "feminists" running California or your example of role reversal. That's just outright *****ic.

Why is it you wont comment on role reversal? You act like women don't try to ruin men's careers as much men do women.

This whole thing to me is two stupid people acting stupid. But now two stupid people acted stupid and one of them is going to jail.

We live in an age where we have no privacy and the only privacy we do have is that which we work to protect. She obviously is not someone who actively protects her own privacy. Of all the information she puts out on the internet she is worried about a picture of her tits?

This person has their priorities so backwards it is ridiculous. They wont do the first thing to protect themselves, but they are worried about exposing the wrong part of themselves. Many people can have their email and banks hacked simply with information posted on social media. Her bank accounts could be emptied and credit ruined from information she probably posts publicly.

I'd love for someone to make the case she does care because those who do don't take nude pictures of themselves.

Are you actually reading what you're posting? Your defense is "She doesn't take online safety serious - that's why it's okay to publicize her nude, private images online"

I can't even comprehend this.

This is in no way shape or form about online security, this is about trusting your partner enough to send them intimate photos for their enjoyment only. The relationship went sour and he, who has restraining orders, posted them online at another attempt to ruin her.

Your arguement about role reversal is trivial at best. Of course when a relationship ends sometimes the partner will get back at the other person. But that's a case by case issue and every situation would be different. You can't just say "Women do it too, so she had it coming". It's a completely different set of circumstances.

 

[Jamesbrah]

Maybe people shouldn't be taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to people if they don't want them popping up on the internet. Risky behavior has risky consequences. California has been over run by feminists though so I'm not surprised. I'm sure if a woman posted naked pictures of a guy on the internet she wouldn't even see a court room.

Not only that, the male victim would probably mocked and ridiculed ad nauseam.

While I don't condone revenge porn*, the punishment doesn't fit the crime as far as I can tell. If you're dense enough to take sexually explicit photos/video and hand it over to a romantic/sex interest, you should be subject to the full liability of your decisions. This include having your images posted on social media. At worst, offenders should be fined $500. Jail time is BS.

*The one exception is in the case of a cheating spouse/SO who tries to play innocent while actively trying to damage your reputation. If they're going to play dirty, skip the foreplay and nuke them from orbit.

I hope so so badly you have sent some sort of intimate photo to someone, and I hope it gets leaked to your friends, your family, your employer and everyone who has ever meant anything to you in your life.

I hope this so badly.

 

[Zebuthecow]

I'm waiting for when the ex-girlfriend uploads her own photo's to prosecute her ex-boyfriend. Where is his protection against such an offense?

They cannot convict unless they can prove who did it. If your ex posts a picture of themselves, they can track the IP pretty easily unless he/she does some thing to mask their IP. At that point, they cannot blame it on anyone unless there is more investigation. Anyone pretending to be someone else in order to frame for a crime would be in even more trouble than the crime they were trying to frame their ex for.