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

[Zebuthecow]

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 is the same as telling a female that if she does not want to be raped, then don't dress too sexy.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Preventive maintenance may not always work but it does help.

 

[davislane1]

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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never taken such a photo, nor will I. Besides, bodybuilding is a hobby of mine - 5 days a week for several years. Leaked photos only increases the value of my social stock.

Care to try again?

When it comes to legal penalties, the punishment needs to fit the nature of the crime, not someone's feelings. Publishing consensual intimate photos of someone to social media, etc. is wrong, for reasons already stated. But jailing somebody for publicly embarrassing and betraying someone's trust goes beyond reasonable measures. It is a social violation that should be proportionately fined.

 

[yRaz]

That is the same as telling a female that if she does not want to be raped, then don't dress too sexy.

If a woman knowingly walks into a high crime area expecting to be fine and gets raped, yes it is her fault for not protecting herself. This women did not do anything to protect herself or her privacy. I got robbed at gunpoint in a low income neighborhood and I always think to myself "if only I didn't go there". If you never put yourself in a position for these kinds of things to happen then they won't. And she wasn't raped, so the victim blaming, as I have argued in earlier posts, is irrelevant. We live in an age were you, and only you, are responsible for protecting your privacy. She did not protect her own privacy and was thus violated. Is this right? no, but it is the way the world works.

You either take measures to protect yourself against criminals or you become a victim.

 

[hrowder]

That is the same as telling a female that if she does not want to be raped, then don't dress too sexy.

If a woman knowingly walks into a high crime area expecting to be fine and gets raped, yes it is her fault for not protecting herself. This women did not do anything to protect herself or her privacy. I got robbed at gunpoint in a low income neighborhood and I always think to myself "if only I didn't go there". If you never put yourself in a position for these kinds of things to happen then they won't. And she wasn't raped, so the victim blaming, as I have argued in earlier posts, is irrelevant. We live in an age were you, and only you, are responsible for protecting your privacy. She did not protect her own privacy and was thus violated. Is this right? no, but it is the way the world works.

You either take measures to protect yourself against criminals or you become a victim.

Like one of the other posts about a guy in an Armani suit wandering into a "high crime area", your post seems a bit over the top. In this country we have expectations of freedom not generally shared in the rest of the world. Granted, there ARE so called "high crime areas" but ceding control of such neighborhoods to criminals seems unpalatable to me. In California, where this incident took place, "taking measures to protect yourself" is a non starter for a lot of people because unlike most other States you will find it hard to get a concealed weapon permit, yet the criminals will be armed. If you carry any "weapon" at all in California, you are at risk of being arrested by the very police that should be insuring that the streets are safe to walk and otherwise travel upon. So while I grant that precautions are necessary, and caution itself should be practiced, it is unacceptable to expect to be attacked, mugged, robbed, or otherwise criminally engaged anywhere in this country. If someone unknowingly gets into an area that has a bad reputation (like a tourist or out of town visitor), it is NOT their fault if they are accosted. Free travel is a prerequisite for a free society, and citizens should demand change of both the "bad areas" but also the laws that prevent them from protecting themselves. Such references to provocative clothing in both male and female cases is irrelevant. The focus should instead be on making it too costly in physical terms for criminals to continue their trade when it involves physical harm to innocent people who happen to be nearby.

More to the point of the article... it is abominable that this woman's pictures were posted at her work site. I am sure the judge took into account not only the restraining order and the time that had passed, but also the flagrant and intolerable nature of the privacy violation when the sentence of 1 year in jail (making it a felony) was passed. Do I think any violation which just included posting on the internet without the other circumstances should receive such a sentence? No... but like "hacking" for identity theft or stealing credit card information, cyber attacks should be punished to the degree of harm not only to the individual, but to the society's expectation of the right to be left alone to conduct our lives in this century. It is no less a crime than breaking into a house to obtain the same information or pictures and the risk to the criminal should be the expectation that retaliation from either the homeowner or the law is inevitable and potentially severe.