Is criminalizing revenge porn a bad idea, because
states purporting to do so are likely to be overbroad? Sarah Jeong of Wired
thinks so, as she explains in this Oct. 28 article on Wired.
The writer points out that under California’s law a
blogger who, for purposes of journalism, links to a revenge porn site could be
breaking the law. That begs a question I
have considered for years – do people have a “right” to broadcast their
coverage online of issues in which they don’t appear to have a personal stake? The likelihood of enforcement of such a
provision does seem very remote.
The writer also lists some remedies available to
victims even in a CDA230 environment, which appears to protect website
operators on the surface. These include laws
against extortion, use of DMCA copyright, law requiring age verification of adult
photos, and invoking a tort of disclosure of private facts (although on that
one it seems that 230 applies).
Maryland’s Democratic candidate for state attorney
general, Joe Cardin, has introduced a bill criminalizing the placing of
explicit photos online without the subject’s consent, with a Think Progress
story by Tara Culp-Ressler here.
The law would seem to have the possibility
of broad interpretation – what about intimate behavior in public in a
disco? (Is “dirty dancing” considered explicit?) In some state law proposals, explicit
requires nudity, others not.
Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security head, has
an interesting piece on p. A17 of the Washington Post this morning, “Invading
our own privacy”, link here. Online, the story is called “What the NSA and
social media have in common”.
See also posting Sept. 3, 2013 on the California law.
See also posting Sept. 3, 2013 on the California law.
No comments:
Post a Comment