aGameOfThrones
10-01-2014, 12:11 AM
"Revenge porn" is a term that's developed over the last few years to refer to the posting of nude images without the consent of those pictures. After a spate of publicity surrounding some of the bad actors in this business, several states have passed laws outlawing "revenge porn" and applying penalties.
Now, a coalition of businesses and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit (PDF) challenging the anti-revenge-porn laws. They've picked Arizona as their battleground. One of the lead lawyers on the case, Michael Bamberger, told the National Law Journal that Arizona's law is "probably the most egregious," because it has no requirement that the images even be malicious, and it could include images taken in a "commercial or public setting."
"This is a supposed revenge-porn statute that does not require revenge," said Bamberger.
The plaintiffs-in-suit are several bookstores, as well as the American Association of Publishers and the National Press Photographers Association. Bamberger, a First Amendment specialist who's working together with the American Civil Liberties Union in this case, added that librarians are concerned they could be held liable simply for providing Internet access.
The plaintiffs' lawyers point out that bookstores sell books that include nude images often don't, and can't, know whether the subjects consented or not. In some cases, (like the Napalm Girl photo) the subject in all likelihood did not consent.
The bookstores are seeking a judicial declaration that the law is unconstitutional.
"To obtain a conviction under the Act, a prosecutor need not prove that any person was harmed by the disclosure," point out the plaintiffs' lawyers. "Nor must a prosecutor prove that the person depicted was either recognizable or had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/bookstores-publishers-sue-to-stop-law-against-revenge-porn/
Now, a coalition of businesses and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit (PDF) challenging the anti-revenge-porn laws. They've picked Arizona as their battleground. One of the lead lawyers on the case, Michael Bamberger, told the National Law Journal that Arizona's law is "probably the most egregious," because it has no requirement that the images even be malicious, and it could include images taken in a "commercial or public setting."
"This is a supposed revenge-porn statute that does not require revenge," said Bamberger.
The plaintiffs-in-suit are several bookstores, as well as the American Association of Publishers and the National Press Photographers Association. Bamberger, a First Amendment specialist who's working together with the American Civil Liberties Union in this case, added that librarians are concerned they could be held liable simply for providing Internet access.
The plaintiffs' lawyers point out that bookstores sell books that include nude images often don't, and can't, know whether the subjects consented or not. In some cases, (like the Napalm Girl photo) the subject in all likelihood did not consent.
The bookstores are seeking a judicial declaration that the law is unconstitutional.
"To obtain a conviction under the Act, a prosecutor need not prove that any person was harmed by the disclosure," point out the plaintiffs' lawyers. "Nor must a prosecutor prove that the person depicted was either recognizable or had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/bookstores-publishers-sue-to-stop-law-against-revenge-porn/