Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We could pass those laws. And they'd be stupid, futile, and unconstitutional.
California's new anti revenge porn law is a great example of well meaning idiocy. How is the state going to prove a photo was uploaded with the intent of revenge? And to the extent it may be intent-neutral (strict liability), how will it not violate the First Amendment?
|
I think the courts are pretty clear on the First Amendment not being license to share other peoples' secrets any time you get pissed off. I'm sure if some guy posted a video of the smile on his face as he comes in an ex-girlfriend's Dixie cup it would be protected by the First Amendment. I don't see how the First Amendment protects his right to post video of her Dixie cup.
Unless streaming video is also sent to
DC_Chef@lawtalkers.com.
