PROTECT Act Could Require Removal of All Existing Porn Online
Sen. Mike Lee's "technological exploitation" bill also redefines consent.
Sen. Mike Lee's "technological exploitation" bill also redefines consent.
by limiting it to exclude people who sincerely believed the material wasn't revenge porn (i.e., the participants had agreed that it be publicly released).
An interesting D.C. trial court decision from last year, involving an image of nudity submitted as part of a court case.
Alice sends nude picture to her ex, Bob. Bob's new girlfriend (or maybe would-be girlfriend) Carol gets it and posts it online. Carol wouldn't be guilty under the state revenge porn statute, the court rules.
The porn wars haven't died, they're just packaged differently.
Interestingly enough, State Rep. Nick Sauer cosponsored an an ethics and sexual harassment bill during his short two years in office.
The state law targeted people who share erotic photographs of others without their consent.
Device makers would be required to block porn, prostitution hubs, and all content that fails "current standards of decency."
The state's new "revenge porn" measure is "so breathtakingly broad...that it criminalizes activity that involves neither revenge nor porn."
School administrators say she should have password-protected the phone.
Zimmerman posted nude photos and contact information for a woman he alleges cheated on him "with a dirty Muslim."
But can adults be prosecuted for consensual sexting? Maybe.
State agrees to settlement permanently halting enforcement of the law.
Do we really need the FBI & Homeland Security going after teens who share their girlfriends' boobs on Reddit?
Invasion of privacy charges could lead to juvenile lockup or state prison for Cape May teens.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10