Should the First Amendment Protect Revenge-Porn?

Post Views: 11

     Suppose you hate someone and, in your hotly-considered opinion, s/he warrants, at best, eternal humiliation. At least in this life.     

     Suppose, too, as you stew over the object of your detestation, you conduct several thousand image searches and, to your delight, you come across a lone yet easily identifiable compromising photograph.

     Suppose, further, that you needn’t have searched at all  —  an acquaintance shares with you such a photograph, one lacking any previous internet exposure, and you, without anyone’s consent, take this gift and share it the world over (endlessly). 

 

     Or suppose you’re just a goofball with a devastatingly clever sense of humor, so clever only you can appreciate it.

     Should the first amendment protect you?

     As I ask you to consider, know that anyone who has taught recently has met young men and women who have similarly compromised others or who have been so compromised themselves. Or both.

     I imagine, too, that this isn’t confined to children and schools; office and private parties offer perhaps even more such opportunities. In fact, there are likely no social contexts that don’t offer these shots at immortality.   

     Now, if you’re considering such a move against a so-deserving girl or guy don’t act on the impulse if you’re in California. That state has a law making it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures online without permission with the intent to cause upset or embarrassment. Conviction could get you an easy six months and hit your wallet hard. 

   Of course, some say intent is tough to show and that one hundred eighty days on a Wonder Bread/Baloney diet and a fine would be well worth the satisfaction, even were a criminal charge to be lodged and you were convicted. (Potential civil damages are another matter.)

     Yet my question stands:  should the first amendment protect revenge-porn ?

Loading