Triple Espresso of Coffee Talk

[Darkstone42]

Agreed. I think dehumanizing other people for revenge is generally shitty behavior and should be punishable. Especially since many of us make mistakes when we are young and those shouldn't haunt our personal and professional lives indefinitely. I generally think these types of crimes should be better defined and that we should decriminalize many of the nonviolent, self-inflicting drug crimes that overwhelm our system (and which the privatized prison systems depend on, because fuck them).

Fortunately, 41 states agree...

How Many States Have Revenge **** Laws?

As of 2019, 41 states and the District of Columbia have specific laws outlawing distribution of revenge ****. However, revenge **** laws are still relatively new and the laws are continuing to develop. In order to be guilty of this crime in most states, the distributor must be sending out pictures or a video that are considered sexual in nature, such as showing the victim's intimate body parts or engaging in a sexual act. Simply posting an unflattering picture of your ex in a bathing suit is not pornographic, absent any other circumstances, such as the victim's genitalia being visible.

Prohibited Actions

While each state has different laws, most generally define the crime of revenge **** as any person, with the intent to harass or annoy another who:

• Publishes or distributes electronic or printed photographs, pictures, or films that
• Show the genitals, anus, or female breast of the other person, or
• Depicts that person engaged in a sexual act.

Why is there an "intent to harass or annoy another" component? Sharing nude or otherwise sexual images of another person without their consent publicly should be illegal irrespective of intent. The intent should add to the punishment, not be required for illegality.

 

[Darkstone42]

I have no problem with everything you say, I just think the naivete is just stupidity. That's all...I'm all for topless women. Hell, in Rochester, NY, where I was growing up, there were annual protests by women wanting to go topless in the park like us guys who were playing ultimate frisbee in the park, topless.

And yes, dudes are a-holes and shouldn't be sharing naked pics, but should it really be a crime?

Yes, obviously. If someone lifts your credit card number while you're making an online purchase and sells it on the web, should that be a crime? If you're filling out a form with your social security number, and the person processing it uses it to steal your identity, should that be a crime? Obviously to both.

It's essential that we as people can engage in relationships personal, transactional, and professional with a measure of trust and not be betrayed, and then punished for our "naivete" for trusting someone. Screw victim blaming. Whoever shared that photo publicly which had clearly been intended to only be between two parties should be considered a criminal and have 100% of the blame in the situation on them.

 

[elocomotive]

Why is there an "intent to harass or annoy another" component? Sharing nude or otherwise sexual images of another person without their consent publicly should be illegal irrespective of intent. The intent should add to the punishment, not be required for illegality.

Because most crimes have a "mens rea" component. The mens rea is the knowledge or mental state of intending to commit a crime. Lighter crimes don't usually have them. For example, if you are speeding, you are speeding. It doesn't matter if you were intending to speed or not. And the level of punishment for these types of crimes is usually light (like a fine). But in more serious crimes, prosecutors have to prove both the actus rea (action) and the mens rea (mental state) consistent with the crime.

The mens rea - whether someone was negligent, purposeful, reckless, etc. - can often impact the class of the crime. Think of the difference between manslaughter (reckless driving for example) and first degree murder (planned, intentional stabbing). The general idea being that we can punish both reckless and intentional behavior, with the latter being more serious, more dangerous, and more likely to recur.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Why is there an "intent to harass or annoy another" component? Sharing nude or otherwise sexual images of another person without their consent publicly should be illegal irrespective of intent. The intent should add to the punishment, not be required for illegality.

A lot of these types of laws have that type of clause to protect individuals in the event of a mistake or other form of non-intent. Take for example the giant iCloud celebrity hack. Without an intent component to the law, if the receiver of one of those pictures had his/her account backed up to iCloud and the pictures get stolen in the hack, the receiver could be charged with a crime without there having been any intent to release the picture.

 

[Darkstone42]

Because most crimes have a "mens rea" component. The mens rea is the knowledge or mental state of intending to commit a crime. Lighter crimes don't usually have them. For example, if you are speeding, you are speeding. It doesn't matter if you were intending to speed or not. And the level of punishment for these types of crimes is usually light (like a fine). But in more serious crimes, prosecutors have to prove both the actus rea (action) and the mens rea (mental state) consistent with the crime.

The mens rea - whether someone was negligent, purposeful, reckless, etc. - can often impact the class of the crime. Think of the difference between manslaughter (reckless driving for example) and first degree murder (planned, intentional stabbing). The general idea being that we can punish both reckless and intentional behavior, with the latter being more serious, more dangerous, and more likely to recur.

That doesn't answer my question. Even if you're not sharing the picture out of revenge, sharing it is an intentional invasion of privacy and violation of consent. Full stop.

A lot of these types of laws have that type of clause to protect individuals in the event of a mistake or other form of non-intent. Take for example the giant iCloud celebrity hack. Without an intent component to the law, if the receiver of one of those pictures had his/her account backed up to iCloud and the pictures get stolen in the hack, the receiver could be charged with a crime without there having been any intent to release the picture.

If you have someone else's picture stolen from you, I don't see how an intent law protects you. You didn't do the dissemination of the picture, you didn't commit the crime. Why is a malicious intent clause necessary to prohibit prosecution of a victim of a theft if the thing stolen was someone else's picture?

 

[elocomotive]

That doesn't answer my question. Even if you're not sharing the picture out of revenge, sharing it is an intentional invasion of privacy and violation of consent. Full stop.

What defines "shared?"

If it is sent from your phone to someone else is that shared? What if you didn't share it? Or what if you sent it to your bud and he agreed to delete it, but instead sent it to others? That's still shitty, but is that as bad as intentionally posting it all over the internet?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out why mens rea is useful in the law, why it's present in the codification of this crime, and what it's role is in determining both guilt/innocence and the severity (or class) of the crime.

I'm all lawyered out for the day now.

 

[Darkstone42]

What defines "shared?"

If it is sent from your phone to someone else is that shared? What if you didn't share it? Or what if you sent it to your bud and he agreed to delete it, but instead sent it to others? That's still shitty, but is that as bad as intentionally posting it all over the internet?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out why mens rea is useful in the law, why it's present in the codification of this crime, and what it's role is in determining both guilt/innocence and the severity (or class) of the crime.

I'm all lawyered out for the day now.

I think sending it to your buddy is also criminal. He doesn't have permission from her to see it, he shouldn't see it. And yes, that's "shared" by the literal definition of the word "shared."

I have no patience for this sort of stuff. I think it should be flatly and severely punished, personally. This world is already a minefield without people you should be able to trust sending pictures of your naked body to other jagoffs, and it not even being punishable.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

That doesn't answer my question. Even if you're not sharing the picture out of revenge, sharing it is an intentional invasion of privacy and violation of consent. Full stop.



If you have someone else's picture stolen from you, I don't see how an intent law protects you. You didn't do the dissemination of the picture, you didn't commit the crime. Why is a malicious intent clause necessary to prohibit prosecution of a victim of a theft if the thing stolen was someone else's picture?

Because when things go wrong we go after anyone and everyone.

The number of cases where high school kids are charged with child pron when sexting a picture of themself because of over-zealous prosecution. Or where a lawsuit gets filed against the manufacturer of a product when, through no fault of theirs, someone completely misuses their product.

There's a reason we have warning labels not to use hair dryers while still in the shower or not to iron your clothes while you're still wearing them.

 

[thedddd]

This whole conversation thread above..........You have very fine people on both sides here.

I am sorry I couldn't control myself...

But seriously @scoutyjones2 thought about how naive the teacher is scary and to think she is a teacher of children.
With that said what she did wasn't wrong at all and to be punished is wrong. She better win any court case in this matter.

For any of the folks that are upset/uptight (IE...the school board and any parents that complained) with what she did then never take your clothes off again and look in the mirror and while at it never have sex with your spouse again and finally don't even look at an explicit picture on the internet ever again.

 

[thedddd]

A 3-year-old had to go potty, so he went in a gas station parking lot. That's when a deputy cited his mom for disorderly conduct.

On the whole uptight thing...this one takes the cake. Really a 3 year old boy taking a piss and exposing himself..oh the humanity!

This is what the ticket states:

“She allowed her male child to urinate in the parking lot. I observed the male’s genitals and the urination. Public restrooms are offered at the location.”

 

[jstewismybastardson]

A 3-year-old had to go potty, so he went in a gas station parking lot. That's when a deputy cited his mom for disorderly conduct.

On the whole uptight thing...this one takes the cake. Really a 3 year old boy taking a piss and exposing himself..oh the humanity!

This is what the ticket states:

“She allowed her male child to urinate in the parking lot. I observed the male’s genitals and the urination. Public restrooms are offered at the location.”

I tells yah ... Its a slippery slope ... especially if youre running by the scene of the crime and some gets on the floor

Boy peeing in B.C. mall trash bin photo sparks online debate | CBC News

 

[scoutyjones2]

Why is there an "intent to harass or annoy another" component? Sharing nude or otherwise sexual images of another person without their consent publicly should be illegal irrespective of intent. The intent should add to the punishment, not be required for illegality.

How do you prove they didn't give, or did give verbal consent?

Heres a better rule...just don't send electronic, nude photos. It's like AIDS, thoroughly preventable...don't share needles or participate in unprotected sex

 

[Comeds]

I'm working on a joke about someone being nicknamed Super 8 for things they did in a Super 8 motel. It's not done yet, but it's going to be tremendous.

 

[scoutyjones2]

I'm working on a joke about someone being nicknamed Super 8 for things they did in a Super 8 motel. It's not done yet, but it's going to be tremendous.

Great movie

 

[Comeds]

Great movie

That would be a great movie, but that's not the one I'm pitching right now.

There one I'm shopping around is set in the early 60s and is about a German woman who was a NAZI and escaped to the US after the war. Middle aged now but still holding her beliefs, quietly, she is angry when her landscaper turns out to be a middle aged African-American man. Without meaning to, she slowly gets to know him and befriend him and begins to question her beliefs. Then her NAZI brother shows up, is angered, and kills the landscaper. It's called Oscar Bait, no I meant it's called Sunshine Is Blue.

 

[forty_three]

How do you prove they didn't give, or did give verbal consent?

Heres a better rule...just don't send electronic, nude photos. It's like AIDS, thoroughly preventable...don't share needles or participate in unprotected sex

Also, don't own a car and you will never be a victim of car theft.

Or always be homeless, so you can't be burglarized.

And when are we gonna hold murder victims accountable for being alive in the first place?

 

[dash]

Also, don't own a car and you will never be a victim of car theft.

Or always be homeless, so you can't be burglarized.

To me, this is more akin to having a duplicate key made to your house or car and giving that key to a person you shouldn't have.

 

[forty_three]

To me, this is more akin to having a duplicate key made to your house or car and giving that key to a person you shouldn't have.

Fair enough, but at the end of the day we're still blaming the victim of a crime for being in a position to have a crime committed against them.

 

[elocomotive]

What the fuck?

This fucking idiot of a President. Such a poor understanding of the consequences of his words and actions. No fucking clue what he's doing.

 

[jstewismybastardson]