Revenge Porn in the US

 American states go over the top with legislation



 Offsite Article: Arizona's Naked Photo Law Makes Free Speech a Felony...


Link Here 26th September 2014  full story: Revenge Porn in the US...American states go over the top with legislation
Arizona state seal Lawmakers take revenge on Arizona people without their consent, criminalising them via a massively overbroad definition of revenge porn

See article from aclu.org

 

 Update: Abusive lawmaking...

MPAA protests against overbroad revenge porn legislation being considered in Minnesota


Link Here 5th April 2016  full story: Revenge Porn in the US...American states go over the top with legislation
Minnesota state sealThe Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has opposed draft revenge porn legislation that is being considered in Minnesota. The MPAA said the Minnesota draft law could restrict the publication of items of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest .

Revenge porn refers to the sharing of intimate images after the end of a relationship, but the definition is being 'stretched' a broader sense to describe any publication of explicit images without consent, for example when private photographs of a celebrity are leaked online.

Opponents of revenge porn legislation have argued that some of the new laws are too broad in scope, and that existing copyright, communication and harassment laws sufficiently cover the subject. 'Intent to harass'

The MPAA, which represents six major Hollywood film studios, said the Minnesota law could limit the distribution of a wide array of mainstream, constitutionally protected material . It cited images of Holocaust victims and prisoners at Abu Ghraib as examples of images depicting nudity which are shared without the subjects' consent.

The MPAA called for the legislation to clarify that images shared without consent only broke the law if they were shared with an intent to harass . In a statement, the organisation said:

The MPAA opposes online harassment in all forms. While we agree with the aims... we are concerned that the current version of the bill is written so broadly that it could have a chilling effect on mainstream and constitutionally-protected speech.