General Discussion

Escurumbele

(3,389 posts)

50. I suggest you think more about agreeing with the removed post, it was insensitive, maybe with some

Reply to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 22, 2021, 03:12 PM

Apr 2021

extra time thinking about it your thoughts will not be exactly.

The implications of that ruling is much broader than that case. Let us not forget that the photos were taken by her husband, someone she trusted, and the coward published them to hurt her and her career.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge rules that publishing of revenge porn is protected by First Amendment [View all] Nevilledog Apr 2021 OP

Post removed Post removed Apr 2021 #1

My thoughts exactly Watchfoxheadexplodes Apr 2021 #2

I suggest you think more about agreeing with the removed post, it was insensitive, maybe with some Escurumbele Apr 2021 #50

And to the women who don't know they are being recorded MagickMuffin Apr 2021 #3

Isn't that covered under existing law I would imagine? CrackityJones75 Apr 2021 #8

That is extortion, a different case altogether. Under The Radar Apr 2021 #9

Ms, Hill has never claimed that the photos were taken without her permission... brooklynite Apr 2021 #15

What the everloving f????? unblock Apr 2021 #4

1000+ StClone Apr 2021 #7

That sounds a lot like Bettie Apr 2021 #6

Exactly. Victim blaming. CurtEastPoint Apr 2021 #11

What the fuck is this shit right here. WhiskeyGrinder Apr 2021 #12

+1000 smirkymonkey Apr 2021 #79

What wonderful victim shaming obamanut2012 Apr 2021 #16

Jesus H. Christ! NutmegYankee Apr 2021 #25

Wow, a little condescending, aren't we dear? Luciferous Apr 2021 #29

victim blaming. Now do rape. ZonkerHarris Apr 2021 #37

She consented to the sex? She consented to the photos? Under The Radar Apr 2021 #39

Having the pictures published without her consent. /nt tonedevil Apr 2021 #41

Being pro-revenge porn is an interesting side to take but you do you. ZonkerHarris Apr 2021 #43

Seriously? hunter Apr 2021 #42

I always hope God is saying "Bravo!" oldsoftie Apr 2021 #58

There you are at the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter checking his computer... hunter Apr 2021 #64

LOL! oldsoftie Apr 2021 #76

Looks like the pro revenge porn folks are weighing in on this thread already. /nt tonedevil Apr 2021 #5

Not my intent. CrackityJones75 Apr 2021 #13

From what I have read previously... tonedevil Apr 2021 #17

What is incorrect? CrackityJones75 Apr 2021 #57

There was a law in CA edhopper Apr 2021 #38

Not agreeing, but Porter was/is a public figure. Not a private individual. Hortensis Apr 2021 #10

The photos were taken in aa private setting, she trusted her husband, she did not know the guy is a Escurumbele Apr 2021 #52

Unfortunate, but they were his photos and he gave them to her opponents. Hortensis Apr 2021 #73

Does the law exclude private citizens from revenge porn? Fla Dem Apr 2021 #54

How a person chooses to express themselves in private Layzeebeaver Apr 2021 #14

So if I take a picture of people on the sidewalk... brooklynite Apr 2021 #18

Huhhh...the person you replied to specifically stated "in private". ret5hd Apr 2021 #22

Eleventh Circuit (Smith v. Cumming) for details on what is 'traditional public fora'. TheBlackAdder Apr 2021 #47

It is even legal for someone to tape and release a conversation Under The Radar Apr 2021 #20

Were Tripp's Tapes Illegal? PoliticAverse Apr 2021 #65

In most states, yes. Lancero Apr 2021 #78

Your face as a public figure is "public" your privates shouldn't be. StClone Apr 2021 #21

Is it fair to bring up Brett Kavenaugh's past actions from his youth in a confirmation hearing? Under The Radar Apr 2021 #23

Is their hypocrisy public or private? StClone Apr 2021 #24

If someone else knows about it isn't private, hypocrisy or not. Under The Radar Apr 2021 #26

What Kavanaugh and Gaetz did was illegal. Trump, too. Big difference. But boys will be boys....nt Hekate Apr 2021 #51

Might as well add in Cuomo to the list since there's plenty against him oldsoftie Apr 2021 #60

Mitt Romney made his "47%" speech at a private club where there was supposed to be no recording. Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2021 #74

Weren't the pictures validation for the claim of an affair that violated congressional ethics rules? SYFROYH Apr 2021 #19

here's my theory: nude pictures are obviously private and confidential, unblock Apr 2021 #27

One could work to get such a law passed. Kaleva Apr 2021 #30

👆 This. crickets Apr 2021 #31

Her problem is with the person she confided in to take and keep the photos. Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2021 #35

i recognize that that's the way it *is*, but not the way it has to be. unblock Apr 2021 #44

Except that there IS something newsworthy about the photos FBaggins Apr 2021 #82

If she was a corporation that shared commerciallly sensitive information with a subcontractor meadowlander Apr 2021 #70

Well if I'm the business would, NDAs are routine unblock Apr 2021 #80

Hear, hear! ShazzieB Apr 2021 #84

My gods, what a thread. You guys carry on & I'll slowly back away before I lose my breakfast... Hekate Apr 2021 #28

Yeah, there are a LOT of disgusting comments in this thread. Luciferous Apr 2021 #32

Yup and it is sickening. MuseRider Apr 2021 #34

+1 demmiblue Apr 2021 #36

+2 SunSeeker Apr 2021 #63

+1 Yeah... it's pretty damned revealing (and not in a good way) LanternWaste Apr 2021 #75

This message was self-deleted by its author msfiddlestix Apr 2021 #33

Judge Yolanda Orozco is a Democrat. n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2021 #67

I miss- read and thought it was a Supreme Court of the United States decision msfiddlestix Apr 2021 #68

stop sending nudes, problem solved JuJuChen Apr 2021 #40

Victim blaming achievement unlocked. /nt tonedevil Apr 2021 #45

It's akin to blaming gun owners shot by their legally owned gun. Kaleva Apr 2021 #87

The gun owner is a poor example... tonedevil Apr 2021 #96

or at least leave your face out of them Skittles Apr 2021 #62

Yes. Kaleva Apr 2021 #86

I think people are being very naive Skittles Apr 2021 #97

It's common sense Kaleva Apr 2021 #104

Quit victim blaming obamanut2012 Apr 2021 #89

Revenge porn holds the Republican Party together. hunter Apr 2021 #46

Any photos of the judge? His wife? His daughters? LiberalFighter Apr 2021 #48

The judge is a she not a he and is a Democrat. n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2021 #72

Two thoughts bucolic_frolic Apr 2021 #49

The photographer Sgent Apr 2021 #100

Technically, they didn't publish it, her ex-husband did that Calista241 Apr 2021 #53

Yet another thread full of vile right wing posts. Right up there with the Scrivener7 Apr 2021 #55

The continued calcification of DU Blue_Adept Apr 2021 #59

+1 I'm continually fascinated about some of the group psychology that goes on here fescuerescue Apr 2021 #69

Yup, victim blaming, supporting JK Rowling's TERF views obamanut2012 Apr 2021 #88

My favorite was the hijacking of the thread about killings of black people by cops Scrivener7 Apr 2021 #92

Good lord, I somehow missed that obamanut2012 Apr 2021 #99

PM me your theory, because I am at a loss here. Scrivener7 Apr 2021 #93

Evil and horrendous Nululu Apr 2021 #56

"Any means necessary" czarjak Apr 2021 #61

"a partisan blog ... was exercising their first amendment right" PoliticAverse Apr 2021 #66

"Judge Yolanda Orozco ruled that ... the photos were matters of legitimate interest" PoliticAverse Apr 2021 #71

This isn't "uncharted legal territory" and the judge didn't rule that revenge porn is 1A protected FBaggins Apr 2021 #77

It's her ex she needs to go after on the revenge porn charge kcr Apr 2021 #83

Few people ever read past the headline fescuerescue Apr 2021 #98

Exactly correct... and this isn't even really a headline FBaggins Apr 2021 #103

Since CA is a community property state Sgent Apr 2021 #101

The First Amendment does not protect all speech in all circumstances dlk Apr 2021 #81

There isn't much that is prohibited Kaleva Apr 2021 #85

True dlk Apr 2021 #91

Essentially BGBD Apr 2021 #90

Better yet, if a guy wants some sexy pics, tell him to fuck off. Vinca Apr 2021 #94

yup BGBD Apr 2021 #95

non-compete clause DontBelieveEastisEas Apr 2021 #102