General Discussion

BGBD

(3,282 posts)

95. yup

Reply to Vinca (Reply #94)

Fri Apr 23, 2021, 01:30 PM

Apr 2021

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