Thanks to California’s law banning what is termed as “revenge porn,” a recent conviction will hopefully lead to the end of the trend.
The law refers to a recent practice of mostly men releasing intimate pictures of women after their relationships have ended as a means to harass and humiliate them.
This trend is disgusting, and despite the criticism of California’s law, the law is at least a step in ending it.
A California case in particular concerns a 36-year-old man named Noe ?Iniguez.
According to the Huffington Post, Iniguez posted nude photos of his ex-girlfriend on her employer’s Facebook page, as well as personal insults that called for her to be fired.
He was sentenced to a year in jail with 36 months of probation and domestic ?violence counseling.
The popularity of this particular crime means many women can sympathize with the victim here. Even the HBO show “The Newsroom” featured a story in which a female character went through emotional humiliation and harassment ?because of revenge porn.
These kinds of remarks and actions can and do have an effect on their victims. In the California case, this woman’s employment was put at risk, but in all cases, this kind of emotional humiliation can be detrimental to the psyche.
It is a violation of privacy by someone who was obviously trusted by that woman. It is a weaponization of a woman’s own body to inflict emotional violence on her. It often results in harassment from strangers, and many websites that publish these pictures charge the victims to have them taken down, which adds economic ?consequences, as well.
It is disgusting, and the people who perpetuate this trend deserve to be ?punished by the law.
However, whether or not California’s incarnation of the law is exactly right is up for some debate.
Some people, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, worry this bill is too broad and could be used to prohibit too much speech.
Sandra Staub, legal director of the ACLU of Connecticut, claimed that under the bill, anyone who had willingly displayed nudity in public might later regret it and be able to use this bill as a means of removing evidence from the Internet. The problem with this analogy is the intent of the distributor.
The law states it is illegal if the poster intends to “harass, annoy, alarm or ?terrorize another person.”
Not just any nude picture is suddenly illegal, just those used specifically for ?emotional violence.
On the other hand, Eric Goldman, a contributor for Forbes Magazine, claims the bill does not go far enough.
As it stands now, the bill doesn’t cover pictures taken by the victim. Selfies are still not protected under this ?California law.
This seems like a huge oversight. Even if the victim took the pictures, they are still being distributed without their consent and against their will. They are still doing emotional ?damage.
Both of these points prove that the California bill is not perfect. But the idea behind prohibiting this malicious and disgusting practice is good and should be followed by other states. Perhaps the more legislation that is passed, the closer we can get to the perfect ?solution.
jordrile@indiana.edu
