If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(11 Alive)   Florida legislators consider law to limit a Fark-worthy behavior, but don't worry, it's one we have surprisingly few Florida-tagged links about   (11alive.com) divider line 63
    More: Misc, Fark, florida, speed limits, internet, Internet Crime, Florida Today, third degree, legislators  
•       •       •

1966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-08 07:33:49 AM
Hey, here's a suggestion.  Don't let some d-bag take nude photos of you in the first place.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  He was the love of your life.

On a side note, i have a theory about anyone seeing me nude.  They looked and they are just going to have to live with the memory.
 
2013-03-08 07:45:53 AM
So it's okay to limit the 1st amendment, but not the 2nd Florida?
 
2013-03-08 07:46:13 AM

BillCo: Hey, here's a suggestion.  Don't let some d-bag take nude photos of you in the first place.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  He was the love of your life.

On a side note, i have a theory belief about anyone seeing me nude.  They looked and they are just going to have to live with the memory.


FTFM
 
2013-03-08 08:17:54 AM
Small government!
 
2013-03-08 08:25:56 AM
Will members or certain Islamic sects be able to prosecute if some someone cyber-leaks images of their un-burqaed body?

The definitions of naughty-bits can differ between people.

/Arrest that guy! He captured my soul in his magic box and posted it on the internet!
 
2013-03-08 08:31:58 AM
You'd think people would have learned by now that in this digital world, everything lives forever, and that includes those pictures of you in an Eiffel tower with your ex-boyfriend and his frat buddy.
 
2013-03-08 08:42:49 AM
I'm OK with this.  Most of the people from Florida-tagged articles aren't exactly the ones you'd want to see nekkid anyway.
 
2013-03-08 08:43:51 AM
A third-degree felony? For posting your ex's pictures on the 'net? That should strip ypu of your rights to vote and own a gun forever, and probably ensure that you can never again hold a decent job?

/There are way too many felonies nowadays that really should be misdemeanors, IMHO. This is one of them.
 
2013-03-08 08:51:27 AM

vinniethepoo: A third-degree felony? For posting your ex's pictures on the 'net? That should strip ypu of your rights to vote and own a gun forever, and probably ensure that you can never again hold a decent job?

/There are way too many felonies nowadays that really should be misdemeanors, IMHO. This is one of them.


What, you think our plutocrat overlords WANT us to be able to vote, have guns, and decent jobs?
What used to be out middle class is rapidly degenerating to somewhere between indentured servitude and serfdom. The poor are already there.
 
2013-03-08 08:53:13 AM
You really shouldn't let somebody take naked pictures of you if you don't want people to see naked pictures of you.
 
2013-03-08 08:58:43 AM

BillCo: Hey, here's a suggestion.  Don't let some d-bag take nude photos of you in the first place.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  He was the love of your life.

On a side note, i have a theory about anyone seeing me nude.  They looked and they are just going to have to live with the memory.


You sound fat...and Republican.
 
2013-03-08 09:02:57 AM

markfara: You really shouldn't let somebody take naked pictures of you if you don't want people to see naked pictures of you.


On the other hand, society is going to have to lighten up a little about nude shots. I modeled a couple times in college for a friend who was a photography major. It's really not a huge deal to have a couple pics floating around, and it shouldn't disqualify you from...well anything really.
 
2013-03-08 09:03:25 AM
Small government!*

*Does not include penis, vagina, uterus, semen or ovum, or anything related to those items.
 
2013-03-08 09:07:59 AM
It is difficult to imagine that anyone doesn't just assume that any photo taken of them will end up online.
 
2013-03-08 09:08:59 AM

vudutek: vinniethepoo: A third-degree felony? For posting your ex's pictures on the 'net? That should strip ypu of your rights to vote and own a gun forever, and probably ensure that you can never again hold a decent job?

/There are way too many felonies nowadays that really should be misdemeanors, IMHO. This is one of them.

What, you think our plutocrat overlords WANT us to be able to vote, have guns, and decent jobs?
What used to be out middle class is rapidly degenerating to somewhere between indentured servitude and serfdom. The poor are already there.


Anyway - this woman has a perfectly legitimate civil tort against her ex, if hr broke a contract (including a verbal one ) in posting it, and she should sue him. But the idea of making it a criminal matter is preposterous.
 
2013-03-08 09:09:35 AM
BIE?
 
2013-03-08 09:09:36 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: markfara: You really shouldn't let somebody take naked pictures of you if you don't want people to see naked pictures of you.

On the other hand, society is going to have to lighten up a little about nude shots. I modeled a couple times in college for a friend who was a photography major. It's really not a huge deal to have a couple pics floating around, and it shouldn't disqualify you from...well anything really.


Depending on how they look it might disqualify you from a date with someone and that is fair.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-08 09:10:16 AM
The proposed bill would prohibit "knowing use of a computer or other device to transmit or post any photograph or video of an individual which depicts nudity and contains specified information relating to the depicted individual without first obtaining the depicted person's written consent."

"Oh Jim that's such a cute picture of me please post it."

*click*

"Hello, 911? My cheating bastard boyfriend posted a naked picture of me on the internet. No, he did not have my written consent."
 
2013-03-08 09:13:25 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So it's okay to limit the 1st amendment, but not the 2nd Florida?


You know how I know you did not read the article?
//it makes it a crime to post pics of other people on the net without their permission not pics you own (aka free speech/expression)
 
2013-03-08 09:13:54 AM
"It actually creates a long-term victimization for our victims and, in fact, there's a couple examples where the victims have been so just so overrun by it and so depressed over it they've actually committed suicide."

Not to sound heartless, but if you kill yourself because your bare ass showed up on the Internet, something was going to get you sooner or later, anyway.
 
2013-03-08 09:17:03 AM

ZAZ: The proposed bill would prohibit "knowing use of a computer or other device to transmit or post any photograph or video of an individual which depicts nudity and contains specified information relating to the depicted individual without first obtaining the depicted person's written consent."

"Oh Jim that's such a cute picture of me please post it."

*click*

"Hello, 911? My cheating bastard boyfriend posted a naked picture of me on the internet. No, he did not have my written consent."


But if you do not put any information about the subject in the photos it is all good?
 
2013-03-08 09:20:43 AM
Young people are smart to take nude pictures before it's too late.
 
2013-03-08 09:28:41 AM
If someone comes at you with a camera phone when you're naked, can you use the "Stand Your Ground" defense if you pull a single-shot gun out of your hoo-ha and blow him away?
 
2013-03-08 09:29:51 AM

coeyagi: If someone comes at you with a camera phone when you're naked, can you use the "Stand Your Ground" defense if you pull a single-shot gun out of your hoo-ha and blow him away?


See yesterday's thread on woman with a gun hidden in the hoo-ha and this is not so outrageous.
 
2013-03-08 09:35:35 AM
The bill would probably only target only the most egregious cases anyway, the kind where a guy posts up personally identifiable pics and tells the world about it.  So it will cull the idiots.  Any smart guy that wanted to do this would say, nope, I didn't post those pics, but I did lose unencrypted copies of them on a SD card by a high school several months back...
 
2013-03-08 09:36:47 AM

fozziewazzi: The bill would probably only target only the most egregious cases anyway, the kind where a guy posts up personally identifiable pics and tells the world about it.  So it will cull the idiots.  Any smart guy that wanted to do this would say, nope, I didn't post those pics, but I did lose unencrypted copies of them on a SD card by a high school several months back...


So now they will ALSO be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor...
 
2013-03-08 09:36:53 AM

monoski: coeyagi: If someone comes at you with a camera phone when you're naked, can you use the "Stand Your Ground" defense if you pull a single-shot gun out of your hoo-ha and blow him away?

See yesterday's thread on woman with a gun hidden in the hoo-ha and this is not so outrageous.


For real?  That's pretty ridiculous.  I was just making that up.
 
2013-03-08 09:38:43 AM

monoski: coeyagi: If someone comes at you with a camera phone when you're naked, can you use the "Stand Your Ground" defense if you pull a single-shot gun out of your hoo-ha and blow him away?

See yesterday's thread on woman with a gun hidden in the hoo-ha and this is not so outrageous.


meh, I'd be more impressed if she could FIRE the gun with her hoo-ha.

csb

buddy of mine in the navy went on leave in mexico and told stories of strippers/dancers who could squat down on a stack of pesos with a red one on top and a blue one on the bottom... pick up the stack in their hoo-ha, giggle around a bit and then squeeze them out, red one first, blue one last.

/csb
 
2013-03-08 09:44:42 AM

Deneb81: fozziewazzi: The bill would probably only target only the most egregious cases anyway, the kind where a guy posts up personally identifiable pics and tells the world about it.  So it will cull the idiots.  Any smart guy that wanted to do this would say, nope, I didn't post those pics, but I did lose unencrypted copies of them on a SD card by a high school several months back...

So now they will ALSO be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor...


Not sure that there's a law regarding losing your porn.
 
2013-03-08 09:46:21 AM

jso2897: vudutek: vinniethepoo: A third-degree felony? For posting your ex's pictures on the 'net? That should strip ypu of your rights to vote and own a gun forever, and probably ensure that you can never again hold a decent job?

/There are way too many felonies nowadays that really should be misdemeanors, IMHO. This is one of them.

What, you think our plutocrat overlords WANT us to be able to vote, have guns, and decent jobs?
What used to be out middle class is rapidly degenerating to somewhere between indentured servitude and serfdom. The poor are already there.

Anyway - this woman has a perfectly legitimate civil tort against her ex, if hr broke a contract (including a verbal one ) in posting it, and she should sue him. But the idea of making it a criminal matter is preposterous.


Why is it preposterous?
 
2013-03-08 09:48:05 AM
There have to be several million women with nude pictures out in the wild.  Eventually the stigma will have to go away.
 
2013-03-08 09:54:22 AM

theknuckler_33: buddy of mine in the navy went on leave in mexico and told stories of strippers/dancers who could squat down on a stack of pesos with a red one on top and a blue one on the bottom... pick up the stack in their hoo-ha, giggle around a bit and then squeeze them out, red one first, blue one last.

/csb


That is skill. I saw a stripper pick up my buddy's beer without using her hands and the worst part was he finished it after she put it back.
 
2013-03-08 09:58:22 AM
That actually makes sense. The only exception I can see is if the pictures were taken out in public (nude beach, topless protest, etc...).
 
2013-03-08 09:58:36 AM

NateGrey: BillCo: Hey, here's a suggestion.  Don't let some d-bag take nude photos of you in the first place.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  He was the love of your life.

On a side note, i have a theory about anyone seeing me nude.  They looked and they are just going to have to live with the memory.

You sound fat...and Republican.


I prefer "stout" and "conservative".
 
2013-03-08 09:58:57 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: markfara: You really shouldn't let somebody take naked pictures of you if you don't want people to see naked pictures of you.

On the other hand, society is going to have to lighten up a little about nude shots. I modeled a couple times in college for a friend who was a photography major. It's really not a huge deal to have a couple pics floating around, and it shouldn't disqualify you from...well anything really.



We're going to need to see those pics to judge what impact they may or may not have on your future.
 
2013-03-08 10:02:00 AM
This sounds totally enforceable.
 
2013-03-08 10:05:09 AM

Fart_Machine: This sounds totally enforceable.


Ask the guy who took the Erin Andrews pics (that will have to be during visiting hours at the prison)
 
2013-03-08 10:06:17 AM
7 proxies - Good luck Etc.
 
2013-03-08 10:06:41 AM

monoski: You know how I know you did not read the article?
//it makes it a crime to post pics of other people on the net without their permission not pics you own (aka free speech/expression)


If you take a picture with a consensual subject, you have the right to display your art. Limiting someone's ability to display their art is a violation of their free speech.
 
2013-03-08 10:17:39 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: monoski: You know how I know you did not read the article?
//it makes it a crime to post pics of other people on the net without their permission not pics you own (aka free speech/expression)

If you take a picture with a consensual subject, you have the right to display your art. Limiting someone's ability to display their art is a violation of their free speech.



But if the image wasn't taken with the knowlege that it would be publicly disseminated (or with the understanding that it would not be) then the subject of the image has a civil action for invasion of privacy.
If the artist made money from the image, then the subject has an action for misappropriation of likeness.
 
2013-03-08 10:18:13 AM

monoski: Fart_Machine: This sounds totally enforceable.

Ask the guy who took the Erin Andrews pics (that will have to be during visiting hours at the prison)


Quite different when done without consent at the time.
 
2013-03-08 10:21:38 AM

jcooli09: jso2897: vudutek: vinniethepoo: A third-degree felony? For posting your ex's pictures on the 'net? That should strip ypu of your rights to vote and own a gun forever, and probably ensure that you can never again hold a decent job?

/There are way too many felonies nowadays that really should be misdemeanors, IMHO. This is one of them.

What, you think our plutocrat overlords WANT us to be able to vote, have guns, and decent jobs?
What used to be out middle class is rapidly degenerating to somewhere between indentured servitude and serfdom. The poor are already there.

Anyway - this woman has a perfectly legitimate civil tort against her ex, if hr broke a contract (including a verbal one ) in posting it, and she should sue him. But the idea of making it a criminal matter is preposterous.

Why is it preposterous?


For reasons that have been stated several times by several others in this thread, and which I will not condescend to repeat to you. Read the thread.
 
2013-03-08 10:22:56 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So it's okay to limit the 1st amendment, but not the 2nd Florida?


Control over the use of one's own image is a matter of property rights, and property rights trump everything else, amiright?
 
2013-03-08 10:23:45 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: monoski: You know how I know you did not read the article?
//it makes it a crime to post pics of other people on the net without their permission not pics you own (aka free speech/expression)

If you take a picture with a consensual subject, you have the right to display your art. Limiting someone's ability to display their art is a violation of their free speech.


See how my reply states clearly "without their permission" that implies the transaction is non-consensual
 
2013-03-08 10:26:32 AM

monoski: Fart_Machine: This sounds totally enforceable.

Ask the guy who took the Erin Andrews pics (that will have to be during visiting hours at the prison)


You mean the guy who was stalking her and got photos through a peephole?  Not quite the same thing.
 
2013-03-08 10:27:21 AM

wotthefark: monoski: Fart_Machine: This sounds totally enforceable.

Ask the guy who took the Erin Andrews pics (that will have to be during visiting hours at the prison)

Quite different when done without consent at the time.


The way this law is written the person posting it on the web will need explicit permission to put it on the internets. It really does not touch on how you got it. I think Erin's stalker got bonus time for his method of getting the pics. The point being is the source can be traced in most cases with some basic investigation work.
 
2013-03-08 10:27:43 AM

give me doughnuts: But if the image wasn't taken with the knowlege that it would be publicly disseminated (or with the understanding that it would not be) then the subject of the image has a civil action for invasion of privacy.
If the artist made money from the image, then the subject has an action for misappropriation of likeness.


And those are civil actions, which are completely different from a felony. It's the difference between being fined for downloading a song and being throw in jail.
 
2013-03-08 10:30:28 AM
"The proposed bill would prohibit "knowing use of a computer or other device to transmit or post any photograph or video of an individual which depicts nudity and contains specified information relating to the depicted individual without first obtaining the depicted person's written consent." "

If I'm reading this right, you can still post the pics and videos as long as you don't identify the subject?
 
2013-03-08 10:33:08 AM

monoski: See how my reply states clearly "without their permission" that implies the transaction is non-consensual


Sorry, there are two things going on here. I'll clarify.

Let's say someone takes an upskirt photo of a random person at a mall. The photo was taken without their permission and is a form of sexual violation. The person should go to jail.

Now, let's say I take a few pics of a girl, with her permission, and then we break-up or whatever, and I post the online. Unless we had a verbal agreement, or I use them for promotion (like the cover of a book or a billboard), they're my pictures. I'm the photographer - I took them. I don't need the model's continuing permission to put them on a website of my photography. To say that you need someone's permission to post them on the internet, after you obtained their permission to take the photo, is insane.

The article is taking about this second form, not the first.
 
2013-03-08 10:33:45 AM

monoski: wotthefark: monoski: Fart_Machine: This sounds totally enforceable.

Ask the guy who took the Erin Andrews pics (that will have to be during visiting hours at the prison)

Quite different when done without consent at the time.

The way this law is written the person posting it on the web will need explicit permission to put it on the internets. It really does not touch on how you got it. I think Erin's stalker got bonus time for his method of getting the pics. The point being is the source can be traced in most cases with some basic investigation work.


The stumbling block is going to be proving who put the pictures up.  Just because someone had possession of the originals doesn't mean that was the person who uploaded the pics.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report