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.

(International Business Times)   The State of Florida is Tired of Seeing Your Naughty Bits..."Revenge Porn" Bill Proposed, Makes Sharing Naked Pictures and Videos a Felony   (ibtimes.com) divider line 87
    More: Florida, florida, first-to-file, sex tapes, changing room, felony  
•       •       •

4890 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 1:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 12:02:53 PM
Someone is getting blackmailed!
 
2013-04-08 01:03:54 PM
"The State of Florida is Tired of Seeing Your Naughty Bits.. "

I am too, that's why I like looking at others.....
 
2013-04-08 01:04:44 PM
guess we can say goodbye to TF
 
2013-04-08 01:04:44 PM
We'll see how far this goes. (On the internet.)
 
2013-04-08 01:05:33 PM
Really, submitter?

FTFA:  "This is about a person posting an image that has no legitimate purpose but to harass a victim by associating it to their name, their social media with their personal identifiers. It puts them at risk, it puts them at emotional distress from the [effects] of these postings," said author of the bill Agent Daniel Ogden

It looks like the bill has a LOT more to do with the practice of slutshaming someone, or using pictures of an ex-lover without their permission, or taking compromising photos of someone without their consent, like upskirt shots. It doesn't make sharing naked pictures, or videos a felony unless you're doing it to fark someone over.

But I'll imagine you'll get plenty of bites anyway.
 
2013-04-08 01:07:25 PM
I thought revenge porn was putting an unmarked "Back Door Babes 6" disc in a "Transformers 3" case and returning it to the Redbox machine.
 
2013-04-08 01:07:48 PM
Who wants to see my dick?
 
2013-04-08 01:08:02 PM
Interesting that if FL. was proposing to limit, say "revenge gun buying" making it illegal to purchase a handgun for 3 months after the break-up of a marriage or long term relationship, we would hear no end to the howls of outrage about the trampling of Floridians sacred 2nd Amendment rights, including, probably ,from many of the people sponsoring this bill.  But when you infringe upon the 1st  the howl of outrage seem so much more muted.  Isn't the "small government" solution ot this problem to simply not let someone take naked pictures of you in the first place?    Sounds like these lawmakers want to replace personal responsibility with nanny-statism
 
2013-04-08 01:09:21 PM

Magorn: Interesting that if FL. was proposing to limit, say "revenge gun buying" making it illegal to purchase a handgun for 3 months after the break-up of a marriage or long term relationship, we would hear no end to the howls of outrage about the trampling of Floridians sacred 2nd Amendment rights, including, probably ,from many of the people sponsoring this bill.  But when you infringe upon the 1st  the howl of outrage seem so much more muted.  Isn't the "small government" solution ot this problem to simply not let someone take naked pictures of you in the first place?    Sounds like these lawmakers want to replace personal responsibility with nanny-statism


Jesus Christ. Isn't there a daily gun thread you can keep this stupidity inside of?

I also can see that you didn't RTFA, did you? Go on, admit it. You got suckered into the headline like everyone else will be, didn't you?
 
2013-04-08 01:11:31 PM
FTFA:"We've had students come forward, college students, that have found out that there were images of them posted online, and one of them in particular wanted to apply for a job as a teacher but is afraid to because of these postings in fear that someone may do an Internet search of her name and find these images, and she does not want that to affect her career," said Ogden.

Maybe she should have made better decisions.
 
2013-04-08 01:13:20 PM

hardinparamedic: Really, submitter?

FTFA:  "This is about a person posting an image that has no legitimate purpose but to harass a victim by associating it to their name, their social media with their personal identifiers. It puts them at risk, it puts them at emotional distress from the [effects] of these postings," said author of the bill Agent Daniel Ogden

It looks like the bill has a LOT more to do with the practice of slutshaming someone, or using pictures of an ex-lover without their permission, or taking compromising photos of someone without their consent, like upskirt shots. It doesn't make sharing naked pictures, or videos a felony unless you're doing it to fark someone over.

But I'll imagine you'll get plenty of bites anyway.


Your screen name should be DebbiDowner...
 
2013-04-08 01:14:30 PM

Pockafrusta: Your screen name should be DebbiDowner...


It's your tears of disappointment that fuel me, honestly. That's why I do it.

Crisp, clean, and refreshing to drink.
 
2013-04-08 01:15:06 PM

Boba Chet: I thought revenge porn was putting an unmarked "Back Door Babes 6" disc in a "Transformers 3" case and returning it to the Redbox machine.


that was you? I should be thanking you, way better movie choice.
 
2013-04-08 01:15:52 PM
Headline:  Bill Will Make It A Felony to Share Naked Photos, Sex Tapes in Florida 

Article: The proposed bill would make it a felony to publish nude photos or videos of a person online with their identifying information without their permission.

Bill:  A person may not knowingly use a computer or other device capable of electronic data transmission or distribution
to transmit or post to a website or any other social networking service, or cause to be posted to a website or any other social networking service, any photograph or video of an individual which depicts nudity and contains any of the depicted individual's personal identification information, as defined in s. 817.568, or counterfeit or fictitious information purporting to be such personal identification information, without first obtaining the depicted person's written consent unless the victim was photographed or videotaped in public and a lack of objection to the photography or videotaping could reasonably by implied by the victim's conduct.

Well those two details change the story just a tad from what is implied by the headline, don't they.  This bill doesn't even make it illegal to post naked videos or pictures without a person's consent (which would already be a tort, if not a crime, in most jurisdictions).  It only makes it illegal to post naked pictures or videos without their consent if you also include personal information.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing in this bill to get outraged, annoyed, or mildly concerned about.
 
2013-04-08 01:16:50 PM
What about showing just to the right of the very naughty bits indeed?
 
2013-04-08 01:18:39 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: FTFA:"We've had students come forward, college students, that have found out that there were images of them posted online, and one of them in particular wanted to apply for a job as a teacher but is afraid to because of these postings in fear that someone may do an Internet search of her name and find these images, and she does not want that to affect her career," said Ogden.

Maybe she should have made better decisions.


What a crappy world this would be if our lives were dictated by the stupid decisions we made before the age of 25.

[remembers graduate school]

goddammitsomuch
 
2013-04-08 01:22:04 PM

Talondel: This bill doesn't even make it illegal to post naked videos or pictures without a person's consent (which would already be a tort, if not a crime, in most jurisdictions). It only makes it illegal to post naked pictures or videos without their consent if you also include personal information


If someone can be identified by their face or some other distinctive feature like a conspicuous birthmark or tattoo, does that count?
 
2013-04-08 01:24:05 PM
Good luck with that. How about we maybe spend some time educating our young folks that NOTHING is ever expunged from the Interewbs...

Seriously.
 
2013-04-08 01:24:07 PM
I always assumed that if you let someone take nudie pics or video of you that it would end up on the internet.
 
2013-04-08 01:24:11 PM
Do they really have the prison space to handle the onslaught of criminals from spring break?
 
2013-04-08 01:24:50 PM
If they ban SlutShaming(tm), how are we going to shame sluts?
 
2013-04-08 01:25:14 PM

hardinparamedic: Magorn: Interesting that if FL. was proposing to limit, say "revenge gun buying" making it illegal to purchase a handgun for 3 months after the break-up of a marriage or long term relationship, we would hear no end to the howls of outrage about the trampling of Floridians sacred 2nd Amendment rights, including, probably ,from many of the people sponsoring this bill.  But when you infringe upon the 1st  the howl of outrage seem so much more muted.  Isn't the "small government" solution ot this problem to simply not let someone take naked pictures of you in the first place?    Sounds like these lawmakers want to replace personal responsibility with nanny-statism

Jesus Christ. Isn't there a daily gun thread you can keep this stupidity inside of?

I also can see that you didn't RTFA, did you? Go on, admit it. You got suckered into the headline like everyone else will be, didn't you?


NO I read TFA, and my legal analysis is just very different from yours.  I don't see a "unless somebody is embarassed by it" exception to the 1st Amendment, and making this a felony is utterly INSANE.  Really, you are in favor of someone losing their right to vote because they passed around a naked picture of their girlfriend?  There is already a perfectly adequate tort remedy for this in the tort of "Invasion of privacy" or even more specifically "intrusion upon seclusion".    The civil system is supposed to be used for the redress of purely private harms between individuals, and the criminal system is to be used only in the case of societal harm, this is why crimnal cases aren;t titled Mary Jones V. James Smth, but The people of the State of Florida v. James Smith.  And sorry, but I don;t think someone's momentary embarassment rises to the level of societal harm.   And Just for background, I say this as someone who attends/organizes an event that can be "clothing optional" and has had to actively police attempts by certain websites to inflitrate the event and post pictures of it online.   In all cases I found tort remedies, or in point of fact strongly worded letters threatening to avail the event of tort remedies, to be perfetly adequate to the task.
 
2013-04-08 01:27:19 PM
My issue with the proposed law is, how do you tell? What if the pictures are put up beforehand and then the nasty breakup and now it's claimed the pictures were put up as revenge?
 
2013-04-08 01:28:20 PM

Jekylman: antidisestablishmentarianism: FTFA:"We've had students come forward, college students, that have found out that there were images of them posted online, and one of them in particular wanted to apply for a job as a teacher but is afraid to because of these postings in fear that someone may do an Internet search of her name and find these images, and she does not want that to affect her career," said Ogden.

Maybe she should have made better decisions.

What a crappy world this would be if our lives were dictated by the stupid decisions we made before the age of 25.

[remembers graduate school]

goddammitsomuch


Not everyone under the age of 25 makes stupid decisions. Just the stupid people.
 
2013-04-08 01:38:56 PM

hardinparamedic: Really, submitter?

FTFA:  "This is about a person posting an image that has no legitimate purpose but to harass a victim by associating it to their name, their social media with their personal identifiers. It puts them at risk, it puts them at emotional distress from the [effects] of these postings," said author of the bill Agent Daniel Ogden

It looks like the bill has a LOT more to do with the practice of slutshaming someone, or using pictures of an ex-lover without their permission, or taking compromising photos of someone without their consent, like upskirt shots. It doesn't make sharing naked pictures, or videos a felony unless you're doing it to fark someone over.

But I'll imagine you'll get plenty of bites anyway.


You might want to look up what revenge porn means.
 
2013-04-08 01:38:59 PM

Korzine: My issue with the proposed law is, how do you tell? What if the pictures are put up beforehand and then the nasty breakup and now it's claimed the pictures were put up as revenge?


Since it asks for written consent, you're in the wrong if you can't produce said written consent.
 
2013-04-08 01:39:30 PM

hubiestubert: Good luck with that. How about we maybe spend some time educating our young folks that NOTHING is ever expunged from the Interewbs...


I'm curious as to how sex ed classes may have changed since I was a kid. I bet there's a whole hour dedicated to this complete with a public speaker coming in who was either prosecuted at 16 for sharing his 15 year old girlfriend's naked picture or a woman who lost her job as a day care provider when a porn clip was surfaced.

Korzine: My issue with the proposed law is, how do you tell? What if the pictures are put up beforehand and then the nasty breakup and now it's claimed the pictures were put up as revenge?


Aren't most photos/video clips dated?
 
2013-04-08 01:44:12 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: If someone can be identified by their face or some other distinctive feature like a conspicuous birthmark or tattoo, does that count?


Here is how the related statute defines 'personal identification information'

(f) "Personal identification information" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any:
1. Name, postal or electronic mail address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, mother's maiden name, official state-issued or United States-issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, Medicaid or food assistance account number, bank account number, credit or debit card number, or personal identification number or code assigned to the holder of a debit card by the issuer to permit authorized electronic use of such card;2. Unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation;3. Unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code;4. Medical records;5. Telecommunication identifying information or access device; or6. Other number or information that can be used to access a person's financial resources.
So no, I do not believe that a birthmark or face would count.  This section does mention 'other unique physical representation' as a prohibited item, but that is in the context of 'unique biometric data', not just generic images.  For example, it would be illegal to tie the image to a person's fingerprint data, but not to a picture of the person's finger, even if the fingerprint was visible.  The same would presumably apply to pictures of faces.

As I mentioned, this is somewhat redundant because in most jurisdictions this is already 'tortious' conduct, although not criminal.  This would be covered by the tort of 'publication of private facts.'  A lawsuit for publication of private facts can be established by showing that a private fact was publicly disclosed, that the disclosure would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person, and that the private fact was not newsworthy.  See, Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal.4th 200 (1998).

So anyone who is thinking about posting naked pictures of an ex without their consent, you should be prepared to get sued (and lose) regardless of whether or not your state has a law similar to this on the books.
 
2013-04-08 01:47:02 PM

WhippingBoy: Jekylman: antidisestablishmentarianism: FTFA:"We've had students come forward, college students, that have found out that there were images of them posted online, and one of them in particular wanted to apply for a job as a teacher but is afraid to because of these postings in fear that someone may do an Internet search of her name and find these images, and she does not want that to affect her career," said Ogden.

Maybe she should have made better decisions.

What a crappy world this would be if our lives were dictated by the stupid decisions we made before the age of 25.

[remembers graduate school]

goddammitsomuch

Not everyone under the age of 25 makes stupid decisions. Just the stupid people.


Stupid, immature, same difference.
 
2013-04-08 01:47:36 PM

Korzine: My issue with the proposed law is, how do you tell? What if the pictures are put up beforehand and then the nasty breakup and now it's claimed the pictures were put up as revenge?


Hence why the bill requires written consent.  If you get the permission in writing, then it is quite easy to tell if permission was obtained.

But aside from that, I doubt that even someone in a relationship is going to consent to you posting their naked picture on the internet, along with a copy of their drivers license, or their name, home address, etc.  And that is what this law prohibits.  If you just put up the picture without any identifying information, it's not a crime.
 
2013-04-08 01:48:39 PM

Talondel: AngryJailhouseFistfark: If someone can be identified by their face or some other distinctive feature like a conspicuous birthmark or tattoo, does that count?

Here is how the related statute defines 'personal identification information'

(f) "Personal identification information" means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any:
1. Name, postal or electronic mail address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, mother's maiden name, official state-issued or United States-issued driver's license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, Medicaid or food assistance account number, bank account number, credit or debit card number, or personal identification number or code assigned to the holder of a debit card by the issuer to permit authorized electronic use of such card;2. Unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation;3. Unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code;4. Medical records;5. Telecommunication identifying information or access device; or6. Other number or information that can be used to access a person's financial resources.
So no, I do not believe that a birthmark or face would count.  This section does mention 'other unique physical representation' as a prohibited item, but that is in the context of 'unique biometric data', not just generic images.  For example, it would be illegal to tie the image to a person's fingerprint data, but not to a picture of the person's finger, even if the fingerprint was visible.  The same would presumably apply to pictures of faces.

As I mentioned, this is somewhat redundant because in most jurisdictions this is already 'tortious' conduct, although not criminal.  This would be covered by the tort of 'publication of private facts.'  A lawsu ...


Worth Noting that I occasionally work with some government agencies on "de-identifcation" issues, and it is the considered view of several leading experts in theifeild that posting as much as a zip code is considered PII if the town it correlates to has less than 35,000 people
 
2013-04-08 01:49:10 PM
All my stuff has signed releases and is USC 18-2257 compliant.
 
2013-04-08 01:51:30 PM

Talondel: Korzine: My issue with the proposed law is, how do you tell? What if the pictures are put up beforehand and then the nasty breakup and now it's claimed the pictures were put up as revenge?

Hence why the bill requires written consent.  If you get the permission in writing, then it is quite easy to tell if permission was obtained.

But aside from that, I doubt that even someone in a relationship is going to consent to you posting their naked picture on the internet, along with a copy of their drivers license, or their name, home address, etc.  And that is what this law prohibits.  If you just put up the picture without any identifying information, it's not a crime.


SO, as I read the bill, if you so much as say, brought a camera along to World Naked Bike Ride Day, and then posted pictures of the event in your facebook gallery, and someone else "tagged" a participant in the photo, one, or possibly both of you have now committed a felony under Florida law
 
2013-04-08 01:58:49 PM
Looks like some public official got offended.
 
2013-04-08 02:00:56 PM

Talondel: As I mentioned, this is somewhat redundant because in most jurisdictions this is already 'tortious' conduct, although not criminal. This would be covered by the tort of 'publication of private facts.' A lawsuit for publication of private facts can be established by showing that a private fact was publicly disclosed, that the disclosure would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person, and that the private fact was not newsworthy. See, Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal.4th 200 (1998).


That doesn't cover nudity.  You don't have any particular right to protect your naked body's publication in any circumstance in which the person taking the picture had the legal right to do so.  You can certainly try suing, but you lose and mostly just publicize the existence and authenticity of such pictures.  This is a restriction of copyright law, whether people want it to be or not, whether or not vaginas and breasts are involved.  It wouldn't survive the courts who have ruled over and over on this issue. They MAY be able to get away with blocking commercial use, and go after the websites that make money off the commercial use of images created for private use, but the courts haven't traditionally looked favorably on protecting the right to be slutty anonymously.
 
2013-04-08 02:02:14 PM
Good.  Posting nekkid pictures of someone not yourself, without their permission, *should* be a felony.
 
2013-04-08 02:04:29 PM
Like someone's going to stay up 'til the wee hours just before the law goes into effect, and dump all those nasty pictures of the Florida legislators and their girlfriends on the internets. Oh, the shamed manatee.
 
2013-04-08 02:07:39 PM

Mr Guy: Talondel: As I mentioned, this is somewhat redundant because in most jurisdictions this is already 'tortious' conduct, although not criminal. This would be covered by the tort of 'publication of private facts.' A lawsuit for publication of private facts can be established by showing that a private fact was publicly disclosed, that the disclosure would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person, and that the private fact was not newsworthy. See, Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. 18 Cal.4th 200 (1998).

That doesn't cover nudity.  You don't have any particular right to protect your naked body's publication in any circumstance in which the person taking the picture had the legal right to do so.  You can certainly try suing, but you lose and mostly just publicize the existence and authenticity of such pictures.  This is a restriction of copyright law, whether people want it to be or not, whether or not vaginas and breasts are involved.  It wouldn't survive the courts who have ruled over and over on this issue. They MAY be able to get away with blocking commercial use, and go after the websites that make money off the commercial use of images created for private use, but the courts haven't traditionally looked favorably on protecting the right to be slutty anonymously.


Turning to ye olde Restatement: I'd say you could make a decent case for wither of these torts in that situation:
652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.



Though I'd say your case would be MUCH stronger if the picture were taken surreptitiously.  But even absent that there is :


§ 22.05 Public Disclosure of Private Facts [457-460]


The tort elements include (1) publicity of (2) private facts (3) highly offensive to a reasonable person which are (4) not of a legitimate public interest.[See Restatement § 652D.]


The requirement that the facts be private has been rigorously enforced by courts. For example, the United States Supreme Court has held in two cases that information even unintentionally placed in the public record and thus subject to inspection cannot be actionable under the First Amendment.[See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25270&keyt num=0&searchtype=get&search=420+U%2ES%2E++469">420 U.S. 469 (1975); The Florida Star v. B.J.F., http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25270&keyt num=0&searchtype=get&search=491+U%2ES%2E++524">491 U.S. 524 (1989).]



the "fact" in question may be no more than "what I look like naked"  but it would still seem to qualify on all elements
 
2013-04-08 02:14:07 PM

Magorn: Really, you are in favor of someone losing their right to vote because they passed around a naked picture of their girlfriend?


Without said girlfriend's consent? Yeah, I'm okay with that. Hell, since it's really a concerted attempt by a group to spread fear through a population, it should probably be classified as domestic terrorism.
 
2013-04-08 02:21:06 PM
I think it is time to remove all porn from the internet.   Think of the available bandwidth we would have.

I know our forefathers guaranteed freedom of speech, but I do not think that included allowing a 12-year-old to go on line and watch a farkfest.

Maybe it's time to crowdsource the solution.
 
2013-04-08 02:22:21 PM
Good on them for this. Now 2 points:

1) "Computer of Electronic Device Harassment" Even Florida has no excuse for this abomination of language.

2) CSB: The girlfriend told me she still has men texting her and asking her to send nudes. I asked her how she responds "I've just been sending them the c*ck shots you send me."

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 02:25:32 PM

Theaetetus: Magorn: Really, you are in favor of someone losing their right to vote because they passed around a naked picture of their girlfriend?

Without said girlfriend's consent? Yeah, I'm okay with that. Hell, since it's really a concerted attempt by a group to spread fear through a population, it should probably be classified as domestic terrorism.


i21.photobucket.com

/the "nude selfies sent to bf" population?
//not that the original point was off, but seriously wtf?
 
2013-04-08 02:25:49 PM

Magorn: Turning to ye olde Restatement: I'd say you could make a decent case for wither of these torts in that situation:


Like I said, the critical bit has always been maintained is that you have the right to any picture that you can legally take.  You can certainly sue that you showed someone what you looked like naked, and they took a picture, but so far, everyone who has tried has failed.   Courts have essentially rules that if you want to get naked in front of someone, check them for cameras first.  If they don't use them commercially, you lose your right to privacy when you allow the picture to be taken, or when you put yourself in a position where a picture could be taken from a vantage point not under your direct control.

Ask Jennifer Aniston about telephoto lenses and beach front properties, and what the court thinks of your right to privacy.  She won't tell you, however, because she got the lawsuit sealed to avoid admitting it was essentially thrown out.
 
2013-04-08 02:35:36 PM

Theaetetus: Magorn: Really, you are in favor of someone losing their right to vote because they passed around a naked picture of their girlfriend?

Without said girlfriend's consent? Yeah, I'm okay with that. Hell, since it's really a concerted attempt by a group to spread fear through a population, it should probably be classified as domestic terrorism.



consider this: slut-shaming only works because women have accepted and internalized an archaic societal more that there is something shameful about having a healthy interest in sex, or that when someone surreptiously views a photo of them without their clothes on that THEY are the ones who should be ashamed, not the voyeur. You notice we all look at this as a way to protect WOMEN? Why aren't men equally ashamed at have their junk plastered all over the Internet? After all, they've got something to be much more potentially embarrassed about, especially if their equipment is in the "petite" range. Yet in general, men don't get that overwhelming sense of shame and embarrassment, and instead often react with a measure of perverse pride when they end up naked online because their societal conditioning is 180 degs different from women. Wouldn't we be doing a much better thing for women if we just accepted how normal this really is, rather than legally confirming that this is a shameful and awful thing by making them the "victim" of a crime when it happens?
 
2013-04-08 02:39:03 PM

Magorn: Theaetetus: Magorn: Really, you are in favor of someone losing their right to vote because they passed around a naked picture of their girlfriend?

Without said girlfriend's consent? Yeah, I'm okay with that. Hell, since it's really a concerted attempt by a group to spread fear through a population, it should probably be classified as domestic terrorism.


consider this: slut-shaming only works because women have accepted and internalized an archaic societal more that there is something shameful about having a healthy interest in sex, or that when someone surreptiously views a photo of them without their clothes on that THEY are the ones who should be ashamed, not the voyeur. You notice we all look at this as a way to protect WOMEN? Why aren't men equally ashamed at have their junk plastered all over the Internet? After all, they've got something to be much more potentially embarrassed about, especially if their equipment is in the "petite" range. Yet in general, men don't get that overwhelming sense of shame and embarrassment, and instead often react with a measure of perverse pride when they end up naked online because their societal conditioning is 180 degs different from women. Wouldn't we be doing a much better thing for women if we just accepted how normal this really is, rather than legally confirming that this is a shameful and awful thing by making them the "victim" of a crime when it happens?


You're missing the real point.  A lot of people think it has to be made a horrific crime, because their girlfriends won't send them pictures of their boobs at work when they are having a bad day, because they don't trust them not to publish them online.  We protect the boobies, because we worship the boobies.
 
2013-04-08 02:39:09 PM
ok florida, now you have crossed a line!   you are out of control!!!
 
2013-04-08 02:41:07 PM
From the headline I was initially all: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! But after I RTFA: imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-04-08 02:55:42 PM
My current GF says that if I ever show anyone the pics or videos she sends me she will cut off lil Groppet and the twins and I believe her. I still have a bunch of nudes of the worst ex Ive ever had. Im saving them just in case she ever tries to get back in my life and I dont want her anywhere near me.
 
2013-04-08 02:57:08 PM
Ehn, its naked people from Florida though, who cares? ;)
 
2013-04-08 02:59:41 PM
Guys, if we don't support laws like this the wimmin are gonna stop letting us take dirty pics of them.  Then what will we do in our lonely old ages?
 
Displayed 50 of 87 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