In a remarkably scholarly post, Mark Bennett at Defending People explains why the model revenge porn law being promoted by Danielle Citron and Mary Anne Franks is constitutionally infirm, and why their arguments that the First Amendment doesn’t apply are, well, wrong.
I’m sure they will embrace his arguments and engage in a thoughtful discussion of the issues. Any time now.
Update 2 (See the bottom for update 1): Mark Bennett has done the heavy lifting in his scholarly deconstruction of the arguments in favor of a law criminalizing revenge porn, both by Franks as well as Danielle Citron. It’s thorough. It’s researched and cited.
And unlike the arguments in favor of undermining speech, it’s accurate and does not rely on false assertions as to the state of the law. Bennett’s post authoritatively answers the questions of those who want to leap over the law to reach their endgame.
I’m almost ashamed of myself for this title, because I have no doubt that University of Miami law school professor Mary Anne Franks comes by her opinion honestly, and has only the best of intentions in promoting her cause. The problem is her cause, like so many causes wrapped up in sexual politics, is the evisceration of free speech in the name of protecting women.
Gawker brings us the news, that a few New York legislators want to hop on the left coast revenge porn train to internet Nirvana. Hey, if California can do it, why not New York?
Last week, California criminalized revenge porn. Now, New York state legislators are proposing a bill that would also target people who distribute nude photos of others without their consent. Continue reading