Revenge porn webs sites? Oh gee… | Sidebar for Plaintiffs

“The good news, I suppose, is that the young women mentioned in the article are suing. They are not committing suicide. Their lives have been hideously messed with, as you’ll read. They’ve got a lot of guts.

But still …”

Revenge porn webs sites? Oh gee… | Sidebar for Plaintiffs.

But still what, Naomi?

Is the answer to call the victims “dumb” and their actions “short-sighted”? In the simplest of arguments, when that’s the furthest an individual’s intelligence will stretch, it may seem the only plausible answer.

Let us harken back to the days of yore, Naomi. To the days when men asked women for their phone numbers as it was their only means of communication.

Remember those days?

It seems even then with such primitive technology, there was a need for laws that put a stop to criminal behavior. Remember harassment? Good old fashioned harassment…a course of conduct…oh, wait.  You’re an attorney. You already know the details.

What’s that you say, Naomi? You’re not an attorney?

Well, then you must be a victim…oh. Not that either.

Ok, then…seems you need an education, Naomi.

Here is an excerpt of a post from the website Concurring Opinions. The author, Professor Danielle Keats Citron, is a law professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and an affiliate scholar at the Stanford Center on Internet and Society and Yale Information Society Project:

Blaming the Victim: Been There Before

posted by 

Let me build on Professor Franks’s incisive post on the blaming-the-victim response in the revenge porn context.  As Franks rightly notes, a recurring response to women’s suffering is to blame the victims.  As I discussed here, cyber harassment victims are often told that they provoked the abuse by blogging in their own names, sending pictures to boyfriends, or writing about sex.  The public said the same about domestic violence and sexual harassment.  Society minimized the culpability of the abusers and maximized the responsibility of victims to justify those practices.  Law certainly was not necessary to address them.  Then, as now, the public refused help to blameworthy women.

Before the 1970s, society tolerated abuse of so-called “recalcitrant” wives.  The public’s attitude was that the battering was justified by the wife’s provocations.  The notion was that if the woman had been a neater housekeeper, a more submissive helpmate, or a more compliant sexual partner, “her nose would not have been broken, her eye would still be uncut, [and] bruises would never have marked her thighs.”  Judges and caseworkers asked battered wives to accept responsibility for provoking violence, rather than assessing their abusers’ conduct.

– See more at:

Get it now, Naomi?

Fourth Estate : Ex lovers victimized with revenge porn

“It’s a travesty people are so cruel to release pictures and videos of those they once cared about. Just because a picture was taken and given consensually does not automatically give the right to release the image for any reason, especially for retaliation.

“Those who might think, ‘Well, you shouldn’t have taken those photos,’” said NBC News writer Suzanne Choney, “aren’t living in the real world of what has become, especially for a younger generation, a cultural, technological phenomenon as normal as tweeting and texting.”

This is absolutely true. The current generation, who were raised their whole lives with powerful technology, are not as afraid or skeptical as the generation before them. Without a fear of technology and what it can do, there is a failure to see the powerful repercussions one seemingly small decision can cause.

Revenge porn isn’t going to go away overnight and laws should be in place to protect images that are taken in private with the intention they stay private.

Regardless, if anyone thinks the pictures should never have been taken, a person shouldn’t have to suffer great emotional distress for years due to a choice made in trust, whether it was a mistake or not.”

via Fourth Estate : Ex lovers victimized with revenge porn.

Victims Push Laws to End Online Revenge Posts

From an article in The New York Times by Erica Goode:

“And some experts, like Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, have said that any state law would be vulnerable to First Amendment challenges. 

But Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he saw no constitutional obstacle to a law written narrowly to address naked or sexual images distributed without permission. 

“I think that’s a kind of invasion of privacy that the courts would say can be prohibited,” he said. 

An example of what such a law might look like has been drafted by a law professor at the University of Miami, Mary Anne Franks, and posted on the website, founded by Jacobs.” Announces Solution Fighting Revenge Porn

Until revenge porn is criminalized, this is an option for victims to protect themselves.

Unfortunately, it is an expensive service. The FAQ page states, “Our services start at $399 and go up to $1,000,000 and more.” This is for the initial package, a one-time clean up. They do offer month to month services, but do not quote a price on their site. Announces Solution Fighting Revenge Porn – Press Release – Digital Journal.

“The solution is different. Victims can simply contact the company, outlining where their photos appear, and the tech team will quickly and efficiently wipe those photos from the sites in question. The team will also ensure that the Google “cache” is cleared, so the photos will not appear in thumbnail form on a search for the person’s name. The service is up and running now, and it will stay in place, regardless of the outcome in California.”

%d bloggers like this: