.

Spurned Lovers, Take Note: IL May Ban Revenge Porn

Rep. Scott Drury has proposed legislation that would make posting explicit photos of someone without their consent a felony sex crime.

An angry ex can be an unpleasant thing. An angry ex with naked photos of you who isn’t afraid to post them online is terrifying.

That’s the concept behind “revenge porn.” And it’s what Rep. Scott Drury (D-Highwood) is hoping to outlaw in Illinois with a bill he introduced this week.

“This is behavior that isn’t going to be tolerated,” he said.

Under the bill, any non-consensual dissemination of sexually explicit materials would become a felony, classified as a sex crime. Consequences would be more severe if the victim is a minor or disabled.

Drury said he was motivated not by any specific incident, but as a father of two young kids who are connected to the Internet all the time. He hopes this bill will protect children, as well as woman, who make up the vast majority of revenge porn victims.

Only two other states, California and New Jersey, currently have laws banning revenge porn. Drury said his bill goes beyond those in terms of labeling the offense a sex crime. The bill also allows for the forfeiture of any profits made from the photos, which is a way of targeting for-profit sites that post them.

Last week, Hunter Moore, dubbed the “revenge porn king” was indicted by the FBI for allegedly hacking into computers to retrieve nude photos. Moore’s now defunct site, IsAnyoneUp, encouraged angry exes to post revenge porn.

What do you think? Does Illinois need a law banning revenge porn?

Stu Pidasso February 01, 2014 at 05:23 PM
Agreed!! This tool needs to go!!
David Greenberg February 01, 2014 at 11:55 PM
Another Politician who doesn't understand how computers work. As an ex-prosecutor he really ought to know better - you have to PROVE someone posted the photos. There's many possible explanations as to how a picture could have ended up on a site... This whole thing is a complete waste of time. We already have many laws dealing with pornographic photos of minors - so his proposed addition is superfluous. Those who have their photos posted have several remedies as well - copyright claims, DMCA, etc. Civil suits. There's really no reason forthe State to pass any other laws. Just enforce what we have now... Unless it involves a minor, this is really a civil matter.
Moe @ the Buck February 02, 2014 at 11:06 AM
The only people who need to worry about this is people who have naked pictures of themselves floating around.Scott, you should just try to get the photos back from your ex, and stop wasting all the resources, nobody cares about your hairy butt. So disappointed in my generation, all about video games and meds they've taken since they were children:( sorry to the rock hard generations before mine.
Walter (Tripp) Hainsfurther February 02, 2014 at 08:18 PM
Gee, I guess someone should tell that bastion of liberalism the Chicago Tribune how misguided this law is, since they endorsed it in today's paper. They point out that several other places, including Gov. Christe's New Hersey have similar laws, which are, in the Trib's opinion, necessary and warranted. Sorry boys, but I'll take their opinion over yours any day.
Jack Straw February 03, 2014 at 12:29 AM
Trippie yea, Chicago trib has not had a conservative voice in 10 years. My opinion would be tell your daughters to keep the old bra on and don't text something you might regret later. This Scott drury is a little man that's has political aspirations that he will build 100 percent on the backs of suburban woeman. Hell if liquor prohibition would get him a vote he would support that. He is a little coward that hides under the skirts the gals he says he supports.
Jack Straw February 03, 2014 at 01:14 AM
Ok let me get this straight, some silly 18 year old boy sends a pic to his buddies that his one night stand girl sent him. This would make him a felon a sexual predictor ! WOW. This generation of democrats is really willing to lay wast to the younger generation. Aren't you the folks that brought us Big Bill Clinton and Al lascivious Gore.
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 09:04 AM
The law actually make sense to deal with a phenomenon that only came about due to social media. If a person isn't going to post pics and violate the new law, then the existence of the statute should be of no concern. Any one that deliberately sets out to ruin someone's life in that fashion deserves to get tagged as a registered sex offender.
Jack Straw February 03, 2014 at 09:23 AM
A naked picture on the Internet is hardly ruining someone's life. Here is an old fashion idea teach children personal responsibility.
Jack Straw February 03, 2014 at 09:28 AM
Now here it is if the girl is over the age of 18 and sends naked pictures of herself to a guy then all is fair. People like Scott and Jason need to grow up.
David Greenberg February 03, 2014 at 09:45 AM
In my eyes - a "Sex offender" is a rapist, child molester, pedophile, child pornographer. Someone over 18 sending out a pic of someone else over 18? A case of testosterone poisoning maybe, but "sex offender"? Someone who should register on a list? No. You don't like the way a pic of you is being used? Sue the offender. It's not a criminal case.
Highlands HP'er February 03, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Getting it labeled as "sex offender" is the part that is insane. This would only serve to water down the meaning. You wan't people to take the term "sex offender" seriously. The other part I don't fully understand is the jurisdiction. I'd assume they'd have to prove you uploaded the pictures in Illinois? Illinois doesn't have the power or authority to regulate the internet/interstate commerce. Or does it matter where the web servers are? I guess this is a "feel good" law since I simply can't see how this can be realistically enforced.
David Greenberg February 03, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Actually, we ought to just call this legislation what it is: "The Slut Protection Act". Essentially, you have some consenting adults who engaged in sexual activities, and now that someone else might find out, one of the parties is embarrassed, afraid their parents might find out, afraid a friend might find out that was pining for one of the participants, etc... "Oh, I'm a good [girl | boy], I'd never do that... It's wrong...". "Oh those pictures, well, ummm...I guess I'm a hypocrite" - that's the real problem. Someone unwilling to admit they did something that they publicly consider bad, but they privately enjoyed... Big whoop... Live with it. If you really can't - go sue the other party, but 'sex offender'? Oy... what a crock. This is why government-maintained lists are so bad - they continue to expand and expand...
David Greenberg February 03, 2014 at 10:58 AM
What if the act took place in Texas, you're now in Utah, upload the photo to a cloud service in Iceland, via a WIFI connection in Utah that has a VPN link to an anonymizing service on the Sealand platform, and they replicate it to a server in Illinois that you don't know about? How do you prove that person X actually uploaded the photo if they don't admit it? Phone's can be cloned. Internet addresses and MAC addresses can be spoofed. Routers can be hacked. Routes can be poisoned. The phone could be stolen and the thief could upload the photo - purposely or accidentally. The phone could be stolen "permanently" or "temporarily" - where someone grabbed it without one's knowledge or consent, used it, and then put it back again w/o one's knowledge of consent. Phone's are setup to share information with Bluetooth, WIFI, Cell connections, and now NFC - all of which can be hacked - someone hacks someone's phone while they're at the airport, and posts the photos? Lots of questions to consider and all for a civil matter... *sigh*
Highlands HP'er February 03, 2014 at 11:03 AM
david- Except in the cases of minors and the disabled... I couldn't imagine this law ever even being attempted to be enforced. I just don't think law enforcement and DA's will have much sympathy for adults who give their pictures away and find them on the internet. Its also such a difficult case to prove, likely, if anything, they will use the stiff penalties of the crime to bully the accused in to pleading down to something less severe.
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 11:09 AM
The mere act of attempting to enforce the law would give some people what they deserve...uploading the photos with the intention of some type of "revenge" certainly does warrant tarring the person as a sex offender...too bad
Highlands HP'er February 03, 2014 at 11:20 AM
Jordan- This is a bad idea. The sex offender list has already started to appear a bit like a joke. The databases contain homosexuals who got prosecuted for sodomy laws (back when homosexuality was illegal). It also contains those who were charged with indecent exposure (this can include college streakers, concert goers showing their chest, dumb pranks), as well as teenagers charged for having sex with other teenagers. Its gotten to the point where you look at the sex offender list in your area and you have to ask "Ok... should i be afraid of this person or was it just a stupid thing". Its making the list less useful.
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 11:29 AM
The inclusion of someone who is gay for sodomy or a streaker is totally in appropriate. In the context you place the harm question I won't agree. The idea of putting the "predicate felon" label on a person that engages in the conduct together with the disenfranchisement and all of the related consequences of being convicted of a felony should absolutely attach to an individual taht engages in the conduct with malice.
Highlands HP'er February 03, 2014 at 12:45 PM
Jordan- Though I disagree with the severity of the punishment... I also disagree with the definition. This bill doesn't mean just "naked pictures". Remember the photo of the soldier kissing the nurse coming home from fighting ww2? The wording of the bill could make disseminating THAT photo a felony. It outlaws the dissemination of photos containing "sexual acts" which includes "any act of lewd fondling, touching, or caressing involving another person". His kiss and arms around her wait could be interpreted as a sexual act. If you think sane minds will prevail, just read about the 4 year old in waco who was accused of sexual harassment for hugging a teacher aide. Actually.. there are many cases of toddlers being called sexual predators for hugging or kissing. Pretty soon, the problem wont be "revenge porn" and it will be "revenge prosecution".
David Greenberg February 03, 2014 at 12:56 PM
Highlands: I agree - too many well-intentioned laws are abused by Prosecutors looking for a conviction on *something*. "Oh, you don't want to be labeled a sex offender do you? Then plea to this, or take your chances with the Jury. But you know what happens when people hear 'sex crime'... So do you feel lucky?" Jordan: PROVE malice. It's pretty difficult. We're talking about photos created by two consenting adults ending up someplace that one of them doesn't wish they did - how this rises to the level of a a criminal matter I have no idea. This is a very slippery slope to step on to - other civil matters could become criminalized. Two parties to a contract - one doesn't like how the other is using the item sold to the first party - claims some damage to their reputation, and then what? Civil or criminal? Let's take a car company - they sell you a car. You use it to drive through a mall and plow down a bunch of people. Assuming it was an intentional act - it's criminal to be sure. But should the CAR company be able to sue you for using the vehicle they sold you to commit a crime, thereby making them look bad? This is a similar issue. If the pictures weren't consensual, then it falls under a different statute - invasion of privacy, stalking, recording without proper notification, recording in a 'private' place.... There's a bunch of acts that apply. Why do we need more? Someone feels bullied? Fight back - it usually gets the bullies to stop. If they don't - you can always sue them.
Jack Straw February 03, 2014 at 01:10 PM
Each action shall have an equal reaction. David as usual your common senses is appreciated. It's just to bad most folk only see the round ball not the onion it is.
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 02:07 PM
To HELL with having to prove malice...let the burden of proving the absence of malice fall on the accused. This it NOT a civil matter you publish the pics you demonstrate requisite scienter which means you ahve a black heart and you deserve to bear the burden. The slope isn't slippery...you undertake an action with intent to harm you deserve a felony conviction and time in prison....very simple
Highlands HP'er February 03, 2014 at 02:33 PM
Jordan- Right on. Lets get those DA's prosecuting those parents on facebook. I have a dozen or so friends with baby butt pictures. Lets get some felony convictions! lets put those children in foster care and those parents in jail where they all belong.
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 02:38 PM
Nice attempt at shifting context...we both know PRECISELY what the proposed statute is targeted at...and I for one am NOT going to be STUPIDLY paranoid over misapplication of the law.
Highlands HP'er February 03, 2014 at 04:41 PM
Paranoid about misapplication of the law? I think you are naive. Let me lay out a scenario that is HIGHLY likely. A married couple that is angry with one another is getting a divorce. One of the parents wants sole custody rights or highly one sides custody rights. They post lewd picture of themselves on a site from the family computer. They then file a police report against their spouse. Their spouse is now being prosecuted as a sex offender. So, how do you see this divorce custody hearing going?
David Greenberg February 03, 2014 at 04:53 PM
Jordan: "To hell with having to prove malice..." - all I can say is: wow. Just wow. You do know that our justice system is "Innocent until proven guilty" right? As for scienter - if you're a prosecutor and you believe I have the knowledge of some act, it's up to you to prove it. You want to talk about a felony? Then we're not talking about a preponderance of the evidence, we're talking about beyond a reasonable doubt - which is a much higher hurdle. And there's PLENTY of reasonable doubt as to how things can get on the internet. Changing the standard for burden of proof is naive - "Those that would give up liberty to achieve a bit of safety or security, deserve neither" - B. Franklin... Circa 1700... It rang true then, and does so now as well.
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 04:59 PM
There are numerous examples in the criminal law where in the burden of proof is shifted...and I can see why they may decide to apply it here.......if one party deliberately posts pictures of themselves in an attempt to ascribe the conduct to the other side there are appropriate remedies once the conduct is identified....sorry...each of us may reach our own conclusions and there is no way to absolutely prove which one is correct so I will stick with my own views. We don't need to agree. Whether we are dealing with a criminal misdemenor or a felony the standard of proof is the same..I certainly wasn't mentioning a civil matter.
David Greenberg February 03, 2014 at 05:47 PM
Sure, there's places where the burden of proof is shifted - and I'd argue that they're unconstitutional - changing burden of proof is a very slippery slope to step onto. Deliberately conspiring to mislead the Court in a divorce case? Certainly grounds for contempt, and perhaps criminal charges depending upon some other factors, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility for some individuals. Personally I have no problem agreeing to disagree - I just don't think that for two consenting adults who consented to the pictures to begin with, that releasing those photos hardly rises to the level of criminality.
Walter White February 03, 2014 at 11:33 PM
Zoot the psychopath is back! How's the militia training going?
Jordan S. Zoot February 03, 2014 at 11:40 PM
Just file...Walter.....I thought you would be fully occupied with Dan Cocks
Walter White February 04, 2014 at 06:07 AM
Nah he's old news since his failed "boycott."

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something