Judge: the Press can share leaked nudes of politicians as a matter of public concern

[Tiger Teeth]

Imagine if there's nude pics of Nancy Pelosi.

[Au165]

(04-14-2021, 09:23 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Imagine if there's nude pics of Nancy Pelosi.

I'd rather not.

[BmorePat87]

(04-14-2021, 08:59 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

NYT v Sullivan involved defamation over an ad published in a newspaper talking about the abuses suffered by those during the Civil Rights Era and added a second test for public officials seeking to sue for defamation, specifically requiring malice from the person defaming them. This is a question over whether or not this violated a revenge porn law.

At what point is it in the "public interest" to share the image itself? No right is absolute, and that includes freedom of the press, so where do we draw the line at sharing any naked photo of a person? Are you suggesting that the existence of naked photos is the public interest and/or is a reflection on their character?

The use of language suggesting that it is her fault, without any remarks on the ex husband's role in spreading images to harm her, is the reason why we have these laws, as women have increasingly been victimized by former partners sharing naked images. 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-15-2021, 11:11 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: NYT v Sullivan involved defamation over an ad published in a newspaper talking about the abuses suffered by those during the Civil Rights Era and added a second test for public officials seeking to sue for defamation, specifically requiring malice from the person defaming them. This is a question over whether or not this violated a revenge porn law.

At what point is it in the "public interest" to share the image itself? No right is absolute, and that includes freedom of the press, so where do we draw the line at sharing any naked photo of a person? Are you suggesting that the existence of naked photos is the public interest and/or is a reflection on their character?

The use of language suggesting that it is her fault, without any remarks on the ex husband's role in spreading images to harm her, is the reason why we have these laws, as women have increasingly been victimized by former partners sharing naked images. 

Seems to me like you've already decided the issue in your mind.  Why go through the convention of asking for opinions?

[BmorePat87]

(04-15-2021, 05:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Seems to me like you've already decided the issue in your mind.  Why go through the convention of asking for opinions?

I am merely seeking a more specific answer from you. 

My noting that NYT v Sullivan was not really relevant and remarking on the reasons why revenge porn laws exist are not direct counters to your argument that this is a matter of public concern. I challenged you to tell me where you draw a line of what constitutes a matter of public concern.

The fact that rights are not absolute is why we have to have this debate, and why the court creates these tests when it comes to issues involving the first amendment. So if we're saying this is a matter of public concern, is it a concern because the mere existence of the naked photos inherently lessens one's character or is it if the photos demonstrate a separate issue/concern that would cause us to question the person's character?


Personally I disagree with the suggestion that one's character is lessened by private nude photography with a spouse. However, there's an argument to be made that showing her in an intimate position with the aide is of public concern. That sparked the other question from my original post: is it reasonable for the courts to limit the press (since rights are not absolute) in publishing photos, but allowing them to describe them and confirm the existence, if it's a situation where the photos were obtained in an illegal manner and/or are private/intimate photos?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-15-2021, 05:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I am merely seeking a more specific answer from you. 

My noting that NYT v Sullivan was not really relevant and remarking on the reasons why revenge porn laws exist are not direct counters to your argument that this is a matter of public concern. I challenged you to tell me where you draw a line of what constitutes a matter of public concern.

The fact that rights are not absolute is why we have to have this debate, and why the court creates these tests when it comes to issues involving the first amendment. So if we're saying this is a matter of public concern, is it a concern because the mere existence of the naked photos inherently lessens one's character or is it if the photos demonstrate a separate issue/concern that would cause us to question the person's character?


Personally I disagree with the suggestion that one's character is lessened by private nude photography with a spouse. However, there's an argument to be made that showing her in an intimate position with the aide is of public concern. That sparked the other question from my original post: is it reasonable for the courts to limit the press (since rights are not absolute) in publishing photos, but allowing them to describe them and confirm the existence, if it's a situation where the photos were obtained in an illegal manner and/or are private/intimate photos?

Ok, to cut through the chase.  If the photos are of an illicit, i.e. cheating affair, then it's public knowledge, so long as the indecent parts are blacked out.  If it's photos of them happily married, then that is a different story.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 06:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, to cut through the chase.  If the photos are of an illicit, i.e. cheating affair, then it's public knowledge, so long as the indecent parts are blacked out.  If it's photos of them happily married, then that is a different story.

As I said very early in this thread, it looks to me like the main reason for the ruling is that this relationship was with a subordinate, which spoke directly to her character as an elected official.  As I tell my officers all the time, the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual impropriety in most ways.  A relationship with a direct subordinate is a big no no for any position, let alone an elected one.

[fredtoast]

I am totally confused.

These photos were taken by her husband but they showed her having an affair with her subordinate?

Is that right?

[BmorePat87]

(04-16-2021, 01:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am totally confused.  

These photos were taken by her husband but they showed her having an affair with her subordinate?

Is that right?

She and her husband had an open relationship and she was involved with a female campaign staffer prior to being elected. He took both photos during that time. One photo was of her naked brushing the clothed staffer's hair. The other was just a naked photo of her showing her pelvic tattoo (an iron cross). 

At some point after she was elected, she and her husband separated and he allegedly spread rumors to conservative sites that she was having an affair with a male staffer. She denied this and accused him of being abusive which prompted the estranged husband to release the photos of her with the girl and of her naked. 

People also found her husband's reddit account where he posted a faceless photo of her naked from the back while sunbathing in their backyard in a "wouldyouf***mywife" subreddit.

[BmorePat87]

(04-15-2021, 06:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, to cut through the chase.  If the photos are of an illicit, i.e. cheating affair, then it's public knowledge, so long as the indecent parts are blacked out.  If it's photos of them happily married, then that is a different story.

So we've set a line. Naked photos alone are not the issue, but rather if it shows a scandal (affair). In this case the husband approved of the relationship with a campaign staffer (prior to being elected), though one could argue that knowing she was having a romantic relationship with a staffer prior to being elected is of public concern. 

That is why I asked the next question earlier on (and in my last post) about whether or not a line can be drawn where you protect the nonconsensual distribution of private, intimate photos but allow reporting on the nature and existence of it.

[Belsnickel]

(04-08-2021, 08:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: Except in California they specifically have a law making it illegal to post nude pictures of people without their consent. The judge basically said that politicians aren’t protected by this law because of “public interest”.

It should be noted that the reason for the ruling is because the California law specifically carves out the exceptions for the revenge porn thing. The specific exception doesn't exist in the revenge porn laws in other states.

[fredtoast]

I think maybe the court was swayed by the way so many people doubt the press now. If they can't publish the photos then the person would just say it is a big lie and the photos don't really exist. Unfortunately a lot of people would agree that the media source is just lying if they could not see the photos.

Same reason victims demand that the media is allowed to show the actual video of a police shooting. Without the actual footage the police might just say "It does not really show what they claim it does. It is just 'fake news'."

[Au165]

(04-16-2021, 11:33 AM)fredtoast Wrote:  Without the actual footage the police might just say "It does not really show what they claim it does.  It is just 'fake news'."

...Or the police may tell you that the video you are watching doesn't actually show what you are seeing with your own eyes.