(04-08-2021, 02:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: What an embarrassing ruling. Nude photos of anyone are not "in the public interest" no matter their job. The idea that nude images are somehow related to "character" is completely asinine. They are not speech to be protected unless it is the person in the picture looking to publish them. They can be described and they can be discussed, but actually publishing the pictures is way outside the bounds of acceptable.

(04-08-2021, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Does the fact that she was having an affair with a subordinate cause it to meet this criteria? Would an affair with a person unrelated to their job still be fair game?

(04-08-2021, 07:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: No and no. Pictures are not needed to make the point, the description and discussion of the issues are fair game to print...the actual pictures are not.

(04-08-2021, 08:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As far as I know, unless there is a specific law against it in your state, if you voluntarily give someone a naked picture of yourself they can do whatever they want to with it.

I could not read the linked story, but this seemed to be some sort of civil action.  So if she gave him the picture then she can't stop him from publishing it.

People are crazy to give other people pictures like this.

(04-08-2021, 08:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As far as I know, unless there is a specific law against it in your state, if you voluntarily give someone a naked picture of yourself they can do whatever they want to with it.

I could not read the linked story, but this seemed to be some sort of civil action. So if she gave him the picture then she can't stop him from publishing it.

People are crazy to give other people pictures like this.

(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”.

(04-08-2021, 08:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The pictures in question were candids taken by her husband when they were married.

(04-08-2021, 08:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: As far as I know, unless there is a specific law against it in your state, if you voluntarily give someone a naked picture of yourself they can do whatever they want to with it.

I could not read the linked story, but this seemed to be some sort of civil action.  So if she gave him the picture then she can't stop him from publishing it.

People are crazy to give other people pictures like this.

(04-10-2021, 11:22 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why are you all wiping your asses with the Constitution?

Read the First Amendment.

Titty pics = FREEDOM.

(04-08-2021, 05:56 PM)Benton Wrote: 20 years ago I would've have flatly said the media source has no right to publish photos like that. While the contents are relevant to public interest, putting someone on display is not the intent


But now, the courts have opened up a can of worms with decisions like saying tv commentary hosts can't be held liable because nobody is dumb enough to believe them. The courts are continuing to accept blatant dishonesty from some news sources, and protect it. Which requires sources trying to prove something as real to have more tangible proof.

(04-08-2021, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Should the press have the right to share revenge porn of a politician under the guise of "public interest"?

It's not a guise of public interest, when it comes to politicians and their individual right to privacy.  When a citizen chooses to step into a governmental role, every aspect of their life is of the public interest.  They asked their constituents to put their trust in them, so any part, act or aspect of their life that calls their character or sincerity into question is most definitely of public interest.  This principle has established in a landmark decision in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan.  The decision has been upheld though many challenges over the years, along with several opinions to more accurately define the broad ruling in the Sullivan case.

If images were taken with the understanding that there was no consent to share, something states are increasingly protecting under law, should the press be able to ignore that if it involves a public official?

It's not the press' job to protect public officials from the consequences of their own actions, but more to show what actually happened to the public;  So that the public may form their own opinion of the events.

What constitutes a matter of "public interest" in "establishing character"?

See first answer.

Would it be unconstitutional to limit the press to just describing the images and confirming their existence?

Absolutely not.  It's literally in the text of the opening paragraph of the 1st amendment.

Is there a difference when it involves the party sending nude photos unsolicited to people?

This one I am a bit fuzzy on.  I would tend to believe that the press would be subject to the same FCC regulations as broadcasters in general, when it comes to the transmission and distribution of speech or images that the agency deemed to be indecent.