back to article Bloke, 36, in the cooler for leaking ex's topless pics on Facebook

The first conviction under California's anti-revenge-porn law was announced on Monday: 36-year-old Noe Iniguez was sentenced to a year in jail and three years' probation for posting topless pictures of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook. Under the law, the "unauthorized posting of nude or sexual images of an individual with the …

  1. h3

    Thing about stuff like this is what is to stop somebody doing it themselves to get their ex put in jail.

    That is why it is better for stuff like this to fall under generic harassment laws.

    1. Phil W

      One would hope that the police would require more evidence than the victims accusation to go to court, at the very least records showing the IP used to upload the images and records associating that IP to the suspect. Or perhaps text messages/emails to the victim saying they were going to do it.

      I think in many caaes though the ass hats uploading the pictures admit to it when challenged by police.

      1. LucreLout
        Paris Hilton

        I think in many cases though the ass hats uploading the pictures admit to it when challenged by police.

        I'd imagine they either admit to it, or simply never stopped to take precautions before posting it.

        Fingerprints have been used in criminal investigations for over a hundred years and still so many criminals don't bother to wear gloves when committing crime. Donning a pair of gloves requires minimal intelligence or planning, effectively hiding your identity from law enforcement while posting surely requires a few extra IQ points?

        Paris because some recreational video sites indicate she too may not always take precautions. Allegedly.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          One problem

          in cases like this is that we only get an abridged and one sided view of what has gone on.

          It is possible that this guy is a nasty piece of work which is why the relationship broke up.... or it's possible that his ex was a nasty piece of work whose actions were just the right side of legal or unprovable and wound him up to the point where he posted a few nasty messages and a topless photo.

          Even the mention of domestic violence doesn't help. he could be a viscous girl friend beater or his ex may have made things up to get him into trouble. It seems that one minute the police are almost ignoring domestic violence and the next it's as if anyone who says there a victim must be telling the truth and must not be questioned.

          Oh well, whatever the truth, hopefully they will now get on with rebuilding separate lives......

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        One would hope that the police would require more evidence than the victims accusation to go to court

        Point of order: In the US, the police do not decide what goes to trial. Criminal charges are brought by state or federal attorneys.

        We can certainly hope that decent standards of evidence will be applied in such cases, just as we hope they will in all cases. Sometimes they won't be; foolish prosecutions are hardly in short supply, and the structure of the US state and federal court systems (which reward prosecutors for pursuing high-profile and emotionally-charged cases) unfortunately encourages them. But we can't outlaw only those crimes that no one could possibly be framed for, since that would mean not outlawing anything. So we do what we can.

        On the whole, this looks like a reasonable law to me; and from what I've seen about this particular case, it looks like a valid conviction.

  2. ratfox
    Thumb Up

    Good, good

    It's hard to believe it would be necessary, but apparently the message needs to get out that doing this will not be tolerated. Gods…

    1. P. Lee

      Re: Good, good

      How do we know the photo subject wasn't the one getting revenge by privately agreeing to the photo upload and then denying it afterwards?

      Do not take pictures of yourself naked. Don't allow other people to do that. If they do it without your knowledge, I'm sure there are laws covering that already. Actually, don't get naked for someone who will leave you. Crazy I know, but sex outside marriage is a very high-risk activity which leaves you open to abuse. Entering into a legally-binding agreement to "forsake all others until death us do part"- provides an indication of how highly your partner esteems you and dramatically reduces the risk of you being abused.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good, good

        Well in this case it was probably straightforward: pics posted on Facebook, cops get FB to cough up IP address etc, cops go to ISP and get subscriber info, etc. All quite routine unless the perpetrator is fairly careful, and the intersection of "prepared to take the time to research and execute a crime with technology" and "jilted bloke" is probably small: the "revenge is a dish best served cold" saying is memorable because it's exactly what is rarely done.

        But yep, evidence can be faked, computer or real world, and we have to hope that police professionalism coupled with an adversorial justice system detects and punishes fakery enough to keep it rare.

      2. James O'Shea

        Re: Good, good

        "How do we know the photo subject wasn't the one getting revenge by privately agreeing to the photo upload and then denying it afterwards?"

        In this particular case, m'man used a fake ID which was traced back to him. Furthermore, m'man had been the subject of a restraining order since 2011. IOW, he's been at this for _years_ and he tried to cover his tracks.

        He should have got a whole lot more time in the pokey. And some monetary damages, the better to make him pay attention. 'No' means 'no. 'Go away' means 'go away'. There's lots more girls,laddie, go find another one, preferably one who _doesn't_ hate your guts.

      3. Eric Olson

        Re: Good, good

        Do not take pictures of yourself naked. Don't allow other people to do that. If they do it without your knowledge, I'm sure there are laws covering that already. Actually, don't get naked for someone who will leave you. Crazy I know, but sex outside marriage is a very high-risk activity which leaves you open to abuse. Entering into a legally-binding agreement to "forsake all others until death us do part"- provides an indication of how highly your partner esteems you and dramatically reduces the risk of you being abused.

        I can only imagine you are suffering from oxygen deprivation which is impairing your cognitive abilities. That's usually the problem with such tall equines.

        You and all the others who are so sanctimonious about what other people do in their private lives must be true saints. You must never have been in love, thought you were in a forever relationship, sent your special someone a video or picture to cheer them up while on a long deployment, or otherwise did anything that a single person would deem "wrong."

        None of us can see the future. What seems like a sure thing now may fall apart in years. The man or woman you know today could have a latent psychological disorder, develop an addiction, or just turn out to be a total ass clown. In short, whatever secrets you think are safe may become public knowledge because you trusted the one person or people who you thought you could trust with everything.

        So your options are to either pretend everyone is a leaking sieve waiting for the right moment to dump your dirty laundry on the world or realize that life is short, you have to take risks, and sometimes, especially when you're young, you do some things you will regret. That doesn't give a single person anywhere the right to use it to intimidate, harass, or otherwise try to ruin your life. Taking a nude picture of yourself, writing risque letters or prose, or even engaging in kinky sex are not crimes that demand prosecution. Violating restraining orders, making specific threats, and maliciously posting any kind of material in the hopes that an employer, friends, family, or significant others will use it to harm you is a crime.

      4. Graham Marsden
        WTF?

        @P.Lee - Re: Good, good

        > Entering into a legally-binding agreement to "forsake all others until death us do part"- provides an indication of how highly your partner esteems you and dramatically reduces the risk of you being abused.

        Oh certainly! After all, marriage is a definite guarantee that you (female *or* male) will not be the victim of domestic abuse, isn't it?

        And "legally binding"? Sorry, have the Divorce Laws passed you by?

      5. Annihilator
        FAIL

        Re: Good, good

        "How do we know the photo subject wasn't the one getting revenge by privately agreeing to the photo upload and then denying it afterwards?"

        Because it went through the justice system, the standard by which we judge and measure guilt.

        I'm not sure why these sorts of crimes invoke such a response. I never see these ass hat responses to murder convictions: "How do we know the victim wasn't getting revenge by murdering herself and setting her husband up?"

      6. LucreLout

        Re: Good, good

        How do we know the photo subject wasn't the one getting revenge by privately agreeing to the photo upload and then denying it afterwards?

        I'd imagine, in cases such as that, the person would remove the posting where possible at the first time of asking. I also expect that the first time that line of defence is tried in court, without any other aggravating factors, that the jury will find the defendant not guilty and further cases will be unlikely to be tried.

        Alternatively of course, the next time a girl actually says to you "Here's a naked picture of me, please spread it over as much of the internet as you feel able", you can defend yourself by asking her to send you an email/text or post the picture herself. It's not difficult.

  3. Michael Thibault

    "of nude or sexual images"

    Bare breasts don't constitute nudity everywhere and always. Nor are photos of bare breasts necessarily sexual in nature. Legislation of this type may not be particularly apt.

    1. Tapeador

      Questions of nudity will probably turn on caselaw definitions, i.e. those definitions judges have developed over the years, with flexibility for the judge/jury, and questions about their sexual nature are something for the jury to make a finding of fact concerning, (that is, if the defendant opts for a jury trial, otherwise the judge makes the finding of fact). Legislation can't decide everything in advance, it has to leave some things to human judgement.

      But "unauthorized posting of nude or sexual images of an individual with the purpose of causing emotional distress" really has a quite narrow purpose. I simply don't think you can come up with an instance where someone might post breast pictures, unauthorised, intending them to cause distress in the person pictured, and it NOT be worthy of consideration for prosecution under this law. Those are cumulative conditions, they're all necessary but not sufficient for a conviction. Conviction depends on the prosecutor, judge, and possibly a jury, all believing that the person ought to be convicted, as well as the offence being made out on the facts and on the law.

    2. JustWondering
      Happy

      I'm pretty sure a photo of my breasts wouldn't be sexual in nature. Well, I hope not anyways.

    3. Grikath

      "Bare breasts don't constitute nudity everywhere and always. Nor are photos of bare breasts necessarily sexual in nature. Legislation of this type may not be particularly apt."

      There are , however, *very* clear , and rather universal laws about publishing parts of anyones' anatomy without express written consent by the owner of said anatomy, regardless of the part, purpose, and possible erotic association.

    4. Eric Olson

      @Michael Thibault

      You forget this is the United States, a nation that has a hate/self-abuse relationship with most parts of the female form. Breasts are indeed considered pornographic when in any context other than art at the museum, and even then it's a minor scandal every time the little ones are exposed to such filth on a field trip.

      My fellow citizens tend to write angry letters to their representatives over public breastfeeding, a pierced and covered aureola, and the thought that some woman somewhere might be naked in the shower. They then furiously rub one out and shuffle to the mailbox with the stained letter in hand, imagining all the righteous sex they will force on their wife.

      Personally, I blame the Brits for being too licentious in the 1600s and causing the Puritans to don pointy hats, sail across the ocean, and "bring the Lord" to the natives.

      1. rtfazeberdee

        Re: @Michael Thibault

        "Personally, I blame the Brits for being too licentious in the 1600s and causing the Puritans to don pointy hats, sail across the ocean, and "bring the Lord" to the natives." :o) nah, it was more that the religious were stopped from discriminating so they had to go somewhere else where the could discriminate

      2. Blitterbug
        Happy

        Re: Personally, I blame the Brits

        Outrageously funny! Have an upvote from this Brit. Ehem - Englishman.

    5. rtfazeberdee

      True, but when you post them on their employers facebook page, the intent is obvious

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This is USA

      Tits - baaaaaaaad

      Guns - good

      Me coat.

      Though it will be surplus to requirement on the next holiday I am going to - the place is full of Gerries in standard Gerrie beach uniform: sandals, small backpack and hat. ONLY sandals, small backpack and hat.

      I am presently trying to superimpose this law onto that scenary and for some reason it fails to match :)

  4. dan1980

    This kind of thing is a mixed-bag.

    While real, malicious posting of some one's private, explicit photos (or videos) online for the purpose of causing someone distress is a thoroughly despicable act and a gross breach of privacy and trust, the problem is correctly identifying where this has actually occurred.

    It is a fact that there are people (no shortage it seems) who are exhibitionists. Displaying oneself on the Internet also appears to be far less worrying to people than it used to be.

    It is fully conceivable that, as some above have suggested, photos that were posted consensually are claimed to be 'revenge' after the fact.

    As such, the law needs to tread very carefully and not let the personal prejudices of judges unduly influence their rulings. It might be that someone can't understand why anyone would voluntarily post photos of themselves naked online and gives more credence to someone who claims that the photos were posted without permission.

    Presumably the posting of photos to a specific 'revenge' site is a good indicator but there is still the possibility that someone would post photos of themselves in a revenge of their own. Again, here any judge must be very careful to put aside his or her own prejudices.

    Where this act can be verified, the punishment here is perhaps a bit light.

    1. Eric Olson

      Under a criminal case, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that, per the letter of the law (and allowed clarifications by the judge) the accused did the crime. This means that any evidence that would prove that the photos were posted with permission, posted using a fake identity to frame a party, or a myriad of other things would be admissible to court and would be weighed by the jury. The last thing a country prosecutor would like to do with a law that was a huge PR win is to misuse it or ignore evidence that the accusation is false or other wise trumped up.

      At the same time, you have to be careful about tarnishing the accuser in what is essentially a sexual exploitation crime. Just like sexual assault, rape, and other exploitative or sexual crimes against a person, it is both bad form and highly prejudicial to engage in even the tiniest amount of victim-blaming. In cases were there is doubt, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict, and that would include situations where the only evidence of wrongdoing is hearsay or conflicting accounts lacking in any evidence that will given credibility to one side or the other.

      1. dan1980

        @Eric

        Thanks for the comments. I presume, though, that it wasn't in disagreement of my own, given yours is an expansion of one of the point I made: "the law needs to tread very carefully". So we agree.

      2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        "Just like sexual assault, rape, and other exploitative or sexual crimes against a person, it is both bad form and highly prejudicial to engage in even the tiniest amount of victim-blaming. In cases were there is doubt, the jury should return a Not Guilty verdict, and that would include situations where the only evidence of wrongdoing is hearsay or conflicting accounts lacking in any evidence that will given credibility to one side or the other."

        I agree that victim blaming is bad. By the same token, I don't have any faith whatsoever that a jury will return a verdict of Not Guilty if a fellow is not guilty. What's more, merely being accused of such crimes can ruin someone's life. And there absolutely, 100% are vicious, mean-spirited harpies out there who will drag a man down to hell for some imagined slight. I can introduce you to a few, if you'd like. The results of their hell-hatched plans of ruination are mighty tales in and of themselves.

        It's funny, you never read in the newspaper about the guy let out of jail after 3 months when new evidence comes to light if the reason he was banged up was supposed spousal abuse. But if a guy is found not guilty, well, he's hounded by the press ad aeternum and presumed to be "guilty, but let off via the old boys' club."

        When sex or sexuality is involved, justice is anything but blind.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not just unauthorized

    "unauthorized posting of nude or sexual images of an individual with the purpose of causing emotional distress"

    As it is someone could claim they didn't mean to cause emotional distress. Obviously in this case there seems to be further action to support the distress claim but that wouldn't always be so.

    Reducing it to simply unauthorized would also protect a lot of people from paps.

    1. Eric Olson

      Re: Why not just unauthorized

      Part of the reason (currently being litigated at the Supreme Court) is that the First Amendment tends to protect "off-the-cuff" or undirected speaking, regardless of how rage-filled or angry it is. Generally unspecific threats that have no target are allowed or at least tolerated, as is speech against a person or group where no harm is likely to come to them. However, the case before the Supreme Court is testing a different online harassment law where a man who was either estranged or divorced from his wife, went online in a public forum (his Facebook account) and made graphic and specific posts about wanting to see her die, watch her bleed out, etc.

      She got a restraining order that was to prevent him from making such posts in the future, so he created a performer identity of an angry rapper, and then wrote lyrics that said much the same thing. He also made reference to going to a kindergarten and shooting the classroom up. Oddly enough, the FBI investigated him after that classroom thing, and he then wrote some rap lyrics about how hard it was to no slit the FBI agent's throat while being interviewed by her.

      So he was tossed in jail for violating a restraining order and making terroristic threats. The law he was charged under is widely believed to be too broad, and the argument before the Supreme Court included a moment where the Chief Justice recited Eminem lyrics from the bench, in which Eminem also describes actions he would like to take against an ex.

      The concern is what standard needs to be applied before speech turns criminal, with the defense arguing that the state has to prove that the speaker actually had intent to carry out the things they were speaking about, while the government wants a standard where causing harm to others, regardless of intent by the speaker, is all that matters. The court watchers think that the standard will land somewhere around a reasonable person standard that states that a reasonable person reading the words would believe that the speaker intended to harm or injury the person or party that is the subject of the speech.

      The TL;DR version: You can say some pretty harmful and injurious things in the United States, and usually intent is the dividing line between "venting" and criminal activity. That line has moved a lot and will continue to do so.

      1. Tapeador

        Re: Why not just unauthorized

        Yeah a reasonable person standard for intent to cause harm which happened, sounds quite sensible tbh. Glad the land of the libertarian is catching up with the land of John Stuart Mill in actually prohibiting some hate speech (although the question of harm to *what* tends to have pretty unsatisfactory answers in a libertarian context, i.e. it's always harm to an individual as society isn't thought to exist).

        1. Eric Olson

          Re: Why not just unauthorized

          I'm not a fan of libertarianism, as it seems to have all the hallmarks of a philosophy hammered out while passing around a bowl, wondering why such private activities that harmed no one should be prohibited. It's rather bereft of intellectual rigor, and even the organized groups tend to leave the most contentious questions unanswered, probably because they realize the footing of their belief system is as firm as a greased skid on an inclined plane.

          Nevertheless, the reasonable person standard is about the best way one can protect the speaker while also protecting the spoken against. It's mushy, it's gray, and it's damned near impossible to apply in a consistent manner. The downside is it means that every single situation has to be litigated rather than decided before it gets that far, which often means the person with the deeper pockets (or nothing left to lose) wins.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Why not just unauthorized

            Please, do explain why private actions that harm noone should be prohibited, hmm?

            Why should I be subject to your morality? Just who the hell are you to tell me what I can and can't do? Why should I comply? Why shouldn't you be made to comply with my morality instead?

            1. Eric Olson

              Re: Why not just unauthorized

              Because most libertarians start off as stoned lax bros or frat boys who feel entitled to a certain amount of respect and/or deference, and it turns in to a full-blown case of megalomania, swimming in the intelligence of the same depth you find in a kiddie pool.

              Private actions with no harm is one thing. I don't care how many bowls are smoked each day after class or if you shoot heroin into your eyeballs while tottering on the line between life and death. You do it in your house, your apartment, or anywhere else that is private, and that's fine. But what if you start being a negligent parent? Or you let your home fall into disrepair? Or you have late-night parties that attract folks who then engage in criminal activity after they leave?

              Libertarianism, for all intents and purposes, is an anarchist, anti-social mentality that can't even rise to the level of basic philosophy. It wants everything without consequence, or worse, it wants everything regardless of consequence. At best, libertarians express a cute amount of naivety about the world and the community in which they live or how what seem to be private actions actually cause harm to that community. More often than not, however, libertarianism is the breeding ground of nativism, ignorance, refusal to accept responsibility, and rigid social constraints (ironically). Someone isn't part of the majority or ruling class, too bad. They have no protection because if they try to dismantle anything, they'll be outmanned or outgunned.

              Libertarianism rejects a central part of the human experience and our evolution: society imposes constraints on participation. It's what society did in the past, does today, and will do tomorrow. The only true libertarian is one who disappears into the woods and lives off the land, far away from the rest of society. The rest of them play at politics while claiming they don't want government to exist.

              1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                Re: Why not just unauthorized

                "The only true libertarian is one who disappears into the woods and lives off the land, far away from the rest of society. "

                And what's wrong with this? Hmm? I happen to like it.

                You still haven't told me why your morality should override mine. You've made a lot of baseless claims about libertarians, but you haven't answered the question. Sounds to me like you're just an entitled prat angry that people are questioning authority and threatening to upset a social order in which you are currently in the position to tell everyone what to do.

                I see no need to listen to you. Your morality isn't mine, and I don't accept or acknowledge your "right" to dictate my ethics, beliefs, values, morals or behaviors.

                To wit: Go fuck yourself, ya goddamned poncy prick.

                1. Eric Olson

                  Re: Why not just unauthorized

                  Morality is yours. Do with it as you wish, but try to pause for a moment to recognize the hypocrisy of telling me that my morality is meaningless while yours trumps it.

                  If you are unable to recognize that, consider this: You participate in society and society provides a framework around your actions. Society has a set of rules. You can rebel against the rules, rail against them, raise holy hell, even outright ignore them. Consequences can be minor like being ostracized by people you don't like. It can also be incarceration, confiscation of property, freedom, or even your life in extreme situations. Them's the rules. You don't like them, use the levers of power provided and recognized by society to change them.

                  But if things don't change, they don't change. You don't win hearts and minds by prattling on about how your morality is superior to mine on the basis that my morality shouldn't be used to override yours. The circular reasoning there is astounding. That's why I said a true libertarian will disappear into the woods, never to be seen from again. You want to live by your own set of rules and have no one ever tell you where you might be wrong, you need to remove yourself from society.

                  Otherwise, life is about compromise and realizing that some things just aren't going to be your cup of tea. If you can't change it, you can't change it. I agree that there are some actions currently criminalized by the government that maybe shouldn't be due to either arbitrary bright lines (alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine good, everything else bad) or political process by a group better connected than another. But that's how things are done. Try to change them, move the needle. In the US, that's worked for gay marriage and the pot smoking thing is starting to take off. Things change, they take time.

                  Sometimes, however, things don't change.

                  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                    Re: Why not just unauthorized

                    "but try to pause for a moment to recognize the hypocrisy of telling me that my morality is meaningless while yours trumps it"

                    Nope, don't see it. My morality is all that matters to me. You can follow it if you wish, but I have no reason whatsoever to follow your morality.

                    "You participate in society and society provides a framework around your actions."

                    And why should I care, or obey?

                    "Society has a set of rules. You can rebel against the rules, rail against them, raise holy hell, even outright ignore them. Consequences can be minor like being ostracized by people you don't like. It can also be incarceration, confiscation of property, freedom, or even your life in extreme situations. Them's the rules. You don't like them, use the levers of power provided and recognized by society to change them."

                    And there's the crux of it, isn't it? I need to do what you say because if I don't I will be threatened with one of two options: voluntarily allowing myself to be incarcerated by people I don't respect or death. In other words, for all your vaunted "rules", it is still "obey or die". I should convert to your belief system why again? Sounds like you're an almighty peckerhead of the first degree.

                    As for rebelling, resisting and seeking change, that's exactly what I do. This little windy thread of fockosity is where it is because you didn't like my questioning of authority and encouraging others to do the same. You just felt you had to tell me to acquiesce and comply, because currently it's people with your morality that have the guns.

                    I'll bet you care a fuck of a lot less for the importance of authority when it's people of my morality telling you to "obey or die". Of course, we'll wrap it up in laws and politics so that it's all disambiguated and proper, but I, for one, look forward to the day you have to choose between the barrel of a gun or your belief in right and wrong.

                    "But if things don't change, they don't change. You don't win hearts and minds by prattling on about how your morality is superior to mine on the basis that my morality shouldn't be used to override yours."

                    Really? Because that's what you're doing. I'm just following your example. And my morality is superior because it's my morality. Your morality may be a superior fit for you. I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm telling you to back the fuck off and let others believe what they want.

                    The alternative is fomenting revolution. Repressed people become very angry. And if you repress them long enough, then when they take control they don't allow you the space and freedom to practice your beliefs. Instead, they emulate their oppressors and demand that you obey, or die.

                    Give up your morals, or go to prison. Go to prison, or die. It's okay for you to demand this of others? Why? Why not give others the space to live their lives as they want, hmm? Keep it up, and your successors won't give you the option either.

                    "You want to live by your own set of rules and have no one ever tell you where you might be wrong, you need to remove yourself from society."

                    Aha! There's a kernel of truth right there. You believe people who disagree with your morality are wrong. That there is an absolute right and wrong, and those who do not recognize it believe the wrong thing, and should be punished accordingly. The truth comes out, finally!

                    I don't care if someone tells me I'm wrong. I care when they try to enforce their belief with violence. The rights of the individual end at the point where that individual attempts to tred on the rights of another individual.

                    You have the right to believe what you wish, but not to tell me what I may or may not believe. You have the right to prevent me from harming another, but not from undertaking actions which do not harm others. That is what I believe, I will die to defend that, if necessary.

                    You are allowed to believe I am wrong with all your might. You are right to tell me I am wrong until you are blue in the face. But I will fight you to my dying breath if you attempt to prevent me from undertaking actions which harm noone and where all participants in those actions are consenting adults. From jumping on a trampoline to an 11,000-man homosexual space orgy.

                    You will have to kill me to see my alter my behavior because your morality ordered it so. Are you prepared to do that? To kill a man for doing something which harms noone? Are you man enough to hold the knife yourself? Can you do it without trembling? Can you look me in the eyes when you do so? How deep does your conviction go, son?

                    "Otherwise, life is about compromise and realizing that some things just aren't going to be your cup of tea. If you can't change it, you can't change it."

                    Wrong. Life is about standing up for what you believe in. To the death if necessary. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

                    Compromise only applies where the fundamental rights of two people are in conflict. You have no fundamental right to tell me what I may or may not do, when those actions do not harm another.

                    Now we have the responsibility to work out a compromise where there is a conflict between the rights of two people. If my actions may harm others - including through indirect methods, such as harming the environment - then we need to find a compromise between the actions I wish to undertake and the fundamental rights of others such that I can achieve as many of my goals as possible via a limited set of actions, but the rights of others aren't harmed. That is part of being an adult.

                    Nowhere in there is there an obligation - or a right - to limit actions which do not harm others. That "right" only exists in the minds of the fanatic; one who spreads their beliefs at the point of a gun.

                    "If you can't change it, you can't change it."

                    If you can't change it, you fight it. Through every means at your disposal. You use your actions and your words to inspire others to take up the fight alongside you. You never accept the limitation of rights and freedoms simply to make someone else more comfortable. Our ancestors died for those rights. It may be that in standing for them, we die too. We all go some time, and I'd rather go with my head held high saying "no, I refuse to comply" than in my bed at the age of eleventy, with a jackboot at my throat or some priest telling me what's to be.

                    " I agree that there are some actions currently criminalized by the government that maybe shouldn't be due to either arbitrary bright lines (alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine good, everything else bad) or political process by a group better connected than another. But that's how things are done. Try to change them, move the needle. In the US, that's worked for gay marriage and the pot smoking thing is starting to take off. Things change, they take time.

                    Sometimes, however, things don't change."

                    And yet, change is exactly what I'm trying to accomplish. You just don't seem to like the change I represent, so you attack. Because that's how things are done is the shittest, most cowardly excuse I have every heard in my life. "Because that's how things are done" does not, under any circumstances mean that's how things should be done, or that I should feel myself bound to the strictures and regulations of others.

                    Change happens because people refuse to comply. Change happens not by bowing to those in charge and pleading with those who benefit from authority to limit themselves and their power.

                    Change happens because you stand up and say "no". It happens because one man inspires millions and those millions march. Change requires resistance. It requires questioning, defying and eventually tearing down authority.

                    I won't be acceding to authority any time soon. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If you believe so strongly that I shouldn't have rights, that my morality should be subject the whims of others, then wield the knife yourself, you coward.

                    Otherwise, stay the hell out of my way, and don't tell me what I can and can't do. Freedom is a test of wills. Is yours the stronger?

                    1. Eric Olson

                      Re: Why not just unauthorized

                      And that is why libertarianism will never be more that an extremist point of view in society. The selfish notion that all that matters is you disregards the entirety of history and evolution of the human race, not to mention the social contracts that are entered into when living among other people. Do you at least allow your actions and behavior to be modulated or modified by your family group? Your close friends? A spouse? Or do you always assert your dominance over them as well?

                      Humans are social animals. Our entire species is based on our ability to work and play within a social context, including the suppression of our own desires and wants for the betterment of those around us that we know. We only built civilizations when we were able to take our urges to fuck, eat, and kill and subsume them for what was to be future gains. Libertarians tend to speak as if they believe the fucking and the killing and the eating today is all that matters, regardless of the cost to them tomorrow.

                      Finally, it's cute the way you froth at the mouth when I tell you about society, as if you've never heard about it. And that schtick about killing you is precious. I guess I know who to talk to if I want to see hyperbole taken to it's own extreme. In general, you just prove my earlier assertion about how libertarians are nothing more than a bunch of selfish pricks who believe they are owed something and have no real interest in governance, society, or humanity, beyond its capacity to provide a cheap thrill or quick high.

                      Go grab that security bowl and smoke until you feel better. Self-medicating is so sexy.

                      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                        Re: Why not just unauthorized

                        "Do you at least allow your actions and behavior to be modulated or modified by your family group? Your close friends? A spouse? Or do you always assert your dominance over them as well?"

                        Nope. I do not allow my behavior to be modified by anyone. I pursue what I believe regardless of others. If they believe in what I believe, they can choose to affiliate themselves with me. If not, why would they choose to spend time with me?

                        "Our entire species is based on our ability to work and play within a social context, including the suppression of our own desires and wants for the betterment of those around us that we know."

                        Individual humans may choose to suppress their own desires in order to help others. But that must remain their choice. You don't force that upon them at the barrel of a gun.

                        I think you'll find that, given the choice, the overwhelming majority of people choose to help others. Those that don't get ostracized. But therein lies the key: the utilization of social pressures rather than force to ensure harmony. That means that all extremes are unwelcome. Including the moralistic extreme that desperately wants to control the actions of others. For example, via controlling sexual practices.

                        The instant you bring the threat of force into play as a means of ensuring compliance with one group's demands you are removing the "social animal" portion of the equation.

                        "We only built civilizations when we were able to take our urges to fuck, eat, and kill and subsume them for what was to be future gains."

                        Actually, we probably built civilization as a means to more easily obtain grains for making beer. Self restraint is a fairly novel concept to most civilizations, and certainly Victorian levels of restraint are outright bizarre, in historical context. Traditionally, civilizations have created entire social structures to allow the carefully directed release of pent up violent, sexual, etc. energies in order to ensure social harmony.

                        Telling everyone to be repressed all the time "for the children" - or whatever is the nonsense of the day - is actually pretty odd. Enforcing that with violence leads nowhere good. Every time it's been tried, violent revolution has followed.

                        "Finally, it's cute the way you froth at the mouth when I tell you about society, as if you've never heard about it."

                        It's cute that you think I'm "frothing at the mouth" by telling you to get off my lawn. You are so wrapped up in your own righteousness that what you accuse me of, who you accuse me of being and what you accuse me of believing are hilarious. If you knew anything about me, if you had read my posting history to come even remotely close to understanding what I believe in, you would probably implode under your own inability to rationalize your view of the world as defined through your narrow sterotypes.

                        An unwillingness to bow to a collectivist viewpoint or to subsume my personal morality to your own (or anyone else's) doesn't mean I am a right wing libertarian, selfish, or care only for myself. But oh, you feel the need to believe that, to stamp with that and to attack your perception of me rather than who I myself am.

                        "And that schtick about killing you is precious."

                        So, I take it you're one of those people who demands that violence be done to others to force them to comply with your morality but are too much of a fucking coward to hold the knife yourself, eh? If I had any respect for you, it's completely gone.

                        "I guess I know who to talk to if I want to see hyperbole taken to it's own extreme."

                        Yes, that's what I do. I look at the extreme version of your position in order to show you the irrationality of what you espouse. You are demanding that people be given the option of compliance with your morality or incarceration. The extension of that, of course, if that if they choose to forgo incarceration then physical violence will be done to them. If they resist the physical violence done to them, they will be killed.

                        The logical extension of this is that if anyone believes in their own morality enough to refuse to have it be subsumed to your morality you are willing to have someone else kill them for not believing what you believe. Apparently, however, you're too much of a coward to do it yourself.

                        And for what, hmm? Individuals demanding the right to engage in activities which don't harm anyone but themselves. But because their beliefs differ from yours, violence should be done to them. How does that make you different from the peckerheads that launched the crusades? Or the Inquisition?

                        You want to see your beliefs enforced through the apparatus of the state, just as they did. Ah, but that logic makes you uncomfortable. So it's better to attack me personally. It's easier to view me as a hateful, selfish monster than to turn that judgmental gaze inward and examine the bleakness of your own soul.

                        "In general, you just prove my earlier assertion about how libertarians are nothing more than a bunch of selfish pricks who believe they are owed something and have no real interest in governance, society, or humanity, beyond its capacity to provide a cheap thrill or quick high."

                        Actually, I don't prove that at all. You seem to think I do, but that's because you're operating on A) false sterotypes and B) associating me with the wrong sterotype.

                        One problem you have is an inability to see gradations. "Libertarian" is a huge spectrum. On the right, there is the tea party: staunchly independent, rabidly anti-state, even anarchist to a large degree. They are - by and large - a collection of cognitive dissonance. The Tea Party believe in the "right" to tell others what to do, but also believe in the right not to have anyone tell them what to do. They have no real solutions to operating an economy, groups of individuals or any facet of a modern nation.

                        On the left, you have left libertarians. The group I belong to. We believe strongly in the state as a means of handling various social problems, but also believe that the state should be kept as minimal as possible. Where it doesn't need to intrude into people's lives, it should not be allowed to.

                        Some things we need a state for. National defense, education, health care, emergency services, policing, various flavors of scientific endeavor, environmental protection and a few other things. Left libertarians understand that we must subsume part of our individuality to the whole in order to see these necessary services accomplished. This is generally done through taxes, and by accepting laws such as environmental regulations.

                        But left libertarians vehemently oppose the unification of church and state. The nation has no business in the bedrooms of the citizenry. We vehemently oppose censorship, internet tracking and pretty much anything else that attempts to tell everyday citizens what they may or may not think - or do.

                        Where our thoughts or actions do not harm others they absolutely should not be restricted or restrained. We should not be forced to believe what someone else tells us to believe, no matter the circumstance.

                        Left libertarians champion freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of belief while understanding that freedom of action may need to be curtailed under very specific circumstances in order to meet the needs of society at large.

                        If you cannot understand the difference between left and right libertarians then you're a fool, and no amount of debating can educate you.

                        To sum up my personal beliefs, you can always refer to the following:

                        The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).

                        The needs of the few (or the one) outweigh the desires of the many.

                        The desires of the many outweigh the desires of the few.

                        The freedom of the mind of the individual is sacrosanct.

                        Now, if you want to keep on equating me with the right wing libertarian anarchist types, you go right ahead, but you'll only be proving out your own idiocy in public. I am strongly anti collectivist, yes. But that doesn't mean I don't understand the narrow, carefully applied uses of social infrastructure.

                        It just means I am a human being, not a drone.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    and for serious assault causing emotional distress AND physical injury

    we are looking at a 1 year suspended sentence at best....

    this is seriously fcked up and disproportionate

    1. Tapeador

      Re: and for serious assault causing emotional distress AND physical injury

      Yes that is an acknowledged problem among legal theorists who deal with legal punishment. The problem is thought to be that you equally condemn greater and lesser harms. However in the age of the internet perhaps we don't tend to physically harm one another so much, and our reputation and mental wellbeing maybe count for much more than they used to, compared with physical wellbeing, so maybe the sentences are proportionate.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, if we had this law in England....

    The honourable member who sent photos of his less honourable member to a deceitful journo, would be able to prosecute?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like