• Fellowships
  • Reports
  • Lab
  • Storyboard
    • Nieman Foundation at Harvard
    HOME
    About
    Subscribe
    Archives
              
    Foundation
    Reports
    Storyboard
    LATEST STORY
    AI helps us revisit old journalism territory
    Business Models Mobile & Apps Audience & Social Aggregation & Discovery Reporting & Production
    ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
    March 27, 2014, 5:11 p.m.
    Revenge porn could be opening up an exception to publishers’ protections online
    LINK: gawker.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   March 27, 2014

    At Gawker, Michelle Dean has a piece on revenge porn — the awful practice of jilted men (mostly) posting explicit videos and pictures from their exes online — and the legal backlash building against it. There are bills pending in at least 24 states to ban or otherwise limit revenge porn, and a federal bill is coming.

    RELATED ARTICLE
    A proposed Florida law targets mugshot sites, but hits journalists’ First Amendment rights
    February 25, 2013
    RELATED ARTICLE
    A court case against those skeezy mugshot websites raises First Amendment issues
    January 24, 2013
    We’ve written before about a similar issue — those skeezy mugshot sites that post pics from public records and then offer to take them down for a price.

    RELATED ARTICLE
    David Ardia: Why news orgs can police comments and not get sued
    January 14, 2009
    To state the obvious, most online publishers are in neither the mugshot extortion business nor the revenge porn game. But even the most legitimate publishers should be watching this space because, in both cases, changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is one of the ideas being tossed around. Section 230, as this old Nieman Lab video will tell you, is the part of U.S. law that says (in nearly all cases! I am not a lawyer!) that websites aren’t held responsible for what’s posted by their users. If one of your readers falsely calls his neighbor a child molestor in the comments section of your news site, that reader might well be guilty of libel — but your site isn’t. In a very real sense, it’s the law that allows the Internet as we know it to exist; imagine if sites had to preclear all user contributions everywhere, whether on a blogging platform, on Twitter, or elsewhere.

    As Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami law professor working on the federal revenge porn bill, tells Gawker:

    …online entities protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are provided with a special defense against state criminal laws, but not against federal criminal laws (or federal copyright laws, for that matter). A federal law means that a revenge porn site claiming to merely provide a platform for angry exes to upload sexually explicit images of their former partners will not be able to hide behind Section 230.

    And as Gawker commenter dontshootme responds:

    I think the EFF’s concerns [about amending 230] are being under valued here. The likelihood of overreach is very large, in my opinion. Also, it strikes me as being very dangerous to start messing with Section 230. I get that this is a very real problem, I just suggest a knee-jerk reaction by lawmakers (which is what almost always happens with public outcry type stuff) will result in bad law…

    Maybe it’s just me, but I seem to see a lot of talk about how “bad” section 230 is (not in this article) so when I see issues like this, I get concerned that a law will be created that generates an exception. I believe we should go after the ones who upload. [Revenge porn king] Hunter Moore’s situation is fairly straightforward, but what about sites that link to it? Are they responsible? How about if I linked to it here in the comments, is Gawker responsible? Right now, no. If we weaken 230 then censorship gets easier and easier.

    Here’s an overview of the issue from the pro-legislation side.

    Show tags
     
    What’s the best way to follow how the news is changing?
    Our daily email, with all the freshest future-of-journalism news.
    Prefer a once-a-week email? »
    The latest from Nieman Lab
    AI helps us revisit old journalism territory
    David Cohn
    More small and mid-level podcasts hit the stage
    Juleyka Lantigua
    The media reckons with AGI
    Shakeel Hashim
    Cross-border collaboration shines light in dark corners
    Laxmi Parthasarathy
    The expert class confronts reality
    Seth C. Lewis
    Join the 60,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
    AI helps us revisit old journalism territory
    “Some pivots, once deemed infeasible, might be worth a second look using new technology.”
    More small and mid-level podcasts hit the stage
    “Podcast super listeners are ready to take things to the next relationship level with their favorite shows.”
    The media reckons with AGI
    “Rather than treat AGI as a fringe concern, we must be proactive and ambitious: taking the possibility seriously, considering the implications, and starting a public, democratic conversation.”
    Help advance the Nieman Foundation’s mission “to promote and elevate the standards of journalism” by making a donation.

    To promote and elevate the standards of journalism

    Covering thought leadership in journalism

    Pushing to the future of journalism

    Exploring the art and craft of story
    © 2024 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College  /  Some rights reserved
    Harvard Trademark Privacy Digital Accessibility
    Walter Lippmann House    One Francis Ave.    Cambridge, MA 02138    617 495 2237