
New Texas laws: Illegal to send unsolicited nude photos - ga-vu
http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/new-texas-laws-illegal-to-send-unsolicited-nude-photos
======
deogeo
This law sounds overbroad, and nothing but trouble. It'll make sending nudes
carry a huge legal risk. I'd expect to see someone use this against their ex
(or illicit lover) within a year of taking effect.

From all the teens punished for child porn for having pictures of themselves,
it should be painfully clear prosecutorial discretion cannot be relied upon.

~~~
ksaj
Sending nudes or porn to someone to whom physical flashing would have been
untoward (an unwitting stranger, the general public, a child, a student, your
taxi driver, etc), or images of someone else who would not have wanted the
images shared (revenge porn), is the kind of action that one should be able to
take to court. They share nearly identical mens rea (flashing vs unexpected
unwanted dick pics), so it doesn't make sense one is criminal but the other is
not.

~~~
deogeo
You have chosen very clear cut examples, but the law will not be limited to
those.

For example, a boy and girl start dating. Eventually, she sends him nudes -
maybe they discussed it offline, so there's no written record of consent, or
maybe she correctly guessed he'd like them. But then they meet, and he pushes
her to have sex, saying he'll claim the nudes were unsolicited otherwise. Or
maybe he's white, she's black, and the boy's racist family push him to claim
they were unsolicited, to hide the affair, or to get rid of her.

> or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared
> (revenge porn)

That is an entirely different matter, that this law will do nothing to help.
There are sites devoted to revenge porn, so those pictures _are_ solicited.

~~~
DanBC
Have you read the law? What's the link of the version that you've read please?

~~~
jacques_chester
The relevant Act appears to have been HB 2789[1][2]. I don't see the text in
the Texas Penal Code yet.

[1]
[https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86...](https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=HB2789)

[2]
[https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F....](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F.pdf#navpanes=0)

------
693471
Countdown until the "nudes are free speech" defense

------
tux1968
Because just deleting the nudes and moving on with your life is too difficult?

The human body doesn't upset me enough to worry if some man or woman spams
their junk at me. But there are images that I find emotionally hurtful, and I
do accept that some people include nudity in this category. It still seems a
bit dubious that this has become a big enough problem to warrant more laws.

~~~
jacques_chester
And just because you personally haven't been robbed, and would in fact be just
fine with being robbed, doesn't mean we should go without laws against
robbery.

~~~
tux1968
The kinda conflates two very different events. I never made a case against
something as serious as robbery. The real point is that unlike robbery,
nothing very serious has happened when you see a picture of a naked body.

~~~
jacques_chester
The real point is that you are assuming that your preferences are a universal
moral measurement of harm.

~~~
tux1968
No more than people who are saying the opposite is true.

We should use objective measures. There are tangible real world ramifications
for the effects of robbery. People who get offended at nudity suffer some mild
discomfort at best.

We should be basing our legal system accordingly.

For instance, what about people who delight in receiving unsolicited nudes?
This law is imposing its universal moral pronouncements on them.

~~~
jacques_chester
> _We should use objective measures._

What constitutes guilt, in a criminal sense? And what's the objective
measurement?

Spoiler: while I am not a lawyer, I studied law, so my views may be coloured
by knowing what the hell I am talking about.

~~~
tux1968
That's dodging the point. Your assertion that my point of view was purely
subjective while the opposing views were not.

What constitutes guilt is simple, being convicted of transgressing a law.

The objective measure in my book, is that of real world harm balanced against
unintended side effects and limitations on freedom.

* ps. your not so subtle implication that only you know what you're talking about and other people don't is not arguing in good faith.

~~~
jacques_chester
> _What constitutes guilt is simple, being convicted of transgressing a law._

"How was he convicted?" -> "He was found guilty".

"How is he guilty?" -> "He was convicted".

This is a circular argument. What is the standard that quantifies that a
conviction should occur?

> _The objective measure in my book, is that of real world harm balanced
> against unintended side effects and limitations on freedom._

I see. How is real world harm measured objectively? How are unintended side
effects measured objectively? How are limitations on freedom measured
objectively?

ps. My implication wasn't meant to be subtle. That's my fault.

