Rhode Island Governor Dumps Revenge Porn Bill In Favor Of Upholding First Amendment
from the saving-rights,-making-enemies dept
In an unexpected turn of events, Rhode Island's governor has chosen the First Amendment over the hot button issue of revenge porn. One of several bad bills recently introduced by legislators (the others being a dreadful CFAA clone and badly-written "cybercrime" bill) is dead, killed by a politician who actually realized the potential damage to free speech it might have caused.
In her veto message signed late Monday night, [Governor Gina] Raimondo said: "The bill is apparently intended to curb the dissemination of private sexual material over the internet, but its sweep is much broader. It could also cover works of art that depict the human body. And unlike virtually all other similar state statutes, H7537 does not include basic safeguards such as the requirement that 'intent to harass' be demonstrated for conduct to be criminal."
"The breadth and lack of clarity may have a chilling effect on free speech," she wrote. "The right course of action is to follow the example of other states, and craft a more carefully worded law that specifically addresses the problem of revenge porn, without implicating other types of constitutionally protected speech."
The bill, as many of them are, was introduced in a misguided attempt to solve a problem by bashing away at it with the largest legislative hammer. Almost everyone agrees revenge porn is terrible, but only a small minority of those seem interested in handling the issue with the finesse it demands. Instead of narrowly-crafted bills, we get broadly-worded bluster that threatens to swallow up protected speech along with the revenge porn the bills so poorly target.
This veto is unusual, because there's hardly anything more damaging to a political career than refusing to accept "do something" as an answer -- especially when opposing such a bill tends to get a person painted as sympathetic to repulsive humans who traffic in other people's misery.
But wanting to do something, and doing something that isn’t unconstitutional, are different things. Much as the main movers against revenge porn have shamelessly “lied and denied” about the constitutionality of criminalizing protected speech, and state legislatures have enacted laws following their model. Thus far, only one has been tested, in Arizona, and it failed miserably.
Governor Raimondo has the honor of the first veto, which is something to be quite proud of. No one gives a prize for respecting the Constitution anymore, particularly in the face of sad tears and stories of woe.
That's the problem with issues like these: the forward motion is usually propelled by emotion... and little else. All too often, legislators are somewhat aware of the constitutional issues, but somehow rationalize the damage away as being minimal compared to the evil being fought.
The answer to the revenge porn problem isn't simple. On the plus side, it's evident from multiple prosecutions of revenge porn site owners that existent laws are capable of handling the problem. In some cases, the approach is indirect, but it still achieves the same ends. People who profit from revenge porn tend to violate other laws, rather than limit their actions to this particular legal gray area.
But it's a bold move for a governor to step up and shut down a bad bill, rather than allow the courts to do her work for her. For that, Governor Raimondo should be applauded, especially as she's already being portrayed as sympathetic to revenge porn site operators, rather than to everyone else whose free speech would have been negatively affected by the legislation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: due process, first amendment, gina raimondo, revenge porn, rhode island
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"The breadth and lack of clarity may have a chilling effect on free speech"
Whoops! This speech was written for her by.... wink wink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kudos indeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see. Section 230. A "service provider" that profits from the stolen images and videos can claim to be an innocent host, and claim immunity for any legal action. So before you can get anything done, you have to overcome Wyden's legal speed bump.
If you happen to get past that one (the recent rulings in California might help you) you are then in the position of trying to figure out who actually making the posting. So then you have a whole other court battle just to get the "service provider" to release the information, so that you can go to the ISP to get them to release the info, only to run headlong into the concept that "an IP isn't a person, and the subscriber isn't liable for what their connection is used for".
So trying to enforce the existing laws under the existing structures is very hard, and trying to get TIMELY resolution is almost impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"misguided"?
Why do you assume that it was misguided? Perhaps the *real* intent was suppression of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "misguided"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we get a round of applause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
subtext
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]