You’re a male so it doesn’t matter when it happens to a male.
Lots of clowns in this thread with no clue which side their bread is buttered on. 
Shit, how many women have pictures of my cock. I Hope the law passes.
Hope it doesnt pass.
I give people dick pics in hopes that it spreads across the internet.
My bread is buttered on whichever side my lady happens to spread it upon.
She also toasts it beforehand.
That said, I’d be inclined to call anyone who perpetrates “revenge porn” as being unworthy of the vagina from whence he came, much less any he happened to come in… and film.
What about females who want to disgrace their ex-males with small penises?
oh shit time to upload all my pics of my exes now before this is legali…
oh wait california. LOL NVM
Might as well call this the Kim K rule
Good, violates the ethics of privacy. Pretty lame revenge, destroying reputation through spreading scandal is more suited to teenybopper girls than men.
So how can you prove that it wasn’t your Ex that uploaded the pictures from within your WLAN just before leaving to incriminate you?
Are there any other things acceptable for girls to do upon a breakup that are not for men, according to you?
But it was reblogged like 1000 times on a lot of gay men tumblr pages.
“thick hot guys”
“black boy fetish”
etc etc
I felt so open that day.
The problem is that the law is too fucking biased for females to the point of absurdity. Men are just explained to deal with bullshit harassment that isn’t really acceptable.
I have no problems with girls this law, but…I don’t understand why it’s not both.
But I guess the women trying to come up and be Hollywood through their own sex tapes and such is not criminal.
Wait, this wasn’t already illegal?
… you can’t honestly think that free speech applies to pictures of someone else do you? Do you really think that this is a valid argument?
This falls under “The Expectation of Privacy.” The pictures were taken with the expectation of privacy, so to make them public should be illegal. Of course it’s idiotic to take these pictures in the first place, but that doesn’t make it ok to post them up.
damn, i have some replies tomorrow and i enjoy the comedy, but i think some people read the title and went from there, because what theyre talking about has nothing to do with the article, what i wrote, or whats being talked about.
thats sad though. to just read a title and reply from that instead of what its about. shame on you. lol. i aint mad at the lolz though, just pointing out some of the more serious replies that are blatantly left field as fuck.
Come to think of it, I bet Triforce wished he lived in California right now…
Topic is misleading. The bill doesn’t seem to care whether or not you’re together. It’s phrased such that you will be punished if you upload pictures of anyone without their consent, and they consequently suffer emotional distress.
From the webpage:
“This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of another, identifiable person with his or her consent who is in a state of full or partial undress in any area in which the person being photographed or recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and subsequently distributes the image taken, and the other person suffers serious emotional distress would constitute disorderly conduct subject to that same punishment.”
BEUROCRATIC CHICKEN SCRATCH.
WASTE OF INK ON PAPER.
IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE, LET ALONE ENFORCE.
Mind you, I agree with most of this. People should expect shit like this to be private. I would hope that, regardless of how shitty the break up is, the guy has enough class to just delete that shit and move on. But there are various things that can happen with the material which may not involve the man or woman releasing it as revenge (shady computer repair people, guys who forget they even have the pics and just post them years later, phone gets lost with pics in it etc). The real issue with this comes if the person who holds the picture decides to do anything artistic with it.
Lets say I open a web site and call it oh, I don’t fucking now, SoapOperaLove.com where I take random amateur pictures and have somebody do storylines to them. Every page will contain a set of pictures attached to some long interwoven storyline about the lady in the picture (not using real names of course). I can take donations of pictures/video, host them but all of it would be attached to something new and creative. At that point I can get away at making money with pictures of amateurs that I don’t have to take plus I would have moved the content away from being revenge pictures. All the material is donated by users and interwoven with other forms of artwork into a brand new piece. How are you will you even try to prosecute these nuts without the ACLU coming in with steel chairs for your dome?
On top of that, say the person who holds the pictures makes a blog about the break up and is posting all sorts of different pictures on top of the explicit ones? Do you say that just one part of that is free speech and not the other? Is it catharsis or is it spite?
People need to stop acting the fool about the type of digital footprint they leave. Is the material potentially damaging? It sure is. But there are too many ways of creating a legal quagmire with it.
pretty sure the government has access to every pic that was uploaded over the wire anyway and the NSA is already furiously fapping to it.
maybe I should work for NSA then i can finally score moar matriarch pix…