'Revenge porn' bill becomes Calif. law
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a first-of-its-kind state law criminalizing what has become known as revenge porn, the distribution of private, explicit photos of other people on the Internet, usually by ex-lovers or spouses, to humiliate them.
The measure, which passed both houses of the Democratic-led state legislature almost unanimously last month, makes it a misdemeanor for individuals to take and then circulate without consent such images online with the intent to harass or annoy.
A conviction is punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for a first offense.
Signed into law late on Tuesday, the measure goes into effect immediately. It takes aim at an increasingly prevalent act of betrayal that typically occurs when a person posts nude images of a former romantic partner online as a way of exacting revenge after a breakup.
The images often end up proliferating on dozens of revenge porn websites that specialize in publishing such pictures, some of which charge the subjects fees to remove the offending material. The only other recourse victims have had was to pursue the perpetrators in civil court.
“Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims,” said the legislation's chief sponsor, state Sen. Anthony Cannella, a Republican from the Central Valley town of Ceres. “Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Police seek answers in killing of 2 NYPD officers
- IBM’s Watson supercomputing system to be applied to PTSD
- Replacement part beamed up to space station
- Gray wolf decision reversed
- Bill to save tax breaks on its way to Obama’s desk
- Ghostly snailfish found at record depth
- 3-D printed prosthetics give dog ability to run
- Poor morale, training in Air Force ICBM program spur questions about usefulness as nuclear deterrent
- Document hunt to begin for illegals who need proof of residency since 2010 for permit, reprieve
- Killer of New York police officers angry over Garner chokehold death, officials say
- Police publicly altering tactics on use of deadly force