Lawmaker Wants to Make "Lewd Photoshopping" Illegal

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Lawmaker Wants to Make "Lewd Photoshopping" Illegal

image

Georgia Rep. Earnest G. Smith is stepping up efforts to criminalize photoshops after someone pasted his face onto a porn star's body and posted it on the internet.

Earnest G. Smith was none too happy when he discovered that one of his online detractors had slapped an image of his face onto the reclining, and very naked, body of porn star and unleashed it on his blog. But unlike most people, Earnest G. Smith is a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, so he has a course of action at his fingertips beyond just getting mad: He wants to make it illegal.

"Everyone has a right to privacy," Smith told FoxNews.com. "No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It's not a First Amendment right."

Smith is behind a bill that would make causing "an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as a person in an obscene depiction" a misdemeanor offense punishable by fines of $1000, although he refused to discuss the actual details of his proposed law. "If and when this bill passes we can revisit the issue and if I choose to give you details at that time I will, but until then I don't have to tell you anything," he said. Smith actually introduced the bill last year but stepped up his efforts to have it made into law after this picture was released.

He also dismissed concerns that his law would infringe upon First Amendment protection of parody, stating, "They are vulgar. This is vulgar. We're becoming a nation of vulgar people."

The pictures were actually created by blogger Andre Walker, who said he did it to demonstrate that Smith's bill would in fact trample all over the Constitution. "The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects all forms of speech, not just spoken word," he wrote at Georgia Politics Unfiltered. "[The bill] attempts to regulate speech and I doubt it would stand up in a court of law."

An unnamed legislator agreed with Walker, telling Fox that Smith is "the conductor of his own crazy train."

Source: FoxNews.com

Permalink

I can see how it can be seen as wrong in the sense of libel, slander, fraud etc.

If you are decent enough at it to make it seem real, then it could cause all sorts of issues when crimes are involved. Think of it in a sense where photographic evidence is used in a trial, if you are a pro at this, you could create false evidence, or false alibi's.

Although the way the man words it makes it sound like he is stamping his feet and throwing a tantrum.

Remember gang, when you're pissed off at the internet, the appropriate thing to do is to ban it as hard as possible. Not, you know, use that handy block button.

"No one has a right to make fun of anyone"

Why didnt the kids at my school get this memo?

Also i totally wouldnt mind if people took my head and glued it on p0rnstars bodies. Knock yourselves out ;)

Even if this was constitutional, It would be a bitch to act on this. It seems just like a petty revenge

"If and when the bill passes I might give you more information but I don't have to say anything". Our elected lawmakers will only let us know the details of our own laws after they're already law? How very democratic.

Frankster:
"No one has a right to make fun of anyone"

Why didnt the kids at my school get this memo?

Also i totally wouldnt mind if people took my head and glued it on p0rnstars bodies. Knock yourselves out ;)

Why don't politicians get the memo? Also,get right the heck ahead.

At first i was going to say if his competitor did this he could just say you cant, because that is quite illegal to do while campaigning.

after seeign who actually did it though, thats even funnier.

"They are vulgar. This is vulgar. We're becoming a nation of vulgar people."

vulgar: adj

relating to, or current among the great mass of common people, in contrast to the educated, cultured, or privileged

so... nice?

Buns of steel
nerves of chalk
We're not nation of vulgar people, we're a nation of bitches.

Oh please, he wishes that he could look like a porn star. He isn't so lucky.

"No one has the right to make fun at anyone."

I'm pretty sure we do...

But, you know, skrew freedom of expression and all that. What, would drawing a picture of him with a pornstar's body be made illegal next?

I will put this concisely: Mr. Smith, grow some skin. Someone effectively called you a bad name; now you want to make a law to prevent that? What a hideously slippery slope you have decided to stand upon, sir.

ADDENDUM: also, if you want to deal with this in the proper, American way, just sue the guy. (BTW, that is said with tongue in cheek, just in case anyone missed it.)

Legion:
If you are decent enough at it to make it seem real, then it could cause all sorts of issues when crimes are involved. Think of it in a sense where photographic evidence is used in a trial, if you are a pro at this, you could create false evidence, or false alibi's.

Which is why there are already laws against falsifying evidence (be it photographic or not). Well, at least where I am from using photoshopped images as evidence earns you more than just a stern look from the judge.

OT:

I'm starting to wonder if outlawing politicians wouldn't be a more sensible bill.

Xiado:
"If and when the bill passes I might give you more information but I don't have to say anything". Our elected lawmakers will only let us know the details of our own laws after they're already law? How very democratic.

Yeah, is it just me or does that sentence make him seem VERY childish? I mean that sounds like something my 8 year old little cousin would say. I don't think he's making this law out of some noble belief that he's doing the right thing.

With the whole "vulgar people line" it sounds more like he's decided everyone in the world is less honorable than him and therefore he has to make everyone step in line to how he sees things.

You know, I half support this. Celeb Jihad pisses me off so much. I want to see if Emma Watson's finally bared all and the results are all poorly photoshopped images with a title along the lines of "Shameless whore Emma spreads wide for the ghost dick of Abraham" or whatever. Why does that website exist? It's liking poking a bear with another, larger bear if nothing else.

Though I can see the issues with this of course. Simply "If this happens, where does it end?" and it could be a foothold for another SOPA which no one wants.

You know what they say: it's good to want things.

The funny thing about rights in America is that they only extend so far as not to infringe upon the rights of others. Everyone always forgets that part. You have the right to say whatever you want... to mock and criticize and decry... but there's an indefinite point at which we all know it crosses a line. The letter of the law doesn't specify, because it's not something one can define mathematically... not yet anyways... but there's a point at which your mocking and criticism become harassment and defamation.

And this is a pretty obvious, blatant infringement of the fellow's rights. In his shoes, I'd be rightly pissed as well. There was no other intent beyond being inflammatory and crude... and congrats on that. Mission accomplished. But you've just plastered a picture of a man's head on a porn star's body all over the internet, to be mocked and ridiculed by millions. I'm pretty sure that violates the spirit of the law entitling that man to a life free of persecution and oppression, in which he can pursue happiness to his heart's content somewhere.

That being said, there are already laws to handle this sort of thing. We've got libel. We've got copyright laws. We've got laws being made against the use of the internet to bully and victimize people. We've got all kinds of laws which could be conveniently used to cover this incident and make an example of a dick move by some jackass with a point he thinks it vitally important he make on his blog. And you know what? I hope someone does make an example of him... because the internet is full of pricks and assholes... and I'm tired of seeing unpopular peoples' faces plastered on them artificially. But we don't need another new, poorly worded law that makes it dangerous to parody or mock people. We need to re-word and retool the laws already extant in a way that clearly identifies their meaning. That way, it's not such a big deal to prosecute someone for something like this when it clearly violates the spirit of the law, even if it technically falls within the letter.

Is the guy someone I'd vote for or like? Hell no. But as an American citizen, I understand all-too-well that the rights and freedoms we have in this nation are precisely those which we continue to believe in. I may not like him. I may not agree with him. I may even suggest that men like him be lined up and shot as traitors to their own nation's freedoms from time-to-time. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his rights until then.

If this is protected by the First Amendment... then my bashing your face in with a wrench for posting my head on a naked dude's body is covered by Self Defense laws, because I won't take character assassination lying down. Unless my head looks amazing on that dude's shoulders.

In which case, by all means.

Wait...

So, let me get this straight...

This MORON says he won't let HIS bosses (the American people) see what's in the bill unless it PASSES?

This 'lawmaker' actions are FAR more offensive then ANY 'lewd Photoshopping' I've EVER come across.

Is this where the line starts for free sixpack abs and nine inch penises?

Actually, if he wants to talk about lewd photoshopping, the obvious next step is to 'shop him into a g-rated image like this one* and see how he likes it.

(*Not safe for Godwin.)

Next up he will make 'yo momma' jokes illegal. They are hurtful, mean spirited and often untrue. After that will be the 'poopoo head act', criminalising toddlers who say horrible things to others.

Phahahah,this is truly pathetic to any avid internet user.Even people who only use facebook on their phones would think this is sad.

TJC:

Legion:
If you are decent enough at it to make it seem real, then it could cause all sorts of issues when crimes are involved. Think of it in a sense where photographic evidence is used in a trial, if you are a pro at this, you could create false evidence, or false alibi's.

Which is why there are already laws against falsifying evidence (be it photographic or not). Well, at least where I am from using photoshopped images as evidence earns you more than just a stern look from the judge.

Like I said, if you are decent enough for it to seem real, as in nobody can prove it is a fake. That is why I mean that it could make sense to prevent people from doing it at all in the first place. It's not like people have any justifiable need to photoshop images of other people without their permission, so claiming it's a violation of rights, is like saying spreading lies (slander and libel) is against rights.

That is not to say I agree with the guy completely, but it is something that is very open to abuse.

Scientifically speaking, this is called being butthurt

TJC:

Legion:
If you are decent enough at it to make it seem real, then it could cause all sorts of issues when crimes are involved. Think of it in a sense where photographic evidence is used in a trial, if you are a pro at this, you could create false evidence, or false alibi's.

Which is why there are already laws against falsifying evidence (be it photographic or not). Well, at least where I am from using photoshopped images as evidence earns you more than just a stern look from the judge.

OT:

I'm starting to wonder if outlawing politicians wouldn't be a more sensible bill.

I second your proposal. Quick let's get the bill drafted and bring it up on the House floor....

I suddenly have so much work to do. If you all would excuse me, I have a date with google image search, my copy of photoshop, and this asshat's blog.

Goddammit why do people keep doing this!

Do not, under any circumstances, bring any attention to things which you are embarrassed or offended by on the internet! It only makes things 100X worse!

Is that the body of a gay pornstar? Because he seems a little butthurt.

PhantomEcho:
The funny thing about rights in America is that they only extend so far as not to infringe upon the rights of others. Everyone always forgets that part. You have the right to say whatever you want... to mock and criticize and decry... but there's an indefinite point at which we all know it crosses a line. The letter of the law doesn't specify, because it's not something one can define mathematically... not yet anyways... but there's a point at which your mocking and criticism become harassment and defamation.

And this is a pretty obvious, blatant infringement of the fellow's rights. In his shoes, I'd be rightly pissed as well. There was no other intent beyond being inflammatory and crude... and congrats on that. Mission accomplished. But you've just plastered a picture of a man's head on a porn star's body all over the internet, to be mocked and ridiculed by millions. I'm pretty sure that violates the spirit of the law entitling that man to a life free of persecution and oppression, in which he can pursue happiness to his heart's content somewhere.

That being said, there are already laws to handle this sort of thing. We've got libel. We've got copyright laws. We've got laws being made against the use of the internet to bully and victimize people. We've got all kinds of laws which could be conveniently used to cover this incident and make an example of a dick move by some jackass with a point he thinks it vitally important he make on his blog. And you know what? I hope someone does make an example of him... because the internet is full of pricks and assholes... and I'm tired of seeing unpopular peoples' faces plastered on them artificially. But we don't need another new, poorly worded law that makes it dangerous to parody or mock people. We need to re-word and retool the laws already extant in a way that clearly identifies their meaning. That way, it's not such a big deal to prosecute someone for something like this when it clearly violates the spirit of the law, even if it technically falls within the letter.

Is the guy someone I'd vote for or like? Hell no. But as an American citizen, I understand all-too-well that the rights and freedoms we have in this nation are precisely those which we continue to believe in. I may not like him. I may not agree with him. I may even suggest that men like him be lined up and shot as traitors to their own nation's freedoms from time-to-time. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his rights until then.

If this is protected by the First Amendment... then my bashing your face in with a wrench for posting my head on a naked dude's body is covered by Self Defense laws, because I won't take character assassination lying down. Unless my head looks amazing on that dude's shoulders.

In which case, by all means.

I think you might have missed the context where Earnest G. Smith proposed this bill first, & the blogger made the photoshopped picture as an act of peaceful protest & to show how ridiculous his bill was.

I don't see how this is a violation of his rights in any way. He is in no way physically or financially harmed, no one would for a second believe that that picture was actually of him (it's not a very good photoshop, but the point being it wouldn't fool anyone), so he isn't being arrested, hasn't lost his job, & his public image isn't damaged. Where exactly is the crime? He hurt the guy's feelings? He's a politician; you know, the same people that claim we're responsible for mass shootings & child murders. So someone pasted his face onto a picture of a guy with his dick hanging out specifically because he's trying to lock up people who might do that to him? I have absolutely zero sympathy for Earnest G. Smith & I commend the efforts of the blogger

FranckN:
"They are vulgar. This is vulgar. We're becoming a nation of vulgar people."

vulgar: adj

relating to, or current among the great mass of common people, in contrast to the educated, cultured, or privileged

so... nice?

What dictionary did you get this from? O.o

Vulgar basically means explicit language or behaviour.

Well then, I think we all know what must be done.

Do more lewd photoshops of that man.

TO THE LAB!

No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It's not a First Amendment right.

I... I ... di... did... is... is anyone else seeing what I'm seeing guys? ANYone else seeing this shit deeeuuuuude?! I...i...i... fsuhfushgujsjgbhjgdz

How... how is this man in the lawmaking process?

PhantomEcho:
The funny thing about rights in America is that they only extend so far as not to infringe upon the rights of others. Everyone always forgets that part. You have the right to say whatever you want... to mock and criticize and decry... but there's an indefinite point at which we all know it crosses a line. The letter of the law doesn't specify, because it's not something one can define mathematically... not yet anyways... but there's a point at which your mocking and criticism become harassment and defamation.

And this is a pretty obvious, blatant infringement of the fellow's rights. In his shoes, I'd be rightly pissed as well. There was no other intent beyond being inflammatory and crude... and congrats on that. Mission accomplished. But you've just plastered a picture of a man's head on a porn star's body all over the internet, to be mocked and ridiculed by millions. I'm pretty sure that violates the spirit of the law entitling that man to a life free of persecution and oppression, in which he can pursue happiness to his heart's content somewhere.

My only problem with this assessment is the act of not being something he approves of is not a violation of his right. People have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. This upsets and angers him, but this treatment isn't robbing him of any of his basic rights. If he was forced to look upon these pictures and forced to listen to feedback based on them, if the people were forced to look upon the picture and forced into thinking this is him in some capacity or this was made to somehow hurt him physically, financially, or in some manner besides emotional, then you might have a point. But the existence of this doesn't infringe upon his or anyone else's rights in any way.

No on has the right to make fun of anyone? Um... Since when? Do comedians get thrown in the slammer for poking fun at politicians? Do writers get in trouble for making cracks about actors in sitcoms? No you silly man!
He just seems a bit butt hurt to me.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here