Lawmaker Wants to Make "Lewd Photoshopping" Illegal

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

Do more lewd photoshops of that man.

TO THE LAB!

Yes, this exactly. And if the guy wasnt such an utter fool then he would realise that his reaction is going to pave the way for his face being photoshopped onto just about anything and everything thats amusing and offensive.

Aw, what did you do to the original article picture? I started laughing in the middle of work and had to change the page, but it was absolutely priceless.

Wasn't this already settled in the Hustler lawsuit a long time ago?

Here's the problem with this. If the law passes, people from other countries who were probably not interested or even aware of it to begin with will do it even more frequently than before with fewer consequences.

this guy would hate 4chan

I can't wait to see what Anonymous does to this dipshit. Hopefully his idiotic bill will go down in horrendous flames.

Andy Chalk:
"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."

No one has a right to make fun of people? Well damn, there's goes all of the social critics and comedians out the door. Fucking idiot.

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."

I highly doubt he knows what vulgar actually means. He might want to look up the word "obscenity" as well. Knowing what the words mean empowers oneself beyond measurement.

mad825:

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.

That's the "original" meaning of the word vulgar.
For example, "vulgar latin" was the latin used by the common people, not by the poets and such that we study today.
"Vulgar" meaning something that's crude is a more recent meaning change.
ETYMOLOGY! <3

Well, this is embarrassing...

I DON'T WANT TO GO TO JAIL/PRISON! D:

DON'T PASS BILL, DON'T PASS!

I know I'm inclined to support legislation the originator can't even be assed to explain...

Magichead:

Andy Chalk:

Source: FoxNews.com

Escapist is using FOX as a source now? Welp, there goes my bookmark to your frontpage, and I'm glad I use Firefox *re-enables something*.

They use the Daily Mail an awful lot too. It's pretty infuriating.

OT: One of these days, a lawmaker will realise how the internet actually works.

Um...I could be wrong but isn't this already illegal?

http://www.wafb.com/global/story.asp?s=12630410

See also: http://www.cracked.com/article_18554_5-wacky-internet-pranks-that-can-get-you-jail-time.html

Now I suppose a comedy website isn't the most reputable source for legal advice but the stories about people getting fined/jail times are certainly true. Maybe the author just cherry picked the few cases where they were actually charged but there is an example right there of someone getting in trouble for Photoshop.

Its fairly easy to see how this could be made illegal if it isn't already. Depending on the quality it could very easily cross into defamation, libel, and slander, especially when it is somebody famous.

This is really pathetic.

His state constituents should recall him for wasting time in a critical government position. I'm very serious.

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.

So you're saying that if someone says anything about you that you do not like, it is a violation of your rights? Where in the constitution does it say that being criticized is infringing on your rights? You know what's actually a right though? Freedom of expression, and if that guy can't express himself, he doesn't have pretty much the most important right in the US. All because some guy didn't like something he made.

There is absolutely no way we can make any law that will properly define just where exactly the line you're talking about in the first paragraph is. In fact, there isn't even a line to draw. This is an incredibly nebulous and subjective subject. You're not going to get a specific law on this subject. Any law that does come up for it will depend on courts, and i'm pretty sure the people who can take the joke won't be the ones setting the precedents.

Also, character assassination? This is character assassination? This is an example of lying, spreading rumors, and twisting truths to defame their character? The reason libel laws exists is so people can't make widespread campaigns to unjustly destroy someones reputation. It's not there so people who can't take criticism can take legal action against minor things. saying this is character assassination is like saying a light poke in the chest is assault.

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 ;)

Have you seen Ron Jeremy.. from the waist up? Not something I would want to be associated with.

I understand his issue but he could just whip up a nice lawsuit for defamation. It would still fall under it.

removed name so not to spam your inbox:

"Everyone has a right to privacy,"

Sadly, yes. People have a right to hide their crimes from public, which has allowed narcobarons and street gangs to thrive in America.

removed name so not to spam your inbox:

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

Then tell me, mr lawmaker, why are you making fun of your own position?

While I disagree with Rep. Smith's choice of words (hire a writer, you obviously need one). I do agree with the Idea of the law.

I can even argue that it would be constitutional. We have Rights, except, when we abuse those Rights to harm other people (or reputations). If someone were to Photoshop a picture of *insert your political leader here* of them having an affair. Then released it to the press. Should that be legal? Affairs are not illegal, but many constituents would question electing a person who lied to them about this affair. He can deny it, but pictures do not lie.

Personally, I would sue for unlawful use of my image if someone Photoshopped me like that (if I could, that is).

"becoming a nation of vulgar people". really? Like just recently?

Anyway good luck enforcing that law, while you're at it why don't you push for laws against being mean, and require ghosts to carry I.D?

Double points if the person who did the photoshop was from Canada or something.

If anyone pulled such a photoshop on me, I'd thwack them with a rolled-up newspaper. Not because of the photoshop thing, but because they thought they were being imaginative or smart. And the thwack would be my way of saying "L-A-M-E! Wanna mess with me, put some damn effort into it, come on. At least make it look like you're actually trying."

And uh, as for a law on this? I think it's not necessary, since there already should be legal grounds for libel suits in case of malicious photoshopping.

Innegativeion:

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?

Nutcase:
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.

If my eyes are not deceiving me, we are both indeed seeing the same man attempting to wipe his ass with the Constitution. :L

Just wondering if anyone else can see that bit.

You Pansy! Making fun of others has been going on forever, and now you want to fight it because you're sensitive and can't ignore it?

Yes, people can get wound up and not think straight while pissed, but there is no way this should have become news worthy.

Legion:
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.

It's already illegal to submit falsified evidence in a court of law. photos or otherwise the difference with the law he wants to make would be that it would be illegal to make a photo shopped image or something similar of anyone who didn't know/consent to it being made and it existing in public.

Making a photoshopped image which genuinely appears to be a nude photo of someone you don't like, should definitely be illegal - if it isn't already. It could certainly qualify as malicious slander, for one thing. (EDIT: Or, as mentioned directly above, falsification of evidence. Yup, illegal as all-get-out already. No worries there.)

The image provided in the article, however, does not look like anything other than a half-assed photoshop job. While clearly meant as an insult, I really cannot see how it could actually fool anyone.

The picture itself is doing Smith no harm. It is nothing more than an infantile insult which, when seen on its own, is far more of a detriement to the person who created it.

Smith's reaction to it, on the other hand, reveals him to be an immature and self-righteous blowhard - which was quite possibly the intent behind the "offensive" image in the first place. Point in Mr. Walker's favour.

He should see what we do to politicians over here:

Sure, the BBC was banned from rerunning that episode again, but when it was first broadcast, the BBC defended it.

For those who cannot, either through lack of time, patience, or filter, watch the video, it's Jonathan Ross asking David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, if he ever wanked to Margaret Thatcher.

Of course politicians don't care about this kind of stuff till it happens to them. Typical.

Ptsh, get outta town, Sarah Palin had three feature length pornos made about her, and she didn't say a word to my knowledge, and you're annoyed over one badly shooped picture?

FoolKiller:

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 ;)

Have you seen Ron Jeremy.. from the waist up? Not something I would want to be associated with.

Yeah....not too nice. I don't know hows he's still in the business, I mean in his heyday sure, but now he just looks like a strung out version of Lou Albinos Mario. Mind you, I don't think he gets to pick from the A list anymore.

Legion:
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.

But that's not what the proposed law targets. The way the current system works, you could already sue someone for liable or slander if one of these photos caused enough damage to warrant it. This law would make it illegal to make the photo, regardless of how much, or little damage was done. I would support a bill that brought these sorts of things firmly into the pervue of existing slander laws, but making them illegal in their own right is a violation of the first amendment.

It's like the "yelling fire in a movie theater" example. That is an acceptable and legal infringement of the first amendment because of the danger caused by doing that. But we didn't outlaw talking in movie theaters, we just said it was illegal to yell fire. Extending that logic to these photos, there isn't any precedent to make it illegal to make or post the photos, but if they cause harm you are accountable for the repercussions.

Then again, who am I kidding, the constitution doesn't matter anymore.

This is 'MURICA!!!! I can't hear you over the sound of my FREEDOM!!!!!
. . .

Ruby Ridge(1992)
Federal Assault weapons ban(1994)
Gun Free School Zone act(2000)
Patriot Act(2001)
HR 347(2011)
NDAA(2012)
NY SAFE ACT(2013)
CISPA(currently being discussed)
Feinstein Gun ban(upcoming)

Well shit . . .
I guess I can hear you now.

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

Um, actually, yes it is. Unless the subject is a minor, and it looks like that ship sailed a long time ago. (Being a big crybaby doesn't count.)

Fox News.... of all things. If this story is true then surely a remotely trustworthy channel reported on it?

If it is true, than its just sad. Trying to outlow petty butthurt, come on now. People have to be paid to review that rubbish, process it through adminstration, etc etc. Waste of resources, go maintain some roads with it instead.

Also if it does pass I will, as a non-american citizen, make lots of silly pictures with his face! Mwohahah!

EDIT:

Da Orky Man:
~Vid~

just gives an error.

mad825:

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.

It comes from the idea that the lower classes are less refined and courser than those above them. You're both right.

Anyone Remember Flynt vs Falwell? Cause Falwell's suit to sue over something similar failed due to it being ruled that the parody in Hustler was protected under the first amendment. Now i'd imagine even if his bill got passed it would immediately get challenged by the ACLU or other such organization and defeated by the state supreme court making this a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.

So Representative Smith, now that you've got that out, I do have a question:

image

Yeah, I've been waiting for a chance to use that.

That being said, I get why he's pissed off. I would be too if I were him. But, how much would it cost to enforce something like this?

Still it's way more grounded then most of Leland Yee's ideas.

Sounds like Georgia Rep. Earnest G. Smith is a whiny little asshole.

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

Actually, yes it is. Freedom of speech includes parody and satire.

 Pages PREV 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