Brinch Vinther (Aarup80Shore)

Regular followers of Slixa Late Night, or perhaps of yours truly, will remember an article last fall delving into the tricky category of a newly outlawed phenomenon: revenge porn. For those of you who dont regularly sit hawk-eyed over various news sources, informative Facebook feeds, or Twitter, perhaps youll be surprised to learn that revenge porn (constituted as making public the extremely private nude photos or videos that pass between couples with vengeful design) at the moment illegal. This is thanks, in part, to Sacramentos own Jerry Brown creating a law that protects those that engage in (consentual) filmed sex tactics. Its an optimistic and somewhat delusional thought that perhaps the law would strike fear into the hearts of vengeful revenge pornsters everywhere. After all, its an illegal act, punishable by steep fines and possible jail time, so in the perfect world, everyone who had ever taken, possessed, or come across a nudie photo or risqu amateur porn shoot you did with a random boo would respect those laws. Right? Wrong. Meet Hunter Moore: proprietor of the now non-existent Is Anyone Up, a site that was once dedicated entirely to publishing revenge pornography. According to Not Waving But Drowning How WePay Failed Eden Alexander , Moores had been as follows: The 15-count indictment alleges that Moore paid an accomplice named Charles Gary Evens to hack to produce number of private computers and steal nude photos from users, which Moore then uploaded to his website. Total Sensory Deprivation (And Back-Up Drugs) against Moore include one count of conspiracy, seven counts unauthorized access to a protected computer purchase information and seven counts of aggravated identity theft. Despite Is America Porn-Crazed , Moore has not been charged with the recent aggravation of revenge porn. Why is that, you query? Wouldnt a lesser giant be slapped with Jerry Browns strike down faster than concentrate on your breathing say money image? According to the Associated Press, revenge porn isnt yet a federal crime, making prosecution a slippery pile. When I first interviewed Moore in 2012, he was confident that owning a website that published naked photos of someone without their consent was an action protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed in 1996 because the Internet was beginning to spread, the act states that website owners cannot be held liable for content submitted by other users. Writes Jessica Roy, staff writer for Time. Roys point extra a solid one: Section 230 protects websites that post content (including internet journalism) from being held responsible for possible opinions or actions of their user-base. This section, which is an aspect of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a mandate that was the main attempt by government officials to regulate pornographic content during the Internet, while maintaining user rights. With regards to of the stipulations of revenge porn lawsit is factual that most states dont currently have any regulations in place, a fact that legislators around the are working adjust. A controversial aspect belonging to the law, as reported by The Nation is that anti-revenge porn laws wont actually protect most victims of the crimes, as a the proven fact many photos used as revenge are photos taken by the victims themselves, a segment that goes largely unprotected by Californias legislation. According to the law (both in California and New Jersey, where the law was first passed), revenge porn violators are limited to fault that they spread or distribute photos or videos that they took themselves. Its