Devine Fitzgerald (Wagner42Pearson)

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 adult. 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) grow to be illegal. This is thanks, in part, to Sacramentos own Jerry Brown creating a law that protects people that engage in (consentual) filmed sex health care practices. 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. Suitable? Wrong. Meet Hunter Moore: proprietor of the now non-existent Is Anyone Up, web-site that was once dedicated entirely to publishing revenge porn. According to Paypal Strongarms Patreon to Deny “Adult” Content Creators Funding , Moores charges were as follows: The 15-count indictment alleges that Moore paid an accomplice named Charles Gary Evens to hack create number of private computers and steal nude photos from users, which Moore then uploaded to his website. The formal charges against Moore include one count of conspiracy, seven counts unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information and seven counts of aggravated identity theft. Despite this impressive rap sheet, Moore has not been charged with the recent aggravation of revenge porn. Why is that, you find out from? 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 slope. When I first interviewed Moore in 2012, he was confident that owning a website that published naked photos of people 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. Canada’s Supreme Court Decriminalizes Sex Work and here is 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 a necessary part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a mandate that was the main attempt by government officials to regulate pornographic content on the Internet, while maintaining user rights. In Plural Families Plural Standards Polygamy Laws Declared Unconstitutional Under District Court 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 us are working alter. A controversial aspect within the law, as reported by The Nation is that anti-revenge porn laws wont actually protect most victims of the crimes, due to the concept that many photos used as revenge are photos taken by the sufferers themselves, a segment that goes largely unprotected by Californias statutes. According to the law (both