The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Kowani]

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will no longer prosecute sex workers, eliminate past cases and convictions

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced a new policy on Wednesday of ending past and future prostitution-related cases dating back nearly half a century, in a move hailed by many advocates as a welcome—though unfinished—step toward decriminalizing sex work. The new policy, the first in the Empire State, will eliminate a broad array of prostitution-related cases, warrants and convictions dating back to 1976–and effectively remove penalties for providing sex work in New York City’s namesake borough. Nearly 6,000 existing cases will likely be zeroed out under the new guidance.

Police will still target and arrest purchasers of sex, however, and the district attorney’s office will still prosecute people who patronize sex workers, which researchers believe will likely mute the impact and efficacy of the policy. The district attorney’s office told Law&Crime that the policy change “does not affect our approach to arrests for Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree (the typical charge for what you call soliciting/purchasing).” “When someone is first arrested for this charge, our policy is to offer them a plea to Disorderly Conduct (a violation, not a crime), with a health education class, 5 days of community service, a fine, and a two-year stay of sealing,” the district attorney’s office added. “After those requirements are completed and the two years are up, the case is sealed.”

Vance explained the rationale for the policy shift in a press release.

“Over the last decade we’ve learned from those with lived experience, and from our own experience on the ground: criminally prosecuting prostitution does not make us safer, and too often, achieves the opposite result by further marginalizing vulnerable New Yorkers,” Vance wrote. “For years, rather than seeking criminal convictions, my Office has reformed its practice to offer services to individuals arrested for prostitution. Now, we will decline to prosecute these arrests outright, providing services and supports solely on a voluntary basis. By vacating warrants, dismissing cases, and erasing convictions for these charges, we are completing a paradigm shift in our approach.” The district attorney’s office noted that they have already made an appearance in the Manhattan Criminal Court and moved to dismiss exactly 914 prostitution and unlicensed massage cases along with 5,080 loitering for the purpose of prostitution cases.

“Although my office has not prosecuted this crime since 2016, we have identified 5,080 cases where the top charge is Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution and there is a pending bench warrant,” Vance said in court on Wednesday. “My office recognizes that the vulnerabilities imposed by warrants relating to the Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution charge apply equally to many of the people who are charged with prostitution and unlicensed massage. We therefore have identified every case where the top charge is Penal Law 230.00 and there is a pending bench warrant. There are a total of 878 cases that meet this criteria, and they are before the Court as well. We’ve also identified 36 cases where individuals are charged with Attempted Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of offering massage services without a license, and these cases are also before the Court this morning.”

The district attorney went on to say that warrants for those offenses were issued over a time period when society was less inclined to consider the “circumstances” faced by people selling sex. Prosecution for sex work-related offenses, he said, has resulted in “significant collateral consequences” for those targeted by the old mindset and that a “collaboration” with survivors, advocates, and the Legal Aid Society’s Exploitation Intervention Project has resulted in a new way of thinking about how to deal with sex work.

[...]
Vance’s new Decline-to-Prosecute policy reads, in full:

Over the last decade, we have undergone a paradigm shift in how we understand the experiences of those engaging in prostitution and unlicensed massage. Through the work of our Human Trafficking Response Unit, and through the relationships we have built with survivors, sex workers, and advocates, we have come to a better understanding of the unintended harms of charging individuals with these offenses. To complete the paradigm shift, beginning today, the Office will no longer charge individuals with the offenses of Prostitution (P.L. § 230.00) and attempted or completed Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of unlicensed massage (charged under PL § 110/E.D § 6512(1)), as a standalone charge or in conjunction with other charges. This policy does not preclude us from bringing other charges that may stem from a prostitution-related arrest. Any arrest involving these charges should be referred to the Human Trafficking Response Unit. In cases where they are the sole charge, the Human Trafficking Response Unit will complete all necessary paperwork to formally decline to prosecute these cases and will arrange for information about voluntary services to be provided to the person arrested, but these services will no longer be mandated.

[Galloism]

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will no longer prosecute sex workers, eliminate past cases and convictions

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced a new policy on Wednesday of ending past and future prostitution-related cases dating back nearly half a century, in a move hailed by many advocates as a welcome—though unfinished—step toward decriminalizing sex work. The new policy, the first in the Empire State, will eliminate a broad array of prostitution-related cases, warrants and convictions dating back to 1976–and effectively remove penalties for providing sex work in New York City’s namesake borough. Nearly 6,000 existing cases will likely be zeroed out under the new guidance.

Police will still target and arrest purchasers of sex, however, and the district attorney’s office will still prosecute people who patronize sex workers, which researchers believe will likely mute the impact and efficacy of the policy. The district attorney’s office told Law&Crime that the policy change “does not affect our approach to arrests for Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree (the typical charge for what you call soliciting/purchasing).” “When someone is first arrested for this charge, our policy is to offer them a plea to Disorderly Conduct (a violation, not a crime), with a health education class, 5 days of community service, a fine, and a two-year stay of sealing,” the district attorney’s office added. “After those requirements are completed and the two years are up, the case is sealed.”

Vance explained the rationale for the policy shift in a press release.

“Over the last decade we’ve learned from those with lived experience, and from our own experience on the ground: criminally prosecuting prostitution does not make us safer, and too often, achieves the opposite result by further marginalizing vulnerable New Yorkers,” Vance wrote. “For years, rather than seeking criminal convictions, my Office has reformed its practice to offer services to individuals arrested for prostitution. Now, we will decline to prosecute these arrests outright, providing services and supports solely on a voluntary basis. By vacating warrants, dismissing cases, and erasing convictions for these charges, we are completing a paradigm shift in our approach.” The district attorney’s office noted that they have already made an appearance in the Manhattan Criminal Court and moved to dismiss exactly 914 prostitution and unlicensed massage cases along with 5,080 loitering for the purpose of prostitution cases.

“Although my office has not prosecuted this crime since 2016, we have identified 5,080 cases where the top charge is Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution and there is a pending bench warrant,” Vance said in court on Wednesday. “My office recognizes that the vulnerabilities imposed by warrants relating to the Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution charge apply equally to many of the people who are charged with prostitution and unlicensed massage. We therefore have identified every case where the top charge is Penal Law 230.00 and there is a pending bench warrant. There are a total of 878 cases that meet this criteria, and they are before the Court as well. We’ve also identified 36 cases where individuals are charged with Attempted Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of offering massage services without a license, and these cases are also before the Court this morning.”

The district attorney went on to say that warrants for those offenses were issued over a time period when society was less inclined to consider the “circumstances” faced by people selling sex. Prosecution for sex work-related offenses, he said, has resulted in “significant collateral consequences” for those targeted by the old mindset and that a “collaboration” with survivors, advocates, and the Legal Aid Society’s Exploitation Intervention Project has resulted in a new way of thinking about how to deal with sex work.

[...]
Vance’s new Decline-to-Prosecute policy reads, in full:

Over the last decade, we have undergone a paradigm shift in how we understand the experiences of those engaging in prostitution and unlicensed massage. Through the work of our Human Trafficking Response Unit, and through the relationships we have built with survivors, sex workers, and advocates, we have come to a better understanding of the unintended harms of charging individuals with these offenses. To complete the paradigm shift, beginning today, the Office will no longer charge individuals with the offenses of Prostitution (P.L. § 230.00) and attempted or completed Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of unlicensed massage (charged under PL § 110/E.D § 6512(1)), as a standalone charge or in conjunction with other charges. This policy does not preclude us from bringing other charges that may stem from a prostitution-related arrest. Any arrest involving these charges should be referred to the Human Trafficking Response Unit. In cases where they are the sole charge, the Human Trafficking Response Unit will complete all necessary paperwork to formally decline to prosecute these cases and will arrange for information about voluntary services to be provided to the person arrested, but these services will no longer be mandated.

This is for the best.

Can we also stop prosecuting Johns?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will no longer prosecute sex workers, eliminate past cases and convictions

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced a new policy on Wednesday of ending past and future prostitution-related cases dating back nearly half a century, in a move hailed by many advocates as a welcome—though unfinished—step toward decriminalizing sex work. The new policy, the first in the Empire State, will eliminate a broad array of prostitution-related cases, warrants and convictions dating back to 1976–and effectively remove penalties for providing sex work in New York City’s namesake borough. Nearly 6,000 existing cases will likely be zeroed out under the new guidance.

Police will still target and arrest purchasers of sex, however, and the district attorney’s office will still prosecute people who patronize sex workers, which researchers believe will likely mute the impact and efficacy of the policy. The district attorney’s office told Law&Crime that the policy change “does not affect our approach to arrests for Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree (the typical charge for what you call soliciting/purchasing).” “When someone is first arrested for this charge, our policy is to offer them a plea to Disorderly Conduct (a violation, not a crime), with a health education class, 5 days of community service, a fine, and a two-year stay of sealing,” the district attorney’s office added. “After those requirements are completed and the two years are up, the case is sealed.”

Vance explained the rationale for the policy shift in a press release.

“Over the last decade we’ve learned from those with lived experience, and from our own experience on the ground: criminally prosecuting prostitution does not make us safer, and too often, achieves the opposite result by further marginalizing vulnerable New Yorkers,” Vance wrote. “For years, rather than seeking criminal convictions, my Office has reformed its practice to offer services to individuals arrested for prostitution. Now, we will decline to prosecute these arrests outright, providing services and supports solely on a voluntary basis. By vacating warrants, dismissing cases, and erasing convictions for these charges, we are completing a paradigm shift in our approach.” The district attorney’s office noted that they have already made an appearance in the Manhattan Criminal Court and moved to dismiss exactly 914 prostitution and unlicensed massage cases along with 5,080 loitering for the purpose of prostitution cases.

“Although my office has not prosecuted this crime since 2016, we have identified 5,080 cases where the top charge is Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution and there is a pending bench warrant,” Vance said in court on Wednesday. “My office recognizes that the vulnerabilities imposed by warrants relating to the Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution charge apply equally to many of the people who are charged with prostitution and unlicensed massage. We therefore have identified every case where the top charge is Penal Law 230.00 and there is a pending bench warrant. There are a total of 878 cases that meet this criteria, and they are before the Court as well. We’ve also identified 36 cases where individuals are charged with Attempted Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of offering massage services without a license, and these cases are also before the Court this morning.”

The district attorney went on to say that warrants for those offenses were issued over a time period when society was less inclined to consider the “circumstances” faced by people selling sex. Prosecution for sex work-related offenses, he said, has resulted in “significant collateral consequences” for those targeted by the old mindset and that a “collaboration” with survivors, advocates, and the Legal Aid Society’s Exploitation Intervention Project has resulted in a new way of thinking about how to deal with sex work.

[...]
Vance’s new Decline-to-Prosecute policy reads, in full:

Over the last decade, we have undergone a paradigm shift in how we understand the experiences of those engaging in prostitution and unlicensed massage. Through the work of our Human Trafficking Response Unit, and through the relationships we have built with survivors, sex workers, and advocates, we have come to a better understanding of the unintended harms of charging individuals with these offenses. To complete the paradigm shift, beginning today, the Office will no longer charge individuals with the offenses of Prostitution (P.L. § 230.00) and attempted or completed Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of unlicensed massage (charged under PL § 110/E.D § 6512(1)), as a standalone charge or in conjunction with other charges. This policy does not preclude us from bringing other charges that may stem from a prostitution-related arrest. Any arrest involving these charges should be referred to the Human Trafficking Response Unit. In cases where they are the sole charge, the Human Trafficking Response Unit will complete all necessary paperwork to formally decline to prosecute these cases and will arrange for information about voluntary services to be provided to the person arrested, but these services will no longer be mandated.

Good. Prostitutes are not victimizing the public. They are often the victimized. If anything we should be trying to help these women.

[Andsed]

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance will no longer prosecute sex workers, eliminate past cases and convictions

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced a new policy on Wednesday of ending past and future prostitution-related cases dating back nearly half a century, in a move hailed by many advocates as a welcome—though unfinished—step toward decriminalizing sex work. The new policy, the first in the Empire State, will eliminate a broad array of prostitution-related cases, warrants and convictions dating back to 1976–and effectively remove penalties for providing sex work in New York City’s namesake borough. Nearly 6,000 existing cases will likely be zeroed out under the new guidance.

Police will still target and arrest purchasers of sex, however, and the district attorney’s office will still prosecute people who patronize sex workers, which researchers believe will likely mute the impact and efficacy of the policy. The district attorney’s office told Law&Crime that the policy change “does not affect our approach to arrests for Patronizing a Person for Prostitution in the Third Degree (the typical charge for what you call soliciting/purchasing).” “When someone is first arrested for this charge, our policy is to offer them a plea to Disorderly Conduct (a violation, not a crime), with a health education class, 5 days of community service, a fine, and a two-year stay of sealing,” the district attorney’s office added. “After those requirements are completed and the two years are up, the case is sealed.”

Vance explained the rationale for the policy shift in a press release.

“Over the last decade we’ve learned from those with lived experience, and from our own experience on the ground: criminally prosecuting prostitution does not make us safer, and too often, achieves the opposite result by further marginalizing vulnerable New Yorkers,” Vance wrote. “For years, rather than seeking criminal convictions, my Office has reformed its practice to offer services to individuals arrested for prostitution. Now, we will decline to prosecute these arrests outright, providing services and supports solely on a voluntary basis. By vacating warrants, dismissing cases, and erasing convictions for these charges, we are completing a paradigm shift in our approach.” The district attorney’s office noted that they have already made an appearance in the Manhattan Criminal Court and moved to dismiss exactly 914 prostitution and unlicensed massage cases along with 5,080 loitering for the purpose of prostitution cases.

“Although my office has not prosecuted this crime since 2016, we have identified 5,080 cases where the top charge is Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution and there is a pending bench warrant,” Vance said in court on Wednesday. “My office recognizes that the vulnerabilities imposed by warrants relating to the Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution charge apply equally to many of the people who are charged with prostitution and unlicensed massage. We therefore have identified every case where the top charge is Penal Law 230.00 and there is a pending bench warrant. There are a total of 878 cases that meet this criteria, and they are before the Court as well. We’ve also identified 36 cases where individuals are charged with Attempted Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of offering massage services without a license, and these cases are also before the Court this morning.”

The district attorney went on to say that warrants for those offenses were issued over a time period when society was less inclined to consider the “circumstances” faced by people selling sex. Prosecution for sex work-related offenses, he said, has resulted in “significant collateral consequences” for those targeted by the old mindset and that a “collaboration” with survivors, advocates, and the Legal Aid Society’s Exploitation Intervention Project has resulted in a new way of thinking about how to deal with sex work.

[...]
Vance’s new Decline-to-Prosecute policy reads, in full:

Over the last decade, we have undergone a paradigm shift in how we understand the experiences of those engaging in prostitution and unlicensed massage. Through the work of our Human Trafficking Response Unit, and through the relationships we have built with survivors, sex workers, and advocates, we have come to a better understanding of the unintended harms of charging individuals with these offenses. To complete the paradigm shift, beginning today, the Office will no longer charge individuals with the offenses of Prostitution (P.L. § 230.00) and attempted or completed Unauthorized Practice of a Profession in the context of unlicensed massage (charged under PL § 110/E.D § 6512(1)), as a standalone charge or in conjunction with other charges. This policy does not preclude us from bringing other charges that may stem from a prostitution-related arrest. Any arrest involving these charges should be referred to the Human Trafficking Response Unit. In cases where they are the sole charge, the Human Trafficking Response Unit will complete all necessary paperwork to formally decline to prosecute these cases and will arrange for information about voluntary services to be provided to the person arrested, but these services will no longer be mandated.

This is for the best.

Can we also stop prosecuting Johns?

“Johns?” When did we make a law prosecuting having a name?

But actually what is a John?

[Galloism]

“Johns?” When did we make a law prosecuting having a name?

But actually what is a John?

Someone (typically a male, although there's exceptions) who purchases the services of a prostitute.

[Kowani]

oh
i'm sorry
This was a California judge-Yolanda Orozco, at the Los Angeles County Superior Court

A judge cited First Amendment grounds Wednesday in dismissing the Daily Mail as a defendant in former Rep. Katie Hill’s revenge porn suit, which stems from the unauthorized publication of nude images of her. [...]In her written ruling, Judge Yolanda Orozco said she accepted the Daily Mail’s argument that the publication of the photos was a matter of pubic concern. “Here, the intimate images published by (the Daily Mail) spoke to (Hill’s) character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted (Hill) with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show (Hill) using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol that had become an issue during her congressional campaign,” Orozco wrote.

“Accordingly, the images were a matter of public issue or public interest.”

Orozco disagreed with arguments by Hill’s attorneys that the photos were not a matter of public concern.

“(Hill’s) argument that the images are not a matter of public concern because (the Daily Mail) could have simply described the images rather than publishing them is unpersuasive, as the fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote.

Hill’s attorney, Carrie Goldberg, said during Wednesday’s hearing that there is something “fundamentally different” about the sharing of nude photos and that the judge’s ruling gives anyone who calls himself or herself a journalist a pass to engage in similar actions, which she said could result in fewer women running for public office. Hill said there are actually 16 articles by the Daily Mail involving her, not just the one in October 2019, and that the last occurred in December 2020. Goldberg also said that the attorneys’ fees Hill is obligated to pay the Daily Mail for losing the motion could force the former representative into bankruptcy.

However, Daily Mail attorney Kelli Sager said the October 2019 publication is what is at issue in the lawsuit and not any subsequent articles or photos. Sager also said Hill and Goldberg should have known of the chance they could lose Wednesday’s motion and have to pay attorneys’ fees when they included a media defendant in the case.

The judge concurred with Sager, saying there is “not a lot I can do about it. Some of our laws have harsh results.”

Orozco also that sharing is “what journalism is all about.”

Heslep has previously denied allegations of abusing Hill, but the suit alleges otherwise.

“This case is about a man …. stopping at nothing to destroy the life of his ex-wife … when she dared end their relationship after more than 15 years of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and psychological abuse,” Hill’s court papers allege.

Hill, a Democrat, resigned her seat in 2019 after the nude photos of her were published and news emerged that she had a three-way relationship with her husband and a campaign staffer.

She publicly blamed her husband then for the release of the photos. Speaking in Congress in 2019, she decried a “misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.”

Hill alleges in her court papers that she lived in fear that if she ever tried to leave, Heslep would kill them both and their animals.

In October 2019, months after Hill had left her relationship with Heslep for good, RedState.com published “the first in a barrage of articles that included pictures and intimate text messages,” according to Hill’s court papers. “Then the sexually graphic photos were released.”

Hill “suffered extreme emotional distress, attempted suicide and was forced to quit her job, which in this case was serving as the representative of California’s 25th Congressional District, one of the most difficult-to-get jobs in the universe,” her court papers state.

On Dec. 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anne Richardson issued a temporary restraining order directing Heslep to stay at least 100 yards away from his 33-year-old ex-wife, as well as her mother and sister.

The couple officially divorced in October.

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

[Stellar Colonies]

oh
i'm sorry
This was a California judge-Yolanda Orozco, at the Los Angeles County Superior Court

A judge cited First Amendment grounds Wednesday in dismissing the Daily Mail as a defendant in former Rep. Katie Hill’s revenge porn suit, which stems from the unauthorized publication of nude images of her. [...]In her written ruling, Judge Yolanda Orozco said she accepted the Daily Mail’s argument that the publication of the photos was a matter of pubic concern. “Here, the intimate images published by (the Daily Mail) spoke to (Hill’s) character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted (Hill) with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show (Hill) using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol that had become an issue during her congressional campaign,” Orozco wrote.

“Accordingly, the images were a matter of public issue or public interest.”

Orozco disagreed with arguments by Hill’s attorneys that the photos were not a matter of public concern.

“(Hill’s) argument that the images are not a matter of public concern because (the Daily Mail) could have simply described the images rather than publishing them is unpersuasive, as the fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote.

Hill’s attorney, Carrie Goldberg, said during Wednesday’s hearing that there is something “fundamentally different” about the sharing of nude photos and that the judge’s ruling gives anyone who calls himself or herself a journalist a pass to engage in similar actions, which she said could result in fewer women running for public office. Hill said there are actually 16 articles by the Daily Mail involving her, not just the one in October 2019, and that the last occurred in December 2020. Goldberg also said that the attorneys’ fees Hill is obligated to pay the Daily Mail for losing the motion could force the former representative into bankruptcy.

However, Daily Mail attorney Kelli Sager said the October 2019 publication is what is at issue in the lawsuit and not any subsequent articles or photos. Sager also said Hill and Goldberg should have known of the chance they could lose Wednesday’s motion and have to pay attorneys’ fees when they included a media defendant in the case.

The judge concurred with Sager, saying there is “not a lot I can do about it. Some of our laws have harsh results.”

Orozco also that sharing is “what journalism is all about.”

Heslep has previously denied allegations of abusing Hill, but the suit alleges otherwise.

“This case is about a man …. stopping at nothing to destroy the life of his ex-wife … when she dared end their relationship after more than 15 years of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and psychological abuse,” Hill’s court papers allege.

Hill, a Democrat, resigned her seat in 2019 after the nude photos of her were published and news emerged that she had a three-way relationship with her husband and a campaign staffer.

She publicly blamed her husband then for the release of the photos. Speaking in Congress in 2019, she decried a “misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.”

Hill alleges in her court papers that she lived in fear that if she ever tried to leave, Heslep would kill them both and their animals.

In October 2019, months after Hill had left her relationship with Heslep for good, RedState.com published “the first in a barrage of articles that included pictures and intimate text messages,” according to Hill’s court papers. “Then the sexually graphic photos were released.”

Hill “suffered extreme emotional distress, attempted suicide and was forced to quit her job, which in this case was serving as the representative of California’s 25th Congressional District, one of the most difficult-to-get jobs in the universe,” her court papers state.

On Dec. 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anne Richardson issued a temporary restraining order directing Heslep to stay at least 100 yards away from his 33-year-old ex-wife, as well as her mother and sister.

The couple officially divorced in October.

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

This is rather concerning, and I'm rather shocked that this sort of thing isn't being ruled as some form of harassment or something.

Anyone who is exposed to this kind of violation can very easily have his/her life and public image irreparably ruined.

[Fahran]

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

This is frustrating, and an excellent reason to really crack down on "free speech" when it comes to the nonconsensual distribution of pornographic images. RedState knew full well what they were doing and we shouldn't pretend than anyone who repeatedly shares leaked nudes has an interest in the public welfare. Sorry, you don't have the right to see a person's nude body unless they themselves give you the right - public or no.

[Kowani]

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

This is rather concerning, and I'm rather shocked that this sort of thing isn't being ruled as some form of harassment or something.

Anyone who is exposed to this kind of violation can very easily have his/her life and public image irreparably ruined.

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

This is frustrating, and an excellent reason to really crack down on "free speech" when it comes to the nonconsensual distribution of pornographic images. RedState knew full well what they were doing and we shouldn't pretend than anyone who repeatedly shares leaked nudes has an interest in the public welfare. Sorry, you don't have the right to see a person's nude body unless they themselves give you the right - public or no.

noting that this is not my area of law (though i was never much of a legalist anyway)
it seems outrageous to me that the nonconsensual publication of nude images-which were, irrc, taken without consent in the first place-coutns as "free speech"

i am attempting to find the full opinion, will post when it comes up

[Fahran]

noting that this is not my area of law (though i was never much of a legalist anyway)
it seems outrageous to me that the nonconsensual publication of nude images-which were, irrc, taken without consent in the first place-coutns as "free speech"

i am attempting to find the full opinion, will post when it comes up

Yeah, such an interpretation could create a lot of hiccoughs when it comes to regulating the sex industry to prevent similar abuses as well. I don't think anyone should be able to engage in revenge porn for any benefit whatsoever.

[Stellar Colonies]

This is rather concerning, and I'm rather shocked that this sort of thing isn't being ruled as some form of harassment or something.

Anyone who is exposed to this kind of violation can very easily have his/her life and public image irreparably ruined.

This is frustrating, and an excellent reason to really crack down on "free speech" when it comes to the nonconsensual distribution of pornographic images. RedState knew full well what they were doing and we shouldn't pretend than anyone who repeatedly shares leaked nudes has an interest in the public welfare. Sorry, you don't have the right to see a person's nude body unless they themselves give you the right - public or no.

noting that this is not my area of law (though i was never much of a legalist anyway)
it seems outrageous to me that the nonconsensual publication of nude images-which were, irrc, taken without consent in the first place-coutns as "free speech"

i am attempting to find the full opinion, will post when it comes up

Same, I'm rather surprised by that.

California Revenge Porn Law

[The Rich Port]

Revenge porn should be a no-brainer. Just because blackmail wasn't involved doesn't make the publication of private information any less damaging.

I call it the Matt Gaetz defense, since, you know, the creepo was I think the only representative who voted against an anti-revenge porn law in his state.

[Kowani]

got it!
...i think
Anyway, here seems to be the ruling where Hill lost against...a lot of parties, really. RedState is represented through one Jennifer Van Laar, the editor

[Fahran]

I call it the Matt Gaetz defense, since, you know, the creepo was I think the only representative who voted against an anti-revenge porn law in his state.

Imagine my shock.

[Kowani]

Revenge porn should be a no-brainer. Just because blackmail wasn't involved doesn't make the publication of private information any less damaging.

I call it the Matt Gaetz defense, since, you know, the creepo was I think the only representative who voted against an anti-revenge porn law in his state.

it wasn't just "voted against it"
he actively tried to prevent it from passing, in order to protect his own supply of pics

On Monday, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Gaetz fiercely opposed a revenge porn law while in the Florida legislature. Why? Gaetz allegedly personally wished to do whatever he wanted with his stash of revenge porn. Truly sadistic. Very consistent.

Here’s former Florida Rep. Tom Goodson on Gaetz’s qualms with the 2015 legislation, which Gaetz allegedly brought up in a meeting:

Matt was absolutely against it. He thought the picture was his to do with what he wanted. ... He thought that any picture was his to use as he wanted to, as an expression of his rights.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

The US does have rather strong freedom of speech guarantees compared to, say, Europe, and that’s not necessarily a good thing. Perhaps more sensible legislation should be created to define what does or does not belong in the domain of public interest.

I don’t speak for others, of course, but speaking for myself, if my parliamentary rep indulges in debauchery on their free time, I frankly don’t want to know, and I can’t see how photography of said debauchery would be at all relevant to the decisions of the public.

It is my opinion that unauthorised publication of private information, even private information about a public figure, should not be considered in the public interest unless the information pertains to that aspect of the person’s life that makes them a public figure in the first place. And unless I’m very gravely mistaken about the state of US politics, Congresswomen are not generally considered public figures on the basis of their sex lives.

[The Rich Port]

Revenge porn should be a no-brainer. Just because blackmail wasn't involved doesn't make the publication of private information any less damaging.

I call it the Matt Gaetz defense, since, you know, the creepo was I think the only representative who voted against an anti-revenge porn law in his state.

it wasn't just "voted against it"
he actively tried to prevent it from passing, in order to protect his own supply of pics

On Monday, the Orlando Sentinel reported that Gaetz fiercely opposed a revenge porn law while in the Florida legislature. Why? Gaetz allegedly personally wished to do whatever he wanted with his stash of revenge porn. Truly sadistic. Very consistent.

Here’s former Florida Rep. Tom Goodson on Gaetz’s qualms with the 2015 legislation, which Gaetz allegedly brought up in a meeting:

Matt was absolutely against it. He thought the picture was his to do with what he wanted. ... He thought that any picture was his to use as he wanted to, as an expression of his rights.

My mistake, about Matt Gaetz and Trumpism always assume they make the worst choices.

[Ostroeuropa]

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

This is frustrating, and an excellent reason to really crack down on "free speech" when it comes to the nonconsensual distribution of pornographic images. RedState knew full well what they were doing and we shouldn't pretend than anyone who repeatedly shares leaked nudes has an interest in the public welfare. Sorry, you don't have the right to see a person's nude body unless they themselves give you the right - public or no.

It should certainly be illegal even if it is counted as something other than revenge porn. It's straightforwardly an obvious case of sexual harassment at the least. I'd say the Hogan case is an example she could have used, and in that case the veneer of "Public interest" was present. (It was a pornographic tape, but Hogan also used a no-no-word, which they insisted was the "real story").

The issue may be that she attempted to go after them using criminal law rather than civil law.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

oh
i'm sorry
This was a California judge-Yolanda Orozco, at the Los Angeles County Superior Court

A judge cited First Amendment grounds Wednesday in dismissing the Daily Mail as a defendant in former Rep. Katie Hill’s revenge porn suit, which stems from the unauthorized publication of nude images of her. [...]In her written ruling, Judge Yolanda Orozco said she accepted the Daily Mail’s argument that the publication of the photos was a matter of pubic concern. “Here, the intimate images published by (the Daily Mail) spoke to (Hill’s) character and qualifications for her position, as they allegedly depicted (Hill) with a campaign staffer whom she was alleged to have had a sexual affair with and appeared to show (Hill) using a then-illegal drug and displaying a tattoo that was controversial because it resembled a white supremacy symbol that had become an issue during her congressional campaign,” Orozco wrote.

“Accordingly, the images were a matter of public issue or public interest.”

Orozco disagreed with arguments by Hill’s attorneys that the photos were not a matter of public concern.

“(Hill’s) argument that the images are not a matter of public concern because (the Daily Mail) could have simply described the images rather than publishing them is unpersuasive, as the fact that information to be gleaned from an image may be disseminated in an alternative manner does not equate to a finding that the image itself is not a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote.

Hill’s attorney, Carrie Goldberg, said during Wednesday’s hearing that there is something “fundamentally different” about the sharing of nude photos and that the judge’s ruling gives anyone who calls himself or herself a journalist a pass to engage in similar actions, which she said could result in fewer women running for public office. Hill said there are actually 16 articles by the Daily Mail involving her, not just the one in October 2019, and that the last occurred in December 2020. Goldberg also said that the attorneys’ fees Hill is obligated to pay the Daily Mail for losing the motion could force the former representative into bankruptcy.

However, Daily Mail attorney Kelli Sager said the October 2019 publication is what is at issue in the lawsuit and not any subsequent articles or photos. Sager also said Hill and Goldberg should have known of the chance they could lose Wednesday’s motion and have to pay attorneys’ fees when they included a media defendant in the case.

The judge concurred with Sager, saying there is “not a lot I can do about it. Some of our laws have harsh results.”

Orozco also that sharing is “what journalism is all about.”

Heslep has previously denied allegations of abusing Hill, but the suit alleges otherwise.

“This case is about a man …. stopping at nothing to destroy the life of his ex-wife … when she dared end their relationship after more than 15 years of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and psychological abuse,” Hill’s court papers allege.

Hill, a Democrat, resigned her seat in 2019 after the nude photos of her were published and news emerged that she had a three-way relationship with her husband and a campaign staffer.

She publicly blamed her husband then for the release of the photos. Speaking in Congress in 2019, she decried a “misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality and enabled my abusive ex to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching.”

Hill alleges in her court papers that she lived in fear that if she ever tried to leave, Heslep would kill them both and their animals.

In October 2019, months after Hill had left her relationship with Heslep for good, RedState.com published “the first in a barrage of articles that included pictures and intimate text messages,” according to Hill’s court papers. “Then the sexually graphic photos were released.”

Hill “suffered extreme emotional distress, attempted suicide and was forced to quit her job, which in this case was serving as the representative of California’s 25th Congressional District, one of the most difficult-to-get jobs in the universe,” her court papers state.

On Dec. 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anne Richardson issued a temporary restraining order directing Heslep to stay at least 100 yards away from his 33-year-old ex-wife, as well as her mother and sister.

The couple officially divorced in October.

Katie Hill has now lost another Revenge Porn case with a different publication

A judge today ruled that RedState - a partisan blog in the business of attacking Democrats, NOT reporting the news - was exercising their first amendment right by posting nude photos of me in a political takedown. The ruling virtually nullifies CA cyber exploitation laws and is too dangerous to let stand. There is no reasonable “public interest” in publishing revenge porn, no matter who the victim is. Unless we appeal, any woman who may ever be in the public eye is at risk. t’s not going to be easy. This is uncharted legal territory, and this fight is necessary to protect women from revenge porn, once and for all.

Why is redstate posting nudes? Oh wait, I forgot, because that's just how it goes in the post-Trump GOP and affiliated News sites.

[SD_Film Artists]

This is frustrating, and an excellent reason to really crack down on "free speech" when it comes to the nonconsensual distribution of pornographic images. RedState knew full well what they were doing and we shouldn't pretend than anyone who repeatedly shares leaked nudes has an interest in the public welfare. Sorry, you don't have the right to see a person's nude body unless they themselves give you the right - public or no.

It should certainly be illegal even if it is counted as something other than revenge porn. It's straightforwardly an obvious case of sexual harassment at the least. I'd say the Hogan case is an example she could have used, and in that case the veneer of "Public interest" was present. (It was a pornographic tape, but Hogan also used a no-no-word, which they insisted was the "real story").

The issue may be that she attempted to go after them using criminal law rather than civil law.

Is it still revenge porn if it's not done for revenge? They could be a regular negligent asshole instead.

But seriously, I think it should come under the Data Protection Act. If the state is going to make it officially worse than adultery/cheating (ie criminal courts rather than civil) then put it in a tangible, non-arbitrary catagory and if there's proven malice involved then charge them with harassment and/or mental domestic abuse.

As a solicitor-in-training it's rather grating that such a presumptuous title can exist before any motive is established. It reminds me of the Isle of Man's 'Furious Driving' charge.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I just wanna know why there were nude photos on of all places Redstate. I don't even see full nudes on like NBC, so why is one of the most well known Republican news sites posting pornography? It's a news site. Not XXXBunker.

[Galloism]

got it!
...i think
Anyway, here seems to be the ruling where Hill lost against...a lot of parties, really. RedState is represented through one Jennifer Van Laar, the editor

So, reading this, and keep in mind I’m not personally familiar with the underlying anti-SLAPP law (different anti-SLAPP laws are different)....

It looks like she blew a procedural requirement rather than any kind of ruling on the merits. By failing to file her request for discovery timely, and failing to file it with any evidence of needing discovery as required by the anti-SLAPP law, she failed the tests required to proceed with discovery. The cases her team cited supporting her discovery continuance request actually provided expressly within why her request should fail.

Basically, her lawyers botched the job.

[Galloism]

Arkansas makes joint custody the default

On April 7, 2021, Arkansas became the second state in the nation to pass a law for a rebuttable presumption of joint custody, defined as equal parenting time. Not only that, but we became the first to require clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. SB18 passed the House with a vote of 71-16 and the Senate 33-2, and gave us the strongest joint custody law in the country. Much of this success was due to the unrelenting work by our team and sponsors. However, I hope it also signals optimism toward joint custody legislation and a positive sign of things to come.

While there are many factors that went into passing the bill, there are a few main points worth highlighting. First, we started early and had a focused message and strategy every step of the way. We found our sponsors and worked on the bill well over a year before the start of our 2021 legislative session. Senator Alan Clark has a reputation for protecting the interests of children and reforming a flawed DHS system. As the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he also has a lot of respect and influence. Representative Jimmy Gazaway is an attorney who is passionate about this issue and could speak on it from the legal perspective. We set a goal of getting as many co-sponsors as possible to show support for the bill, and had 22 signed on by the time it was heard in committee. Throughout the session, we implemented our strategy for every committee and floor vote and were able to see things through to the end.

Second, we made extensive use of resources available through the shared parenting community. AFESP legislative training conferences provided valuable knowledge and Mark Ludwig served as a mentor along the way. We worked with AFESP’s legal writing team on the initial draft of our bill. Don Hubin and Matt Hale of NPO also provided guidance and needed resources. After passing their law in Kentucky, Matt provided valuable insight on how to get our bill through the legislature and handle opposition. We commissioned a joint survey with NPO that we provided to all legislators showing public support of the legislation. While we were the boots on the ground, we collaborated with other organizations with expertise in certain areas to make a successful push toward equal shared parenting in Arkansas.

On a local level, we used personal connections to the fullest extent. Politics is just as much about relationships as it is about issues, so the importance of building connections cannot be overstated. We got to know legislators outside the Capitol before the legislative session to build relationships and gain support. We attended political events, town halls, fundraisers, and volunteered on campaigns. We had a member at the state Capitol lobbying on most days during the session. In our House committee hearing, we had 10 parents testify, each with a different background and perspective, and each able to speak to a different demographic or profession. What we did not do was use social media to push the legislation.

The passage of SB18 in Arkansas is a big step toward steering family court in the right direction. Hopefully other state legislatures will see Arkansas as an example to follow. That being said, we’re certainly not finished. There are many issues that need to be addressed before family court can function in the best interest of children and families. We’d like to be a resource to others, so if you need help moving things along in your state, please feel free to reach out. Here’s to a good start to 2021!

Patrick Fraley, MD

Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality

I guess broken clocks are correct twice a day. This is a good move - many men are told, across the country, by their own attorneys, that they have absolutely no chance of gaining even joint custody in court due to the fact that they are men, unless they can prove their spouse is a drug addict or a criminal. And that's not an exaggeration - many men are told that point blank by their own attorneys, because it's largely true.

Arkansas has taken a step to correct that, by creating a presumption of joint custody, and requiring clear and convincing evidence to get over that presumption. This will put men and women on a more equal playing field before the court, and blunt the inherent discrimination against men due to their gender.

[Mechanikolia]

How did I get here?

[Galloism]

How did I get here?

Most likely you followed a hyperlink and sent a POST request.