Tags

,

Scott Greenfield recently wrote up a post excoriating Professor Mary Anne Franks’ position on punishing “revenge porn.”  Greenfield and others of his ilk (Mark Bennett, Ken White, Marc Randazza, etc.) are on board not just with heaping enthusiastic invective against revenge porn, but also supporting legal action that punishes the scams that seem to accompany these sites.

All of which is great!  I hope that through marginalization of the men (and women?) who do this, this become such a scumbag and taboo subject that nobody would dream of doing it.  I’m sure that won’t actually work, since you can find anything on the Internet perverting something.  But at least it will be fewer, lessening the harm rather than magnifying it and harming more women.

Some, though, think that Marc Randazza, Scott Greenfield, and others aren’t going far enough.  Some people, like Professor Franks, think that even posting such pictures should be criminal behavior.  I think that Mr. Greenfield makes an EXCELLENT argument about why posting compromising pictures that would otherwise be labelled “revenge porn” present compelling stories: the Anthony Weiner affair.  If it was a criminal act to publicize what he did, then those who exposed him</pun> would be facing criminal charges.  That seems grossly unfair and against the spirit of First Amendment protections (to me).

Anyway, Professor Franks has been loud in her advocacy, but I think that ultimately the untitled (Juris Doctor?) Scott Greenfield offers a good push back against her (relinked here; I linked to it earlier in the post).  Unfortunately, Mr. Greenfield has pointed out that there is nothing opposing Ms. Franks’ view other than Mr. Bennett’s.  That’s too bad; I wonder what’s up.

Post Script: I have been meaning to get back to some issues that have ripened with time, but I considered this of sufficient contemporary interest to rush ahead of everything else.