California man first to be convicted under state's revenge porn law


#1

Noe Iniguez of Los Angeles has been sentenced to one year in jail for violating California’s revenge porn law by posting topless photos of a former girlfriend on her employer’s Facebook page.

He was charged with three criminal counts: two restraining order violations and a violation of the state revenge porn law, which was signed into law in October 2013.

The law makes it illegal to post identifiable nude photos of other people online without the subject’s permission and with the intent to cause emotional distress.

At his sentencing on Monday, Iniguez was also ordered to stay away from the victim and to attend domestic violence counseling.

“This conviction sends a strong message that this type of malicious behavior will not be tolerated,” said city attorney Mike Feuer in a statement.


#2

I saw the thread title and went :confused: , but then I read the OP and thought, good for California!


#3

Good, but the sentence is too light, in my opinion.


#4

Just glad they charged him and got a conviction. Hopefully it will dissuade others from doing these kind of despicable things. Curious about the ‘…with the intent to cause emotional distress.’ caveat in the law. So, if he did it for financial benefit with no intent to cause emotional distress- it would have been legal? That’s just wrong, law should cover posting/distributing it without the permission of the person depicted-- don’t really care about the motive behind it.


#5

A year isn’t nearly long enough, considering the overcrowding in CA jails and prisons and “good behavior” he probably wouldn’t even do 3 months. Is he being required to register as a sex offender? What he did was a form a rape in my book.


#6

There are already laws against using someone’s image for commercial purposes without their consent. (Though these laws carry civil penalties not criminal penalties).


#7

It is sad we need such laws and shows how far we have moved away from common courtesy and shared culture.


#8

What the defendant did is wrong but how about the former girlfriend expect as well? She likely allowed him to take pictures. Hardly blameless.


#9

If Mr. Iniguez’s former girlfriend had posted nude pictures of herself on her employer’s Facebook page, he would not have prosecuted under the revenge porn statute. Iniguez did that, not her.

Consenting adults posing for nude pictures isn’t illegal in California. Distributing them without the person’s consent - “revenge porn” - is.


#10

Sorry, I disagree with you. It’s like giving someone you trust a key to your house. If they steal your things it shows poor judgment in trusting them (are you never going to trust anyone in life?) but it doesn’t lessen their culpability at all. They are guilty of having committed a heinous act, which is not the fault of the person who trusted them.

Now, as a lesson learned we do caution people not to do things which make them more vulnerable, lock your doors and windows, don’t get drunk, etc. But this doesn’t mean victims are responsible for the choices of the evil and depraved.


#11

So, it’s illegal for financial consideration- what if he just says he thinks it’s a beautiful picture and simply posts it with no associated words indicating ‘intent to cause emotional distress.’?

Just don’t like linking the posting to some motive which may be hard to prove. I think posting without the permission of the subject should be sufficient…


#12

Well done, California. Hope this catches on in other States


#13

I still think she shares some blame and the State recognizes this. The offense is only a misdemeanor. She should not be excused for her reckless behavior as well.


#14

Blame for what? For her former boyfriend posting pictures of her without her permission online? Or is she to blame for him violating two restraining orders against her?

Again, it’s not illegal in California for a consenting adult to pose for photographs, nude or otherwise. Legally, she did nothing wrong in allowing Mr. Iniguez to take her picture. On the other hand, Mr. Iniguez did everything wrong when he not only violated two court-issued protective orders, he posted those pictures on her employer’s Facebook with the intent of humiliating her.

His actions were abusive, and his punishment will hopefully serve as a warning to other abusive, bullying ex-partners/spouses that this kind of stuff isn’t tolerated in California.

That fact that revenge porn is a misdemeanor in no way suggests that victims are somehow responsible for the crimes done against them.


#15

Emotional distress statutes are not new. So I went and read the law and it read in part:

(4) (A) Any person who intentionally distributes the image of the intimate body part or parts of another identifiable person, or an image of the person depicted engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual penetration, or an image of masturbation by the person depicted or in which the person depicted participates, under circumstances in which the persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private, the person distributing the image knows or should know that distribution of the image will cause serious emotional distress, and the person depicted suffers that distress.
(B) A person intentionally distributes an image described in subparagraph (A) when he or she personally distributes the image, or arranges, specifically requests, or intentionally causes another person to distribute that image.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1255

So you don’t have to prove intent (bold above), but rather that they knew or should have know the distribution would cause distress and that it actually did so, The article was just imprecise with its language. (Easy to do with law).


#16

You can say she did no wrong under the laws of California, not everyone considers them the ultimate authority, she is sick as well.


#17

What if she had naked pictures on her computer because she is at risk for skin cancer and is digitally tracking her moles and freckles and her ex boyfriend hacked her computer (or downloaded the photos without permission) and posted those on the revenge porn sites? Is she still at fault, should he not be punished?

I think that styrgwillidar gut reaction that using someone’s photo without their permission regardless of how it was obtained is something we don’t want in our society. This law covers pictures that were taken with and without consent or knowledge. How easy is it these days with smart phones, to take pictures without the knowledge or consent of the other person.


#18

Just because a man or woman is foolish, shouldn’t give people the right to broadcast naked pics online.

If you have daughters, though, please educate them. They are naive and gullible!


closed #19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.