New Texas laws: Illegal to send unsolicited nude photos | Hacker News Reader

New Texas laws: Illegal to send unsolicited nude photos

fox4news.com

9 pointsga-vu19 comments

Open articleView on HN

This law sounds overbroad, and nothing but trouble. It'll make sending nudes carry a huge legal risk. I'd expect to see someone use this against their ex (or illicit lover) within a year of taking effect.

From all the teens punished for child porn for having pictures of themselves, it should be painfully clear prosecutorial discretion cannot be relied upon.

Sending nudes or porn to someone to whom physical flashing would have been untoward (an unwitting stranger, the general public, a child, a student, your taxi driver, etc), or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared (revenge porn), is the kind of action that one should be able to take to court. They share nearly identical mens rea (flashing vs unexpected unwanted dick pics), so it doesn't make sense one is criminal but the other is not.

You have chosen very clear cut examples, but the law will not be limited to those.

For example, a boy and girl start dating. Eventually, she sends him nudes - maybe they discussed it offline, so there's no written record of consent, or maybe she correctly guessed he'd like them. But then they meet, and he pushes her to have sex, saying he'll claim the nudes were unsolicited otherwise. Or maybe he's white, she's black, and the boy's racist family push him to claim they were unsolicited, to hide the affair, or to get rid of her.

> or images of someone else who would not have wanted the images shared (revenge porn)

That is an entirely different matter, that this law will do nothing to help. There are sites devoted to revenge porn, so those pictures are solicited.

Have you read the law? What's the link of the version that you've read please?

I have not - I'm speculating. As are the posters that claim the law is fine. But "Austin-based attorney J.T. Morris, who specializes in First Amendment cases" shares my concerns.

The relevant Act appears to have been HB 2789[1][2]. I don't see the text in the Texas Penal Code yet.

[1] https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=86...

[2] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/pdf/HB02789F....

All of your it-could-go-wrong scenarios are in themselves crimes. Blackmail and obstruction or perversion of justice. If you think these brilliant schemes won't occur to the police or the defence attorney, I have unsolicited photos of a bridge in Brooklyn to send you.

Someone in government’s daughter got one too many pictures sent their way. It happened to my wife at least once that I’m aware of. I was texting the guy on her phone when it happened. It’s extremely jarring, and was completely unprompted and uncalled for. I don’t hate the law, if there’s a good burden of proof on the conversation to show that it was uninvited.

As the other comment said, it’s basically flashing.

> It'll make sending nudes carry a huge legal risk.

Nonsense. You text "do you want to see a nude?". If they say yes, you're in the clear and have a written record. If they so no, you don't send a nude.

I would also say executive discretion needs to be put under a microscope in an era of cynicism and data.

Countdown until the "nudes are free speech" defense

Because just deleting the nudes and moving on with your life is too difficult?

The human body doesn't upset me enough to worry if some man or woman spams their junk at me. But there are images that I find emotionally hurtful, and I do accept that some people include nudity in this category. It still seems a bit dubious that this has become a big enough problem to warrant more laws.

And just because you personally haven't been robbed, and would in fact be just fine with being robbed, doesn't mean we should go without laws against robbery.

The kinda conflates two very different events. I never made a case against something as serious as robbery. The real point is that unlike robbery, nothing very serious has happened when you see a picture of a naked body.

The real point is that you are assuming that your preferences are a universal moral measurement of harm.

No more than people who are saying the opposite is true.

We should use objective measures. There are tangible real world ramifications for the effects of robbery. People who get offended at nudity suffer some mild discomfort at best.

We should be basing our legal system accordingly.

For instance, what about people who delight in receiving unsolicited nudes? This law is imposing its universal moral pronouncements on them.

> We should use objective measures.

What constitutes guilt, in a criminal sense? And what's the objective measurement?

Spoiler: while I am not a lawyer, I studied law, so my views may be coloured by knowing what the hell I am talking about.

That's dodging the point. Your assertion that my point of view was purely subjective while the opposing views were not.

What constitutes guilt is simple, being convicted of transgressing a law.

The objective measure in my book, is that of real world harm balanced against unintended side effects and limitations on freedom.

* ps. your not so subtle implication that only you know what you're talking about and other people don't is not arguing in good faith.

> What constitutes guilt is simple, being convicted of transgressing a law.

"How was he convicted?" -> "He was found guilty".

"How is he guilty?" -> "He was convicted".

This is a circular argument. What is the standard that quantifies that a conviction should occur?

> The objective measure in my book, is that of real world harm balanced against unintended side effects and limitations on freedom.

I see. How is real world harm measured objectively? How are unintended side effects measured objectively? How are limitations on freedom measured objectively?

ps. My implication wasn't meant to be subtle. That's my fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com