Update 2 (See the bottom for update 1): Mark Bennett has done the heavy lifting in his scholarly deconstruction of the arguments in favor of a law criminalizing revenge porn, both by Franks as well as Danielle Citron. It’s thorough. It’s researched and cited.

And unlike the arguments in favor of undermining speech, it’s accurate and does not rely on false assertions as to the state of the law. Bennett’s post authoritatively answers the questions of those who want to leap over the law to reach their endgame.

_____________________________________

I’m almost ashamed of myself for this title, because I have no doubt that University of Miami law school professor Mary Anne Franks comes by her opinion honestly, and has only the best of intentions in promoting her cause. The problem is her cause, like so many causes wrapped up in sexual politics, is the evisceration of free speech in the name of protecting women.

Gawker brings us the news, that a few New York legislators want to hop on the left coast revenge porn train to internet Nirvana. Hey, if California can do it, why not New York?

Last week, California criminalized revenge porn. Now, New York state legislators are proposing a bill that would also target people who distribute nude photos of others without their consent. Unlike California’s law, which can only be used to prosecute individuals who personally took naked photos of someone else and then disseminated the images against the subjects’ will, New York’s proposition would theoretically apply to making sexually explicit self-portraits public.

Take that, Cali. Not only can New York make it a crime too, but we can out-crime you any day. Meet a New York criminal-in-the-making:

(Note: This is not an image of Mary Anne Franks, or to the best of my knowledge, anyone associated with her.)

Democratic assemblyman Edward C. Braunstein and upstate Republican senator Joseph A. Griffo have gone so far as to issue a press release about their plan to save people from themselves, explaining how they will make a more perfect world.

Senator Griffo said, “This so-called phenomena of ‘cyber-revenge,’ is a tawdry form of exploitation. From what we know, the majority of its victims are women who don’t know that their images and likenesses has been bartered and sold over the internet. Currently, these victims have limited options when their pictures taken with their consent, were posted online. They would have to enlist a lawyer and threaten to sue the person responsible for sharing the photo or the website hosting them, for invasion of privacy.

Enlist a lawyer? Threaten to sue? Use the best legal system ever created? Well, that certainly sucks. But why make it a crime?

Criminalization is preferable to civil suits by victims because civil suits do not deter those who upload or disclose new images after a civil suit has ended. Furthermore, a lengthy trial is emotionally exhausting and prohibitively expensive. Moreover, the websites that distribute non-consensual pornography are given broad immunity for civil liability under federal law through the Communications Decency Act. Therefore, criminalizing disclosure of these photos may prevent websites from benefiting from the harmful images.

Plus, it makes for a great re-election campaign centerpiece, not that anyone cares about such things.

So naturally, Gawker includes the deepest thoughts of the least desirable source, the scourge of revenge porn and poster boy for why this should be a crime, Hunter Moore.

Hunter Moore, a Warped Tour scene goon turned proud revenge-porn thug, posted a YouTube rant about the legislation. A summary: “You fucking retards.”

Perfect. The First Amendment at stake, and we have Hunter Moore out front. But is there a constitutional right at stake here? Not according to the Griffo and Braunstein press release, which turns to 2007 Harvard law grad Franks for refuge:

Mary Anne Franks, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law, who helped draft this legislation, stated, “This bill sends the strong message that New York will not tolerate this devastating form of virtual sexual assault. Additionally, this bill demonstrates that it is possible to clearly prohibit a narrow category of malicious conduct while respecting legitimate First Amendment concerns.”

It respects “legitimate” First Amendment concerns? Well, that’s heart-warming. Please explain.

This bill is narrowly drawn so as not to infringe on First Amendment rights, as there is no constitutional protection afforded to individuals who consume or distribute sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent.

Zat so? So the nice gal who revealed Anthony Weiner’s selfies is a criminal? Had there been pictures of then-Governor Eliot Spitzer without his bespoke drawers, there would have been no constitutional right for the New York Times to put it on Page One?

The problem isn’t that revenge porn is harmful. It is. It’s terribly harmful. Or that Hunter Moore isn’t one of the lowest scumbags on the internet. He is. The problem is that there is a First Amendment right to distribute “sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent,” and to claim otherwise is just utter nonsense.

Or more to the point, the Cyber Civil Rights crowd, having linked all this to gender politics, have decided that their protection of women from harm is more important than the First Amendment, and that the trade-off of free speech rights for everyone else in exchange for criminalizing revenge porn is a worthy deal.

Update: At Concurring Opinions, Mary Anne Franks gets interviewed by a sycophant and offers this fascinating tidbit:

That’s disturbing. Do you think this is a widely-held view? It’s hard to say, because so often these people don’t have the nerve to put their names or faces behind their misogynist rants. It could all just be coming from one guy in his basement who never sleeps. Seriously, though, I have been a bit surprised by just how transparent some of these objectors are about the fact that they are motivated by nothing more than sexism. One New York lawyer/blogger was so freaked out by the law I wrote that he wrote an entire post about it that didn’t contain a single argument against it – only the incredibly juvenile and tasteless insinuation that I must be working on this issue because I was a victim of this conduct myself.

I wonder who that New York lawyer/blogger might be? He must be a terrible person, writing an entire post without a single argument against Mary Anne’s precious baby. So if she omits my name, fails to link to the offensive post and lies about it, maybe nobody will notice that her baby is ugly. Oh, and don’t try to say anything to her, as her sweetheart interview notes:

Kaimipono D. Wenger – October 10, 2013 Quick admin note: Trolling or harassing comments will be zapped on sight. Consider yourselves on notice.

Nothing like letting people know that he will not tolerate any further meaness from us misogynists. I consider myself on notice. Sadly, Mary Anne forgets that once a person loses her credibility, it’s gone forever. It’s never a good idea to add liar to the list.