@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
Washington D.C. has laws against revenge porn. I believe there were more than six people present:
If the sexual image is shared with 6 or more persons through “publication,” either directly or by uploading to the Internet, then the offense is First-Degree Unlawful Publication of a Sexual Image. This is a felony offense punishable by up to 3 years in prison and/or a fine of $12,500.
As repulsive a move as this is, I'm afraid that the DC law almost certainly won't apply in this case. This was done as part of her official "speech" as a representative.
The speech and debate clause, which appears in Article 1, section 6, of the U.S. Constitution, was written before the First Amendment and has a more limited scope.
The clause, whose inclusion reflected the development in England of an independent Parliament, states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” It follows a provision, now largely moot, that prevents the arrest, for civil cases, of members traveling to or from sessions of Congress.
But what about the message she sent to the people on her email list? Surely that doesn’t have the same protections of the speech and debate clause.
Depends on what a court decides "in either house" to mean. Does it mean physically in the House or Senate chambers? Does it mean "in furtherance of their duties as a congressperson"? I know how I would rule, but I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule.
I don’t think anyone knows how the Supreme Court would rule these days.
My general rule of thumb is "whatever the conservatives want."
I hate so much that that’s true
What she did was legitimately illegal. It’s revenge porn. We all know she wasn’t found it for any reason than to try to embarrass Biden.
He should sue the living fuck out of her.
She will almost certainly be shielded by the speech or debate clause.
Possibly, but you would think an argument could be made that her bringing this up had zero to do with the business of the nation, it was during hearings with the IRS for fuck’s sake! Do you know if there are any exceptions to the SDC?
The text of the SDC is very broad. Any limitation on it would almost certainly have to come from the Supreme Court.
He's a private citizen.
What MTG did crossed the line.
She is a disgusting psychopath, why the fuck do people support this? Is this really the sort of government they want?
It was an elected member of congress doing revenge porn against a private citizen.
Another day, another crime - another felony - brazenly committed by a Republican. And she'll probably get away with it, because laws and ethics are for plebes and "libs".
The justice system is reticent to dole out consequences to conservatives because they know that each time they do, there is a fair probability of an uptick in domestic terrorism. We literally let the terrorists win. If we apply the law equally to fascists as we do to the rest of us, they will kill people with no remorse.
Y'all Qaeda is intellectually incapable of differentiating between terrorism and normal protest. This is why they view "left wing" protests about systemic issues as city-razing terrorist attacks that need the military dispatched with blanket kill orders. This is why they don't equate their club shooting, truck crowd-plowing, armed home-invader, electrical substation gunner terrorist friends as being a problem - because theyre just "protesting" like the left. The left is "already doing it" so they can too.
The actual word "terrorist", to them, is a word that means one thing: a filthy middle easterner who wants to blow up buildings to go to a virgin-filled afterlife. There's absolutely no mental space for them to consider their fellow conservatives in the same group or to accept the actual definition.
This is so dangerous. We're already in a trap, even if we turn around now, it hurts a lot. The smart greedy opportunists flock loudly and publicly to conservatism now because they see that they can break the law and get away with it, because of this implied immunity-via-terrorism that may befall us if accountability comes for them in the public eye. But we need to turn around and pull out, because if we get fully trapped, we're all done for good.
As shitty as it was, it is almost certainly explicitly constitutionally protected. She could be censured or expelled from congress, but it was not a crime by virtue of being done in her capacity as a representative.
Didnt she repeat the act afterwards tho? Outsode of the legal walls of congress?
She also sent out a link to the photos or a slideshow to her constituents via email.
Now that I don't know. If so, then I suspect she'd no longer be covered, unless a court were to interpret speech pertaining to her role as congressperson anywhere to be the same as "in either house". I could see a good faith argument for it, but if Judge Wagesj45 was on the case, I don't think I'd rule in their favor.
A lot of people are saying it's revenge porn. How would it be revenge porn, specifically?
Publicly posting or showing sexually explicit images of someone you don't like without their consent in order to hurt their reputation or shame/humiliate them is revenge porn. Most of the time the person doing the posting is a former lover, but it's not exclusive to former lovers. It can also be done by schoolmates (like bullies for example), coworkers, family members, political rivals, etc.
Thank you. I've always assumed that it was specific to a former lover or at least personal relationship. I can't think of any cases I've heard of that weren't.