“Bill to Ban Sending Unsolicited Lewd Pictures and Videos Signed Into Law”:
After receiving strong bipartisan support in the Legislature, Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation earlier today authored by Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) to establish legal protections for technology users when they receive unsolicited sexually explicit images and videos, also known as ‘cyberflashing.’
Also known as the FLASH (Forbid Lewd Activity and Sexual Harassment) Act and sponsored by Bumble—the women-first dating and social networking app—SB 53 would create a private right of action against any person over 18 years of age who knows or reasonably should know that the lewd image transmitted is unsolicited.
During its legislative journey, legislators in both the Senate and Assembly signed on in support of the FLASH Act, including Senator Lena A. Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) and Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) as principal coauthors and Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), Senator Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara), Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-San Fernando Valley), Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) and Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) as coauthors.
The article includes a photo of the bill’s author:
The image is a good example of “lewd” by Islamic standards. The woman shows part of her chest, all of her hair, all of her face. Maybe a prostitute would do that in Kabul, but who else? There are a ton of immigrants from Afghanistan to California. Can they now sue if they receive images like the above? If not, why not? I hope that nobody will say that non-Islamic standards of modesty are somehow superior to Islamic standards.
Bumble wants regulatory capture to prevent startup competitors. Newsom obliges.
But twerking drag queens and naked fat guys in SF streets are not lewd. Got it.
Also: “In March, Bumble commissioned a survey and found that nearly one out of two (46%)* respondents within the United States had received an unsolicited lewd photo within their lifetime, and 54%* of those who had been sent one shared that they were not happy to have received it.”
So 46% were happy to get the unsolicited dick pic or other lewd pic!
My guess is that women are happy to get the pic if the man is hot, and not otherwise.
The last 30 years have been more like a law against indecency unless your job title is above a certain level. What are christian definitions of lewd but ways of organizing people into classes & keeping the ruling party from being overthrown.
“I know it when I see it!” USSCJ Potter Stewart, 1964.
I think I see the motivation behind this law based solely on the density of massage therapy establishments in Chino and Chino Hills. I’ve never seen so many packed into such a small area. I guess nobody wants their picture taken and FLASHed. I count 19 in an approx. 2 km radius.
https://tinyurl.com/4pt9bsr6
I’m no lawyer, but the statute reads
… taken as a whole, that to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, that, taken as a whole, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Which puts us back with the “Miller Test”, which presumably has been litigated a lot. Wikipedia says that, in the 80’s, a lot of pornographic works were argued to have artistic merit. It’s possible that if @philg, a serious photographer, sends out an unwanted pic of his genitals, he will be treated differently from one of the rest of us. Would slapping #freethenipple on a nude give it political value? If not, why not?
Will any woman anywhere ever be sued under this law? I can’t wait to see.
“Will any woman anywhere ever be sued under this law? I can’t wait to see.”
It will depend on how ugly she is.