Mr. Iniguez was dumped by his girlfriend, Jennifer. Unfortunately he was unable to move on and began to harass Jennifer, who responded by obtaining a restraining order barring Iniguez from contacting her. This made little difference to Iniguez who began posting thinly veiled messages to Jennifer's employer's facebook page, which Jennifer maintained as part of her job. Along with the messages, Iniguez also posted a picture of Jennifer's bare breasts that he had taken (with her permission) when they were dating.
Iniguez was charged with and convicted of violation of the restraining order, PC 273.6, and "revenge porn", PC 647(j)(4). He appealed and the appellate division of the L.A. Superior Court affirms.
This is an indefensible opinion, at least as to the First Amendment analysis. The panel doesn't consider, or even mention, that the statute involves content discrimination, viewpoint discrimination, and speaker discrimination. The words "strict scruntiny" appear nowhere. Citations are made to cases that do not remotely stand for the propositions asserted. Without citation to any authority the panel asserts that preventing the hurt feelings of people who allow themselves to be photographed constitutes a compelling state interest. If a first year law student wrote such drivel, she would find herself retaking Constitutional Law I.
If you desire a competent analysis of whether revenge porn statutes are constitutional, read this law review article.
No comments:
Post a Comment