Response to @femfreq Cyber Civil Rights Proposal

---

Youtuber and noted Feminist Critic Anita Sarkeesian has recently released a proposal for a set of new laws to address Cyber Civil Rights https://twitter.com/setlinger/status/530786251516162048. Ms. Sarkeesian however fails to take account of current US laws and/or court opinions already enacted on behalf of the people of the United States.

Itemized proposal and my response.

1. @femfreq- States need to update stalking laws harassing or threatening communication delivered through online social networks.

@ducesettutamen- All 50 states and the territory of Guam currently have laws against Cyber activities that result in stalking or harassment of a victim. Links to said laws can be found here. http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx A cursory examination of said laws reveals that any Cyber activities are treated with the same scrutiny and penalties as if those activities took place in the physical world.

Ms. Sarkeesian's point seems moot unless she is advocating for new laws in other US territories that do not currently have them.

2. @femfreq- Criminalize the Non-consensual publishing and distribution of any sexually intimate images or video as an invasion of sexual privacy.

@ducesettutamen- Ms. Sarkeesian's attempt to use buzz words like "sexual privacy" only serves to conflate the issue. There is no such thing as "sexual privacy" only simple privacy which is a right all Americans enjoy. Photographs and video recordings are a matter of Intellectual Property Law. Such law states that if you consent to the image being taken it become the exclusive property of the photographer/videographer. In cases of "sexting" that photo remains your exclusive intellectual property and you retain all rights to its ownership and distribution, if you took the photo of yourself. In cases of multiple person images (e.g. sex tapes) all parties involved share intellectual property. The only time the subject of a photo loses ownership of their image is when the have provided consent to another to take and possess their image.

Current intellectual property law already suffices for proper determination of ownership and adjudication of disputes.

3. @femfreq- Civil rights law need to be updated to criminalize threats motivated by gender bias, not just racial bias.

@ducesettutamen- The making of threats is already covered under the aforementioned laws on harassment. Criminal actions based on gender discrimination are covered under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act which became law on October 28th, 2009.

Point three is frivolous in nature and serves no purpose as it is already addressed as part of broader legal categories of harassment and hate crimes.

4. @femfreq- Plaintiffs should be able to sue abusers under pseudonyms in civil cases to protect their identities.

@ducesettutamen- In the case of Sealed v. Sealed (yes that is the actual name) decided on August 12th, 2008; the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that a litmus test shall be applied to each case in which the use of anonymity or pseudonyms shall be requested.

"We note with approval the following factors, with the caution that this list is non-exhaustive and district courts should take into account other factors relevant to the particular case under consideration:
(1) whether the litigation involves matters that are “highly sensitive and [of a] personal nature”;
(2) “whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the . . . party [seeking to proceed anonymously] or even more critically, to innocent non-parties”;
(3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those harms, including whether “the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity”;
(4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly in light of his age;
(5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties;
(6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court;
(7) whether the plaintiff’s identity has thus far been kept confidential;
(8) whether the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity;
(9) “whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants’ identities”; and
(10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff."

As such Ms. Sarkeesian has made another facetious proposal which fails to address current legal procedures that apply the United States Federal and State court systems.

Thank you for your time ladies and gentlemen.

Your dutiful soldier always,
General Patton

Reply · Report Post