Huh, so revenge porn is a sex crime in Florida. I don’t imagine I’ll say “Good for Florida” many times, but here we are.
It’s interesting to me that the article’s author claims, or at least broadly hints, that Zimmerman’s conduct runs afoul of Florida’s new cybersexual harassment law.
But I’m not sure it does. The version that Florida passed was the “weak version,” proposed by the state lower house, as opposed to the tougher bill the state senate initially passed. As I recall, the state senate’s version would have indeed criminalized this conduct. But the law that’s actually in effect, Florida Statute 784.049(2)(c) , specifically prohibits only the posting of such images “to a website.” I don’t think Twitter tweets qualify, although admittedly it’s possible to view tweets with a web browser. There’s no case law on this statute; it’s been active only since October. And I haven’t done the research to see how Florida might interpret other instances of “website,” but given that the legislature had a choice of a broad law that would have reached this conduct and a narrow law was their choice, I’d say there’s a decent chance that Tweeting an image is not “posting to an Internet website,” within the meaning of 784.049(2)(c).
I welcome further clarification on this point.
You can go to x.com and look at what he posted, well, you could, if his account weren’t nuked.
A tweet isn’t only sent to followers, it’s also put on your twitter page.
I mean, I could see what you mean if you meant texting a pic to someone else (say, Joe the Plumber, so they can bond). But tweeting seems like it should work.
That’s a good point.
I guess the distinction isn’t clear to me – the Legislature’s choice at the time led to comments that they were leaving out services like Snapchat and Twitter, but your point is a good one.
I don’t think JEB needs that much help with the Florida vote…
Account suspended already. Not that I’m sure I want to see GZ and his ex doing it.
Don’t know if this has already been mentioned, but I saw video of this guy Zimmerman signing autographs at gun shows. I don’t know if that speaks worse of Zimmerman or the people getting his autograph but it’s pretty disgusting either way, if you ask me.
The article I read stated that he posted “topless” and “semi-nude” pictures, accompanied by text saying she would have sex with anybody and giving her e-mail address and phone number. Is that kind of thing a crime? I mean, aside from the revenge porn, it sounds like a “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” kind of thing to me, but I don’t know if that is actually illegal or just reprehensible-but-technically-legal behavior.
First because we’re better off when nobody dies following a confrontation, and second, as pointed out by Big T, because otherwise trouble seekers and trouble makers are encouraged to seek and create troubles that can end badly, as in Zimmerman case.
Finally, it makes way too easy to get away with homicide. Have an argument with some guy? Just shoot him the face. Who’s going to prove he didn’t threaten you first and you weren’t just “standing your ground”? Having an obligation to retreat shows much more clearly who was in the wrong. The retreating man was doing his best to avoid a bad outcome. The one who kept going after him is clearly the bad guy.
How is twitter not a website??? 
I hadn’t paid any attention to the passage of the statute, but I am fairly certain tweeting qualifies as posting to a website inasmuch as any tweet appears on Twitter’s website. Certainly Florida law appears to treat Facebook and other social media as websites for professional responsibility, discovery and most other purposes. The distinction tends to be that content posted privately to Facebook, etc., might not qualify, but as I understand it (I don’t use Twitter) all tweets are public.
I think a better argument is that the images GZ posted do not qualify as “private nudity” within the meaning of that term as used in the statute, which is defined elsewhere (for boob purposes) as “the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple…”
I didn’t look too closely at the images that were posted but the one that was reproduced in the article I linked to seems to show only above-the-nipple flesh. Of course, it might have been cropped for the article.
ETA: There seems to be some commentary on this statute already in tort law updates (since the criminal provision also includes a private right of action), but nothing that isn’t paywalled.
Twitter predates the iPhone. It’s always had a web interface as well as phone interfaces. Originally, it was inspired by chat clients and phone/pager short but it’s always had web users who used it in preference to the IM clients of the day.
Twitter runs its own image hosting server. Initially, this could only be accessed via the web client, although nowadays it’s accessible via phones as well. It’s possible that Zimmerman hosted his pics elsewhere, but, for example, if you have a photo on your phone and click the Share button, choose Twitter, by default it would post the photo on Twitter’s image server. Twitter’s image server (and the servers of the other services like Instagram) might qualify as websites. I don’t know.
chorpler asks -
It varies by locale, but on the whole - no, doxxing isn’t illegal, nor is revenge porn. (Nor is swatting, in a lot of places.) It’s such a new problem that most places don’t have laws to address online harassment. Many places are moving to address this problem, though, hence Florida’s new law.
Here is a lawyer’s website discussing different state revenge porn laws. It claims to be up to date, but I haven’t personally run down all the links. Still -
Here’s an article from last summer about John Oliver agitating for federal revenge porn laws -
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/245690-john-oliver-calls-for-revenge-porn-laws
Here’s Crash Override’s page on what to do if you’ve been doxxed -
You are no longer allowed to walk around your neighborhood. :smack: You are the one creating the opportunity for a confrontation. :smack: It’s better for everyone if you avoid confrontation by staying inside your home. :smack:
Criminals will be free to roam your neighborhood at will. There is nothing you can do about that. They have a right to be there.
nm
Yes, the only alternative to vigilante justice to to cower at home. Hey, not to sound offensive, but have you ever considered being less stupid?
(Underline added)
Why do offensive assholes begin sentences by saying, “Hey, not to sound offensive”?
Self-defense is not usually considered to be vigilante justice. Except to those who hate Hispanic/Peruvian-Americans who use lethal force to defend themselves. People like yourself, for example.
You know, if you weren’t being stupid, you wouldn’t get called stupid. So it’s really your fault.
And hey, I’m just offering you a suggestion: Try being less stupid. Seriously, it’ll make your life better.
It’ll make our lives better.
So, wasn’t Trayvon Martin just standing his ground when he took a swing at Zimmerman? I mean Zim-dog was chasing him with a gun.
Also, Doorhinge is so fucking stupid, he doesn’t know the difference between popular and factually true. Don’t hold out hope he’s got the capacity or desire to change.
Hahahaha. No, not according to the court testimony. TM approached GZ, and TM began punching GZ. Maybe you heard a different version on DNC/MSNBC? And you’re free to invent any redickuless claim you wish.