well, significant. because about 30 states now, brooke, have these revenge porn laws, which essentially make it a crime for someone to use an image, an illicit image of you and try to extort money from you, you know, threaten you. if that you don t pay me x amount, i ll publish this photograph, this new photograph to the world. that s a crime in about 30 stays. there s not only the criminal aspect, but also civil penalties. he could also, you know, find out who these people are that sent her these messages and file civil lawsuits and seek civil damages from these individuals. but i also love that, you know, she s not going to do that. you know, i m a lawyer, so i love when lawyers get hired. that s what we do to make a living. but she said, no lawyers, no investigators, because this just might be some dumb kid that s trying to, you know, get some publicity for himself. and she says rather than do this, i m going to just publish this image. anybody that wants to see it, look. here i
messages, information that proved she had this relationship with donald trump, that she could then be prosecuted under revenge porn laws, they may have threatened her with something like that. does that sound like it makes sense to you? certainly if you release explicit photos of somebody without their permission, that s revenge porn and that s criminal in california and many other places. i have a different theory. my theory is that stuff is a bluff. she doesn t really have anything. i ll tell you why i think that. in 2011 she was shopping the story and frankly nobody seemed particularly interested except in touch magazine which did do the interview and ultimately killed it. it s since been released. i think she would have sold that stuff. at that time that would have tended to corroborate the story. there 2016 again she s trying to sell the story, every outlet would have asked what do you have? what kind of corroboration do you have? that would have been part of the
woman. if you want to classify his statements as a threat he would have to be doing something illegal. he would be have to threaten her with an illegal act. pressing charges against you if you do something illegal that is not a threat or blackmail. what we see in these revenge porn laws, when relationships end and people are upset and they post pictures of the person they were just with or someone is trying to exploit another individual, you have to protect against this kind of behavior. one way or another. when you see this kind of case. the first time i read it you hear a congressman with a woman. oh oh, not necessarily he is in the wrong here. he does have an expectation to privacy and a right here. the voters at some level may decide if he was in the wrong by sending the pictures or not. he may not be in the wrong as it relates to the incident. ken, according to the congressman, the capitol police
and send an inappropriate picture or picture that is private to someone, that person doesn t necessarily have the right to share it. so there are a couple of things there. i actually think he does have a pretty strong case under the revenge porn laws in texas. anybody who does post a lewd photo of him when he thought he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and didn t consent to that release, he might have a claim against this person. however, because he is a public figure and he is not like everybody else, sharing and sending lewd photos of yourself with someone else, that reasonable expectation of privacy might not apply as strongly as if you were a private individual. i think that s going to be a difficult part for him in his case. kent, is it his case or would the state of texas be bringing this case? i was going to say i think what s more likely is that there would be a criminal case in texas if there is anything. it would be up to the congressman whether there is a civil
believe that a sitting, you know, congressman is even dealing with this. i can t believe he took that picture. but again, that s what he does on his own time. revenge porn is categorized as any type of photo or video that is taken of a person in a sexual situation when those photos or videos are posted online without the subject s consent. in this case, it s a selfie. he took the picture himself. he then sent it out. so can it be considered revenge porn? it s not like it was taken in secret when it was a compromising position. he put himself in that position and took the photo. there are a lot of defense attorneys who argue it s possible that revenge porn laws violate the first amendment to the constitution because they are discriminating against the content and as you said it infringes on someone s right to publish an image that was consensually made and consensually given.