You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

WhereGrapesMayRule ,

Washington D.C. has laws against revenge porn. I believe there were more than six people present:

If the sexual image is shared with 6 or more persons through “publication,” either directly or by uploading to the Internet, then the offense is First-Degree Unlawful Publication of a Sexual Image. This is a felony offense punishable by up to 3 years in prison and/or a fine of $12,500.

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.social avatar

As repulsive a move as this is, I'm afraid that the DC law almost certainly won't apply in this case. This was done as part of her official "speech" as a representative.

The speech and debate clause, which appears in Article 1, section 6, of the U.S. Constitution, was written before the First Amendment and has a more limited scope.

The clause, whose inclusion reflected the development in England of an independent Parliament, states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” It follows a provision, now largely moot, that prevents the arrest, for civil cases, of members traveling to or from sessions of Congress.

instamat ,

But what about the message she sent to the people on her email list? Surely that doesn’t have the same protections of the speech and debate clause.

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.social avatar

Depends on what a court decides "in either house" to mean. Does it mean physically in the House or Senate chambers? Does it mean "in furtherance of their duties as a congressperson"? I know how I would rule, but I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule.

instamat ,

I don’t think anyone knows how the Supreme Court would rule these days.

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.social avatar

My general rule of thumb is "whatever the conservatives want."

instamat ,

I hate so much that that’s true

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines