United States | News & Politics

8032 readers

145 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Congress approves a revenge porn bill backed by first lady Melania Trump (www.npr.org)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A bill supported by Melania Trump that aims to implement strict penalties and guidelines for those who publish and promote revenge porn is on its way to President Trump's desk.

More than 400 House representatives voted in favor of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which doubles as an acronym that stands for: Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks.

The bill was introduced by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in January, and approved by the Senate in February.

"Today's bipartisan passage of the Take It Down Act is a powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy, and safety of our children," Melania Trump said Monday. "I am thankful to the Members of Congress — both in the House and Senate — who voted to protect the well-being of our youth."

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

There's the small government in action.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

EFF has an interesting article on the topic: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/04/congress-passes-take-it-down-act-despite-major-flaws

Congress is using the wrong approach to helping people whose intimate images are shared without their consent. TAKE IT DOWN pressures platforms to actively monitor speech, including speech that is presently encrypted. The law thus presents a huge threat to security and privacy online.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'll read up on that, thank you, but after QAnon, the notion of speech online being actively monitored isn't quite the boogeyman it would seem from my point of view. It's the lack of any regulation that got us where we are today.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A truly insane take. Jesus.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Your comment reminds me of the response we hear any time someone suggests raising the minimum wage, even though we can point to several areas in the country where raising the minimum wage has objectively worked to improve people's lives. The knee-jerk argument is always a slippery slope fallacy.

If it's the regulating of certain forms of speech, we already do that. Stolen valor is a good example.

What is it, exactly, about regulating revenge porn that is insane to you? Is it just that Trump is doing it?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

The issue with a federal minimum wage, is there shouldn't be one.

The minimum wage requirement in Ennis, Montana is not the same as New York City. So trying to standardize wages across the entire country is a very bad idea either way as it causes undue stress for small business in Ennis, while not being enough to sustain a livable wage in NYC. We need a federally mandated "living wage" which is factored by zones, not the entire country.

Also, there's nothing about revenge porn laws which is insane to me. Your comment about curtailing free speech was totally fucking insane;

after QAnon, the notion of speech online being actively monitored isn’t quite the boogeyman it would seem

Also, for the record, stolen valor isn't a regulation of free speech. The Stolen Valor act of 2005 makes it a federal misdemeanor to falsely represent the earning of US military decorations or medals. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your freedom of speech. You still have the right to commit stolen valor--it's simply a crime to do so.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

It's honestly wild to me that the first federal anti-revenge porn law is going to originate from the Trump Administration and introduced by effing Rafael "Ted" Cruz.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

Because it's an anti-privacy law wearing a costume, genius.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Especially as Ted Cruz is definitely a singular human being, and not a collection of spider-like creatures in a human suit.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

What are the odds it's just a surveillance and censorship bill with pig's lipstick? but with a fancy name that sounds reasonable.