Difference between revisions of "Internal:Public Policy/Reducing online harassment"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(organize agenda on this) |
(filled out my opinion/summary and agenda forward) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* Our chapter could publicly support the [[w:Intimate Privacy Protection Act]] |
* Our chapter could publicly support the [[w:Intimate Privacy Protection Act]] |
||
| − | * [https://speier.house.gov/sites/speier.house.gov/themes/jackiespeier/images/IPPA_Final.pdf Text of the draft law] (4 pages, clear to read |
+ | * [https://speier.house.gov/sites/speier.house.gov/themes/jackiespeier/images/IPPA_Final.pdf Text of the draft law] (4 pages, clear to read) |
* The proposed law forbids sharing sexually intimate images of identifiable persons with reckless disregard for their lack of consent. It does not forbid the use of such images in reports to law enforcement, the courts, corrections officers, intelligence services or in other cases of (unspecified) public interest (e.g. I suppose reports of a public health problem). Definition of "sexually explicit" is inherited from existing laws. "Reckless" will be interpreted by prosecutors it seems. Interactive computer platform providers (e.g. WMF or Facebook) are not considered violators of the law only because a user uploaded something, unless the platform explicitly invites such content. |
* The proposed law forbids sharing sexually intimate images of identifiable persons with reckless disregard for their lack of consent. It does not forbid the use of such images in reports to law enforcement, the courts, corrections officers, intelligence services or in other cases of (unspecified) public interest (e.g. I suppose reports of a public health problem). Definition of "sexually explicit" is inherited from existing laws. "Reckless" will be interpreted by prosecutors it seems. Interactive computer platform providers (e.g. WMF or Facebook) are not considered violators of the law only because a user uploaded something, unless the platform explicitly invites such content. |
||
| − | * Background: [http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/new-revenge-porn-bill-shows-silicon-valleys-influence-in-politics] |
+ | * Background: [http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/new-revenge-porn-bill-shows-silicon-valleys-influence-in-politics Motherboard/Vice article] showing that google got the drafters of the law to add protections for platform providers (like WMF). It's quite interesting to read. Note that the ACLU does not favor the draft law, apparently because it imposes on free speech. |
| + | * Peter's judgment: The proposed law makes sense, and the risks of passing it are less than the risks left open by not-passing it. The law has appropriate limits. If enforcement seems to go awry, we would support changing it but that seems unlikely. |
||
| − | |||
; Steps before support: |
; Steps before support: |
||
Revision as of 00:08, 23 October 2016
- Our chapter could publicly support the w:Intimate Privacy Protection Act
- Text of the draft law (4 pages, clear to read)
- The proposed law forbids sharing sexually intimate images of identifiable persons with reckless disregard for their lack of consent. It does not forbid the use of such images in reports to law enforcement, the courts, corrections officers, intelligence services or in other cases of (unspecified) public interest (e.g. I suppose reports of a public health problem). Definition of "sexually explicit" is inherited from existing laws. "Reckless" will be interpreted by prosecutors it seems. Interactive computer platform providers (e.g. WMF or Facebook) are not considered violators of the law only because a user uploaded something, unless the platform explicitly invites such content.
- Background: Motherboard/Vice article showing that google got the drafters of the law to add protections for platform providers (like WMF). It's quite interesting to read. Note that the ACLU does not favor the draft law, apparently because it imposes on free speech.
- Peter's judgment: The proposed law makes sense, and the risks of passing it are less than the risks left open by not-passing it. The law has appropriate limits. If enforcement seems to go awry, we would support changing it but that seems unlikely.
- Steps before support
- read the draft law
(done by Peter) - consult with Earley and WMF legal
- consult with our members who have edited associated content on en.wp or have expressed specific interest
- consult with offices of Reps Clark and/or Speier
- consult with our own public policy committee members
- consult with TLM, perhaps, or WM NY or WMF ; with other partner orgs?
- Wait till the election is over
- Then could blog or launch a press release