Sen. Book’s new Bill redefines CP among other things
Even a blind person could see this one coming…
One month after a Plantation, Florida man was arrested for trying to extort Senator Lauren Book by threatening to post nude pictures and videos of her that were illegally obtained if she did not pay him, the Senator introduced a bill to make the offense subject to harsher criminal and even civil penalties. SB 1798 was introduced by Senator Book this week. The bill creates Florida Statute 784.0491, which would be titled “Unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit material depicting an individual.”
Included in the bill is a redefinition of the term “Child Pornography” to include digitized depiction of minors. For example, an image that is not an actual child, but a digitally created image. The bill also redefines “Sexually explicit image” to mean any image depicting nudity.
The general concept of this Bill is something we can get behind. Someone should not illegally obtain images of another person and then try to sell or distribute them without the person’s consent. The only concern could be a broad interpretation of the redefined terms. For example, we can foresee a “but officer, the cartoon looked 18” situation or one where parents exchange bathtime pictures of their children and, according to the letter of the law, they have distributed CP.
The catalyst for this bill is still playing out in the courts, as the defendant is facing charges in Broward County. It is unclear how the nude photos and videos of Lauren Book that were intended for her close friend were intercepted by the individual.
A copy of the bill can be seen here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1798/BillText/Filed/PDF
I was in a dark place this past weekend and so I watched a few movies starring Robin Williams. He is one of my favorite comedians. The first was The World According to Garp. The second was Good Morning Vietnam. I have not seen these movies for decades and was feeling a bit nostalgic so I watched them again. I had forgotten the beginning scene of Garp that shows naked babies floating through the air. A scene in GMV shows some young boys playing naked in water in a public street. I did not seek out these scenes in some perverted way. I just wanted to watch one of my favorite actors who brought a lot of joy to my life in the hope of bringing me out of a very dark place. Many of our legislators and LE would ban these types of movies. And I have personally met men in federal prison who sent pics of their naked children in the bathtub to friends via Facebook or email. They were busted for possession and distribution of CP because of people in power like Senator Book. I’m in a darker place now that I was on Saturday. I really don’t want to live like this any longer.
I know this is easier said than done buy Hang in there. Between combat related PTSD, all these rules and regulations, and registry etc. I know those very dark places very well. Call a supportive friend or family member. Try to get out of the house. Rake some leaves while listening to your favorite upbeat music. If you have any local bike trails near your home, take a walk or bike ride. Do anything to get you out your head even if it’s just for a few minutes.
Don’t give up. Call someone, take a walk, listen to music, whatever helps you cope. Find a therapist. You are not alone. Courage is being able to move forward in spite of everything. Look at the positive in your life. List the things that are grateful for. 🙏
Parts of that bill would be unconstitutional under the US supreme Court. I don’t remember the case off the top of my head but I’m going to find it. In the case you were a supreme Court found that explicit images that were not of real children, I. E. Drawings are animation, are not considered child pornography.
I guess someone should point out to him that The law may be unconstitutional from the get-go.
When I was growing up, there was a very popular book for tweens titled “What’s Happening to Me?”
It included drawings of unclothed human bodies from babies to adult ,(including their genitalia) showing the changes that happen during puberty. This bill would make that book “child pornography”.
Time for a FOIA so we can see these pics and deside for ourselfs if she herself is gulity of transmitting nude pics and videos. to her supposed friend
Experienced
No amount of money could make me view Lauren Book’s topless or nude photos. More than likely it’s like seeing Barbie nude and I saw that when I was a kid.
Cartoons are not included. Where do you see that?
Nor are bath photos, other than those distributed “maliciously.” Right?
Before we take a position on this bill, can we read it more carefully?
If I am wrong, then I am more than happy to label it the Bath Photo Criminalization Act (or Florida Bath Photo Law) in correspondence with my representatives.
If someone wants to harass your daughter by generating a realistic depiction of her nude body parts and distributing those images around campus…without this bill, there are few if any legal repercussions to them doing so, right?
What if your kids are the ones that did it. How long should they have to register for it. Would that make it even? I’m sure the parents, school, and attorneys and victim would much rather have their rights than having to report a crime. More law is not the answer parenting may be but some of this shit on the books is arbitrary.
So
I don’t believe everything should be handled through the justice system when it comes to teens. Parents should have that job not a judge unless it’s really horrific.
Given the recent “Nevermind” album matter where definitions mattered, let’s hope someone with a good legal brain gets a hold of her new broader definitions to give them a litmus test of whether they could hold up in a court of law when challenged should they be passed into law. Stop the madness of using tax dollars to defend something that should not have been passed into law in the first place. Nix it in the committee discussions.
If a naked image is sexually explicit, then David by Michelangelo in a picture is going to get someone in trouble because a naked man (as a form of art much like a cartoon is) standing there is sexually explicit according to her. This would almost seem to redo the Hustler case of Larry Flynt where naked pictures of people is protected speech. Is Nat Geo going to be in court?!
So, What we’ve found out is, Lauren Book is a Freak and got caught, Now she’s trying to “Defend Her Honor” by making it illegal to send ANY kind of “Nude” photo !?!?!?. Funny how “Everything is OK, Until it happens to you !?!?!?.
Shouldn’t talk about Senator Book like that because I believe she’ll be Florida’s governor one day.
Not just a freak, there no secrets left. She’s freaking out because she couldn’t keep the videos hushed.
No it does not criminalize all naked pictures.
Are we reading this thing?
I agree, Jacob. Not all naked pictures are illegal. Naturally, even pornography is protected by the First Amendment. The expansion of the definition of Child pornography (which is illegal) makes realistic depictions of nude body parts on a child illegal. I doubt Pixar will be expanding the scope of their work into this arena, but, as was pointed out in the post, the bill expands the definition to include that. The bill also does defines sexually explicit image as “any image depicting nudity”. Playboy magazines don’t become illegal, nor does consensual sexting. But if someone does something nefarious with it, such as they attempted to do to Sen. Book, that is illegal, as it should be.
What the above post stated was that “the general concept of the bill is something we can get behind.” In essence, we agree that the conduct the bill is intended to criminalize should be illegal. We are on the same page with each other and with Senator Book. The “broad interpretation” of the definitions that could be concerning could apply, for example, to “hentai” or “anime” porn. If the person depicted in the image is real, their birth certificate offers prima facia proof as to whether they are 15 or 19. How do you distinguish if the image is digitally created? An illustration of the “nude” issue that happens to be very timely is the Nirvana album cover. The law makes it illegal to, “willfully and maliciously creates and disseminates or sells any sexually explicit image of a depicted individual, without the consent of the depicted individual”. How can a toddler consent? Sure, one would think that the “willful and malicious” element would bring some common sense to any arrest, but we’ve seen overzealous prosecutions over less (in fact we’ve posted a few articles about parents arrested for the bathtime photos over the past few years).
Below is some of the language.
66 (b) “Child pornography” means:
67 1. Any image depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct;
68 or
69 2. Any image depicting an actual and identifiable minor who
70 appears, as a result of digitization, to be engaged in sexual
71 conduct.
72 (c) “Digitization” means to realistically depict any of the
73 following:
74 1. The nude body parts of another human being as the nude
75 body parts of a minor.
76 2. Computer-generated nude body parts as the nude body
77 parts of a minor.
78 3. A minor engaging in sexual conduct.
189 (e) “Sexually explicit image” means any image depicting
190 nudity as defined in s. 847.001 or depicting a person engaging
191 in sexual conduct as defined in s. 847.001.
Also the bill does NOT criminalize CONSENSUAL depictions of adult nudity, amirite?
In the event we take a position on this bill, I just want to be sure we all agree what’s in it and what’s not. Otherwise, our objections may be too easy for lawmakers to shoot down.
This bill will not affect anyone already on the registry so long as they do not engage in this behavior. That being said, to me, the most chilling language of this bill, if passed as is, is:
Lines 137-139
784.0491(3)(a) A law enforcement officer may arrest without a warrant any person who he or she has probable cause to believe has violated subsection (2)[lines 122-136].
Warrantless arrest for ADULT pornography???
Then there are the draconian penalties, once again for ADULT pornography:
Line 401
784.0492(2) 3rd degree felony Unlawful taking of a sexually explicit image.
Line 402
784.0492(3) 3rd degree felony Criminal use of a sexually explicit image.
Line 472
784.0492(4) 2nd degree felony Criminal use of a sexually explicit image.
“Criminal use” defined as:
Lines 207-212
784.0492(4) A person who willfully disseminates for the purposes of
pecuniary or any type of financial gain a sexually explicit image of a person which contains or conveys the personal identification information of the depicted person without first obtaining that person’s consent commits the offense of criminal use of a sexually explicit image.
I think Section 3. 784.0491 and Section 4. 784.0492 of this bill are problematic since they criminalize ADULT pornography.
Jz
So would Pictures of my girlfriend in a bikini violate this bill? I seriously don’t know how you read these bills and still have a level head. Can we trade? I’ve been analyzing weather data of the latest snow storm for the last 3 days with little sleep. I’m grateful tomorrow I can sleep in and wait till the next storm.
@Brandon,
Only if the person is nude:
lines 292-301
847.0115 Promotion of an altered sexual depiction; prohibited acts; penalties; applicability.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Altered sexual depiction” means any visual depiction that, as a result of any type of digital, electronic, mechanical, or other modification, alteration, or adaptation, depicts a realistic version of an identifiable person:
Portraying nudity; or
So once again, this bill would not only criminalize ADULT pornography, but ADULT nudity as well!
Also of note should be SB 1798’s companion bill HB 1453.
https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1453/BillText/Filed/PDF
The broad definition of the new term “visual depiction” is problematic due to the injection of the phrase “includes, but is not limited to”:
Lines 277-291
847.001(24) “Visual depiction” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, whether made, modified, altered, adapted, or produced by digital, electronic, mechanical, or other means,a:
(a) Photograph;
(b) Picture;
(c) Image;
(d) Motion picture;
(e) Film;
(f) Video;
(g) Representation; or
(h) Computer or computer-generated photograph, picture, image, motion picture, film, video, or representation whether tangible or intangible.