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 imageâ to mean any image depicting nudity. Â
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
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.
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 personâs 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 donât know how you read these bills and still have a level head. Can we trade? Iâve been analyzing weather data of the latest snow storm for the last 3 days with little sleep. Iâm 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.â
(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!
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)ââChild pornographyâ means:
67 1.âAny image depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct;
68 or
69 2.âAny image depicting an actual and identifiable minor who
70 appears, as a result of digitization, to be engaged in sexual
71 conduct.
72 (c)ââDigitizationâ means to realistically depict any of the
73 following:
74 1.âThe nude body parts of another human being as the nude
75 body parts of a minor.
76 2.âComputer-generated nude body parts as the nude body
77 parts of a minor.
78 3.âA minor engaging in sexual conduct.
189 (e)ââSexually explicit imageâ 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 whatâs in it and whatâs not. Otherwise, our objections may be too easy for lawmakers to shoot down.
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 !?!?!?.
Shouldnât talk about Senator Book like that because I believe sheâll be Floridaâs governor one day.
Not just a freak, there no secrets left. She’s freaking out because she couldn’t keep the videos hushed.
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?!