Skip Navigation

politics @lemmy.world

L4sBot @lemmy.world

2y ago

Wendy Rogers may have violated Arizona’s ‘revenge porn’ law by tweeting x-rated pictures of Hunter Biden

www.azfamily.com Wendy Rogers may have violated Arizona’s ‘revenge porn’ law by tweeting x-rated pictures of Hunter Biden

Sen. Wendy Rogers shared sexual images of Hunter Biden with her more than 300K followers on Twitter, where users have to be at least 13 years old to sign up.

Wendy Rogers may have violated Arizona’s ‘revenge porn’ law by tweeting x-rated pictures of Hunter Biden

Sen. Wendy Rogers shared sexual images of Hunter Biden with her more than 300K followers on Twitter, where users have to be at least 13 years old to sign up.

You're viewing a single thread.

62 comments

Why does everything blatantly illegal that a Republican do need to be caged as 'may' when it is clear as day that they did it?
- My best guess is they do this to prevent defamation lawsuits against themselves. The person can't come back and say XYZ news corp accused me of posting revenge porn and tarnished my reputation.
  
  This is the exact answer. It's also the reason why, for example, most major news outlets refused to call Trump's lies "lies" for years. A word may have one meaning in everyday conversation, but has a completely different meaning that carries infinitely more weight in a court of law.
  
  Tarnished their reputation by stating facts?
  Seems like a reasonable defense.
  
  It's not a fact until they are convicted.
  
  So if I drive 100 mph through a school zone it isn't a fact until I'm convicted?
  
  That's correct legally speaking.
  
  More specifically in cases of defamation, it would be on the news agency to show evidence (and that they had the evidence at the time) that what they wrote is true. Now whether they have the evidence is one issue, whether they want to reveal the evidence and by extension their sources is another. So even if the news agency has the evidence to back up its claims, it may still choose to throw in "may" and "allegedly" rather than to have to show these things in court.
- It isn't, in this case. It says the law may have been broken. Until a prosecutor comes along and goes for an indictment, then the person is convicted, saying that they broke a law isn't a fact.
  It's splitting hairs for casual conversation, but when it comes to making a public statement, you run into libel issues.
  So, while it grumpy definitely is a fact that the pictures are released, and that she did so, no legitimate press is going to say she broke that law, only that she may have. If she's indicted, then they could say "charged with", or similar language. But until a jury in a criminal case renders a verdict, the press as a whole wouldn't be protected if they said she broke the law. Well, there's other things that would clear that language for use, but they still involve determination of guilt in the courts
  Basically, it covers their ass.

62 comments