Objection your honor that argument is nothing but baloney!
Since that post was published by Kayla on locals she became a drug addicted whore who goes to nudist beaches and engages in swinger activities, you could even call her an exhibitionist skank!
Does someone who engages on those activities has the same expectation of privacy on a nude picture than a normal person would?
If this had been a photo of Kayla with her tits out
on a nude beach, I would be among the first to say that there's no expectation of privacy, it's not revenge porn, if people saw her tits then Nick and Kayla can just deal with it.
However, that appears to be not the case here, and consent is a case-by-case, day-to-day, photo-by-photo issue. The fact that she had previously had her tits out on a nude beach for anyone to see is entirely irrelevant to the privacy she was legally permitted to expect for
that specific photo. The "you consented in arguably similar situations before so you're presumed to consent now" argument is an incredibly slippery slope and I'm not willing to let it slide even a little.
Hell, if just anyone could have paid five bucks to get in that Signal group and see the photo, then I wouldn't think she had an expectation of privacy there. But there was an individually curated list of people who had permission to see it and one of those individuals violated that trust.
Had Aaron posted Kayla's nudes on the internet for all to see, I would have agreed with you. But he didn't. He shared one photo with someone he thought was his buddy.
Eh, you can argue whether posting the photo for the entire world to see ought to be worse than sharing it with
just one guy who she didn't want to see it. But the law doesn't draw any distinction.
And how would it? How could you make a law that properly ranks, say, snapping a pic of you fucking a girl and sending it to her ex, compared to sending it to her dad? Anonymously posting a nude on a porn site where anyone
might see it, vs posting it on X and tagging her so that her friends almost definitely
will see it? Which is more significant, the number of people who see it, or the people who do see it?
What if Aaron took that photo and then used it to paint a photorealistic painting of Kayla and hung the painting in his trophy room, would that still be revenge porn? Or would it be his A.R.T.?
Hmm, I'd actually argue that would be fair. He saw the photo, he's allowed to create an artistic impression of it.
someone make an AI edit with the happy Nick, April and Kayla pic with Aaron having a sad face.
No, but you can have this.
Sean on his Aaron arraignment stream yesterday was baffled about what exculpatory information the prosecution may have in its discovery disclosure.
The defense would want any evidence that makes it less likely for the harassment element of the felony charge to stick, at the very least.
Also, the polycule should be extremely careful, they could actually see jail time if it is found that they are intentionally attempting to silence a witness against them with bogus charges.
What's bogus? They reported that he sent the nude, which he did. The prosecutor's the one who decides what to charge him with for doing that; if you think the felony is over-charged, blame the prosecutor.
