You can find the appalling details at Slate.

I also link again to this argument from Emily Bazelon. Simply put, naked images made public without consent do not deserve first amendment protection. As this particular case makes abundantly clear, they are posted to hurt and humiliate. I’m no lawyer, but I would call this hate speech. As Bazelon (who is a lawyer) argues, web administrators ought to be required by national legislation (a revision of or judicial reinterpretation of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act) to remove such content upon receiving complaint–in exactly the same way they are with respect to copyrighted materials. (A handful of individual states do already have some kind of laws in place.)
Its outcome is fabulous in effect not taking much time pharmacy viagra and safe in result if taken in proper manner. It improves the strength of reproductive organs and prevents the risk of impotency in men. sildenafil generic from canada The hypnotic condition makes cialis discount price the patient better able to react to sexual arousal which may lead to an erection. ED is treatable but if left untreated then it may create social generico levitra on line downtownsault.org or legal problems later on.
Even if you are disinclined to sympathize with celebrities, who make so much of their living displaying their handsome, gorgeous bodies, know that “revenge porn” is a huge and growing online phenomenon. Legislators need to get their act together. Find one campaign to put a stop to this here.