TEA Partier Hijacks Revenge Porn Ban, Forcibly Inserts Victim-Shaming Amendment (Since Stoning Was Out)

Keith Regier is out of touch.Keith Regier

You could say a lot of words about anti-women TEA Party legislator Keith Regier, but the words “leadership” or “honor” are not among them.

Most of them have something to do with the time he compared women to cattle to explain his bill to prevent access to reproductive care because “preg-checked cattle are more valuable” as everyone knows.  (Yes, there was a compelling handout to show us this concept.)

Yesterday Sen. Regier took woman-hating to a new level during the discussion of HB 123, which attempted to outlaw revenge porn with the full Montana Senate:

Keith Regier: An example was given in committee testimony was someone taking a picture of an 80yo woman at a health club and posted it online. The second thing that HB 29 did was on page 2, line 8. It protected someone that took a selfie and sent it to someone. Then that relationship goes bad and the recipient passes it on to others for whatever reason. Protection for the selfie sender was taken out in Senate Judiciary by removing the words “or distribute” and that’s on line 8 of page 2. It was felt that personal responsibility needs to be a part of the issue.

(Don’t you just love the use of the passive voice in this context? It is almost as if the speaker refused to take personal responsibility for his own victim-blaming amendment.)

We’re all told that your email YouTube Facebook whatever will be out there for everyone to see forever. There was some concern in committee over a naïve underage person being taken advantage of as well, but even they need to know there are consequences for their actions.In its current form, HB 129 deals with those that send pictures of unsuspecting or unwilling victims. It does not help those that willfully send a picture of themselves. It is important to keep in mind the legislative process when we go through, especially here at the end of the session.

Translation – if you are old, you might be a victim, but if you are a young women who is taken advantage of you need to know that there are consequences ladies and that you deserve revenge porn shots of you to be posted and widely disseminated on the internet for all of your bosses and parents bosses and everyone to see.

The poison pill amendment passed in spite of a few heroes who voted against it. (See the good people who voted NO here.)  What happens next will be telling.

Didn’t Jesus say something about how tossing victims under the bus is just fine as long you as get your name in the paper claiming to have done something good for women who aren’t sluts  (unlike those slutty women who were taken advantage of)?

Share

15 Comments on "TEA Partier Hijacks Revenge Porn Ban, Forcibly Inserts Victim-Shaming Amendment (Since Stoning Was Out)"

  1. boB @gyrogyrloose | March 23, 2017 9:15 PM at 9:15 PM |

    who raises these misogynist morons? His parents should be ashamed.

    • I do not think he had parents. Something in the gutter caused him to have a life. He certainly did not come from the womb of a woman.

  2. I’m confused. It appears there are two women who are activists for women (Hill and Gross) who are shown as being FOR the bill. Can that be true? Do I have the names mixed up?
    Thanks.

  3. “DUPLICATE” my ass – I only wrote one short comment. This is the second time you’ve done this to me. What’s up with that?

  4. All I did was question whether I am correct to be confused that it appears that two women I know to be advocates for women are listed as having voted YES!

  5. Grandma Jeannie | March 23, 2017 9:59 PM at 9:59 PM |

    The Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence opposes the amendment – while i have no idea what kind of deals or trickery Reiger has in play here, I certainly trust the MCADSV.

  6. Based upon what Sen Regier said in his Floor speech, the bill’s sponsor (ellie hill) will support these horrendous amendments. It seems strange that someone who claims to be feminist would wish to advance such anti victim policy.

  7. Mary Sheehy Moe | March 24, 2017 3:37 AM at 3:37 AM |

    I wrote a Cowgirl post on this bill on Feb. 5. Revenge Porn Prophylactic or something like that. The bill amended in Senate Judiciary, which Sen. Regier carried to the floor, more closely reflects the bill drafted by the Interim Committee, which I supported. Like Regier, I believe that drawing a line between digitally shared photographs and any other electronic communication is untenable and unwise. The media and free press industries were successful in amending the bill in the House in ways that got them off the hook. Someone in the House made amendments requiring the showing of an intent to terrify, intimidate or harass, which is grabbed from another section of code and just doesn’t make sense here. The intent of someone who creates and disseminates a lewd image without the consent of the person depicted shouldn’t matter a whit. I approve of Sen. Regier’s amendment on the Senate floor to add the profit motive to the list of required “intents,” but it doesn’t go far enough. The person who disseminates this stuff just for bragging rights – and the second- and third-party disseminators (called “downstream dissemination”) have none of these intents at all – probably just an intent to appeal to the prurient interest.

    The MCADSV, for which I have great respect, disagreed with my stance on this issue during the interim process. I suspect that ultimately they did not support the bill because it didn’t provide protections for the woman who consented to the creation of the image. It was a difficult issue for me to sort through because the damage to these women can be profound – personally and professionally. I just think that when the potential for that harm is there, women should be wise enough and strong enough to protect themselves either by not taking that risk or setting some clear and written expectations for the limitations on its use prior to sharing it. Not very romantic, I know. Too bad.

  8. Mary Sheehy Moe | March 24, 2017 3:40 AM at 3:40 AM |

    I should add that the interim committee bill did provide protections for those who are incapable of consent, as defined in the new sexual assault law. A minor, someone under duress or force, or someone too mentally disordered to appraise the situation cannot legally consent to the creation or dissemination depicting him or her in a lewd manner.

  9. Grandma Jeannie | March 24, 2017 6:19 AM at 6:19 AM |

    I am saddened and surprised that Rep. Hill let Keith Regier do this to her bill. I hope this bill is vetoed by the Governor. What a terrible session this is turning out to be. I hope we get better candidate recruitment before the 2019 session.

  10. This bill needs to die. Coming back next time with a bill that doesn’t enshrine victim-blaming in state law is better than this. Thank you legislators who opposed!

  11. Is this all most of these men have to do? Make laws that harm women? Are they women haters? Did Regiers mom beat him or emotionally abuse him that he now feels its his duty to come up with these asinine bills?

  12. If I get the gist of his goofy train of thought, he seems to think that the potential victim should know in advance that the potential perpetrator (i.e., boyfriend or whomever) may someday turn on her and distribute her photo, and that that somehow makes her in some way also “responsible” in that potential crime, and of acquiescing to that potential crime, in advance.

    I’m not a lawyer, but this seems a legally-untenable argument to me – sort of like lending a friend your car, and then he robs a liquor store while driving it. Any legal-eagles here?

  13. Ellie Hill Smith | March 24, 2017 7:47 PM at 7:47 PM |

    Cowboy and friends,

    First, thank you to Senator Mary Moe for clarifying on the previous post that while I did not personally support Senator Regier’s amendment to HB129 (“revenge porn”) and I would not have supported it, it does resemble the amendment language that she also suggested during our interim committee work. The majority of us do not see the amendment as a “poison pill” and neither did the Montana County Attorney’s Association who continue to support the bill, as amended. Despite the amended bill not reflecting an ideal end product, the bill does update our privacy in communication laws in a positive way, and the vast majority of the R’s and D’s in the Montana legislature support the legislation. The bill came out of Senator Diane Sands’ interim study intended to update our sexual assault laws in the State of Montana. This particular bill moves the needle and I imagine we can strengthen the language next session.

    Second, the Montana Coalition of Sexual and Domestic Violence was less than supportive of the unamended bill in the House. The bill passed 100-0 on 2nd reading and 95-5 on 3rd reading. Despite this overwhelming support in the House, MCADSV opposed the bill when introduced in the Senate, before Regier amended it.

    Third, speaking as a fourth term legislator– and feminist– I have found that many of my similar minded colleagues on the left believe deeply in the mission of Montana Coalition of Domestic and Sexual Violence but their position on this bill, much like their zealous advocacy for Marsy’s Law, does not reflect good policy. Sometimes philosophical advocacy does not translate into workable government solutions.

    The number of proponents for this bill wildly outnumbers MCADSV’s lone opposition on this one and to throw the baby out with the bath water is not the solution.

    Back to the circus here at the Capitol and in solidarity,
    Rep. Ellie Hill Smith (D- Missoula)

  14. How do these nut jobs get elected to strart with??? They must appeal to a majority of Montanans. This is not the Montana I remember.

Comments are closed.