Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent. The material may have been made by a partner in an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject at the time, or it may have been made without their knowledge. The subject may have experienced sexual violence during the recording of the material, in some cases facilitated by narcotics such as "date rape" drugs which also cause a reduced sense of pain and involvement in the sexual act, dissociative effects and amnesia. The possession of the material may be used by the perpetrators to blackmail the subjects into performing other sexual acts, to coerce them into continuing a relationship or to punish them for ending one, to silence them, to damage their reputation, and/or for financial gain. In the wake of civil lawsuits and the increasing numbers of reported incidents, legislation has been passed in a number of countries and jurisdictions to outlaw the practice, though approaches have varied and been changed over the years. The practice has also been described as a form of psychological abuse and domestic violence, as well as a form of sexual abuse.

Revenge porn most commonly refers to the uploading of sexually explicit material to the Internet to humiliate and intimidate a subject who has broken off a relationship. The term is also often misused to describe non-revenge scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety (more properly referred to by the terms non-consensual intimate imagery, NCII, or image-based sexual abuse, IBSA). The images are usually accompanied by sufficient information to identify the pictured individual (a process known as doxing), typically names and locations, and can include risqué comments, links to social media profiles, home addresses, and workplaces. In some cases victims are exposed to workplace discrimination, cyber-stalking or physical attack. Some companies search the Internet for potential sources of bad publicity, resulting in many victims of revenge porn losing their jobs and finding themselves effectively unhirable. Some academics argue that the term "revenge porn" should not be used, and instead that it should be referred to as "image-based sexual abuse."

Jurisdictions which have passed laws against revenge porn include Canada, Germany, Italy, Israel, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, 48/50 states of the United States—plus Washington, D.C., the U.S. military and U.S. territories including Puerto Rico and Guam. Australia has also passed a law at the Commonwealth level that commenced on 1 September 2018. The Australian states and territories of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania, have complementary state level laws that criminalize this behaviour. Furthermore, Australia also has a civil penalties scheme.

Background
In the 1980s, Hustler magazine began a monthly feature of reader-submitted images of naked women called "Beaver Hunt". Beaver Hunt photographs were often accompanied by details about the woman, like her hobbies, her sexual fantasies, and sometimes her name. Not all of the women featured in Beaver Hunt submitted their own images and several women sued the magazine for publishing their photographs without their permission, or without verifying information on forged consent forms.

Two decades later, Italian researcher Sergio Messina identified "realcore pornography", a new genre consisting of images and videos of ex-girlfriends distributed through Usenet groups. In 2008, amateur porn aggregator XTube began receiving complaints that pornographic content had been posted without subjects' consent. Several sites began staging consensual pornography to resemble revenge porn, as well as hosting "authentic" user-submitted content.

Revenge porn began garnering international media attention when Hunter Moore launched the website IsAnyoneUp in 2010. The site featured user-submitted pornography, and was one of the first sites to adopt the model initiated by Beaver Hunt: IsAnyoneUp often included identifying information, such as the subjects' names, employers, addresses and links to social networking profiles. Activist Charlotte Laws was the first person to speak out against Moore and one of the first people to publicly support revenge porn victims. This prompted backlash from some of Moore's devotees, who stalked Laws and sent her death threats. Laws became known around the world as the "Erin Brockovich of revenge porn" and she was one of the first activists to meet with legislators in an effort to get laws passed against revenge porn.

In February 2015, the social media site and online bulletin board Reddit announced a change to its privacy policy to ban the posting of sexually explicit content without the consent of those depicted. The announcement was made after a company meeting at which the issue of "illicit pornography—pictures and video—was a burning one". In March 2015, Twitter followed suit with new rules to address the posting of unauthorized content and specifically revenge porn. Starting March 11 of that year, Twitter stated it would immediately remove "any 'link to a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity or engaged in any act of sexual conduct' that has been posted without consent." According to a Washington Post article, the changes were in response to growing concerns "that [Twitter] has not done enough to prevent bad behavior on its site."

In June 2015, Google announced it would remove links to revenge porn on request. Microsoft followed suit in July. Both have placed forms on-line for victims to complete. Together the two organizations account for nearly 90% of the internet search market in the U.S.

The term "revenge porn" is controversial because those who share images without permission may be motivated by profit, notoriety, entertainment, or other goals besides revenge; and because not all visual depictions of nudity or sexual activity are pornographic.

Advocacy
The website endrevengeporn.org was founded by Holly Jacobs, a revenge porn victim, to campaign for the criminalization of revenge porn, which it considered a form of sexual abuse. Jacobs also founded the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), a nonprofit organization that seeks to challenge cyber harassment. Danielle Citron, known for her discourse on cyber harassment as a civil rights issue, the vice-president of the CCRI. Mary Anne Franks, CCRI's president and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, has been heavily involved with legislative and policy efforts to combat revenge porn. Dr. Laura Hilly and Kira Allmann of the Oxford Human Rights Hub have characterized revenge porn as a kind of gendered hate speech designed to silence women. An article of theirs argues that this stifling of free expression is often ignored in debates over revenge porn. Dr. Charlotte Laws, often called "the Erin Brockovich of revenge porn", was a CCRI board member until 2016. She is perhaps the first victims' advocate and one of the first to meet with elected officials in an effort to get legislation passed against nonconsensual pornography.

Katie Hill, U.S. representative for California, announced in late 2019 she would advocate against revenge porn.

While not solely focused on revenge porn, the non-profit organization Without My Consent provided legal resources related to it and lobbies to protect the privacy and free speech rights of online harassment victims. In 2019,Without My Consent ceased operating and transferred to CCRI all of the comprehensive resources it had developed to aid victims of online abuse. Since 2012, there has also been a website Women Against Revenge Porn, calling itself "not an organization or a business", which has been cited as an advocacy group for people exposed in revenge porn. In late 2014, Elisa D'Amico and David Bateman, partners at the law firm K&L Gates, launched the Cyber Civil Rights Legal Project (CCRLP), a project offering free legal help to victims of revenge porn.

To better facilitate the introduction of relevant legislation, some anti-revenge porn activists have called upon others in their community to use gender-neutral language more often when discussing the issue. The term "revenge porn" itself has also come under fire. The CCRI for instance prefers the term "nonconsensual pornography". In analogy with "child sexual abuse images" being the preferred term for child pornography, McGlynn and Rackley proposed "image-based sexual abuse". Along with journalist Sarah Jeong, they have argued that it is harmful to associate revenge porn with pornography which revolves around consent. Jeong also considers it a mistake for activists to focus on revenge porn itself as the main problem, rather than the underlying culture which leads to its subjects being socially ostracized.

In the Australian Capital Territory, an electronic petition was started in March 2017 that called upon the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly to consider criminalizing the non-consensual disclosure of sexual images and videos. The A.C.T Legislative Assembly consequently passed the Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Act (2017) (ACT) that criminalised the distribution, or threatened distribution, of intimate photos and videos on 16 August 2017.

Legislation
Laws banning revenge porn have been slow to emerge. Contributing factors include a lack of understanding about the gravity of the problem, free speech concerns, belief that existing law provides adequate protection, a lack of care, historically, for women's issues, and "misunderstandings of First Amendment doctrine" (Citron & Franks). The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have drawn attention to the implications for free speech if legislation is too broad.

One concern with revenge porn laws is that they may not be tailored narrowly enough to satisfy the strict scrutiny applicable to content-based restrictions on speech. Prohibition of revenge porn may not be constitutional according to the Miller v. California decision if the porn does not categorically appeal to the prurient interest; if it is not, in itself, patently offensive; or if it has literary or political value.

Africa
In South Africa, the Films and Publications Amendment Act, 2019 makes it a crime to distribute a private sexual photograph or film without the consent of the pictured individual and with the intent to cause them harm. The penalty is a fine of up to R150,000 and/or up to two years' imprisonment; or double that if the victim is identifiable in the photograph or film.

Asia
Since 2009, the Philippines has criminalized copying, reproducing, sharing or exhibiting sexually explicit images or videos over the Internet without written consent of the individual depicted.

Japan passed a bill in November 2014 which made it a crime to communicate "a private sexual image of another person" without consent.

In South Korea the distribution of revenge porn is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or by a fine of up to 5 million South Korean won. If the subject is filmed illicitly the penalty is up to ten years in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won ($8,900; £6,900). The use of hidden cameras for illicitly filming people, known as "molka", is widespread in the country and in 2018 more than 6,000 incidents of spy-cam porn were being reported to the police annually, with only 2% of reported cases leading to a prison sentence. The website Sora.net specialised in the publishing of spy-cam porn until it was banned in 2016 following a campaign against it. Some of those depicted had committed suicide. In May 2018, ten thousand women demonstrated in Seoul demanding increased official action against digital sex crime. In October 2018 a petition of over 200,000 signatories called for increased punishment for the possession of revenge porn, regardless of whether it had been distributed.

Israel
Israel responded quickly to public pressure in January 2014 and passed a law making sharing sexually explicit videos without the consent of the pictured individual punishable by up to five years in prison. After Israel's bill was passed, it was widely predicted that nearby countries such as Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia would not introduce similar bills as they have been slow to adopt legislation against sexual harassment in general. However, some commentators have suggested that victims could find recourse in existing laws against pornography, indecency, defamation and invasion of privacy.

Singapore
Singapore passed the Criminal Law Reform Act on 6 May 2019, which includes the criminalisation of revenge porn. Penalties include a jail term of up to five years with fines and caning as a sentencing option. If the crime is committed against a victim under 14 years of age, a mandatory jail term will be imposed. The Act took effect on 1 January 2020.

Australia
Sharing sexual images or videos without consent is unlawful under three different, but parallel, types of law in Australia; the Civil Law, the Criminal Law, and a Civil Penalties scheme.

Under the Civil Law, the Supreme Court of Western Australia decision in the case of Wilson v Ferguson, delivered on 16 January 2015, is specific precedent that establishes that the non-consensual publication of sexual images or videos on the internet is unlawful. In that case, a defendant shared sexual images and videos of the plaintiff on social media. The Court decided that the publication of "explicit images of a former partner which had been confidentially shared between the sexual partners during their relationship" constituted a breach of an equitable obligation of confidence. The Court granted an injunction prohibiting further publication and awarded equitable compensation to the plaintiff. The defendant was found liable for A$48,404 in damages, plus costs. This case was successfully argued on grounds previously established by the case of Giller v Procopets, which was argued on the equity of breach of confidence and tort grounds.

Under the Criminal Law, the Parliaments in the Australian States and Territories of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania, have all passed laws that amend the relevant statutory criminal law to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual images or videos. Furthermore, the Parliament of Australia has also passed a law that amends the Commonwealth statutory criminal law (which operates in parallel to State and Territory criminal law) to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual images or videos. Most jurisdictions provide for higher sentences where the image that is shared is of a child. The particular law in each of these jurisdictions is described below, in chronological order of their enactment.

In March 2013, the Parliament of South Australia passed the Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Act (2013) (SA) that specifically created a criminal offence for distributing an invasive image or video without consent, which commenced on 10 May 2013. The distribution of an invasive image offence is contained in s. 26C of the Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA), and the maximum penalty is A$10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years. In September 2016, the Parliament of South Australia further passed the Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Act (2016) to create a criminal offence for threatening to distribute an invasive image or video, which commenced on 28 October 2018. The threatening to distribute offence is contained in s. 26DA of the Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA), and the maximum penalty is A$5,000 or imprisonment for 1 year.

On 15 October 2014, the Parliament of Victoria passed the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2014) (Vic) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, a sexual image or video without consent, which commenced on 3 November 2014 (and was repealed on 6 September 2022). The distribution of an intimate image offence was contained in s. 41DA of the Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic), and the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 2 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence was contained in s. 41DB of the Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic), and the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 1 year. On 30 August 2022, the Parliament of Victoria further passed the Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2022) (Vic) that amended the Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic), which commenced on 30 July 2023. The amendment relocated the criminal offence of distributing an intimate image to s. 53S of the Crimes Act (1958) (Vic), and the offence of threatening to distribute an intimate image to s. 53T of the Crimes Act (1958) (Vic). The maximum penalty for either offence is imprisonment for 3 years. This Act also created a specific criminal offence for producing an intimate image without consent. The producing an intimate image offence is contained in s. 53R of the Crimes Act (1958) (Vic), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. Furthermore, this Act created a disposal order scheme. The intimate image disposal order is contained in s. 53Z of the Crimes Act (1958) (Vic).

On 21 June 2017, the Parliament of New South Wales passed the Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2017) (NSW) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, or threatening to record, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, which commenced on 28 August 2017. The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in s. 91Q of the Crimes Act (1900) (NSW), and the maximum penalty is an A$11,000 fine, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The threatening to distribute, or threatening to record an intimate image offences, are contained in s. 91R of the Crimes Act (1900) (NSW), and the maximum penalty for either offences is an A$11,000 fine, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in s. 91S of the Crimes Act (1900) (NSW), and the maximum penalty is an A$5,500 fine, or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

On 16 August 2017, the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory passed the Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Act (2017) (ACT) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, or threatening to capture, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, which commenced on 30 August 2017. The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in s. 72C of the Crimes Act (1900) (ACT), and the maximum penalty is A$45,000 or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The threatening to distribute, or threatening to capture, an intimate image offences are contained in s. 72E of the Crimes Act (1900) (ACT), and the maximum penalty is A$45,000 or imprisonment for 3 years, or both. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in s. 72H of the Crimes Act (1900) (ACT), and the maximum penalty is an A$30,000 fine, or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

On 22 March 2018, the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (NT) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, which commenced on 9 May 2018. The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in s. 208AB of the Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in s. 208AC of the Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in s. 208AE of the Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years.

On 16 August 2018, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia passed the Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth) that created specific criminal offences (that operates in parallel to State and Territory criminal law) for distributing, or threatening to distribute, a sexual image or video without consent, which commenced on 1 September 2018. The distribution of a private sexual image offence is contained in s. 474.17A of the Criminal Code Act (1995) (Cth), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years.

On 13 February 2019, the Parliament of Queensland passed the Criminal Code (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Amendment Act (2019) (Qld) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, which commenced on 21 February 2019. The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in s. 223 of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in s. 229A of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in s. 229AA of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years.

On 19 February 2019, the Parliament of Western Australia passed the Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (WA) that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video, which commenced on 15 April 2019. The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in s. 221BD of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in s. 338 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in s. 221BE of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA), and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 1 year and an A$12,000 fine.

On 19 September 2019, the Parliament of Tasmania passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Bullying) Act (2019) (Tas) that extended the criminal offence of stalking to include distributing an offensive image or video, which commenced on 8 September 2019. The distribution of an offensive image offence is contained in s. 192(1) of the Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas), and the offence is a serious indictable crime that can only be tried on indictment in the Supreme Court. The threat offence is contained in s. 192(1)(ea) of the Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas), and the offence is a serious indictable crime that can only be tried on indictment in the Supreme Court.

Under the civil penalties scheme, Australians can report the posting, or threatened posting, of sexual images and videos without consent, to the Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The eSafety Commissioner is empowered to receive and investigate complaints, issue take-down notices, and enforce civil penalties against individuals and corporations who fail to comply. In July 2015, the Australian Government established the Office of the eSafety Commissioner. In October 2017, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner launched the Image Based Abuse online reporting portal, which enables Australians to report non-consensually shared sexual images and videos that had been posted to social media, or websites, and enables the eSafety Commissioner to seek their removal. On 16 August 2018, the Parliament of Australia passed Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth) that establishes a civil penalties scheme. Under this law, the eSafety Commissioner is empowered to investigate a complaint, or an objection, regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or videos on social media, by email or SMS/MMS, on websites, or peer-to-peer file-sharing services. Furthermore, under this law, a person who non-consensually posts, or threatens to post, an intimate image or video may be liable for a civil penalty. This law also empowers the eSafety Commissioner to issue removal notices requiring providers of a social media service, a relevant electronic service, or a designated internet service, to remove the intimate image from the service. Similar powers can be enforced against end-users, and hosting service providers. Civil penalties for individuals are up to a maximum of A$105,000 and for corporations are up to a maximum of A$525,000.

North America
In 2014, with the passage of the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, Canada criminalized the "non-consensual distribution of intimate images" that were made under a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

United States
Tort, privacy, copyright, and criminal laws offer remedies against people who submit revenge porn. 48 states have laws against revenge porn as of July 2021.
For example, New Jersey law prohibits both the capture and the distribution of sexually explicit photographs and films by any person, "knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so" and without the subjects' consent. The law was used to prosecute Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who distributed webcam footage of his roommate Tyler Clementi engaging in sexual activity, after which Clementi killed himself. The law has also been used to prosecute several men who allegedly distributed revenge porn of their ex-girlfriends.

Mary Anne Franks, a law professor and constitutional scholar who drafted the model legislation and advised legislators in the majority of the above states, emphasizes that many of these laws are still deeply flawed.

Representatives from the Department of Justice, California's Office of the Attorney General, 50 major technology companies, victim advocates, and legislative and law enforcement leaders joined in 2015 to form a Cyber Exploitation Working Group, and have announced the creation of a working hub "to combat so-called cyber exploitation – the practice of anonymously posting explicit photographs of others online, often to extort money from the victims."

As of October 1, 2022, a new section of the US Federal Code,  Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images, went into effect. This was passed via Section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 and amended the Violence Against Women Act, allowing victims of revenge porn to file civil suits against those who released the materials. Victims may sue for up to US$150,000 in actual damages as well as legal fees; restraining orders and injunctions may also be issued to temporarily or permanently halt any further distribution or disclosure. It is the first Federal law concerning revenge porn and helps address the patchwork of state laws in effect at the time of its passage. The burden of bringing such a suit is still on the victim and the code does not formally criminalize the release of revenge porn. Communications platforms, including websites, would be liable if they solicited such material or if they deal predominantly in revenge porn. Importantly, the legal code includes specific wording which holds that a victim's allowance of such materials to be created and any instances where the victim shared that material with specific individuals do not imply wholesale consent to share the material with any other individuals, two commonly anticipated defenses which defendants may raise.

Observers have also noted the shame which may make many victims reluctant to report or pursue such investigations. While victims of sexual abuse can have their identities kept out of court proceedings, which will only refer to them as Jane Doe or John Doe, few such safeguards exist for victims of revenge porn. Depending on jurisdiction, images in court cases may be entered as evidence and become publicly viewable. Suggestions have been made to revise evidentiary laws to allow anonymization of plaintiffs and de-identification of images entered as evidence.  specifically allowed for injunctions to preserve plaintiff anonymity when filing civil suits in Federal court.

Criminal prosecutions
Several well-known revenge porn websites, including IsAnyoneUp and the Texxxan, have been taken down in response to actual or threatened legal action. The former was investigated by the FBI after anti-revenge porn activist Charlotte Laws uncovered a hacking scheme associated with the website. Indictments for fifteen felonies were handed down under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in January 2014 for the site owner and his accomplices, and the trial was initially set to begin in November 2014 in Los Angeles. Hunter Moore, the owner of IsAnyoneUp pleaded guilty to hacking and identity theft in early 2015. Moore was sentenced to two and a half years in prison on 2 December 2015. By May 2017, Moore was out of prison.

In December 2013, California Attorney General Kamala Harris charged Kevin Bollaert, who ran the revenge porn website UGotPosted, with 31 felony counts, including extortion and identity theft. In March 2014, because the victim was under eighteen years old in the photos, a court in Ohio awarded damages of $385,000 against Bollaert. In April 2015 Bollaert was sentenced to 18 years in prison. "Sitting behind a computer, committing what is essentially a cowardly and criminal act, will not shield predators from the law or jail", said Attorney General Harris following the verdict. Also in California, a man named Noe Iniguez was given jail time for posting a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend on her employer's Facebook page.

Casey Meyering, the operator of revenge porn website WinByState, was arrested in Oklahoma in 2014 and extradited to Napa County. Meyering's website invited users to submit nude photos of ex-girlfriends and other women, with the photos categorized by state. He would then make the women featured on his website pay $250 to have their photos taken down. There were about 400 images of California women on the website, including at least one in Napa Valley, where California Attorney General Kamala Harris had filed the case. After originally pleading not guilty, on 8 May 2015, the 28-year-old man pleaded no contest to one count of extortion, three counts of attempted extortion, and one count of conspiracy. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment as of early June 2015.

In August 2023, a jury in Harris County, Texas, returned a $1.2 billion verdict on behalf of a woman identified as "D.L." or "Jane Doe" in court filings. The unanimous verdict found that Marques Jamal Jackson had distributed revenge porn in violation of the Texas' revenge porn law. The verdict included $200 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. According to the lawsuit, Jackson posted images of his former girlfriend on social media platforms and websites, including a pornography site, and in a public Dropbox folder. He created fake social media pages and email accounts to share the material with her family, friends and co-workers and sent them a link to the Dropbox folder. He also tagged her employer and personal gym on social media posts.

Tort and privacy law
States without specific laws about revenge porn have seen lawsuits alleging invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private fact and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the individuals who uploaded the images. Forty states, including California, New Jersey,  and New York, have anti-cyberharassment laws that may be applicable to cases of revenge porn.

In February 2014, a US$500,000 settlement was awarded to a Texas woman who brought suit against her ex-boyfriend for posting video and photos of her on the Internet. The state did not have a specific "revenge porn" law at the time of the lawsuit. California has a private right of action in tort for acts of revenge pornography within the civil code, as well as a specific criminal statute punishing revenge pornography as an invasion of privacy.

Communications Decency Act §230
Some revenge porn lawsuits have named service providers and websites as defendants alongside individuals who uploaded the images. Section 230 (§230) of the Communications Decency Act shields websites and service providers from liability for content posted by users providing they are not themselves co-creators of the content. If user-generated content posted to a website does not violate copyright or federal criminal laws, sites have no obligation to remove the content under §230.

Copyright
An estimated 80% of revenge porn pictures and videos are taken by the subjects themselves. Those individuals can bring actions for copyright infringement against the person who uploaded their nude or semi-nude "selfies". American victims may file Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices with service providers. Revenge porn site MyEx.com has been a defendant in a copyright infringement case.

First Amendment and anti-SLAPP
Some free speech advocates object to revenge porn laws on First Amendment grounds, citing the fact that US laws restricting expression have a history of being overturned. Journalist Sarah Jeong argues that new criminal laws meant to combat revenge porn are likely to be overbroad, resulting in unintended consequences.

Revenge porn uploaders and websites may also challenge lawsuits using state protections against strategic lawsuit against public participations (anti-SLAPP laws), which allow defendants to counter lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech.

Europe
Many European countries have broad privacy statutes that may be applicable to revenge porn. France also criminalizes the willful violation of the intimate private life of another by "transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned". A German High Court made a May 2014 ruling that intimate photographs of partners should be deleted if the partner so requests. In 2019 Italy approved a law punishing whoever disseminates images or videos with sexually explicit content, intended to remain private, without the consent of the persons represented, with a jail sentence from one to six years and a fine from €5,000 to €15,000.

In 2020, pornhub removed 10 million videos uploaded by unverified users after accusations from the public and refusal of mastercard and visa to work with site.

Malta
A law criminalising revenge porn in Malta entered into force in November 2016. Article 208E of the Maltese Criminal Code punishes whoever, with an intent to cause distress, emotional harm or harm of any nature, discloses a private sexual photograph or film without the consent of the person or persons displayed or depicted in such photograph or film. Such person would, on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of up to two years or to a fine of not less than €3,000 and not more than €5,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

United Kingdom

England and Wales
In 2012, the English singer-songwriter Tulisa Contostavlos obtained an injunction preventing the distribution of a sex tape of her and a former lover that had been published on the internet. The case was set to include considerable damages, but was settled out of court before it could be considered.

In April 2014, UK charities including The National Stalking Helpline, Women's Aid, and the UK Safer Internet Centre reported increased use of revenge porn websites. Women's Aid Charity Chief Executive Polly Neate stated, "To be meaningful, any attempt to tackle revenge porn must also take account of all other kinds of psychological abuse and controlling behaviour, and revenge porn is just another form of coercive control. That control is central to domestic violence, which is why we're campaigning for all psychological abuse and coercive control to be criminalised". In July Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, announced plans to "take appropriate action" to address revenge porn in Britain. A House of Lords Committee, in a report on social media and the law, subsequently called for clarification from the DPP as to when revenge porn becomes a crime.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 received Royal Assent. Section 33 of the Act makes it an offence in England and Wales to disclose private sexual photographs and films without the consent of the individual depicted and with the intent to cause distress. There is a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment.

On 23 April 2015, a seminar was held in Westminster on the new legislation. The seminar was organised by the Oxford Human Rights Hub and co-hosted with the law firm McAllister Olivarius, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, the University of Durham, and the University of Birmingham. The seminar called for the law to be extended to cover upskirting, a change that was subsequently made with the passing of the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019.

In June 2015 Chrissy Chambers, a YouTube star from the United States, pursued a civil suit against her British ex-boyfriend who posted sexually-explicit videos taken without her knowledge or consent to Facebook where they were repeatedly shared. Chambers chose to pursue a civil case as the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 does not apply retroactively to content posted prior to its passage. She was represented by McAllister Olivarius and in January 2018 won "substantial damages". Drawing on this and other cases, Dr. Ann Olivarius of the same firm gave a TEDxReading talk on "Revenge Porn: The Naked Truth".

Between April 2015 (the date that section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 came into force) and December 2015 the number of reported incidents of revenge pornography in England and Wales was 1,160. However, 61% of them resulted in no action being taken and the number of people prosecuted for disclosing private sexual images during the legislation's first year was 206. It emerged that cases of those who had been victims of revenge porn before April 2015 were not pursued under the new law, causing criticism that perpetrators "got away with" their crimes when committed before the Act came into force. Before April 2015, the law most applicable to revenge porn, specifically image-based sexual abuse, was the 1988 Malicious Communication Act, and "With police officers' understanding of revenge porn now being based on the newer legislation, prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act for similar cases is less likely to be considered. And so police officers may be less likely to consider alternative legislation for those cases which predate April 2015."

The Revenge Porn Helpline was set up in 2015. In 2019 it was announced that the Law Commission would examine the possibility of reclassifying revenge porn from a "communications crime" to a sexual offence, thus giving victims anonymity.

Scotland
In Scotland, revenge porn became a specific offence in April 2016 with the adoption of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Act, which came into force in July 2017.

Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, revenge porn was made a crime in February 2016 through the amendment of an existing law.

Minors
If the video or images in question are of individuals who are minors, this can lead to legal action for child pornography as has happened in non-revenge porn related cases involving sexting.

Prenuptial agreements

Some couples draft "social media" prenuptial agreements, which may include provisions relating to revenge porn. Clauses may state that couples agree not to share photos or posts that are likely to harm a spouse's professional reputation.

In other media
The novel The Drowning Pool (1950) by Ross Macdonald, part of the series starring fictional detective Lew Archer, features a subplot of a woman trying to stop distribution of a sexual film taken without her knowledge.

The 2017 independent film From Jennifer tackles the subject of revenge porn. In the film, the main character's acting career is derailed by an ex-boyfriend who posts a video of them online without her consent. When the video goes viral, her manager drops her as a client, and the ensuing humiliation she suffers leads her toward a path of destruction and counter-revenge.

In 2021, the BBC film Zara McDermott: Revenge Porn came out, in which Zara McDermott recalled the experience of having her nude photos leaked as a teenager.

See also
 Deepfake pornography
Fake nude photography
 Online shaming
 Participatory surveillance

References

Further reading

Pornography
Internet culture
Sex and the law
Privacy controversies and disputes
Psychological abuse
Sexual abuse
Sexual misconduct
Revenge
Cybercrime
Sex crimes

Revenge porn


Andrey Smetsky (born 16 February 1973 in Leningrad) is a Russian auto racing driver.

Career
He has competed in the Russian Volkswagen Polo Cup, Russian Super Production Championship and the Russian Lada Ice Cup. In 2007 he finished runner-up in the Russian Touring Car Championship with a touring class Honda Accord. That same year he competed in round of the FIA World Touring Car Championship for his Golden Motors team. In 2008 he returned for two rounds of the WTCC with no success. Due to budget reasons, the team switched to the Finnish Touring Car Championship and Smetsky has not returned to the WTCC since.

Complete WTCC results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

References

1973 births
Living people
Russian racing drivers
Sportspeople from Saint Petersburg
World Touring Car Championship drivers
European Touring Car Cup drivers

Andrey Smetsky


Ernst Kaltenbrunner (4 October 1903 in Ried im Innkreis, Austria - 16 October 1946 in Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany) was an High Ranking Austrian SS Official During the Nazi Era and World War II he was an official of the NSDAP. He was the head of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Reich Security Head Office) and Interpol. Kaltenbrunner was the highest SS officer who was charged at the Nuremberg Trials. He was found guilty of war crimes and executed by being hanged. He was also the Nazi Officer who replaced Reinhard Heydrich when Heydrich was assassinated on 27 May 1942 and died on the 4th June 1942 Ernst Kaltenbrunner was the Reich Protector Of Bohemia and Morovia and SS-Obergruppenführer from 1942-1945 when Czechoslovakia was liberated from Nazi Germany  by the allied forces in 1945 . Ernst Kaltenbrunner was born on 4th October 1897 in Ried im Innkreis joined the Nazi Party and the Schutzstaffel/SS in 1931 he also joined the Gestapo in 1933 . In June 1933 he was involved in the Night of the Long Knives to kill Ernst Röhm the head of the SA . He was also involved in Kristallnacht or Night Of The Broken Glass in 1938 . In 1942 during World War 2 he replaced Reinhard Heydrich as head of the Gestapo until 1945 when he was captured by the Allies .

1903 births
1946 deaths
Austrian lawyers
Austrian people of World War II
Austrian Roman Catholics
Austrian war criminals
Directors of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt
Executed Austrian people
Executed Nazis
Gestapo people
Holocaust perpetrators
Nazi leaders
People executed by hanging
SS officers

Ernst Kaltenbrunner


A Kiss Before Dying is a 1956 American color film noir, directed by Gerd Oswald in his directorial debut. The screenplay was written by Lawrence Roman, based on Ira Levin's 1953 novel of the same name, which won the 1954 Edgar Award for Best First Novel. The drama stars Robert Wagner, Jeffrey Hunter, Virginia Leith, Joanne Woodward, and Mary Astor. It was remade in 1991 under the same title.

Wagner plays a charming, intelligent man who will stop at nothing to get his life where he wants it to go. His problem is a pregnant womanplayed by Woodward in one of her first film roleswho loves him. The solution involves desperate measures.

Plot
In 1956, Bud Corliss is an ambitious University student who is wooing fellow student Dorothy Kingship purely for her father's mining fortune. When he discovers that Dorothy is pregnant with his child, he realizes she is quite likely to be disinherited by her father, Leo Kingship. She does not care about this, saying she feels "like me" for the first time in her life, free of her father's control. Bud assures Dorothy that he will take care of her, hesitates when Dorothy insists on getting married, but then seemingly agrees to it.

After she experiences a fall on some bleachers, Bud spends the days leading up to their wedding formulating an elaborate plan to make it appear that she has committed suicide. He is stunned into near panic when this fails. On the day they are to be married, Bud purposely has Dorothy meet him at the Municipal Building during the lunch hour when the registry office is closed. He suggests they go to the roof for some air. There, he manipulates her into position and pushes her off the  building; her death is considered a suicide because of a letter he had forged and mailed to her sister in anticipation of his original plan working.

After a couple of months, Dorothy's sister, Ellen, is dating Bud; he is trying once again to ingratiate himself with Leo Kingship. Ellen has no idea of Bud's previous relationship with Dorothy; she has, however, always had doubts about her sister's suicide. She has an idea that if she can find out who her sister's boyfriend was, he might be her killer. For help, Ellen contacts Gordon Gant, who tutored Dorothy. Shortly, Ellen believes she has identified the boyfriend, Dwight Powell. Bud learns of the investigation and manages to eliminate Powell from the equation. This, too, is taken to be a suicide.

Ellen is satisfied that Powell was the man who killed Dorothy. She and Bud become engaged. Gordon shows up during the engagement party to tell her that he has discovered that Powell could not have committed the crime. On his way out, he is introduced to Bud; while driving home, he stops at a phone booth to call his uncle, the Chief of Police, to reveal that he believes he had seen Bud with Dorothy at the University. Gordon returns to Ellen's and informs Leo Kingship that he is certain Bud was dating Dorothy and is likely her murderer. They give Ellen this news, which she rejects outright.

The next morning, the couple drive to the Kingship mine so Bud can see the family fortune being made. Meanwhile, Gordon's uncle confirms that Bud was Dorothy's boyfriend.

During casual conversation, Bud lets it slip both that he knows more about the smelter than he should, considering he supposedly has been only talking with Ellen about her family, and that – concurrent with Dorothy – he had frequently gone to concerts in the University town. He admits to Ellen that he knew her sister, and that he "even had a few dates with her". He tries to tell Ellen that he was being considerate of her emotions by keeping it a secret; they argue and Bud stalks to the edge of the open mine pit. Ellen goes after him, still hoping he is not a murderer. They continue to talk and he refers to Dorothy as "Dorrie", a name only he called her, it becomes obvious that he, indeed, is guilty. Her father and Gordon arrive and witness Bud struggling to throw Ellen into the pit; in a desperate attempt to kill her, Bud shoves her in front of an oncoming truck, but to his shock, the truck swerves and instead hits Bud, knocking him over the cliff to his death, while Ellen is safe.

Cast
 Robert Wagner as Bud Corliss
 Jeffrey Hunter as Gordon Grant
 Virginia Leith as Ellen Kingship
 Joanne Woodward as Dorothy Kingship
 Mary Astor as Mrs. Corliss
 George Macready as Leo Kingship
 Robert Quarry as Dwight Powell
 Howard Petrie as Howard Chesser, chief of police
 Molly McCart as Annabelle Koch

Cast notes:
 A Kiss Before Dying was the second film Robert Wagner made in 1956 in which he played against his usual clean-cut image, after The Mountain, with Spencer Tracy.
 This was Mary Astor's first film since 1949 when she made Any Number Can Play.
 A Kiss Before Dying was Joanne Woodward's second film, after Count Three and Pray, the year before. She said at one time that it was her "worst picture".

Production
Darryl F. Zanuck bought the rights to the book in August 1953, following the bidding of many studios. His public announcement revealed that Wagner would star in the lead. The role of Dwight Powell, played in the film by Robert Quarry, was initially to be played by Martin Milner, but Milner had to drop out because of schedule changes.

In 1955, it was announced the film would be made by Crown Productions and distributed by United Artists. It was the second film from Crown following The Killer Is Loose; an executive for the company was Robert Jacks, Daryl Zanuck's son-in-law.

Three members of the cast – Wagner, Joanne Woodward and Jeffrey Hunter – were loaned to United Artists by Twentieth Century-Fox.  The film was the directorial debut of Gerd Oswald, and was filmed in Tucson, Arizona.

The film's use of the word "pregnant" caused controversy: it was cut during its preview in Chicago, and United Artists was not allowed by the Hollywood censors to use the word in any advertising.

Critical reception

Contemporaneous response
When the film opened, the review in Variety commented: "This multiple-murder story is an offbeat sort of film, with Robert Wagner portraying a calculating youth who intends to allow nothing to stand in his way to money ... Gerd Oswald's restrained direction suits the mood ... Wagner registers in killer role. Woodward is particularly good as the pregnant girl, and Virginia Leith acceptable as her sister. Jeffrey Hunter is lost as a part-time university professor responsible for the final solution of the crimes. Mary Astor and George Macready are okay as Wagner's mother and the girls' father."

Modern assessment
Time Out Film Guide liked the script and the direction of the film, and wrote, "An early Ira Levin thriller, predating Rosemary's Baby...superbly adapted as an icily acute nightmare...by the great Oswald, giving a criminally myopic Hollywood its first glimpse of a unique visual talent, idiosyncratically developed from that of his father, German silent director Richard Oswald."

Film critic James Crawford praised the film for direction and inventiveness.  He makes the case that the film's long second shot functions as a foreshadowing, an organizing principle, a statement of purpose in the film.  Crawford wrote, "It's not remarkable for what it revealsit's essentially exposition of narrative and character traitsbut for its movement, length, and the way it approaches space, viewer identification, and power dynamics." As for the creativity of the film, he compares the three minutes, 26 seconds length of the shot and likened it to the "granddaddy of all tracking shots," the one that kicks off Touch of Evilthe most apropos comparison, given that it was released in 1958, two years later.

Noir analysis
According to film critic Alain Silver, a theme used in film noir is the disruptive force of the "maniac" in society. The threat to the family and social values is apparent in these types of films. Gaining dominance and disrupting the family is a central theme of A Kiss Before Dying. Robert Wagner's character pursues one path to his true target in Dorothy, then kills her and pursues her sister, all with the objective of reaching their father and his fortune.

Remake
An adaptation directed by James Dearden was made in 1991 using the same title. Called "insanely inept" and "bereft of suspense" by Entertainment Weekly, the film earned two Razzie awards. The movie was unofficially remade in Malayalam as Moonilonnu (1996), and in Hindi as Baazigar (1993) starring Shah Rukh Khan.

See also
List of American films of 1956

References

External links

1956 films
1950s psychological thriller films
American psychological thriller films
1950s English-language films
Color film noir
Films based on American novels
Films based on thriller novels
Films based on works by Ira Levin
1956 directorial debut films
United Artists films
Films directed by Gerd Oswald
Films scored by Lionel Newman
American pregnancy films
Films shot in Tucson, Arizona
1950s pregnancy films
CinemaScope films
1950s American films

A Kiss Before Dying (1956 film)


Alija Izetbegović (; 8 August 1925 – 19 October 2003) was a Bosnian politician, lawyer, Islamic philosopher and author, who in 1992 became the first president of the Presidency of the newly independent Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Shortly after his term began, the country's Serb community revolted and created the Republika Srpska, attempting to prevent the secession of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia, which would lead to the outbreak of the Bosnian War. Izetbegović led the Bosniak forces initially alongside the Croat forces, until a separate war erupted between them. Relations between the two sides were resolved in the Washington Agreement, which he signed with Croatian president Franjo Tuđman.

The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina continued, with widespread ethnic cleansing and other war crimes committed by mostly Serb forces against the Bosniak and Croat populations, eventually culminating in the massacre of male Bosniaks in Srebrenica by Serb forces, which would later be determined to be genocide. He was also a signatory for the Dayton Agreement, which ended the war in a stalemate following NATO bombings, and recognized Republika Srpska as an autonomous entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Izetbegović continued to serve in this role until 1996, when he became a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, serving until 2000.

Izetbegović was the founder and first president of the Party of Democratic Action. He was also the author of several books, most notably Islam Between East and West and the Islamic Declaration.

Early life and education
Izetbegović was born on 8 August 1925 in the town of Bosanski Šamac. While serving as a soldier in Üsküdar, Izetbegović's paternal grandfather Alija married a Turkish woman named Sıdıka Hanım. The couple eventually moved to Bosanski Šamac and had five children. Izetbegović's grandfather later became the town's mayor.

Izetbegović's father, an accountant, had fought for the Austro-Hungarian Army on the Italian Front during World War I and sustained serious injuries which left him in a semi-paralyzed state for at least a decade. He declared bankruptcy in 1927. The following year, the family moved to Sarajevo, where Izetbegović received a secular education.

In 1941, Izetbegović helped to found a Bosnian Islamist organization named "Young Muslims" (Mladi Muslimani), which was modeled after the Muslim Brotherhood. When the "Young Muslims" became torn between supporting the largely Muslim Waffen-SS Handschar Division or the communist Yugoslav Partisans, according to the New York Times, he joined the SS Handschar, despite a lack of evidence. Izetbegović's family denied the claim and claimed that he had joined the communist Yugoslav Partisans. Izetbegović was detained by the Serb royalist Chetniks in mid-1944, but released by Chetnik voivode Dragutin Keserović. He was arrested by the Yugoslav communists following the war and sentenced to three years in prison in 1946 on charges of collaborating with the Nazi forces. Before incarceration, he had earned a law degree at the University of Sarajevo's Faculty of Law. He remained engaged in politics after serving the sentence.

Dissident and activist

In 1970, Izetbegović published a manifesto entitled the Islamic Declaration, expressing his views on relationships between Islam, state and society. The manifesto was banned by the government. In it, he tried to reconcile Western-style progress with Islamic tradition. The work issued a call for "Islamic renewal" without mentioning Yugoslavia specifically. However, he and his supporters were accused by the Communist authorities of reviving the "Young Muslims" organisation and of a conspiracy to set up an "Islamically pure" Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The declaration designated Pakistan as a model country to be emulated by Muslim revolutionaries worldwide. One of the passages that was in particular picked out by his opponents during the trial was, "There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions...the state should be an expression of religion and should support its moral concepts." The declaration remains a source of controversy. Serbs, who were opposed to Izetbegović, often quoted the declaration as indicative of an intent to create an Iranian-style Islamic republic in Bosnia.

He himself later insisted many times that the statements about the creation of an Islamic state were hypothetical and were not to be the applied to the situation in Bosnia. Regardless, Bosnia's non-Muslim population were unsettled by several of his statements in his writings. Passages from the declaration were frequently quoted by Izetbegović's opponents during the 1990s, who considered it to be an open statement of Islamic fundamentalism. This opinion is also shared by some Western authors. Izetbegović vigorously denied these accusations.

Imprisonment
Izetbegović was first arrested in 1946 aged twenty-one. He was sentenced to jail in various cases in a total for 8 years for his membership in an organization fighting for human rights and religious rights.

In April 1983, Izetbegović and twelve other Bosniak activists (including Melika Salihbegović, Edhem Bičakčić, Omer Behmen, Mustafa Spahić and Hasan Čengić) were tried before a Sarajevo court for a variety of charges called "offences as principally hostile activity inspired by Bosnian nationalism, association for purposes of hostile activity and hostile propaganda". Izetbegović was further accused of organizing a visit to a Muslim congress in Iran. All of those tried were convicted and Izetbegović was sentenced to fourteen years in prison.

The verdict was strongly criticised by Western human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch, which claimed the case was based on "communist propaganda", and the accused were not charged with either using or advocating violence. The following May, the Bosnian Supreme Court conceded the point with an announcement that "some of the actions of the accused did not have the characteristics of criminal acts" and reduced Izetbegović's sentence to twelve years. In 1988, as communist rule faltered, he was pardoned and released after almost five years in prison. His health had suffered serious damage.

Early political career and 1990 election

The introduction of a multi-party system in Yugoslavia at the end of the 1980s prompted Izetbegović and other Bosniak activists to establish a political party, the Party of Democratic Action (Stranka Demokratske Akcije, SDA) in 1990. It had a largely Muslim character; similarly, the other principal ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbs and Croats, also established ethnically based parties (SDS and HDZ BiH). The SDA won the largest share of the vote, 33% of the seats, with the next runners-up being nationalist ethnic parties representing Serbs and Croats. Fikret Abdić won the popular vote for Presidency member among the Bosniak candidates, with 44% of the vote, Izetbegović with 37%. According to the Bosnian constitution, the first two candidates of each of the three constitutient nations would be elected to a seven-member multi-ethnic rotating presidency (with two Croats, two Serbs, two Bosniaks and one Yugoslav); a Croat took the post of prime minister and a Serb the presidency of the Assembly. Abdić agreed to stand down as the Bosniak candidate for the Presidency and Izetbegović became Chairman of the Presidency.

Presidency (1990–2000)

Bosnia and Herzegovina's power-sharing arrangements broke down very quickly as ethnic tensions grew after the outbreak of fighting between Serbs and Croats in neighboring Croatia. Although Izetbegović was due to hold the presidency for only one year according to the constitution, this arrangement was initially suspended due to "extraordinary circumstances" and was eventually abandoned altogether during the war as the Serb and Croat nationalistic parties SDS and HDZ BiH abandoned the government. When fighting broke out in Slovenia and Croatia in the summer of 1991, it was immediately apparent that Bosnia and Herzegovina would soon become embroiled in the conflict. Izetbegović initially proposed a loose confederation to preserve a unitary Bosnian state and strongly urged a peaceful solution. He did not subscribe to the peace at all costs view and commented in February 1991 that I would sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina ... but for that peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina I would not sacrifice sovereignty. He abandoned the Zulfikarpašić–Karadžić agreement which would see Bosnia as a sovereign state in a confederation with Serbia and Montenegro, with 60% of Sandžak ceded to Bosnia. By the start of 1992, it had become apparent that the rival nationalist demands were fundamentally incompatible: the Bosniaks and Croats sought an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina while the Serbs wanted it to remain in a rump Yugoslavia dominated by Serbia. Izetbegović publicly complained that he was being forced to ally with one side or the other, vividly characterising the dilemma by comparing it to having to choose between leukemia and a brain tumour.

In January 1992, Portuguese diplomat José Cutileiro drafted a plan, later known as the Lisbon Agreement, that would turn Bosnia into a triethnic cantonal state. Initially, all three sides signed up to the agreement; Izetbegović for the Bosniaks, Radovan Karadžić for the Serbs and Mate Boban for the Croats. Some two weeks later, however, Izetbegović withdrew his signature and declared his opposition to any type of partition of Bosnia, supposedly encouraged by Warren Zimmermann, the United States Ambassador to Yugoslavia at the time.

Bosnian War

In February 1992, Izetbegović called an independence referendum on the European condition for recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent state, despite warnings from the Serb members of the presidency that it was unconstitutional and that any move towards independence would result in the Serb-inhabited areas seceding to remain with the rump Yugoslavia. The referendum achieved a 99.4% vote in favor on a 63% turnout, largely boycotted by the Serbs. Namely, according to the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the change of the state-legal status was not possible without the national consensus of all three nations. This mechanism was incorporated into the constitution due to the genocide committed against Serbs in World War II, which disturbed the ethnic balance. Another possibility was for two-thirds of the citizens to vote in a referendum to leave the Yugoslav federation. The Serbs did not agree with the secession from Yugoslavia. Furthermore, less than two-thirds of the population went to the referendum. Nevertheless, the EU and the US accepted the referendum.

The Bosnian parliament, already vacated by the Bosnian Serbs, formally declared independence from Yugoslavia on 29 February and Izetbegović announced the country's independence on 3 March. It did not take effect until 7 April 1992, when the European Union and United States recognized the new country. Sporadic fighting between Serbs and government forces occurred across Bosnia in the run-up to international recognition. Izetbegović appears to have gambled that the international community would send a peacekeeping force upon recognising Bosnia in order to prevent a war, but this did not happen. Instead, war immediately broke out across the country as Serb and Yugoslav army forces took control of large areas against the poorly equipped government security forces. Initially, Serb forces attacked the non-Serb civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, the Serb forces systematically ransacked or burnt down Bosniak houses and apartments, Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured, and sometimes beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in the camps. The women were kept in various detention centres where they had to live in intolerably unhygienic conditions, including also being raped repeatedly by Serb soldiers or policemen.

Izetbegović consistently promoted the idea of a multi-ethnic Bosnia under central control, which seemed a hopeless strategy under the circumstances. The Bosnian Croats, disillusioned with the Sarajevo government and supported militarily and financially by the Croatian government, increasingly turned to establishing their own ethnically based state of Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia in Herzegovina and Central Bosnia. The Croats pulled out of the Sarajevo government and fighting broke out in 1993. In some areas local armistices were signed between the Serbs and Croats. Croat forces launched their first attacks on Bosniaks in central Bosnia in June 1992, but these failed. The Graz agreement caused deep division among Bosnian Croats and strengthened separatist Herzeg-Bosnia, and led to the Lašva Valley ethnic cleansing campaign against Bosniak civilians from May 1992 to March 1993.

Adding to the general confusion, Izetbegović's former colleague Fikret Abdić established an Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia in parts of Cazin and Velika Kladuša municipalities in opposition to the Sarajevo government and in cooperation with Slobodan Milošević and Franjo Tuđman. Abdić's faction was eventually routed by the Bosnian army. By this time, Izetbegović's government controlled only about 25% of the country and represented principally the Bosniak community.

For three and a half years, Izetbegović lived precariously in a besieged Sarajevo surrounded by Serb forces. He denounced the failure of Western countries to reverse Serbian aggression and turned instead to the Muslim world, with which he had already established relations during his days as a dissident. The Bosnian government received money and arms. Osama bin Laden was given a Bosnian passport during Izetbegović's presidency and went on to visit Bosnia and Kosovo several times. Bin Laden stated to a German reporter that he planned to bring Muslim volunteers to Bosnia. Following massacres on Bosnian Muslims by Serb and, to a lesser extent, Croat forces, foreign Muslim volunteers joined the Bosnian army in the so-called Bosnian mujahideen, numbering between 300 and 1,500. They quickly attracted heavy criticism amplified by Serb and Croat propaganda, who considered their presence to be evidence of "violent Islamic fundamentalism" at the heart of Europe. However, the foreign volunteers became unpopular even with many of the Bosniak population, because the Bosnian army had thousands of troops and no need for more soldiers, but for arms. Many Bosnian army officers and intellectuals were suspicious regarding foreign volunteers' arrival in the central part of the country, because they came from Split and Zagreb in Croatia, and were passed through the self-proclaimed Herzeg-Bosnia unlike Bosnian army soldiers who were regularly arrested by Croat forces. According to general Stjepan Šiber, the highest-ranking ethnic Croat in the Bosnian army, the key roles in the foreign volunteers' arrival were played by Franjo Tuđman and Croatian counter-intelligence underground with the aim to justify the involvement of Croatia in the Bosnian War and mass crimes committed by Croat forces. Although Izetbegović regarded them as symbolically valuable as a sign of the Muslim world's support for Bosnia, they appear to have made little military difference and became a major political liability.

In 1993, Izetbegović agreed to a peace plan that would divide Bosnia along ethnic lines but continued to insist on a unitary Bosnia government from Sarajevo and on the allocation to the Bosniaks of a large percentage of Bosnia's territory. The war between the Bosniaks and Croats was eventually ended by a truce brokered with the aid of the Americans in March 1994, following which the two sides collaborated more closely against the Serbs. NATO then became increasingly involved in the conflict with occasional "pinprick" bombings conducted against the Bosnian Serbs, generally following violations of ceasefires and the no-fly zone over Bosnia. The Bosnian Croat forces benefited indirectly from US military training given to the Croatian Army. In addition, the Croatians provided considerable quantities of weaponry to the Bosnian Croats and much smaller amounts to the Bosnian army, despite a UN weapons embargo. Most of the Bosnian army's supply of weapons was airlifted from the Muslim world, specifically Iran – an issue which became the subject of some controversy and a US congressional investigation in 1996. In September 1993, the Second Bosniak Congress officially re-introduced the historical ethnic name Bosniaks. The Yugoslav "Muslims by nationality" policy was considered by Bosniaks to be neglecting and opposing their Bosnian identity because the term tried to describe Bosniaks as a religious group, not an ethnic one.

Ending the war

The Washington Agreement in March 1994 ended the Croat-Bosniak War and divided the combined ARBiH and HVO territory into ten autonomous cantons, establishing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In August 1995, following the Srebrenica massacre and the 2nd Markale massacre, NATO launched an intensive bombing campaign which destroyed the Bosnian Serb command and control system. This allowed the Croatian and Bosniak forces to overrun many Serb-held areas of the country, producing a roughly 50/50 split of the territory between the two sides. The offensive came to a halt not far from the de facto Serb capital of Banja Luka.

When the Croat and Bosniak forces stopped their advance they had captured the power plants supplying Banja Luka's electricity and used that control to pressure the Serb leadership into accepting a ceasefire. The parties agreed to meet at Dayton, Ohio to negotiate a peace treaty under the supervision of the United States. Serb and Croat interests were represented by Milošević and Tuđman, respectively. Izetbegović represented the internationally recognized Bosnian government.

After the war

After the Bosnian War was formally ended by the Dayton peace accord in November 1995, Izetbegović became a Member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. His party's power declined after the international community installed a High Representative to oversee affairs of state, with more power than the Presidency or parliaments of either the Bosniak-Croat or Serb entities. He stepped down in October 2000 at the age of 74, citing poor health. However, Izetbegović remained popular with the Bosniak public, who nicknamed him Dedo (which in Bosnian means grandfather). His endorsement helped his party to bounce back in the 2002 general election. Some observers have described his rule as authoritarian with nationalist positions.

Death

Izetbegović died on 19 October 2003 of heart disease complicated by injuries suffered from a fall at home. An ICTY investigation of Izetbegović was in progress, but ended with his death. His funeral, held three days after his death, on 22 October, drew many Bosnian officials, dignitaries from 44 foreign countries, 105 members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and between 100,000 and 150,000 people, with his family receiving over 4,000 telegrams. Over 400 journalists attended the funeral as it was broadcast live on TV with 37 cameras.

Following Izetbegović's death there was an initiative to rename a part of the main street of Sarajevo from Ulica Maršala Tita (Marshal Tito Street) and the Sarajevo International Airport in his honor. Following objections from politicians from Republika Srpska, the international community, and UN envoy Paddy Ashdown, both initiatives failed.

He had a son, Bakir, who also entered politics, as well as two granddaughters (Jasmina and Mirzela Izetbegović).

On 11 August 2006, Izetbegović's grave at the Kovači cemetery in Sarajevo was badly damaged by a bomb. The identity of the bomber or bombers has never been determined.

Honours and decorations

Military rank

International

Writings
Available in English
Islam Between East and West, Alija Ali Izetbegović, American Trust Publications, 1985 (also ABC Publications, 1993)
Inescapable Questions: Autobiographical Notes, 'Alija Izetbegović, The Islamic Foundation, 2003
Izetbegović of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Notes from Prison, 1983–1988, Alija Izetbegović, Greenwood Press, 2001
Notes From Prison – 1983–1988
The Islamic Declaration, Alija Izetbegović, s.n., 1991

Available in Bosnian
Govori i pisma, Alija Izetbegović, SDA, 1994
Rat i mir u Bosni i Hercegovini (Biblioteka Posebna izdanja), Alija Izetbegović, Vijece Kongresa bosnjackih intelektualaca, 1998
Moj bijeg u slobodu: Biljeske iz zatvora 1983–1988 (Biblioteka Refleksi), Alija Izetbegović, Svjetlost, 1999
Islamska deklaracija (Mala muslimanska biblioteka), Alija Izetbegović, Bosna, 1990

Notes

References

External links

"Alija Izetbegovic: 1925–2003", Balkan News, 2014
"The leader caught without a land", The Times (UK), 4 February 1993
"Obituaries; Alija Izetbegović, 78; Led Bosnia Through War", Los Angeles Times, 20 October 2003
"Obituary: Alija Izetbegović: first Chairman of the Presidency of post-communist Bosnia and Herzegovina, a devout Muslim who fought for his country's survival in war and peace during the 1990s", The Guardian (UK), 20 October 2003
Bosnia: A Short History, Noel Malcolm, 1996
Galvanizing Fear of Islam: The 1983 Trial of Alija Izetbegović in Context, Aimee Wielechowski, 1996
The Two Faces of Islam, Stephen Schwartz, 2002
Inescapable Questions: Autobiographical Notes, Alija Izetbegović, The Islamic Foundation, 2003

1925 births
2003 deaths
People from Šamac, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina people of Turkish descent
Bosnia and Herzegovina people of Serbian descent
Bosnia and Herzegovina Sunni Muslims
Bosnia and Herzegovina people of World War II
Bosnia and Herzegovina lawyers
Bosnia and Herzegovina writers
Bosnia and Herzegovina politicians
Bosniak politicians
Sarajevo Law School alumni
University of Sarajevo alumni
Party of Democratic Action politicians
Politicians of the Bosnian War
20th-century philosophers
21st-century philosophers
Bosnian nationalism
Members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Chairmen of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Alija Izetbegović


In mathematics, the problem of differentiation of integrals is that of determining under what circumstances the mean value integral of a suitable function on a small neighbourhood of a point approximates the value of the function at that point.  More formally, given a space X with a measure μ and a metric d, one asks for what functions f : X → R does

for all (or at least μ-almost all) x ∈ X?  (Here, as in the rest of the article, Br(x) denotes the open ball in X with d-radius r and centre x.)  This is a natural question to ask, especially in view of the heuristic construction of the Riemann integral, in which it is almost implicit that f(x) is a "good representative" for the values of f near x.

Theorems on the differentiation of integrals

Lebesgue measure

One result on the differentiation of integrals is the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, as proved by Henri Lebesgue in 1910.  Consider n-dimensional Lebesgue measure λn on n-dimensional Euclidean space Rn.  Then, for any locally integrable function f : Rn → R, one has

for λn-almost all points x ∈ Rn.  It is important to note, however, that the measure zero set of "bad" points depends on the function f.

Borel measures on Rn

The result for Lebesgue measure turns out to be a special case of the following result, which is based on the Besicovitch covering theorem: if μ is any locally finite Borel measure on Rn and f : Rn → R is locally integrable with respect to μ, then

for μ-almost all points x ∈ Rn.

Gaussian measures

The problem of the differentiation of integrals is much harder in an infinite-dimensional setting.  Consider a separable Hilbert space (H, ⟨ , ⟩) equipped with a Gaussian measure γ.  As stated in the article on the Vitali covering theorem, the Vitali covering theorem fails for Gaussian measures on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.  Two results of David Preiss (1981 and 1983) show the kind of difficulties that one can expect to encounter in this setting:
 There is a Gaussian measure γ on a separable Hilbert space H and a Borel set M ⊆ H so that, for γ-almost all x ∈ H,
 There is a Gaussian measure γ on a separable Hilbert space H and a function f ∈ L1(H, γ; R) such that

However, there is some hope if one has good control over the covariance of γ. Let the covariance operator of γ be S : H → H given by

or, for some countable orthonormal basis (ei)i∈N of H,

In 1981, Preiss and Jaroslav Tišer showed that if there exists a constant 0 < q < 1 such that

then, for all f ∈ L1(H, γ; R),

where the convergence is convergence in measure with respect to γ.  In 1988, Tišer showed that if

for some α > 5 ⁄ 2, then

for γ-almost all x and all f ∈ Lp(H, γ; R), p > 1.

As of 2007, it is still an open question whether there exists an infinite-dimensional Gaussian measure γ on a separable Hilbert space H so that, for all f ∈ L1(H, γ; R),

for γ-almost all x ∈ H.  However, it is conjectured that no such measure exists, since the σi would have to decay very rapidly.

See also

References

Differentiation rules
Measure theory
Theorems in analysis
Theorems in calculus

Differentiation of integrals


In the Lonely Hour is the debut studio album bi Inglis sangster-sangwriter Sam Smith. It wis released in the Unitit Kinrick on 26 Mey 2014 via Capitol Records an Method Records. In the Unitit States, it wis released on 17 Juin 2014. The album includes the hit singles "Money on My Mind" an "Stay with Me", baith o which wur nummer ane in the UK; the latter becomin a hit warldwide, peakin in the tap ten in ower ten kintras, includin reaching nummer twa in the US. The album's third hit single, "I'm Not the Only One", reached nummer three in the UK an nummer five in the US. A deluxe edeetion o the album conteens five bonus tracks, includin a solo acoustic version o Disclosure's single "Latch" an Naughty Boy's nummer-ane single "La La La".

Upon its release, In the Lonely Hour receivit mixed tae positive reviews frae muisic creetics, who heichly praisit Smith's vocal ability but creeticisit the muisic for bein too conventional. The album wis a commercial success warldwide; peakin at nummer ane in the Unitit Kinrick, New Zealand an Swaden, an nummer twa in Australie, Canadae, Denmark, Ireland, Norawa an the Unitit States. For the 57t Grammy Awards, it is nominatit for Album o the Year an Best Pop Vocal Album. It wis the seicont best-sellin album o 2014 in the UK, an the third best-sellin in the US.

References

2014 debut albums
Sam Smith albums
Albums producit bi Fraser T Smith
Albums producit bi Eg White
Pop albums bi Breetish airtists

In the Lonely Hour


Avi Ben-Abraham is an Israeli-American scientist, member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Politics

In 1999, Ben-Abraham was endorsed by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and won the primaries for a top seat on the governing Likud party list of candidates for the Knesset. He was elected member of the Likud's party central committee, and was appointed as a senior adviser to Israel's Minister of Justice.

Ben-Abraham served as commissioner, Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation of the State Bar of California. In that capacity he interviewed and evaluated hundreds of judges and several justices of the California Supreme Court.

Appointed by the Governor and by the State Bar of California, Ben-Abraham received his security clearance from the California Department of Justice and  the FBI. He was sworn in by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas.

AlHew

Human Cloning

In 2001 Ben-Abraham, along with Panayiotis Zavos, a reproductive physiologist, and Severino Antinori, an infertility specialist, announced their attempt at cloning the first human in an undisclosed country by 2003. The group attempted the procedure, but stated that it was unsuccessful.

References

20th-century births
Living people
Israeli scientists
Likud politicians
Year of birth missing (living people)

Avi Ben-Abraham


Jan Kaplický (; ; 18 April 1937 – 14 January 2009) was a Neofuturistic Czech architect who spent a significant part of his life in the United Kingdom. He was the leading architect behind the innovative design office, Future Systems. He was best known for the neofuturistic Selfridges Building in Birmingham, England, and the Media Centre at Lord's Cricket Ground in London.

Childhood and early life
Jan Kaplický, the only child of a sculptor and a botanical illustrator, was born on 18 April 1937 in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and grew up in a suburb of Prague called Ořechovka.

Between 1956 and 1962 he studied at the College of Applied Arts and Architecture and Design (VSUP) in Prague, receiving a Diploma in Architecture. He worked in private practice in Czechoslovakia between 1964 and 1968. In the wake of the Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, he escaped to London in September 1968 with fellow architect Jaroslav Vokoun carrying only US$100 and a few pairs of socks. In 1969 in London he met again Eva Jiřičná whom he had known in Prague, who then became his girlfriend.

Career
In England, Kaplický first worked for Denys Lasdun and Partners (1969–1971), then obtained employment with the office of Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers (1971–1973), where he worked on DRU extension at Aybrook Street, London and later helping to develop the design for the Centre Georges Pompidou (constructed 1971–1977) in Paris by joining the team of more than 30 strong. When the practice relocated to Paris, he was unable to follow as at that time he still did not have a British passport. After working with Jiřičná, and a short spell at Spencer and Webster, Associates (1974–1975), he joined Foster Associates, now Foster and Partners (1979–1983).

At the same time, in 1979 Kaplický set up his own architectural think tank called Future Systems with David Nixon, and began to develop an architectural style that combined organic forms with high tech futurism. Among the drawings he made were structures orbiting the Earth built by robots, weekend houses resembling survival capsules that could be transported by helicopter, and home interiors that could be manipulated. In the 1980s his design for the Grand Buildings in Trafalgar Square, London, was a free-form monocoque structure pierced by portholes; it lost to a more conventional reconstruction of an Edwardian facade. Kaplický told BusinessWeek in 2005: "Where is it written that buildings have to be boxes? People aren't boxes."

Amanda Levete joined Future Systems as a partner in 1989. Kaplický and Levete married in 1991 and were a couple for 15 years; they had a son named Josef. Although they divorced in 2006, they continued their professional association in the architectural practice, saying that the separation strengthened their working relationship.

Although Kaplický was a finalist for the Prince Philip Prize for designer of the year in 1991, for the first 15 years of its existence Future Systems received few commissions, and it was not until 1994 that the company was commissioned to build the new media centre at Lord's Cricket Ground which eventually won the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stirling Prize – considered the most prestigious architecture award in the UK – in 1999 and the World Architecture Awards in 2001. Kaplický considered the media centre "my favourite creation", saying, "It is something which was revolutionary in many areas – a real technical achievement – but above all, the people operating inside it have said: 'We love it,' and that's great." In 2000, he was made an Honourable Fellow of RIBA. Future Systems' next major project, the iconic Selfridges Building in the Bull Ring in Birmingham, won seven awards, including the RIBA Award for Architecture 2004. That year, Kaplický was the subject of a Czech documentary entitled Profil (Profile).

In 2007, Kaplický won the design competition for the new Czech National Library building. This was to have been his first major building in his home country, and he said the project was the most important event in his life. However, the design for the building, resembling a green and purple blob and nicknamed by locals "the Octopus", was heavily criticised. President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus was overheard saying he would be willing to prevent the building going ahead with his own body; his spokesman later clarified it was an off-hand remark that had not been meant to be taken seriously. Pavel Bém, the Civic Democrat Mayor of Prague, supported the design when it was selected but later become hostile to it, saying that the City Council of Prague, which is dominated by the Civil Democratic Party, would not allow the Octopus to be built as it would ruin Prague's panorama. Vlastimil Jezek, a former director of the Library, regarded Kaplický as "another protagonist of Czech culture who has been crushed by Czech narrow-mindedness." Although the design was eventually dropped, Kaplický remained hopeful that the building would be built through funds from a private foundation established for this purpose.

Apart from his design work, Kaplický was active in the education of architects. He taught from 1982 to 1988 at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, the oldest independent architectural school in the UK, and in 1992 at the School of Architecture in Bordeaux and at the Design Workshop of the Technische Universität Berlin. He was also an external examiner for the Architectural Association between 1995 and 1998, and in 2000 was an assessor for the Domus Awards of the B.B.J. Competition in Milan.

In October 2008, news broke that Kaplický and Levete intended to go their separate ways after having collaborated professionally for 20 years. Kaplický was due to keep the Future Systems practice name.

Towards the end of his life, Kaplický began to spend more time in the Czech Republic, where he was awaiting the construction of the Czech National Library and where his design for the Congress and Concert Hall Centre in České Budějovice (Budweis) had been approved. He married the film producer Eliška Kaplický, née Fuchsová, in 2007. On 14 January 2009, hours after the birth of his daughter Johanna Kaplická, he collapsed on a street in Prague near Vítězné náměstí (Victory Square) with heart failure and could not be revived by emergency services. The city authorities of Budweis have announced their determination to obtain funding to finally build a Kaplický building in his native Czech Republic.

In a 2002 interview with The Observer, Kaplický said: "The world is full of beautiful things, and you have to be observant as an architect – if not, you are in trouble. Creativity is everywhere. ... The initial idea for a job comes to me literally just like that sometimes, and if that first idea is good then you are on the right track. It's not a sign of creativity to have 65 ideas for one problem, that's just a waste of energy. I also don't think you need to go anywhere particular to be creative; people just use that as an excuse. But I do think a lot of creativity depends on your relationships with other people, your personal relationships, your partner or whatever. Your personal happiness or unhappiness comes out in your work, it's a reflection of your emotional state and you can't separate the two."

Major architectural projects

Notes

References

.
.
.
Official website of the documentary Profil (2004), retrieved on 17 January 2009.
.
.
.

Further reading

News reports
.
.
.
.
 (in Czech).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Books

External links

Watch film about Jan Kaplicky "Eye over Prague" at www.dafilms.com
Official website of Future Systems
"Homage to Jan Kaplicky/Future Systems", a radio documentary on 4 January 2010 at the A Palaver website (available as stream and download)
Official website of the documentary Profil (2004)
Portrait of Jan Kaplický and Amanda Levete (21 June 2004) at the National Portrait Gallery, London
Portraits of Jan Kaplicky at The Design Museum from Bartolomy's Diary (a blog)

Radio interview with Ivan Margolius on Jan Kaplicky and Future Systems on 7 December 2009 at the A Palaver website (available as stream and download)
DOX Jan Kaplický: His Own Way

British architects
Czech architects
British designers
Czech designers
Czechoslovak emigrants to England
Architects from Prague
Burials at Vyšehrad Cemetery
1937 births
2009 deaths

Jan Kaplický


Salting is the preservation of food with dry edible salt. It is related to pickling in general and more specifically to brining also known as fermenting (preparing food with brine, that is, salty water) and is one form of curing. It is one of the oldest methods of preserving food, and two historically significant salt-cured foods are salted fish (usually dried and salted cod or salted herring) and salt-cured meat (such as bacon).  Vegetables such as runner beans and cabbage are also often preserved in this manner.

Salting is used because most bacteria, fungi and other potentially pathogenic organisms cannot survive in a highly salty environment, due to the hypertonic nature of salt.  Any living cell in such an environment will become dehydrated through osmosis and die or become temporarily inactivated. Fine grained salts were more expensive but also absorbed moisture faster than coarse salt.

History

Pre-modern

Salting could be combined with smoking to produce bacon in peasant homes. Instructions for preserving (salting) freshly killed venison in the 14th century involved covering the animal with bracken as soon as possible and carrying it to a place where it could be butchered, boiled in brine, and dry salted for long term preservation in a barrel. People in the 14th century could also put salt on vegetables for taste.

Salted meat was a staple of the mariner's diet in the Age of Sail. It was stored in barrels, and often had to last for months at sea. The basic Royal Navy diet consisted of salted beef, salted pork, ship's biscuit, and oatmeal, supplemented with smaller quantities of peas, cheese and butter.  Even in 1938, Eric Newby found the diet on the tall ship Moshulu to consist almost entirely of salted meat.  Moshulu's lack of refrigeration left little choice as the ship made voyages which could exceed 100 days passage between ports.

Modern

It was discovered in the 19th century that salt mixed with nitrates (such as saltpeter) would color meats red, rather than grey, and consumers at that time then strongly preferred the red-colored meat. The food hence preserved stays healthy and fresh for days avoiding bacterial decay.

Salting in foods

Meat
Salting, either with dry salt or brine, was a common method of preserving meat until the middle of the 20th century, becoming less popular after the advent of refrigeration. Meat that had been preserved in this way was frequently called "junk" or "salt horse". One early method of salt-curing meat was corning, or applying large, coarse pellets of salt, which were rubbed into the meat to keep it from spoiling and to preserve it. This term originates from Old English and references the large corns or grains of salt used (see wiktionary:corn). Corned beef retains this name, although it is typically brined today.

Salt inhibits the growth of microorganisms by drawing water out of microbial cells through osmosis. Concentrations of salt up to 20% are required to kill most species of unwanted bacteria. Smoking, often used in the process of curing meat, adds chemicals to the surface of meat that reduce the concentration of salt required.

Various types of salted meat are staples of the diets of people in North Africa, Southern China,  Scandinavia, coastal Russia, and in the Arctic. Some of those salted meats (or foods that contain salted meat) are bacon, biltong, cecina, corned beef, ham, jamón, jerky, pastrami, and salt pork.

Fish

Drying or salting, either with dry salt or with brine, was the only widely available method of preserving fish until the 19th century. Dried fish and salted fish (or fish both dried and salted) are a staple of diets in the Caribbean, West Africa, North Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Southern China, Scandinavia, parts of Canada including Newfoundland, coastal Russia, and in the Arctic. Like other salt-cured meats, it provides preserved animal protein even in the absence of refrigeration.

In more recent times, freeze-drying, water binding humectants, and fully automated equipment with temperature and humidity control have been added. Often a combination of these techniques is used.

Religious customs
Jewish and Muslim dietary laws require the removal of blood from freshly slaughtered meat. Salt and brine are used for the purpose in both traditions, but salting is more common in Kosher Shechita (where it is all but required) than in Halal Dhabiha (as in most cases, draining alone will suffice).

Health effects

The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) and World Cancer Research Fund International (WCRF) have stated that there is strong evidence that consuming salted foods including salt-preserved fish and salt-preserved foods in general increases risk of stomach cancer and that the high salt content of processed meat may result in damage to the stomach mucosal lining. The American Cancer Society have stated that "stomach cancer risk is increased in people whose diets include large amounts of foods preserved by salting, such as salted fish and meat and pickled vegetables." Additionally, an excessive intake of salt has a dose-response relationship with elevated blood pressure, increasing the risk of several cardiovascular diseases.

See also
Curing (food preservation)
Food preservation
Food storage
 List of dried foods

References

Food preservation

Salting (food)


88.3 Southern FM is a community radio station based in Brighton, Victoria. It is licensed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Southern FM is the local community radio station for the south, south-eastern and bayside suburbs of Melbourne with a population of over 470,000.

History
The radio station was established in 1981 by former Australian Broadcasting Control Board member Dom Iacono and then former ABC engineer Jack Burgesson, who with a dedicated band of volunteers, first broadcast for a two-day broadcast from the Caulfield Town Hall.

The first test broadcast was not spectacular or particularly notable apart from the fact that it was the first test broadcast by the new group, and attracted much interest in the local area which the radio station was to eventually service.

The second test broadcast was from the store room of the now demolished East Bentleigh Community Hall

The station was originally established to cover the then municipal areas of Chelsea, Mordialloc, Sandringham, Caulfield, and Brighton.

As part of a planning review prior to the formal invitations for licence applications, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (now ABA) had offered SCB an extension to its coverage area to include the areas bounded by the Cities of Prahran, St Kilda, and Waverley in addition to the inclusion of the Inner eastern areas (now covered by 3WBC)

The Inner Eastern suburban area (that being the area of the then Cities of Box Hill Camberwell, Hawthorn and Kew) was without a local radio service at the time of the formation and development of the suburban community radio groups such as SCB, ECB, VYV, MDR, etc.

Although the Inner Eastern municipal areas were designated by the then ABA for a potential new area it was, prior to licensing of the first group of Sub-Metropolitan stations offered to Southern Community Broadcasters as an addition to its licence area, due to a lack of a local service.

Southern Community Broadcasters - after AGMs and resolutions had after an initial interest in the addition of the area to its own, rejected the proposal - claiming the Inner East was not an area that shared the Bayside / Inner South identity.

After a succession of approximately 20 test broadcasts of one to two week durations, the parent organisation Southern Community Broadcasters Inc was successful in being granted a full-time licence on 30 March 1990.

Following many moves of studios and offices, the radio station ended up at Railway Crescent Moorabbin, above the (now) former Salvation Army Opportunity Shop.

From there the radio station moved to the Moorabbin City Council offices and from there (in 2009) to 22 Balcombe Road in the suburb of Mentone. The most recent relocation was in April 2015 to new facilities at 2 Parliament Street, Brighton.

Southern FM Programs

Southern FM presents an extremely wide and diverse mixture of general entertainment and specialist interest music and spoken word based programs. The programme is designed for targeted listening. Southern FM, like many other community radio stations in Melbourne, has incorporated many non-English speaking groups into the programme schedule.

Southern FM is licensed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (originally as a "C" class community radio station). The classifications system for varying designations of community radio broadcast stations no longer apply). Southern FM operates on a power output of 200 watts ERP from Moorabbin. This provides reception on a car radio throughout most of the metropolitan area.

The longest serving on air presenters at Southern FM include Peter Kemp (Peter's Preferences), Andrew Rennie (The Space Show), David Kaffey (Midday Magic) and Bruce Mitchell (Southern Sport).

Presenters who had moved on from Southern FM include a small group who founded and participated in the first broadcasts of the now defunct temporary youth broadcasting station Hitz FM - this was following from the success in 1991 of a Saturday Night radio programme NightBeat. In later years another community radio station Golden Days Radio (at the time of formation recognised as Spirit Of Australia Broadcasters) was founded by a number of people formerly on the founding Committee of Southern FM.

Current programs can be viewed on the program guide on Southern FM's website.

References

External links

Radio stations in Melbourne

88.3 Southern FM