from the but-they-will-always-be-in-his-brain dept.
Sometimes porn doesn't get the chance to become revenge porn, as in this case before the German Federal Court:
Germany's highest court has ordered a man to destroy intimate photos and videos of his ex-partner because they violate her right to privacy. The Federal Court said the man, a photographer, should no longer possess naked photos and sex tapes, even if he had no intention of sharing them.
The woman had originally agreed to the images but this consent stopped when the relationship ended, the court said. Germany has some of the strictest privacy laws in Europe.
The Federal Court was called upon to rule in a dispute between a former couple, who were arguing over whether or not the man should delete intimate photos and videos. In its ruling (in German), the court said everyone had the right to decide whether to grant insight into their sex life - including to whom they grant permission and in what form. It said that by retaining the images, the photographer had a certain "manipulative power" over his ex-lover. He should no longer have rights to the photos and videos once the relationship had ended, it concluded.
It is not clear how the ruling will be enforced.
A 2014 Pew survey of American mobile phone users found that 34% of those aged 25-34 reported receiving "sexts" (sexually suggestive photos or videos), as well as 22% of those aged 35-44 and 15% of those aged 45-54. Across all age groups, 20% reported receiving sexts, an increase from just 15% in 2012. A smaller portion of the population is sending the sexts: 9% of phone users in 2014, from 6% in 2012.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:14PM
If you leave a woman, you move on. You can't keep part of her, you can't keep trophy momentoes, you don't get to remain part of her life, and you don't keep those incriminating photos. Now - non-nude photos might be alright. Just grow up, and move on. And, no, I don't care about "artistic" or "intellectual" rights. Just let it go.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:25PM
Where does it stop? Must men destroy all the non-nude photos of their exes? Should a shared pet be put down?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:45PM
Agreed. While I can totally understand and support the reasoning behind this decision, interpreting it is by no means simple. If the guy is allowed to keep "ordinary" photos but must delete the sexy ones, who decides what's sexy? Is a pic of the ex in her swimsuit poolside on holiday considered acceptable or not? One at the topless beach? Is a pic of her in a bikini in public less acceptable than her in lingerie in the bedroom, even if it shows more flesh? We are into "definitions of porn & indecency" territory, which has always been difficult. To be safe, should he just delete everything he has of her? Wedding photos? Family memories? This would contentious, to say the least.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:21PM
Actually, having thought about it a little more, this might actually be a very clever ruling. It could be that the judge understands perfectly that it is nigh-impossible to tell the guy which pictures/ videos he should delete, and even harder to verify that all his digital copies really have been destroyed. Furthermore, the judge might not actually care at all whether they get deleted or not.
What the ruling does, is ensure that if the guy is ever caught releasing those images go out onto the web, then the court has something to smack the guy down with, because that will be proof of disobeying the court's command.
In other words: "Although you would be wise to delete the material, you can keep a digital spankbank of your ex for all we care. However if any of those images or vids get loose you will have hell to pay."
This seems like a sensible stance.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:52PM
What the ruling does, is ensure that if the guy is ever caught releasing those images go out onto the web, then the court has something to smack the guy down with, because that will be proof of disobeying the court's command.
Except how would you prove it?
So say, in a month from now, some nude pictures of photographer's ex-girlfriend show up online. The woman girlfriend claims that these are some of the photos that were supposed to be destroyed. The photographer insists that he did not take these pictures. The ones he took were different pictures that they have all been deleted. Who do you believe? Maybe they are the pictures, maybe the ex-girlfriend had some pictures taken and then uploaded to frame the photographer. You don't know. How do we know she hasn't had other ex-lovers that took other photos of her? I mean, unless they can somehow register all the current photos with the court, I guess. But then, isn't that what she is trying to avoid?
It's a stupid ruling, because it cannot be fairly enforced. In fact, this ruling gives the woman a certain "manipulative power" over the photographer. She can make demands of him now and insist if he doesn't comply, she will upload some revealing photos and take him to court again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:10PM
Also, what if she has copies of those pictures and decides to release them "anonymously" now, to frame her ex?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:47PM
The photographer insists that he did not take these pictures.
Then he goes down for perjury as well.
"How many people were in the room when you made your sex tape or took the posed nudie?"
Just the two of you? Bang. Guilty. Take him away.
If he can make a claim that the pictures were stolen, or the publishing was consensual, maybe he gets off.
But that seems risky unless he can prove they existed on line prior to the end of the relationship.
"But your honor, the two of us agreed at the time we would post the pictures on sluts.com.de. They were out there for years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:49PM
Then he goes down for perjury as well.
This is a perfect example of why the phrase "jury of your peers" terrifies me.
So your logic is that if any nude photo of the woman ends up online then it's 100% the photographer's fault? Even if he never took the photo? How do you know that the new (theoretical) photo was on the the previous ones that were taken? It certainly isn't impossible to create more. You refuse to accept the possibility (however small) that someone else could have created it? What if the photo in question doesn't even show an identifiable person? Like what if you can't see a face? What if the woman claims it's her? You might not be able to say 100% for sure if it is. You'd pretty much have to take her word for it.
But nope, you are 100% sure it must be the photographer. No matter what.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:40AM
Its Germany, so I can't say for certain.
Here, the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
The standard isn't "Beyond all possible doubt".
He doesn't deny taking the photos. So lets dispense with that bullshit point.
If you can't see a face, she can't claim its her, so lets dispense with that childish example as well.
How old are you anyway? 12?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:18AM
If you can't see a face, she can't claim its her, so lets dispense with that childish example as well.
Are you entirely sure of that statement? Tattoos, moles, scars, amputations, piercings, and other identifying marks are far more than enough to recognize someone.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:41AM
AC:
Are you entirely sure of that statement? Tattoos, moles, scars, amputations, piercings, ...
Please learn to follow a thread even if you're too lazy to sign in.
Did you miss the part where the GP said:
What if the photo in question doesn't even show an identifiable person?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday December 24 2015, @06:06PM
Here, the standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".
Yet you assume if any pic is released, it's automatically his fault. That's not reasonable at all.
He doesn't deny taking the photos. So lets dispense with that bullshit point.
I never claimed he denied taking the photos. I'm saying he's in an unfair position now. If photos were to surface, people like you would automatically assume it was him, no matter what. Even if it wasn't.
If you can't see a face, she can't claim its her, so lets dispense with that childish example as well.
Fair enough. But it's not clear. What if one of the photos he took *is* of her, and he does release it, but you can't prove it's her in the picture? See? There's a huge problem with enforcing this ruling. It's could literally turn into a "he said, she said" situation.
How old are you anyway? 12?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday December 24 2015, @09:20AM
Well, one would hope that the new court case would require some kind of evidence that the files were uploaded by the man, and not by the woman. In case of doubt, err on the side of innocence. That's how the law is supposed to work. Of course, proving where an online image originated can be... problematic. IP addresses and online accounts can give an indication but are rarely conclusive, if the perpetrator takes some simple measures to hide themselves and challenge the evidence presented in court. However the internet is full of people stupid enough to post self-incriminating shit online an make no attempt whatsoever to cover their tracks.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:39PM
Except that is not what the Judge in this case said: Germany's highest court has ordered a man to destroy intimate photos and videos.
Suddenly the cleverness seems gone, and the cudgel has swung.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:29AM
It is not clear how the ruling will be enforced.
And now this becomes the major point. Is the court going to precisely define what "intimate" photos and videos are, and is the court ever going to send enforcers to make sure the data is destroyed? If so, it is a heavy handed ruling, if not, then it is a somewhat meaningless one, as long as the photographer makes sure no one else ever sees those photos and videos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:46PM
If the ankle's visible, it's indecent!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:51PM
Where does it stop? Must men destroy all the non-nude photos of their exes? Should a shared pet be put down?
I think it'll need to be a judgement call. You know, the thing Judges do.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:40PM
There should be no judgement call in such subjective situations, especially where it's data being stored on someone's own hard drive. The government shouldn't even be involved.
The "I know it when I see it" standard is a disaster that needs to be eradicated.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:27PM
What if she leaves you? Do you then at least get to keep them in the spank bank? Or do you have to be taken to Anchorhead and get your memory erased?
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:36PM
In Germany do women get to keep the engagement ring if a relationship breaks down?
(Score: 3, Funny) by tibman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:59PM
Short answer, Yes. Longer answer, yes as long as you don't engrave a copy of your dong onto the ring.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:31PM
So you won't mind submitting to a memory wipe, right?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:39PM
You are attempting to force what is explictly, strictly, completely, utterly, purely, (etc.) a social contract of "decency" into the realm of a legal one. "Just let it go," my foot, these are extremely dangerous. You have no idea how so serious a ruling may be abused in the future.
If a friend gives me a painting, and then they aren't my friend anymore, the idea that they could say, "That painting is a personally identifing/"incriminating" item and must be destroyed" is fucking ridiculous because, of course, it's up to the whims of the ex what is "threatening to their feelings" or not.
Here's another idea: Spiteful ex-wife who takes the kids, the house, the dog, cuts the tupperware in half, etc. demands that the estranged father destroy all photos of his children because they would emotionally upset him and "potentially lead to abuse." Do you really think a person wouldn't be so heartless as to abuse the legal system for personal revenege or benefit? Does that not give her a "Manipulative power" over him?
Because you do realize that an abuser is what the man in this case is presumed to be by this ruling, correct? A latent criminal who should not be trusted with any agency or object that "might at some point hurt his ex's feelings?" Who's to say he shouldn't be pre-emptively arrested after the break-up because he is "of a size and build that is a potential vector of physical abuse against the woman." You are really supporting the creation of governmental powers of confiscation and destruction of personal property over something as small as a personal break up?
Your foot-stamping, ear-plugging, "I'm right! Shut up!" appeal to "letting go" does not give you any additional ethical or reasonable standing, either. Defend your claims with reason or forever relinquish yourself to the low-hanging standard of Youtube comments.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:29PM
I don't think that you can equate "intimate" images and videos with property rights. Besides which, women (and men) often do all of those things anyway. Don't bring the kids to visitation, and so much more, knowing that they can make excuses to the judge, make meaningless accusations, blah blah.
Again - no - you don't get to keep videos of the wild sex you used to enjoy with her if she demands them back, or demands that they be destroyed. What's the problem, anyway? You can't move on, and build a new life for yourself? Are you so very dependent on the woman that you can't rebuild? How things have changed - it used to be the men who denied property rights to women, making it difficult if not impossible for her to build a new life for herself. Was it just insecurity on the part of men all along?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:38PM
Why don't you get to keep them, if it is stored on my property? You don't somehow have ownership over the bits stored on my property.
What's the problem, anyway?
It's a matter of principle.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:35PM
What principle, exactly? You used to "own" her, and you can't give her up?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:12AM
This is why I hate feminists. It's arguing with SJWs is like sword fighting a fart.
No one said shit about owning a person, dunce. We're talking about our own memories and items created and recorded within our own life.
What you're advocating for is the rejection of consent after the act. Fuck off with that shit. If you don't want the pictures taken then don't take them in the first place. You don't get to wipe other people's memory or destroy other people's property just because your SJW feelings are hurt. I could claim every item my ex owns hurts my feelings because I have emotional attachment. Should everything they own be destroyed? No? Then who gets to decide what is "intimate"? Is not the candle stand an intimate object, because of that one memorable candle lit night? The wax was amazing! The ice tray must go as well... for a similar reason. And she can't buy mentholated cough drops anymore either.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:35AM
Whoa - I'm a feminist now? Damn, I'll have to get used to that idea. And, a SJW? Dayum!!! Some of my fan club should be along shortly to make fun of your ridiculous ASSumptions.
Advocating that men grow up doesn't make me a feminist. It only makes me responsible. As for your memories, pleasant or otherwise, if you require photographs or videos to access your own memories, you have serious problems. Are you over age 70? Maybe you should visit a doctor.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DeathElk on Thursday December 24 2015, @02:53AM
Isn't everybody a social justice warrior? Isn't the common thread of civility, the very foundation of a civilisation, social justice? Or are we regressing into a bunch of obese bullies who hide behind their keyboard whilst typing abuse at people we don't even know about things we don't even understand?
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:37AM
"Or are we regressing into a bunch of obese bullies"
Well, considering that Donald Trump is still leading in the GOP field after all these months.....
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:05PM
I don't think that you can equate "intimate" images and videos with property rights.
I think you *can* equate images and videos with property rights. Since images and videos are property, and therefore are subject to property rights.
What's the problem, anyway? You can't move on, and build a new life for yourself? Are you so very dependent on the woman that you can't rebuild? How things have changed - it used to be the men who denied property rights to women, making it difficult if not impossible for her to build a new life for herself. Was it just insecurity on the part of men all along?
Nice Strawman.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:34PM
Not a strawman at all - what value do those images have to you? She's gone, and you can't give her up. Be a man, and stand on your own two legs, don't use her for a crutch.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:59PM
Not a strawman at all
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
What's the problem, anyway? You can't move on, and build a new life for yourself? Are you so very dependent on the woman that you can't rebuild? How things have changed - it used to be the men who denied property rights to women, making it difficult if not impossible for her to build a new life for herself. Was it just insecurity on the part of men all along?
This is complete fantasy and has nothing to do with the original argument. It's also a ad hominem attack.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:06PM
Nice Stawman
Ah, the argument of the intellectually defeated.
Look, the only reason one would keep those photos would be for revenge-porn.
If he's a professional photographer, and has a signed model release, he might have a case, but even that seems iffy when it comes to the sex tapes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:54PM
Look, the only reason one would keep those photos would be for revenge-porn.
No
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:30AM
"Look, the only reason one would keep those photos would be for revenge-porn."
Just like encryption, am I right? If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, I always say! If you don't plan on owning any "Illegal property" (property that isn't illegal yet) you don't need any of those pesky property rights, do you?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:36AM
Pretty sure even you realize your argument is a huge stretch, and utterly devoid of value.
He had already committed one offense with these photos, and the judge decided the best fix would be to remove them from his possession so he couldn't do it again. Its why we don't let convicted felons own firearms, or drunk drivers have drivers licenses.
You want to rewrite society to your rules? Don't expect any help.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 24 2015, @06:53AM
Nothing in TFA says anything about him ever "abusing" his possession of those photos in any way.
You want to rewrite articles to support your positions? Don't expect anyone to respect your opinions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @07:43AM
Read the comments. His actions are well known in Germany.
By the way google translate works for you just as well as it works for me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:07PM
The term "property" applies to physical things, not images and video.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:54PM
Try telling the MPAA and RIAA that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @05:56AM
I plan to.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:28AM
"I don't think that you can equate "intimate" images and videos with property rights."
Alright, I do. So where are we in the discussion now? I will say it again: Defend your arguments with reason. Why can a completely legal photograph I legally own today be a photograph I don't legally own tomorrow, without my consent?
"Again - no - you don't get to keep videos of the wild sex you used to enjoy with her if she demands them back, or demands that they be destroyed. "
If an ex-fiance demands that a woman return the proposal ring and any jewelry he gave to his fiance, should he get it back as well? What about people with odd fetishes? Should the law read, "At the discretion of the female party, any object that might bring the male party any form of pleasure after the end of a relationship must be destroyed or returned."...Or should both people after a break up learn to live with the consequences of their own actions?
" You can't move on, and build a new life for yourself?"
Is something stopping her from doing the same? Before you say, "The man with the photos is stopping her!" Realize that such a claim is presuming him guilty of a future crime he has not committed yet. Provide evidence of his future abuse or destroy the laws of cause and effect that govern this universe while trying.
"it used to be the men who denied property rights to women, "
Wow. Let your statement sink in for a moment.
I hope you realize that yes, this is a case of oppression in the opposite direction. It is not okay for anyone - irrespective of gender (of all things!) - to deny any other property rights, especially over something so trivial as a break up, as there is no legal contract involved in a casual relationship, unlike in marriage. Half the time, people re-engage in sexual activity after the fact. Then what? Would it be illegal for him to see her naked body again? Could she spin it as such? (Manipulative power) What or who defines their status of, "In a relationship" and who defines it? The court?!? Would I need to bring consent forms to a meeting with an ex for coffee on the off chance it led to intimacy or maybe even just a hug - because of course the hug might last, "a few seconds too long without her consent" and qualify as rape or assault if she wanted to make a quick buck?
Human sexuality is way too fluid a phenomenon to legislate and courts are notorious for unfairly siding with women in both civil and criminal suits, in any case. This is, as you say, somebody denying property rights to another. Completely ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:24PM
> Because you do realize that an abuser is what the man in this case is presumed to be by this ruling, correct?
Since the facts of the case are that he already sent the pictures to at least one third party, the only one making presumptions here is you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaganar on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:45PM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:41PM
> Should a shared pet be put down?
Someone who didn't go that extra mile.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:13PM
Except he didn't just say "People should go the extra mile to not be douchebags."
He said if you leave a woman you can't keep part of her. He said you can't keep trophy momentos and you don't get to remain part of her life. And that's all incorrect. You can and do keep a part of her. You get to keep memories of your time together. And you do remain a part of her life. You don't get to be a part of her future, but you still get to stay a part of her past. And nobody gets to erase that.
He then told people to "just grow up" suggesting anyone who disagrees with him is a baby.
And finally admitted that he doesn't care about certain fundamental rights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:46PM
"If you leave a man you move on. You can't keep part of her, you can't keep trophy momentoes, (including one time or multiple payments of MONEY) you don't get to remain part of her life, (this includes TRANSFER OF ANY FUNDS) and you don't keep those incriminating photos. (or payments)
Now - non-nude photos might be alright. (you get to keep the insane ring he bought for you) Just grow up, and move on. (cuz she's already been banging your 2 best friends to forget you) And, no, I don't care about "artistic" or "intellectual" rights. Just let it go." (you don't need money from him, i don't care about "your house" or "your cars". JUST LET HIM GO! MONEY AND ALL!
There, I flipped it for the version for women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:49PM
"If you leave a man you move on. You can't keep part of him, you can't keep trophy momentoes, (including one time or multiple payments of MONEY) you don't get to remain part of him life, (this includes TRANSFER OF ANY FUNDS) and you don't keep those incriminating photos. (or payments)
Now - non-nude photos might be alright. (you get to keep the insane ring he bought for you) Just grow up, and move on. (cuz he's already been banging your 2 best friends to forget you) And, no, I don't care about "artistic" or "intellectual" rights. Just let it go." (you don't need money from him, i don't care about "your house" or "your cars". JUST LET HIM GO! MONEY AND ALL!
There, I flipped it for the version for women.
Edit: Fixed it for her/him she/he !!!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:10AM
Actually, I agree with what I THINK you are saying. I left a woman after 8 years. She thought she was entitled to alimony. I flat out told her that she would never collect a single dollar in alimony, no matter what any judge might say. Zero.
On the other hand - you got kids? You're liable for supporting those children.
So, tell me, are you arguing against alimony, or child support?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:21AM
"If you leave a woman, you move on. you don't get to remain part of her life"
These are really the only sane things in your post.
"you can't keep trophy(WTF?) momentoes"
I, and quite frankly everyone are free to keep whatever mementos from our lives as we damned well please. As long as such things aren't actively used to cause any sort of harm to the other person, it is no one else's business, not even the person you used to be with.
I have exes with photos of me I'd rather not exist, but the photos aren't mine, despite me being prominent in them. I've never asked for the photos to be destroyed, nor would i expect them to be. The photos are their property. None of my business, and certainly none of yours. /shrug
(Score: 1) by jrial on Friday December 25 2015, @10:17AM
Finally someone who can spell "mementos". Other than that, I agree. He is not allowed to publish them or send them on to third parties because consent for that was never given, but he should not be forced to delete them either because she decided to retract her consent after the fact. If you agree to someone taking nudes of you, you implicitly agree to them keeping a copy, unless otherwise noted. That copy is theirs, as in their property. Revoking consent after the fact is meaningless, as you have no say over someone else's property.
Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:31PM
I guess now she can rest soundly knowing that these files were destroyed forever and were not already auto-uploaded to iCloud.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:36PM
That sound you here is the gasps of excitement from tens of thousands of psychopathic exs learning of a new way to torture their former partners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:27PM
^^^ THIS ^^^
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:30PM
That sound you here is the gasps of excitement from tens of thousands of psychopathic exs learning of a new way to torture their former partners.
lolwut?
Revenge porn is nothing new. [wikipedia.org] This ruling happened precisely because revenge porn has long been a serious problem for people with psychopathic exs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:45PM
I believe you understood the opposite of what was written by the A.C.
What the A.C meant (I think) was that the psychopathic women (now ex's) will be able to upload their dirty pictures themselves in order to torture their ex-partner men some more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:17AM
Yeah, because that's exactly what women want to do - post embarrassing pictures of themselves in order to maybe 'torture' men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @02:31AM
I knew someone who would do it: post dirty pictures of herself to get back at someone.
Here "torture" means manipulation of the man, 'requesting' demands and blackmail leading to the man's mental torture with the man living in fear that she might upload a picture of herself to send him to prison.
Some women do that. Stay away from women.
Off topic: The intelligence behind posts here has dropped by a small amount. Or understanding of language has deteriorated.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:36PM
All the women I have ever been with live forever in the spankbank of my mind. Never forgotten, never deleted and forever youthful. Only Alzheimer's disease will remove them.
I have no idea how they are ever going to enforce this particular case tho. I guess they are just going to have to trust him when he tells them and her that they are gone.
(Score: 4, Funny) by linkdude64 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:45PM
"Only Alzheimer's disease will remove them."
I can already see the headlines: "Induced Alzheimers: Meet the Best New Tool in the Fight to Defend Women Online since the NSA's Re-Tasking."
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:02PM
In your case, those exs aren't worried about your memories ending up online. That's really what this is about. The guy sharing those pictures with other people.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 5, Informative) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:26PM
to her husbands work mail-account, prior to this court-case. They had an extramarital affair. Now we could argue the morality of the woman's behaviour, but this is not part of this case, and there is not enough additional information available.
The guy btw. is a professional photographer, but the pictures were not done as part of his job. Pictures and videos contained scenarios before, during and after intercourse.
Afaik the court made it also clear that this is not a general verdict, but specific to the circumstances. And I assume the judge knows quite well ot can't be directly enforced, but mainly provides some handhold against that guy if he "accidentally" "loses" the images, especially after je already proved he's not beyond using them to manipulate.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:14PM
In that case the images are already in the wild, as you yourself stated.
That makes the order less rational, because he is pinning all responsibility for future circulation on the photographer even when evidence that the images are beyond his control exists in the court record.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:00PM
I stated he sent pictures to her husband (who obviously knows about the affair). I neither stated he sent all pictures, nor that he posted them publicly. While unencrypted emails opens the possibility that these pictures were intercepted, it is still unlikely that they are "in the wild". The point is that the guy uses the pictures to harm the woman and her husband emotionally.
Just imagine following invented situation:
You are married. Your marriage goes through a rough patch, your wife and you decide to separate. German law requires a period of 1 year living separated before a divorce can be performed. During this year your wife meets another guy, they have some fun. You have your own love-affairs, all fine, but after some time you both realize it was better together. You get back together, past is past, and turn over a new leaf.
Now you sit at work, and the ass-hole who fucked your wife starts sending you pictures, colleagues behind you might see a picture of your wife happily fucking that guy. I'd say that not only hurts, but might impact your reputation at work / might make colleagues think of that picture instead of your qualities. It impacts your career-chances, your standing at the job.
The story above was made up, it can be entirely differently. Maybe they both had an open relationship. Maybe she woman betrayed her husband secretly. Maybe they decided together to get some erotic pictures and the photo-shoot got out of hands without the man knowing it. It's all guesswork. But whatever happened, the guy should not wield the power to use the pictures to destroy the relationship.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:30AM
Following your made up story,,,,,
So you finally decide to dump the bitch, and get back at the guy who banged her.
He was ordered to destroy them, and he did so in front of his lawyer, yet there they are, all over the internet.
Gee, how did they get there?
Photographer goes to jail, she goes to divorce court (again), and the guy she's dating behind your back runs away like his hair is on fire.
But lo, the photographer appeals, because it wasn't him who published the pictures.
They are in the wild. Not all under his exclusive control.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:53AM
Yes, thee photographer fucked up and might get in trouble if the marriage breaks after all and the husband turns out to be an asshole. Well, bad luck, probably the photographer shoudn't have sent the picture in the first place.
But as I said, not all pictures are in the wild, only those he sent already. If only those make it to the public one day, the photographer might persuade the courts he didn't do it. Nevertheless he can not just "Lose" his mobile or his USB stick anymore to accidentally publish the rest of the images and videos which are not yet in the wild.
The law-system does not claim to achieve 100% justice, its a system of best effort. I couldn't imagine a better ruling in this case. Allowing the photographer to keep the pictures wouldn't improve the situation.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @10:52PM
Amazing how often a woman's immoral act is dismissed as irrelevant just so we can throw the full might of the legal system at a man's immoral act. If she cheated on her husband, her husband has a right to know and using a questionable legal ruling to quash that action is doubly wrong on top of a waste of government resources.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:21PM
Who does that? But you can't discuss anything when you switch topics all the times. Also it is not possible to assess morality of a single action without context. I know couples living in open relationships, and I also know cheating women and men. Without further information I can not take it for granted that this couple didn't have an "understanding" or were separated at the time or whatever. But she is still married to her husband, and that tells me that either he's ok with it or they found other ways to get even, and in that case it's neither my not anyone else business to judge it.
The other guy and the woman had a case in court, the verdict with all relevant background information is public, and therefore can be judged.
BTW: This attitude is harming the men's right movement. Women are as evil as men, but trying to drag them in and judge them even without any background information shows that you are biased, not scrutinizing.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:14AM
> BTW: This attitude is harming the men's right movement.
Fuck, that attitude defines 99% of the "men's rights movement."
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:27AM
Not really. I'm really looking forward to watch The Red Pill [telegraph.co.uk], a documentary made by a (former?) feminist who learned during her work on the documentary that men also have a point fighting for equal rights, getting dissed by some of her former feminist friends for this epiphany.
There is so much more than black and white...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:32PM
In the bar chart at the bottom, the pct respondents who have received sexts is significantly higher than the combined pct of those who sent and forwarded sexts, at every age group.
Maybe there's a bunch of Brett Favres on the loose!
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:34PM
A lifetime formal legal commitment makes it much safer to allow a man to have naked pictures of you. Not completely without risk, but much safer than giving them to the guy you are shacking up with. Plus, there are steps you can take to make such lifetime formal legal commitments even less risky; there are ways to filter out the riskier men.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:00PM
Nothing more romantic than a prenuptual agreement, although I guess this would need a different name. Pre-nipptual?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 23 2015, @10:35PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday December 23 2015, @10:35PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:52PM
"I suspect he means this current trend where no woman can take a self picture that's not from about 45 degrees above them so you can't see the triple chin as clearly and their eyes look twice their actual size because they're looking upward like they're on their knees giving you fellatio.
OP, I'm less disturbed by the fact that the majority of them outweigh me by well over 100 lbs (while being about 6 inches to a foot shorter than I am to boot) than I am by the fact that women's profiles on dating sites all read like hostage demand lists for their vagina.
Seriously, nearly EVERY profile lists how you must have this, must do that, must not do this or that ... while not taking even a single line to describe what they have to offer. Like the thought never once crossed their mind that perhaps ... they might not be an amazing catch and might actually have to put in effort."
- http://www.givemegossip.com/forum1/message42894/pg1#481022 [givemegossip.com] - Sir Phydeau
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:27AM
If I was to publish myself nowadays (which I'm not, I'm married), I'd offer "An open ear, willing to listen, in exchange for other orifices, equally willing" ;-)
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday December 24 2015, @07:06AM
That was briefly known as the angles [urbandictionary.com]; typically in the the form "Whoa! Don't be fooled. She's got the angles!"
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:41AM
In the UK, Tiger Woods got an injunction against anyone publishing his nudes, even though he said he was "not aware of any naked or sexual photos, videos or images."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/11/tiger.woods.injunction/index.html [cnn.com]
http://www.thestar.com/sports/golf/2009/12/11/court_grants_injunction_to_bar_naked_photos_of_tiger.html [thestar.com]
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091211/1531517314.shtml [techdirt.com]
http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2009/12/tiger-woods-uk-injunction---over-the-top.html [findlaw.com]
A French court granted Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, an injunction against a magazine which had published topless photos of her. The court ordered the publisher "to hand over its digital copies of topless photos of Kate" to her (and not publish any more of them).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/topless-kate-photos-draw-injunction-from-french-court-1.1271216 [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19631591 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-topless-pictures-royal-1326816 [mirror.co.uk]
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/royal-family-seek-injunction-kate-middleton-topless-photos/story?id=17248533 [go.com]
A U.S. District Court ruled that it was in the public interest for Penthouse to print partially nude photos of Paula Jones.
http://articles.philly.com/1994-12-02/news/25854424_1_paula-jones-penthouse-jones-claims [philly.com]
https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/privacy-information-public-sphere-corporate-information [rcfp.org]