SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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