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: 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.