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: 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.