Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday March 16 2015, @05:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the nudge-nudge-wink-wink dept.

Phys.Org is reporting that Twitter has announced that it is banning the posting of sexually explicit images without the consent of the subject of those images.

From the article:

Twitter has become the latest online platform to ban "revenge porn," or the posting of sexually explicit images of a person without consent. In updated terms of service released Wednesday, Twitter explicitly banned "intimate photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject's consent."

The update comes following Reddit's announcement last month of a similar ban, which came after the online bulletin board was criticized for allowing the distribution of hacked nude pictures of Hollywood stars.

Have you been a victim of "revenge porn"? Have you posted explicit photos of others without their permission?

Would any lawyers care to jump in and discuss what copyright infringement issues, if any, might be raised?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by sigma on Monday March 16 2015, @05:27AM

    by sigma (1225) on Monday March 16 2015, @05:27AM (#158227)

    For most of the denizens of Soylent News, avoiding revenge porn is as simple as "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing".

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @05:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @05:31AM (#158228)

    revenge porn could fall under personality rights, not copyright

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 16 2015, @05:33AM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @05:33AM (#158229) Journal

    Bit of a joke worrying about copyright issues about things posted on Twitter don't you think?

    Twitter can ban anything they want, its their service. Anything that has already made it to twitter is a hopeless case.
    So how can a ban be germane?

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by BK on Monday March 16 2015, @05:38AM

    by BK (4868) on Monday March 16 2015, @05:38AM (#158230)

    Just for the record, revenge porn is a type of speech. [soylentnews.org] Only in an authoritarian hellhole would the stuff be banned.

    Discuss.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @05:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @05:58AM (#158235)

      Just for the record, revenge porn is a type of speech.

      So is child porn. If one really is against all censorship, they must be ready to defend the distribution of CP. Otherwise, we are only arguing about where the bar should be set.

      Only in an authoritarian hellhole would the stuff be banned.

      Twitter is an authoritarian hellhole, as is nearly every for-proffit business. There is really nothing to discuss unless you wish to argue that private enterprises should be regulated as to what speech they allow on their platforms.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday March 16 2015, @06:39AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday March 16 2015, @06:39AM (#158244)

        So is child porn. If one really is against all censorship, they must be ready to defend the distribution of CP.

        And I, as well as a number of others, do.

        Twitter is an authoritarian hellhole, as is nearly every for-proffit business.

        Yes. Stay clear of garbage like Twitter, Facebook, etc.

      • (Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @01:09PM

        by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday March 16 2015, @01:09PM (#158326)

        There is really nothing to discuss unless you wish to argue that private enterprises should be regulated as to what speech they allow on their platforms.

        Arguably the laws are extremely outdated. If facebook, G+,twitter, youtube, Bing, and Google all censor free speech, it simply does not exist any more. 99.99999999999999% of all speech happens on private business's servers. And let us not forget that the phone lines are privately owned, your ISP connection is privately owned. So what? as long as you speech softly enough in your own home, with the blinds drawn and a "beware of speech" sign on your front door you just might be allowed to say whatever you want? Assuming it is not something negative against a protected group and is therefore considered hate speech. There are somethings I would only be allowed to say on a KKK forum. So is that what it has come to? Free Speech is alive and well as long as we have designated free speech zones, conveniently places far away from everyone else?

        • (Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Monday March 16 2015, @02:49PM

          by halcyon1234 (1082) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @02:49PM (#158380)

          There are somethings I would only be allowed to say on a KKK forum.

          And plenty of things you'd be "censored" for saying on a KKK forum. So what's your point?

          --
          Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:03AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:03AM (#158237)

      Twitter is a private entity, and the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press don't apply to it. The Constitution only affects what the US Government can and cannot do. I don't hear anything about the US Government forcing Twitter to ban revenge porn. Twitter is doing this of their own volition. If you don't like it, start your own website without such restrictions. Freedom of the press only applies to those who own one. It's like complaining that your daily newspaper won't publish your revenge porn photos, and saying that there is no freedom of the press.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Pseudonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @11:10AM

        by Pseudonymous Coward (4624) on Monday March 16 2015, @11:10AM (#158293)

        Yeah yeah, they have no obligation to provide a platform for free speech, just like I have no obligation to be nice to you, you twat.
        There are far better platforms [8chan.co] for discussing serious topics that do not fit in 144 characters of censored speech.

        But you have to realize: when people start banning things and expect people to always be nice to them? You will effectively sensitize people to 'offensive content' (I'm offended! [youtube.com]), prevent them from ever learning the truth (because the truth usually is offensive and pretty cruel) and set the stage for a protect and serve the government government.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:35AM (#158715)

        I don't see what the USA's constitution has to do with this. There is no provision which says that private citizens cannot act to protect FoS in other public vennues, in fact said constitution explicitly guarantees that they are free to criticize and ostracize Twitter, as well as demand that they are regulated. Such is the nature of democratic rule.

        The Bill of Rights does not define where FoS is allowed, it simply places a handful of fundamental restrictions upon the American government. It is by no means a definite exhaustive specification on the concept.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday March 16 2015, @06:08AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @06:08AM (#158238) Journal

      Oh, what an excellent troll, well done sir.
      Now you sit back and reel them in.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by SlimmPickens on Monday March 16 2015, @06:22AM

        by SlimmPickens (1056) on Monday March 16 2015, @06:22AM (#158241)

        See, this and the parent are precisely the sort of posts that need granular multi-modding.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:05AM (#158264)

          No, they just need to be revenge porn-ed for sticking up (so to speak) for hate speech, defamation, and overall ass-hat buggery. If any only wants pics of these cretins, post your email here! (Hmm, a double SJW Honeypot! Will they be stupid enough to fall for it?)

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 16 2015, @07:21AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @07:21AM (#158257) Homepage Journal

      Whatever. The kind of person who posts revenge porn is the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed out in public. Long ago, retards were locked in the attic, so that they couldn't wander around town, embarrassing people.

      That may be a little drastic, but we should at least lock the retards into their back yards, and keep them off of the busy highways.

      --
      There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:12AM (#158266)

        That may be a little drastic, but we should at least lock the retards into their back yards, and keep them off of the busy highways.

        Put the pitchfork down before you hurt yourself, son.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @02:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @02:31PM (#158370)

        Some people ARE locked in attics and backrooms because they would embarrass or shame the family. I did a lot of building searches while in the US Army and step one is almost always clear the building. Which means you might be bringing someone outside who has literally never been outside before. So sad! AC because reasons

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:17AM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Tuesday March 17 2015, @07:17AM (#158776) Journal

        WTF — why are you even jokingly blaming mentally/physically disabled people for that kind of sociopathic behavior? It's bog-average, Joe Blow normal people that are behind that kind of crap, because at some point they got the impression that it was a-okay to bully, harass, and otherwise abuse people.

        A lesson I learned a while ago, that I'll now pass on to you: never assume that the kind of person you're making comments about isn't part of the group you're speaking/typing to. (Given my parents were pressured by medical staff to institutionalize me as a toddler in 1979 because I was "retarded" — non-verbal autistic w/GI defects — I'm pretty sure I would've been locked up 100 years ago.)

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:44AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 18 2015, @01:44AM (#159153) Homepage Journal

          Obviously, it went over most people's heads. Only some kind of mental deficient would feel the need to embarrass an ex-lover by posting nude images to the internet. Mentally deficient, as well as morally deficient.

          Or, are you prepared to defend these posters as mentally and morally normal persons?

          --
          There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:36AM (#158289)

      Speech is not completely unrestricted. Try posting trade secrets of your employer to twitter, and you'll quickly find out.

      Revenge porn is basically the same as telling trade secrets: Because of your relation to the other you were given information which were not meant for distribution to third persons, and you are distributing it to third persons anyway.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @03:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @03:23PM (#158408)

        Revenge porn is basically the same as telling trade secrets

        That is an excellent analogy. I'm going to remember this one to use in the future.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:09PM (#158552)

        You should be able to post trade secrets.

        In any case, this is about Twitter banning it.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @06:48AM

    When I saw this article and decided to submit it, I was thinking more about the ideas and issues surrounding consent, trust and quasi-public forums like Twitter.

    I guess it was just my own biases that I expected some discussion around that.

    It seems to me that those who are free speech absolutists would decry such actions -- at least until their likeness is exposed without their consent.

    Personally, I don't even have blinds in my bedroom. I figure that if my neighbors really want to watch me get it on with my partner, their lives must be so bereft of meaning that it would be a blessing to them.

    But not everyone is me, and I can see why some folks would care if their personal moments were broadcast for all to see -- and this is the important part (IMHO) -- without their consent.

    It's a thorny issue, especially when there are those who will just say -- ooh pr0n! And others will blame the subject (if you didn't want photos of you giving head to your husband of five years, you shouldn't have allowed him to brow-beat you into letting him take them, along with his promise that no one would ever see them -- so it's your own damn fault, you skanky whore!), without ever knowing the circumstances behind their production.

    On the other hand, the more we restrict what people can do, say, or share, online or otherwise, the smaller we make our world and our worldview.

    As such, it would be interesting to find out what Soylentils have to say about their experiences, either posting photos of others without consent, or having their intimate moments posted without their consent.

    I think that would be a more interesting discussion than arguing about what the First Amendment covers and what it doesn't.

    Just sayin'.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @06:59AM (#158253)

      It seems to me that those who are free speech absolutists would decry such actions

      Would they decry it? Not all of them. Free speech "absolutists" generally seem to believe that it's the government that has no place regulating any speech. Twitter could do it, and people could criticize them, but that doesn't necessarily relate to free speech absolutism.

      -- at least until their likeness is exposed without their consent.

      About as relevant as saying, "You support laws against theft? Well, I bet you wouldn't support those laws if you had to steal!" Yes, given the right situation, many people can be convinced to believe all sorts of things, and might even change their views as it is convenient. But in such bad situations, they are likely neither unbiased nor rational. But what of it? It does not invalidate their points even if we assume that they would change their views.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 16 2015, @07:42AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @07:42AM (#158258) Homepage Journal

      Somehow, free speech isn't even a consideration in my thinking. IMHO, unless your partner is a porn star, then "private" images, videos, and speech are exactly that - private. Porn stars are paid for permitting their images to be published. If a person is publishing private images on the internet, then the person whose image is being published certainly has some right to compensation. That compensation is not dependent on the publisher making any commercial profit, either. (Thanks, RIAA and company!)

      Those persons who publish revenge porn should be socially stigmatized, as well as punished in court. Ladies, why would you WANT to be with a guy who is known to publish private videos on the web? You're setting yourself up, after all. Same goes for you guys, of course, although nudity, in and of itself, seems to be less embarrassing for guys.

      --
      There is a supply side shortage of pronouns. You will take whatever you are offered.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @07:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @07:58AM (#158261)

        Somehow, free speech isn't even a consideration in my thinking.

        It should be, because this is speech.

        If a person is publishing private images on the internet, then the person whose image is being published certainly has some right to compensation.

        They do not "own" the data stored on someone else's equipment. Any law that says they do is unethical.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @08:15AM

          If a person is publishing private images on the internet, then the person whose image is being published certainly has some right to compensation.

          They do not "own" the data stored on someone else's equipment. Any law that says they do is unethical.

          Okay, then let's take some photos of you using that fleshlight you're so fond of, and post them on a bulletin board in your office. I used my camera. So it's mine, right?

          Better yet, I'll set up surveillance equipment to capture you and your family in all manner of activities and live-stream them to the 'net. My equipment. My equipment, so I can do whatever I want with it, right?

          Actually, not so much [wikipedia.org].

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:27AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:27AM (#158269)

            So it's mine, right?

            It would be.

            Actually, not so much.

            Linking to an article you agree with that speaks of laws I find to be intolerable will not help you. I will only say that those laws are wrong. Copyright should be abolished, as well as "personality rights".

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @09:01AM

              Linking to an article you agree with that speaks of laws I find to be intolerable will not help you. I will only say that those laws are wrong. Copyright should be abolished, as well as "personality rights".

              I neither "agree" nor "disagree" with the article I linked. It details laws on the books. My opinion is irrelevant.

              I don't need help from such an article, or agreement from you.

              I merely posted a link to factual information. Any values (positive or negative) you assign to that information comes only from you.

              That you don't like the laws is only relevant to you.

              I find that I'm often quoting this, and it's appropriate here:

              I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

              --Robert Heinlein (The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress)

              If you find this particular set of laws "too obnoxious" then, by all means, break them. I won't blame or judge you. I can't say the same for whatever jurisdiction you live in, so you may be held accountable by that jurisdiction for those actions. That's up to you and whatever legal/political jurisdiction to which you have submitted (by residing within the boundaries of that jurisdiction) yourself.

              I have no issue with your point of view (although on a personal level, I find your lack of empathy unappealing), nor will I chastise or judge your for it. Then again, it's unlikely that you'll get a chance to take photos of me, especially not ones that would meet the criteria for "revenge porn." As long as you are willing to take responsibility for your own actions, i don't even have a problem with you.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @09:16PM (#159599)

              Personality rights are much more tolerable than copyright. Prevent big corporations from monetizing your image without compensating you, and have legal recourse against revenge porn. Exemptions for newsworthiness and parody.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:10AM (#158265)

        So the consequence of revenge porn, as you said a violation of trust and privacy, should be to pay the victim for the porn, thus making them a porn star only if they were not? There are so many things wrong with this line of thinking that I may have to publish some images without your permission, and not pay you, just so you can remain pure. Don't ever change, Runaway1965!

    • (Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday March 16 2015, @03:50PM

      by fadrian (3194) on Monday March 16 2015, @03:50PM (#158422) Homepage

      Personally, I don't even have blinds in my bedroom. I figure that if my neighbors really want to watch me get it on with my partner, their lives must be so bereft of meaning that it would be a blessing to them.

      Be careful.

      Seriously. Legality is not the same as morality and the law does have teeth.

      Unless you are so far out of sight you can legally prove that the only way you could be stumbled upon is if someone were peeping or if you made a reasonable attempt not to be seen or live in a state (like mine, Oregon, where free speech rights broader than the US Constitution are granted) where you have a snowball's chance in hell to trump public indecency laws with an argument about free speech (as your political stance here is obvious), you're boned. All it takes is one neighbor calling in a complaint, and you and your partner have a chance to become registered sex offenders for the rest of your life. What fun! Sure, you'll probably get asked first by a neighbor to put up blinds, but I'm sure your right to not buy shades trumps that. And when the city decides to ask you nicely, I'm sure you'll tell them to go to hell. Etc. Your ideals do not make you or your partner invulnerable.

      Oh yeah! remember too that if you don't have the wherewithal to buy the proper lawyering up, you won't even have those rights. Nobody really wants to defend stupid - not even the ACLU.

      So yeah... be careful - you seem like you need the warning.

      --
      That is all.
    • (Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @04:03PM

      by Pseudonymous Coward (4624) on Monday March 16 2015, @04:03PM (#158429)

      Twitter isn't quasi-public, it's quasi-private.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @04:40PM

        Twitter isn't quasi-public, it's quasi-private.

        Ummm, no. Twitter is quasi [google.com]-public.

        quasi-
        ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/
        combining form
        prefix: quasi-

                seemingly; apparently but not really.

        Twitter *is* private. However, much of its business revolves around publicly posting information.

        You've got it backwards, friend. Glad I could help clear that up for you.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:38PM

          by Pseudonymous Coward (4624) on Monday March 16 2015, @08:38PM (#158563)

          Yeah, I guess you're right.

          BUT, if Twitter has the capability of posting both private and public messages, doesn't that make it a little bit of both?

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @09:54PM

            Yeah, I guess you're right.

            BUT, if Twitter has the capability of posting both private and public messages, doesn't that make it a little bit of both?

            Given the context of the discussion (Twitter's decision to ban the public posting of photos which don't have the permission of the subject of those photos), why is your statement even relevant?

            I'm not going to make this Civics 101 for for you.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday March 16 2015, @07:05PM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @07:05PM (#158521) Journal

      it's your own damn fault, you skanky whore!), without ever knowing the circumstances behind their production.

      From the samples I've seen on line, the circumstances are obvious in the vast majority of cases, willing participation, and in a high percentage the subject actually took the photos or videos themselves and sent them to their partner.

      Shit, even junior high kids know better these days.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 1) by Shimitar on Monday March 16 2015, @07:18AM

    by Shimitar (4208) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 16 2015, @07:18AM (#158256) Homepage

    Interesting, so if cannot publish my revenge photos on Twitter now i can print them and hang the prints all around my university, neighborough, shopping mall, parking lot...
    Wait, those places already most probably ban nude pics... but if i want to do it, who cares? It's even worse, because i can do it much more anonymously than on Twitter (just wear a hat, choose good timing, and move away quickly), bonus added if you can do that on some subway or bus stops too...

    So is this actually an incentive in making revenge photos more anonymous and move them to "the real world" or it's just a stunt?

    In the end, isn't the poster responsible like in any other real-world place?

    Or maybe not, because in this case Twitter with it's TOS gains rights on the photos, and for once it's backfiring?

    --
    Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dltaylor on Monday March 16 2015, @08:31AM

    by dltaylor (4693) on Monday March 16 2015, @08:31AM (#158271)

    'Back when, it used to be necessary to have a "model release", assigning publishing rights to the models' images, except for things like news photos/video.

    What happened to those laws?

    Lawyers?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:57AM (#158291)

      What happened to those laws?

      Lawyers?

      Yes, lawyers is what happens to all laws. :-)

    • (Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Monday March 16 2015, @12:54PM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <{jonathonwisnoski} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday March 16 2015, @12:54PM (#158320)

      I am pretty sure that was just businesses making sure to explicitly nail down that they own the images outright. I am pretty sure no law ever existed to prevent taking anyone's photo, or doing anything with any photo you have.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @01:28PM (#158332)

        I don't know about the US, but in Germany there definitely exists such a law; the term is "Recht am eigenen Bild" [wikipedia.org] ("Right to your own picture"). Just being on the picture in general gives you the right to disallow distribution/publication of the picture (there are, of course, exceptions to it, but as a rule of thumb, if you are an ordinary person and are the main motive of the photo, you can demand it not to be distributed).

        And it's criminal law; you can even go to jail for violations.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Marneus68 on Monday March 16 2015, @08:56AM

    by Marneus68 (3572) on Monday March 16 2015, @08:56AM (#158276) Homepage

    >Would any lawyers care to jump in and discuss what copyright infringement issues, if any, might be raised?
    I'm no lawyer, but I know the legal implication of this kind of behavior in my country (France) and I think that every slightly technical people should at least know the basics regarding that. That's an interesting aspect of the question, that's for sure, but I'm more interested in the "how" than the "why". How do you enforce that and how do you make sure that it is not abused, because knowing the "trigger happy" over-sensitive, easy to offend and dishonest people you can find on twitter, I'm pretty sure that if they put any kind of automatic flagging mechanism in place, it will be used maliciously, to silence critique and opposition for instance. Certain recent examples of abuse of copyright flagging system on youtube jump to mind.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday March 16 2015, @10:47AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday March 16 2015, @10:47AM (#158290) Journal

    Banning revenge porn seems alright. The question is on what grounds it will be determined what is revenge porn?
    And then there's the risk of banning other stuff that perhaps is not a such clear case.

    It's not like we won't be able to see how people look without clothes any more....
    Actually porn producers output looks more like flesh mania than something actually worth to watch.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday March 16 2015, @02:56PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday March 16 2015, @02:56PM (#158385)

      It seems really simple what the term means. It is revenge porn when:
      1. It was posted and possibly created without permission of every person shown.
      2. At least one person so depicted had a reasonable expectation that their activity was private, and it now isn't.

      As it stands, there are only 2 solutions to this problem I can think of, and arguably only 1:
      A. Nobody makes any kind of pornography unless they expect it to be shown to the entire world. (Arguably impossible, especially if somebody films it without the subject being aware of it.)
      B. Get rid of the social and professional stigma associated with appearing in pornography. (This one might actually work)

      --
      Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday March 16 2015, @03:13PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday March 16 2015, @03:13PM (#158396) Journal

        C) Use automated image recognition to remove audio-visual material that is known to be violating someones real privacy.

        People taking a picture of a square in a big city can't be expected to get consent from everyone. And the public at large can't be expected to get over their flawed reasoning regarding to other peoples lives. Just have a reflection of various religions that cause people to have mass-obsessive-compulsion-disorder over nakedness or sex. There's a reason why it and other stuff needs to be private.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 17 2015, @03:43AM (#158718)

        It seems really simple what the term means. It is revenge porn when:
        1. It was posted and possibly created without permission of every person shown.

        Oh, if only it was that simple. "Withdrawn consent" is a pretty big and thorny issue, there are endless instances where someone would be accused of rape after the "victim" initially consented but changed their mind much later.

  • (Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday March 16 2015, @03:36PM

    by fadrian (3194) on Monday March 16 2015, @03:36PM (#158416) Homepage

    Some will try to take this argument "meta", into the world of ideals - as if ideals trump the actualities of right and wrong.

    In reality, we have two parties here, one feeling hurt because of the breakup and/or perhaps past injustices, one basically doing nothing other than being a human being. But the first party seems to feel justified in taking an aggressive, hurtful action against the second. I do believe, unless more is known about the individual case, that the first party is morally culpable. This is the issue that should be discussed.

    While wrestling by "my value is better than your value" arguments may be interesting in a "Superman is better than Batman" sort of way, it really is just a distraction, as ideals tend not to hold up in the face of human behavioral assault. And, yes, I know this absolutely leaves me open to charges of philosophical hypocrisy (as who am I state that the real world should be valued over ideals?), but it is simply a pragmatic choice for me - living in the real world while keeping one's eyes on ideals works a lot better than the other way around. But that's just me.

    --
    That is all.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:12PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:12PM (#158556)

      as if ideals trump the actualities of right and wrong.

      What is morally right or morally wrong is subjective.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 17 2015, @12:16AM

        as if ideals trump the actualities of right and wrong.

        What is morally right or morally wrong is subjective.

        Absolutely correct.

        As such, please make an argument for the moral rightness of posting "revenge porn."

        My argument for the opposite is that it is morally wrong to deliberately seek to harm another or to violate their privacy and their trust. Regardless of any provocation, intentionally harming others (except to defend oneself, and posting photos of others without their permission isn't defending yourself) to avenge a real or perceived slight is selfish, nasty and clearly shows the poor character of anyone who does so.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:54AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @04:54AM (#159207)

          As such, please make an argument for the moral rightness of posting "revenge porn."

          Also, what qualifies as a good (convincing) argument is also subjective. Someone could just respond with, "I like it." That would probably matter only to them, but their feelings would not be objectively wrong.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 18 2015, @05:15AM

            Also, what qualifies as a good (convincing) argument is also subjective. Someone could just respond with, "I like it." That would probably matter only to them, but their feelings would not be objectively wrong.

            If the aim is persuasion, "I like it" isn't really a convincing argument. That's not really subjective, given the definition of the word "argument."

            Funny that. Words actually have meanings. How very bizarre.

            From https://www.google.com/search?q=define+argument&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 [google.com]
            ar·gu·ment
            ˈärɡyəmənt/
            noun

            2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr