SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 5, Funny) by BK on Monday March 16 2015, @05:38AM
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
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
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
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Arguably the laws are extremely outdated.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @08:12AM
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) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday March 16 2015, @03:51PM
Best read aloud, in the manner of "Foghorn Leghorn".
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @02:31PM
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
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
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?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @10:36AM
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
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
You should be able to post trade secrets.
In any case, this is about Twitter banning it.