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: 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.