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 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
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
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @07:58AM
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
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:
--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
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
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
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: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 16 2015, @04:34PM
Thanks for the warning, but I'm not very concerned -- for a variety of reasons.
Then again, if I suddenly stop posting here, maybe I'm doing time. not.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Pseudonymous Coward on Monday March 16 2015, @04:03PM
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
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
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.