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: 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!