SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-they-will-always-be-in-his-brain dept.
Sometimes porn doesn't get the chance to become revenge porn, as in this case before the German Federal Court:
Germany's highest court has ordered a man to destroy intimate photos and videos of his ex-partner because they violate her right to privacy. The Federal Court said the man, a photographer, should no longer possess naked photos and sex tapes, even if he had no intention of sharing them.
The woman had originally agreed to the images but this consent stopped when the relationship ended, the court said. Germany has some of the strictest privacy laws in Europe.
The Federal Court was called upon to rule in a dispute between a former couple, who were arguing over whether or not the man should delete intimate photos and videos. In its ruling (in German), the court said everyone had the right to decide whether to grant insight into their sex life - including to whom they grant permission and in what form. It said that by retaining the images, the photographer had a certain "manipulative power" over his ex-lover. He should no longer have rights to the photos and videos once the relationship had ended, it concluded.
It is not clear how the ruling will be enforced.
A 2014 Pew survey of American mobile phone users found that 34% of those aged 25-34 reported receiving "sexts" (sexually suggestive photos or videos), as well as 22% of those aged 35-44 and 15% of those aged 45-54. Across all age groups, 20% reported receiving sexts, an increase from just 15% in 2012. A smaller portion of the population is sending the sexts: 9% of phone users in 2014, from 6% in 2012.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:05PM
I don't think that you can equate "intimate" images and videos with property rights.
I think you *can* equate images and videos with property rights. Since images and videos are property, and therefore are subject to property rights.
What's the problem, anyway? You can't move on, and build a new life for yourself? Are you so very dependent on the woman that you can't rebuild? How things have changed - it used to be the men who denied property rights to women, making it difficult if not impossible for her to build a new life for herself. Was it just insecurity on the part of men all along?
Nice Strawman.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:34PM
Not a strawman at all - what value do those images have to you? She's gone, and you can't give her up. Be a man, and stand on your own two legs, don't use her for a crutch.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:59PM
Not a strawman at all
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
What's the problem, anyway? You can't move on, and build a new life for yourself? Are you so very dependent on the woman that you can't rebuild? How things have changed - it used to be the men who denied property rights to women, making it difficult if not impossible for her to build a new life for herself. Was it just insecurity on the part of men all along?
This is complete fantasy and has nothing to do with the original argument. It's also a ad hominem attack.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:06PM
Nice Stawman
Ah, the argument of the intellectually defeated.
Look, the only reason one would keep those photos would be for revenge-porn.
If he's a professional photographer, and has a signed model release, he might have a case, but even that seems iffy when it comes to the sex tapes.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:54PM
Look, the only reason one would keep those photos would be for revenge-porn.
No
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:30AM
"Look, the only reason one would keep those photos would be for revenge-porn."
Just like encryption, am I right? If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, I always say! If you don't plan on owning any "Illegal property" (property that isn't illegal yet) you don't need any of those pesky property rights, do you?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:36AM
Pretty sure even you realize your argument is a huge stretch, and utterly devoid of value.
He had already committed one offense with these photos, and the judge decided the best fix would be to remove them from his possession so he couldn't do it again. Its why we don't let convicted felons own firearms, or drunk drivers have drivers licenses.
You want to rewrite society to your rules? Don't expect any help.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 24 2015, @06:53AM
Nothing in TFA says anything about him ever "abusing" his possession of those photos in any way.
You want to rewrite articles to support your positions? Don't expect anyone to respect your opinions.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday December 24 2015, @07:43AM
Read the comments. His actions are well known in Germany.
By the way google translate works for you just as well as it works for me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:07PM
The term "property" applies to physical things, not images and video.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:54PM
Try telling the MPAA and RIAA that...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @05:56AM
I plan to.