Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   The law caught up to the on-line revenge posts, and the law won   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, online harassment  
•       •       •

8644 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2013 at 9:45 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



229 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-24 09:51:45 AM  
If you send someone nudey pics over the internet, and they end up elsewhere on the internet, it's your own stupid fault end of thread.

p.s. unless someone has a link to said pics
 
2013-09-24 09:55:20 AM  
blog.thereddogco.com
 
2013-09-24 10:00:36 AM  
I'm more than okay with this.  Guys who do this are weapons-grade douchebags.  Women who agree to this with boyfriends/husbands are doing it with the somewhat reasonable expectation that they can trust the guy and that he'll keep his word.  Add to that that people try to ruin the lives of women who have nude photos online, and it's high time something be done about it.  I mean, sure, some of them might be batshiat crazy, but being batshiat crazy isn't a crime.

I'm sure this means the revenge porn sites will be offshored, but by all means throw the book at the douchebags who do this.
 
2013-09-24 10:02:55 AM  
Um....wasn't this kind of stuff already technically illegal by dint of not having a valid 2257 form for all performers?
 
2013-09-24 10:03:13 AM  

Brosef Stalin: If you send someone nudey pics over the internet, and they end up elsewhere on the internet, it's your own stupid fault end of thread.

p.s. unless someone has a link to said pics


If it's just "someone" and sent over the internet, yes, you're right.  But what if it's someone you're in a committed, long term relationship with?  What if it's not sent over the internet, but taken in person with a digital camera?  What about a polaroid camera?
 
2013-09-24 10:06:27 AM  

theMightyRegeya: I'm more than okay with this.  Guys who do this are weapons-grade douchebags.  Women who agree to this with boyfriends/husbands are doing it with the somewhat reasonable expectation that they can trust the guy and that he'll keep his word.  Add to that that people try to ruin the lives of women who have nude photos online, and it's high time something be done about it.  I mean, sure, some of them might be batshiat crazy, but being batshiat crazy isn't a crime.

I'm sure this means the revenge porn sites will be offshored, but by all means throw the book at the douchebags who do this.


Well, no, it's common sense same as when stupid people tattoo themselves with their partner's names trusting that they will always be together blah blah blah. Ultimately poop happens, and if you're idiotic enough to do this when most relationships end with some degree of ill-feeling from at least one party, you're not a victim you're just naive about how the world works and the law shouldn't be there to protect stupidity.
 
2013-09-24 10:07:24 AM  
There are some allegations of underage revenge porn pics.

In these cases, couldn't the girls that originally took the pictures be criminally liable for manufacturing child pornography?  That isn't too big a stretch.

I'd want to be really careful about suing someone in that situation.
 
2013-09-24 10:07:35 AM  

Riche: [blog.thereddogco.com image 599x400]


I'd still like a look.
 
2013-09-24 10:13:19 AM  

Brosef Stalin: theMightyRegeya: I'm more than okay with this.  Guys who do this are weapons-grade douchebags.  Women who agree to this with boyfriends/husbands are doing it with the somewhat reasonable expectation that they can trust the guy and that he'll keep his word.  Add to that that people try to ruin the lives of women who have nude photos online, and it's high time something be done about it.  I mean, sure, some of them might be batshiat crazy, but being batshiat crazy isn't a crime.

I'm sure this means the revenge porn sites will be offshored, but by all means throw the book at the douchebags who do this.

Well, no, it's common sense same as when stupid people tattoo themselves with their partner's names trusting that they will always be together blah blah blah. Ultimately poop happens, and if you're idiotic enough to do this when most relationships end with some degree of ill-feeling from at least one party, you're not a victim you're just naive about how the world works and the law shouldn't be there to protect stupidity.


So, it's the victim's fault.

You named yourself aptly, bro.
 
2013-09-24 10:13:46 AM  

Buck Henderson: Riche: [blog.thereddogco.com image 599x400]

I'd still like a look.


** sigh **

Yeah, me too.
 
2013-09-24 10:14:49 AM  
Oh, look - a dickless misogynist blame-the-victim thread. First one I've seen here on Fark.
Today.
**Yawn**
 
2013-09-24 10:14:58 AM  

Brosef Stalin: Well, no, it's common sense same as when stupid people tattoo themselves with their partner's names trusting that they will always be together blah blah blah. Ultimately poop happens, and if you're idiotic enough to do this when most relationships end with some degree of ill-feeling from at least one party, you're not a victim you're just naive about how the world works and the law shouldn't be there to protect stupidity.


The world only seems this simple to you because you're not smart enough to understand how complicated it actually is.
 
2013-09-24 10:15:48 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Um....wasn't this kind of stuff already technically illegal by dint of not having a valid 2257 form for all performers?


Depends.  Selfies that are just nudies should be fine, but crotch shots, masturbation, and hardcore sex might be a problem.

http://gregpiccionelli.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &i d=171%3A2257-performer-id-requirements&catid=87&Itemid=1258

You'd want to run that by a lawyer, too, because IIRC there's been court rulings that have refined the "secondary producer" definition.
 
2013-09-24 10:17:42 AM  

Brosef Stalin: theMightyRegeya: I'm more than okay with this.  Guys who do this are weapons-grade douchebags.  Women who agree to this with boyfriends/husbands are doing it with the somewhat reasonable expectation that they can trust the guy and that he'll keep his word.  Add to that that people try to ruin the lives of women who have nude photos online, and it's high time something be done about it.  I mean, sure, some of them might be batshiat crazy, but being batshiat crazy isn't a crime.

I'm sure this means the revenge porn sites will be offshored, but by all means throw the book at the douchebags who do this.

Well, no, it's common sense same as when stupid people tattoo themselves with their partner's names trusting that they will always be together blah blah blah. Ultimately poop happens, and if you're idiotic enough to do this when most relationships end with some degree of ill-feeling from at least one party, you're not a victim you're just naive about how the world works and the law shouldn't be there to protect stupidity.


You're arguing about women's rights with someone who chose to name himself "Brosef Stalin."
 
2013-09-24 10:19:23 AM  
Of course they should be prosecuted if they told the women they'd never share the photos and then they go and break that verbal agreement. Ladies, if guys try pushing you into this, even if you trust him, it's probably best just to say no, anything can happen, phones get stolen and this happens all the time. Then he can't claim you don't trust or love him (which would be emotional manipulation on his part anyway, but that's how you can deal with it--you have to accept responsibility for it at some point if you really don't want the pics to be taken).

And don't worry guys there are plenty of women who willingly put themselves online full well knowing they'll be ogled and fapped to. Try fapping to that instead you creeps. People who go to these revenge sites are basically porn-viewing rapists.
 
2013-09-24 10:22:04 AM  
Ah, I was wondering why those sites were down
 
2013-09-24 10:23:42 AM  

Psychohazard: Brosef Stalin: theMightyRegeya: I'm more than okay with this.  Guys who do this are weapons-grade douchebags.  Women who agree to this with boyfriends/husbands are doing it with the somewhat reasonable expectation that they can trust the guy and that he'll keep his word.  Add to that that people try to ruin the lives of women who have nude photos online, and it's high time something be done about it.  I mean, sure, some of them might be batshiat crazy, but being batshiat crazy isn't a crime.

I'm sure this means the revenge porn sites will be offshored, but by all means throw the book at the douchebags who do this.

Well, no, it's common sense same as when stupid people tattoo themselves with their partner's names trusting that they will always be together blah blah blah. Ultimately poop happens, and if you're idiotic enough to do this when most relationships end with some degree of ill-feeling from at least one party, you're not a victim you're just naive about how the world works and the law shouldn't be there to protect stupidity.

You're arguing about women's rights with someone who chose to name himself "Brosef Stalin."


I don't understand the reference myself, but the guy does come off as the kind of guy that would do the same the the douche in the article did, so of course douches make excuses for each other.
 
2013-09-24 10:25:48 AM  
Also, anybody with some legal sense care to explain how this isn't cut and dried harassment? It's pretty clear that the only purpose in posting to these sites is to harass a person and damage that person's reputation, how does that not warrant criminal charges?

In fact, given how hard it is to remove things from the internet, it would be interesting to see a person repeatedly prosecuted for harassment until the images ARE completely removed.
 
2013-09-24 10:37:10 AM  
Oh you kids and your digital imagery and your intertubes and what not.

Why, back in my day you needed a  camerato take a picture. With film in it .And then you had to develop the film and print pictures with a special chemical process. And then if you wanted to send them to someone else you had to put them in this thing we called an "envelope" and buy what were then known as "stamps". Not just any stamps either. They had to be the right kind and they had to be of the right amount or the government agency that looked after such things send it back to you with the admonishment to do it right this time or we will send it back again. All through this process, of course, you had the opportunity to have second thoughts about sending naked pictures of yourself to someone. There were many times when you could say to yourself "Self" you might say, "maybe this isn't such a good idea"  and then you could stick them in a drawer somewhere under a pile of socks or something.

And that's why there are no naked pictures of me on the internet, although I still have a little burn scar on my left buttcheek from when the flashpowder went off.
 
2013-09-24 10:42:34 AM  
Just for everyone to think about , This means that Anthony Weiner is a victim
 
2013-09-24 10:46:37 AM  

Magic_Button: Just for everyone to think about , This means that Anthony Weiner is a victim


I doubt it. You'd have to take things on a case by case basis. I think we can assume a "victim" in this issue would be someone who was coerced or assured their photos would remain secure, not someone who voluntarily sent themselves out all willy-nilly without being solicited.
 
2013-09-24 10:48:03 AM  
I don't want to blame the victims, but honestly. Don't take or let anyone else take naked pictures or videos of yourself. The odds of it ending up on the web are infinitely greater than the odds of it not. Once it's on the web it's there forever. It's worse than herpes, and you don't want herpes do ya?

It is also in no way whatsoever any type of speech that is protected by the first amendment. I don't understand how anyone would think it is.

The way the law should treat these cases is that private images of yourself are your property under your control until such time as you relinquish such control via a contract agreement. Intimate images sent to a current partner should be treated with as a contract of consent to that one person for their personal use. Anything they do with the images beyond this consent should leave them, and parties that host the sites they use, open to civil penalties adjusted to the level of damage they did to the victim.

All that being said I figger in a generation or two, no one will care about your dirty pictures on the Internet, because the vast majority of folks will have dirty pictures on the Internet. The slut shaming will be irrelevant.
 
2013-09-24 10:49:54 AM  
Oh, I surely hope Laws like this get passed.

Then we can prosecute FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and especially the Associated Press. How they destroy lives as State Run Media is criminal ..
 
2013-09-24 10:50:32 AM  
See, this is why I don't send out WIE.
 
2013-09-24 10:54:54 AM  

jso2897: Oh, look - a dickless misogynist blame-the-victim thread. First one I've seen here on Fark.
Today.
**Yawn**


Speaking of... how much can I sue for if someone posts a picture of my little dingus on the Interwebs?

If it happens to a man they deserve it because females are the only gender who can be victimized.

You're just as sexist as the people you claim to be superior to. Go fark yourself.
 
2013-09-24 10:56:35 AM  
Holy crap that blonde is hot

Anyone got link to the nudes?
 
2013-09-24 10:57:23 AM  

Pangea: You're just as sexist as the people you claim to be superior to. Go fark yourself.


Funny... only one person in this thread has claimed that men deserve to be harassed and ridiculed via revenge sites.

You.
 
2013-09-24 11:00:45 AM  

Pangea: jso2897: Oh, look - a dickless misogynist blame-the-victim thread. First one I've seen here on Fark.
Today.
**Yawn**

Speaking of... how much can I sue for if someone posts a picture of my little dingus on the Interwebs?

If it happens to a man they deserve it because females are the only gender who can be victimized.

You're just as sexist as the people you claim to be superior to. Go fark yourself.


Do you think you should be able to sue for that? What if you were lied to or possibly blackmailed or emotionally abused in order for someone to obtain those pics? Personally, I'd argue that you should be able to sue, if that were the case. Would you be with me or against me on that?
 
2013-09-24 11:01:05 AM  

skozlaw: In fact, given how hard it is to remove things from the internet, it would be interesting to see a person repeatedly prosecuted for harassment until the images ARE completely removed.



What are you actually proposing given that this straw man would be incapable of removing the image from a Russian site? No matter how hard they work, removing that image may be outside of their control. Better prosecute them repeatedly until the end of time!!

You are essentially blaming the victim because of a decision they came to regret (posting the picture in the first place.) That is no different than people who blame the woman for a decision she came to regret (taking the picture in the first place.)

The fact that you can't see those as the same thing says the most about you.
 
2013-09-24 11:02:03 AM  

Fafai: Magic_Button: Just for everyone to think about , This means that Anthony Weiner is a victim

I doubt it. You'd have to take things on a case by case basis. I think we can assume a "victim" in this issue would be someone who was coerced or assured their photos would remain secure, not someone who voluntarily sent themselves out all willy-nilly without being solicited.


Ha HA  Willy
 
2013-09-24 11:03:48 AM  

skozlaw: Pangea: You're just as sexist as the people you claim to be superior to. Go fark yourself.

Funny... only one person in this thread has claimed that men deserve to be harassed and ridiculed via revenge sites.

You.


Please. This entire thread is about how evil men do this to innocent women. Your narrative doesn't match the evidence.
 
2013-09-24 11:05:49 AM  

Pangea: skozlaw: In fact, given how hard it is to remove things from the internet, it would be interesting to see a person repeatedly prosecuted for harassment until the images ARE completely removed.


What are you actually proposing given that this straw man would be incapable of removing the image from a Russian site? No matter how hard they work, removing that image may be outside of their control. Better prosecute them repeatedly until the end of time!!

You are essentially blaming the victim because of a decision they came to regret (posting the picture in the first place.) That is no different than people who blame the woman for a decision she came to regret (taking the picture in the first place.)

The fact that you can't see those as the same thing says the most about you.


Are you for real? Someone who sends intimate pics of their ex to a porn site is a "victim?"
 
2013-09-24 11:08:01 AM  

Fafai: Do you think you should be able to sue for that? What if you were lied to or possibly blackmailed or emotionally abused in order for someone to obtain those pics? Personally, I'd argue that you should be able to sue, if that were the case. Would you be with me or against me on that?


The issue is the burden of proof. If I willingly give someone pictures and then change my mind, we're arguing that my word should be all it takes to render the other party legally responsible.

Once I change my mind about an image of myself that got spidered, its too late. How can I prove I wasn't a willing party in the beginning? How can I prove how the image got out there?

The irony of revenge porn legislation is the door it opens to voluntary porn, buyer-remorse.
 
2013-09-24 11:12:10 AM  
skozlaw: it would be interesting to see a person repeatedly prosecuted for harassment until the images ARE completely removed.

Fafai: Are you for real? Someone who sends intimate pics of their ex to a porn site is a "victim?"


If they're going to be repeatedly prosecuted for something they are no longer in control of, as was suggested by the original post, they have indeed transitioned into a victim.

It's only different by degrees from prosecuting a negligent homicide over and over until they can bring the dead person back. There is no way to do the thing that stops the prosecutions.
 
2013-09-24 11:12:14 AM  
FTA: "'It's just an easy way to make people unemployable, undatable and potentially at physical risk,' said Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland, who is writing a book on online harassment."

I wonder if we'll ever get above our collective madonna/whore complexes enough that the mere existence of nude or sex pics won't do this to people.

Seriously, does everyone think they're the only non-virgin in their office?
 
2013-09-24 11:14:14 AM  
One day there will be naked and embarrassing pictures of most of America on the internet. Then people will stop caring.

... but I'm not going first.
 
2013-09-24 11:15:47 AM  

Pangea: Fafai: Do you think you should be able to sue for that? What if you were lied to or possibly blackmailed or emotionally abused in order for someone to obtain those pics? Personally, I'd argue that you should be able to sue, if that were the case. Would you be with me or against me on that?

The issue is the burden of proof. If I willingly give someone pictures and then change my mind, we're arguing that my word should be all it takes to render the other party legally responsible.

Once I change my mind about an image of myself that got spidered, its too late. How can I prove I wasn't a willing party in the beginning? How can I prove how the image got out there?

The irony of revenge porn legislation is the door it opens to voluntary porn, buyer-remorse.


It isn't "changing your mind" if you take the pics for one specific person and then they leak them to everyone. As for the question I bolded, FTA:

Revenge porn sites feature explicit photos posted by ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands and ex-lovers, often accompanied by disparaging descriptions and identifying details, like where the women live and work, as well as links to their Facebook pages

That could be evidence.

Voluntary porn? How many girls do you think are doing porn shoots and then running around to sue everyone who saw the material? This is about private photos.
 
2013-09-24 11:22:47 AM  
So we are trying to fix peoples bad decisions throough legislation now? I say if you do something stupid (as an adult) you should have to live with it and deal with the consequences.
 
2013-09-24 11:23:17 AM  
These cretins just makes it more difficult for honest men to get boobie pics.
 
2013-09-24 11:26:45 AM  

Fafai: It isn't "changing your mind" if you take the pics for one specific person and then they leak them to everyone. As for the question I bolded, FTA:


I feel like this thread is too emotionally charged to have a real debate, but I've been interested because I can relate.

In my 20s I took nude photos with a girlfriend and she had the originals and negatives. She appeared 10 years later wanting to date me again at a family reunion. When I told her that ship had sailed, she spread the photos around where my family found them and I was mortified, but there was nothing I could do at that point.

If she then chose to put them on the Internet, I would be comparable to these victims. How can I prove what happened in a court of law though? In this case I feel like only my word can describe what my original intent was, and no one should be prosecuted for that.

We were drinking. Its easy for me to say "I was in a blackout when this happened." Even though that may be true, I don't feel like liability should be based merely on some words.
 
2013-09-24 11:28:11 AM  
I would imagine most guys would support this.  Getting nude pics from a girl can be really fun and adds another bit of excitement to a relationship.  If douchebags keep revenge posting the pics online, eventually there will be no girls left who are prepared to send even a cheeky cleaveage pic to their boyfriend.  So then we all loose out.
 
2013-09-24 11:29:56 AM  
And why is the existing "take-down notice" law insufficient to handle this?

Totally un-necessary to criminalize it, just make it a civil affair.  "I did not consent to this use of the photo - take it down".  Easy.
 
2013-09-24 11:33:41 AM  
So based on what I'm reading in this thread--ladies, if you ever do something naughty with a guy like take pics or make a video, you cannot leave him. Oh, and you are probably a dirty slut deserving of public shame for even considering doing naughty things in the first place. Do I have it right?
 
2013-09-24 11:34:08 AM  
These "revenge sites" you speak of.  I am not familiar.

Posting of addresses for learning purposes only?
 
2013-09-24 11:34:29 AM  

cefm: And why is the existing "take-down notice" law insufficient to handle this?

Totally un-necessary to criminalize it, just make it a civil affair.  "I did not consent to this use of the photo - take it down".  Easy.



I thought the concern was the image remaining on the Internet. Not all revenge porn is conveniently placed on one of those sites dedicated for that purpose.
 
2013-09-24 11:34:31 AM  

dmaestaz: I say if you do something stupid (as an adult) you should have to live with it and deal with the consequences.


I agree. If you post damaging photos of someone against their wishes (especially if you have sworn not to), then you should face some kind of consequence, yes.
 
2013-09-24 11:35:23 AM  

dmaestaz: So we are trying to fix peoples bad decisions throough legislation now? I say if you do something stupid (as an adult) you should have to live with it and deal with the consequences.


No, we're trying to punish bad people who sexually exploit others.

If you'd rather stand on the side of the douchebags, go ahead. Go read Atlas Shrugged while you're at it. Enjoy the rape scenes that strangely morph into sex scenes.
 
2013-09-24 11:37:55 AM  
This is a new form of extremely damaging public humiliation.  We have laws to prevent that in many other forms.  The law is keeping up with the times.

There have been a few stories about girls getting raped and the pics hitting the web and the girls wind up killing themselves.  It's pretty clear from these stories that the girls did not kill themselves over the rape.  It was the public humiliation from the pictures.  This is no different.

These are private pictures done in the bedroom.  Most activities in the bedroom are protected from the law because it involves 2 consenting adults.  It is obvious in this case that the people have not consented to their pictures being placed on the internet with the intent to publicly shame and humiliate them.

In a perfect world nudity wouldn't matter, people wouldn't take these kinds of pics, etc..  But this is not a perfect world and millions of couples have taken naked sexual pictures with each other and it's understood that those pics are for each other only.
 
2013-09-24 11:39:44 AM  

Fafai: Pangea: Fafai: Do you think you should be able to sue for that? What if you were lied to or possibly blackmailed or emotionally abused in order for someone to obtain those pics? Personally, I'd argue that you should be able to sue, if that were the case. Would you be with me or against me on that?

The issue is the burden of proof. If I willingly give someone pictures and then change my mind, we're arguing that my word should be all it takes to render the other party legally responsible.

Once I change my mind about an image of myself that got spidered, its too late. How can I prove I wasn't a willing party in the beginning? How can I prove how the image got out there?

The irony of revenge porn legislation is the door it opens to voluntary porn, buyer-remorse.

It isn't "changing your mind" if you take the pics for one specific person and then they leak them to everyone. As for the question I bolded, FTA:

Revenge porn sites feature explicit photos posted by ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands and ex-lovers, often accompanied by disparaging descriptions and identifying details, like where the women live and work, as well as links to their Facebook pages

That could be evidence.

Voluntary porn? How many girls do you think are doing porn shoots and then running around to sue everyone who saw the material? This is about private photos.


My gf showed a pic of my dick to her friend. Im gonna sue unless the friend sends me pics of her tits to go with my gf's 34dd's.

/profit!
//if titty pics are currency that is
 
2013-09-24 11:41:13 AM  
Quite a few sociopaths in this thread.
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report