This would mean that any-website people could freely post pictures or videos could be charged of encouraging defamation if some random dude posted something he shouldn't have.
:dohIn case you're not familiar with the case, there was a web site run by a sleazy and unethical man named Hunter Moore ...
Sharing the photo with another is not "intending them to be private".in which people angry at their ex's would post nude photos of them against their will, photos that were originally intended to be private.
Hyperbolic nonsense. He didn't shirk responsibility.Moore had been confronted by some of his victims and had always shirked responsibility with the line, "I didn't upload those photos. Someone else did." Yeah, but you set up the site that encouraged them to.
And a new one will be going up shortly and he say the new one will be 'Scariest On The Internet'.Fortunately, his site is now gone.
As he has stated multiple times, it was because of the work involved in removing photo's being submitted of those underage.He chose to get rid of it, maybe because of pressure or guilt or legal threats. I'm not sure.
That's the good news.The bad news is someone else put up the same kind of site to replace it.
Got evidence that it is just the site owner?The twist with the new site is it includes a link to a "lawyer" that can help them get their photos removed. Of course it's not a real lawyer. It's just the site owner getting people to pay hundreds of dollars to get the photos removed that belong to them anyway and that they never authorized being published.
It is something I would not participate in, and I do not agree with him doing it, but this is, and should remain legal.The poll is whether it should be illegal to put up revenge porn sites like this. "Yes" means they should be made illegal. "No" means they should be legal.
No, not really, because the photo was freely given in the first place.They're horrific violations of privacy
There was trust when it was given, but that had long passed, especially since the photos were of people who violated that trust in the first place by hurting the submitter of the photo. Hence the term "revenge".and betrayals of trust.
Hyperbolic absurdity.If nothing else, they should be illegal because everyone willingly involved with them is scum and deserves to suffer.
The freedom of speech is a double-edged sword.
I mean really, you should not be sending naked or sexy pictures to any electronic media. The responsibility is solely on the person who sent the picture/video. As soon as that happens they have relinquished control.
:doh
You calling him such does not make him such.
Sharing the photo with another is not "intending them to be private".
Once you give it away, it is a gift for the other to do as they please with it.
Hyperbolic nonsense. He didn't shirk responsibility.
The responsibility falls on the person who submitted the photo and the person who gave it as a gift in the first place.
There was trust when it was given, but that had long passed, especially since the photos were of people who violated that trust in the first place by hurting the submitter of the photo. Hence the term "revenge".
Hyperbolic absurdity.
:dohNo. What the man does for a living makes him sleazy and unethical. He's scum.
And again you are wrong.No, it is not. It was shared with the expectation that it would be private, that it would remain between the person giving and the person receiving. It is no less a betrayal of confidence than telling her secrets to the world.
iLOLEncouraging someone to commit bad acts is just as bad as committing bad acts yourself. Worse, if you profit from it.
And we agree.Or so they say. One act of betrayal does not justify another, in any case.
You are exaggerating.Allow me to be more clear, in case you think I am exaggerating. Hunter Moore is a scumbag, a worthless piece of human filth, and he deserves to suffer for what he has intentionally and for profit subjected other human beings to. He should be punished, and the fact that the law does not allow him to be punished does not mean that he is innocent, but rather that the law is inadequate. The people who have contributed to his filthy and depraved website may not be scumbags themselves, but they have-- each and every one of them-- willfully taken a large step towards becoming scumbags and they should be forced to pay some penance just so that they understand that what they have done is wrong and inexcusable.
:lamoYour defense of these men is sickening.
They're horrific violations of privacy and betrayals of trust. If nothing else, they should be illegal because everyone willingly involved with them is scum and deserves to suffer.
Yes, I think they should be illegal. There are ways people can protect themselves from civil laibility.
What's interesting is we have laws galore placing restrictions on things related to speech and privacy, both criminal and civil, but those either involve money or potentially embarrassing for a politician. For example: cell phone conversations transmitt over what as been historically defined a "public airways" in America. Nobody is supposed to "own" the air broadcast travel through. That's been the doctrine of American wireless communications technology since broadcasting was invented. Then politicians stared learning THEIR cell phone conversations could be listened to by hobbyists. In most cases it was just for private entertainment. You had to be within a one or so mile radius of caller. Once they traved out of that area or "cell" you couldn't hear them anymore. It would be totally random and there would be no way to know who the parties are unless they identify themselves in the call. Congress outlawed scanners that could pick up cell phone signals I think for personal reasons. What's funny is yu can buy a scanner at a hobbyist electronics store but the scanner has to have the frequencies that cell phone use blocked.
You're pretty harsh.
Once something is on the internet, it never goes away. To punish people for all their lives for a few mistakes they made when they were (most likely) young or intoxicated is kind of inhumane (in most cases).
You left out one very important thing...
After you have told the person the information, it is now there's to do with what they want. Same applies to anything not copy-writ passed along the digital airwaves. So if you send a nude photo to someone and it is not copy protected etc, it is now their property, period. Now if someone intercepted or otherwise stole the photo while in transit, that would still be illegal. So your premise is flawed which leads to a flawed conclusion under US law. But again I am no lawyer so I may be wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?