'Revenge p*rn' should be a crime

But do we lose privacy like not posting a picture of me in the public on the freaking Internet w/o even telling me, and worse may be for cyber bullying?

 

It is a scumbag thing to do, but it should not be a crime.

 

Try to imagine a different scenario where you were able to capture a picture or video of a crime being committed while in the public domain. Do you feel you need to ask the permission from the criminal to post this on the net?

The 1st amendment (freedom of speech portion) allows all of us to do this - of course there are exceptions like military bases, public restrooms, etc.

 

But that's not what the OP is talking about.

Now if you are making the chilling effect argument, then we have to be careful there. You don't want to lose your sight in stuff that may be just tangentially related because of the chilling effect. I am not so certain restricting peoplewalmart.com would affect the stuff you are talking about substantially.

 

Sure it is subjective, but so is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As a society, I think there is an expectation that a hotel room, a changing room, a bathroom, etc, that there is a certain expectation of privacy. I think that we'd typically agree that a the sales floor of a store is not such a place.

But his ban of posting anybody's picture without consent would fit my example. People profiting off of your image without consent is a different issue.

 

I think posting nude photos of someone without consent should indeed be a crime. The picture was intended to be private, and it should remain that way. I think the actions of the website and the individual should be illegal.

 

Yeah, but I think RR is more concerned with pictures of ordinary good folks in the public place being exploited on the Internet unbeknownst to them.

 

Don't want to sway off topic but if a person is found guilty (criminal trial), then it was based on ALL the jury members agreeing of the guilt. Not majority but unanimous. That is not subjective according to the folks who made the conclusion. Your original statement - "any place where YOU should expect privacy" is based on ONE person, not a collective.

 

It'd probably be best to start with the pron posted without consent and when you have a working system there, we can debate about expanding the idea. Of all pictures without consent, pron is obviously going to be the least protected as speech, incite the most objection, be enforceable with the least amount of interference in people's lives and livelihoods, and be the easiest to prove and get convictions on. If you passed a law like this on pornographic material and it didn't work, you'd have no hope of getting it to work anywhere else. So prove the concept there first.

 

Would you like me to revise my reasonable statement to include reasonably, because that is what I meant by you SHOULD?

 

Fair enough

 

My post was concerning Duncan McDonuts, who referenced an instance that had nothing to do with exploitation, see:

 

Yeah, that was an indefensible position on the face. But his exhibit A is clearly bounded. I think he was having a little fun over there. :grin:

 

I'm kind of feeling out my own thoughts on this, so bear with me.

If I tell you, in private, that I have a tail, should you go to jail/pay a fine/whatever if you tell someone else? I don't think so.

I don't know what the actual crime here is. Is it damaging someone's reputation? That isn't a crime either (read: in libertarianland, it's not a crime). Reputation is just a general consensus of others' opinions of you. And I certainly don't own other people's opinions of me. If someone changes them for the worse, I have no legal grounds against them (just as they have no legal ground against me if they want some financial reward for making others think better of me and therefore, let's say, make my private business more money).

So then are we saying there was a contract in place between the two parties and one party broke from the contract? If so, then I would say it's a crime. But I don't know enough about contract law to know if what they had could/should be considered a contract.

I would say it is definitely a crime if the guy stole a physical photograph and showed everyone. But outside of that scenario, it's not very clear cut.

 

Good points.
And to your contract point, certainly if I tell you a secret in confidence without any consideration in return from you and of course you told everybody the secret on the Internet, it should not be business of law to stop you from doing that. Law doesn't protect fools like me in that case.

However, my counter to your points though is that perhaps people should have a say when and where they want disclose pictures of naked body. We do own our bodies, do we? This is going towards the European school of thought on moral rights, sort of speak.

 

We do own our bodies. But we do not own the exclusive right to looking at our bodies.

I own my car, but I can't do anything about it if people are looking at my car, other than put my car in an enclosed space I also own.

 

Pretty good points.

As of now they aren't violating a law. My wife and I already have nude photos/video on the internet, so I'm not overly afraid of mine ever being released, but I understand people who don't want somebody jacking off to them. I'm in favor of creating a law to protect them. You do make me second guess that opinion though.

 

Yeah, cars and bodies ... a bit different

1) We all agree that one should not be stripped w/o any legal justifications, not least because there is no exclusive right to one's body. That may even be considered rape or sexual harassment. So there is such a right, at least in terms when and where to have one's body naked on one's will (within the confines of other laws of course, in case bong jump on this).

2) We probably all agree if you take a picture of me naked without my consent and post it on the Internet, that is some sort of crime, like invasion of privacy.

3) We probably all agree that if I post a picture of mine naked on the Internet without express restrictions for re-posting it, and you repost it, that is probably not a crime.

So where does this case lie though, to me it's closer to 1) and 2), than to 3).

 

Haven't been in a wal mart in years and after looking through the site you guys posted I may never enter one again