Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can totally believe the highlighted portion.
*****************************************************************
(CNN) -- "Jane" allowed her ex-boyfriend to take her naked photograph because, he assured her, it would be for his eyes only. After their breakup, the man betrayed her trust.
On the revenge porn site UGotPosted, he uploaded her naked photo and contact information. Jane received calls, e-mails, and Facebook friend requests from hundreds of strangers, many of whom wanted sex.
After the site refused to take down the post and the anonymous calls and e-mails intensified, she turned to law enforcement. According to the officers, nothing could be done because her ex had not engaged in a harassing "course of conduct," as required by criminal harassment law, and because he had not explicitly solicited others to stalk her.
Criminal law should have a role in deterring and punishing revenge porn. It's not new that certain types of privacy invasions are crimes. Many states prohibit the nonconsensual taking of sexually explicit images -- the disclosure of someone's naked images should be criminalized as well.
But in all but one state, New Jersey, turning people into objects of pornography without their permission is legal. A single post, however, can go viral and ruin someone's life.
Revenge porn and its ilk raise the risk of offline stalking and physical attack. Fear can be profound. Victims don't feel safe leaving their homes. Jane, who is a nurse, did not go to work for days. As many victims have told me, they struggle especially with anxiety, and some suffer panic attacks. Revenge porn victims withdraw from online engagement, shutting down their social media profiles and blogs to prevent strangers from finding them online. They cannot participate fully in our networked age.
Opinion: Make 'revenge porn' a crime - CNN.com
"Jane" allowed her ex-boyfriend to take her naked photograph because, he assured her, it would be for his eyes only
Jane is an idiot. Bad things happen to dumb asses that agree to stupid things.
Remember to tell that to the next family of a crime victim that put themselves in a bad situation by trusting the wrong person at the wrong time.
Note to self: All crime victims are dumb asses.
I'm not sure it should be a crime. I'd have to think on that one.
I can totally believe the highlighted portion.
*****************************************************************
(CNN) -- "Jane" allowed her ex-boyfriend to take her naked photograph because, he assured her, it would be for his eyes only. After their breakup, the man betrayed her trust.
On the revenge porn site UGotPosted, he uploaded her naked photo and contact information. Jane received calls, e-mails, and Facebook friend requests from hundreds of strangers, many of whom wanted sex.
After the site refused to take down the post and the anonymous calls and e-mails intensified, she turned to law enforcement. According to the officers, nothing could be done because her ex had not engaged in a harassing "course of conduct," as required by criminal harassment law, and because he had not explicitly solicited others to stalk her.
Criminal law should have a role in deterring and punishing revenge porn. It's not new that certain types of privacy invasions are crimes. Many states prohibit the nonconsensual taking of sexually explicit images -- the disclosure of someone's naked images should be criminalized as well.
But in all but one state, New Jersey, turning people into objects of pornography without their permission is legal. A single post, however, can go viral and ruin someone's life.
Revenge porn and its ilk raise the risk of offline stalking and physical attack. Fear can be profound. Victims don't feel safe leaving their homes. Jane, who is a nurse, did not go to work for days. As many victims have told me, they struggle especially with anxiety, and some suffer panic attacks. Revenge porn victims withdraw from online engagement, shutting down their social media profiles and blogs to prevent strangers from finding them online. They cannot participate fully in our networked age.
Opinion: Make 'revenge porn' a crime - CNN.com
If you're tupid enough to let people take naked pics you deserbe what's you get.
Has anyone figured out why not letting strangers on line find you is a bad thing yet?
I'm not sure it should be a crime. I'd have to think on that one.
The image was uploaded to the internet without her permission, its a violation of her privacy, it should have been a crime.
I'm not sure it should be a crime. I'd have to think on that one.
The image was uploaded to the internet without her permission, its a violation of her privacy, it should have been a crime.
Her expectation of privacy disappeared when she consented to him taking the pictures. She apparently understood he had the capability to upload them onto the internet but relied on something less than a legally binding agreement such as a contract.
I understand the emotion behind this. If any scumbag did that to one of my daughters, I'd pay him a visit. However, it all boils down to her consent. She exercised poor judgment and there are consequences that come with that poor judgment. It's a harsh lesson-learned.
The reason I'm opposed to turning this into a crime is because it opens a Pandora's Box. If I take family pictures of our vacation at Disney World that includes people in the background who I don't know nor care to know, but because I posted it on facebook, does that make me liable for violating their privacy? It shouldn't. But if such a law was written with the intent to protect against revenge porn, it would open the door to silly lawsuits such as someone being inadvertently photographed while at a public place.
The image was uploaded to the internet without her permission, its a violation of her privacy, it should have been a crime.
Her expectation of privacy disappeared when she consented to him taking the pictures. She apparently understood he had the capability to upload them onto the internet but relied on something less than a legally binding agreement such as a contract.
I understand the emotion behind this. If any scumbag did that to one of my daughters, I'd pay him a visit. However, it all boils down to her consent. She exercised poor judgment and there are consequences that come with that poor judgment. It's a harsh lesson-learned.
The reason I'm opposed to turning this into a crime is because it opens a Pandora's Box. If I take family pictures of our vacation at Disney World that includes people in the background who I don't know nor care to know, but because I posted it on facebook, does that make me liable for violating their privacy? It shouldn't. But if such a law was written with the intent to protect against revenge porn, it would open the door to silly lawsuits such as someone being inadvertently photographed while at a public place.
Even worse---it opens the door to the entire issue of " you offended/embarrassed/hurt me so I'm suing you".
It doesn't need to be just a picture. You could simply post some deep dark secret or an outright lie to harm someone. A nude picture is merely one of many things that a very angry and vengeful person could do. Should all of it be illegal ?
Her expectation of privacy disappeared when she consented to him taking the pictures. She apparently understood he had the capability to upload them onto the internet but relied on something less than a legally binding agreement such as a contract.
I understand the emotion behind this. If any scumbag did that to one of my daughters, I'd pay him a visit. However, it all boils down to her consent. She exercised poor judgment and there are consequences that come with that poor judgment. It's a harsh lesson-learned.
The reason I'm opposed to turning this into a crime is because it opens a Pandora's Box. If I take family pictures of our vacation at Disney World that includes people in the background who I don't know nor care to know, but because I posted it on facebook, does that make me liable for violating their privacy? It shouldn't. But if such a law was written with the intent to protect against revenge porn, it would open the door to silly lawsuits such as someone being inadvertently photographed while at a public place.
Even worse---it opens the door to the entire issue of " you offended/embarrassed/hurt me so I'm suing you".
It doesn't need to be just a picture. You could simply post some deep dark secret or an outright lie to harm someone. A nude picture is merely one of many things that a very angry and vengeful person could do. Should all of it be illegal ?
You are confusing public and private. When you are out in public you are being watched by cameras that are taking video recordings while you are spilling coffee on your top and other everyday embarrassing things. None of them matter because there is no intent to harm you personally. The law requires intent to do harm before there can be any violation. So snapping someone in the background at Disneyworld picking their nose is not going to get you into trouble if you post it on Facebook unless you deliberately draw attention to it and identify the person involved with the specific intention of embarrassing them.
Even worse---it opens the door to the entire issue of " you offended/embarrassed/hurt me so I'm suing you".
It doesn't need to be just a picture. You could simply post some deep dark secret or an outright lie to harm someone. A nude picture is merely one of many things that a very angry and vengeful person could do. Should all of it be illegal ?
You are confusing public and private. When you are out in public you are being watched by cameras that are taking video recordings while you are spilling coffee on your top and other everyday embarrassing things. None of them matter because there is no intent to harm you personally. The law requires intent to do harm before there can be any violation. So snapping someone in the background at Disneyworld picking their nose is not going to get you into trouble if you post it on Facebook unless you deliberately draw attention to it and identify the person involved with the specific intention of embarrassing them.
So I'm going to be sued for saying something on Facebook that embarrasses someone ? Bring it on.
Libel and Slander
Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.
Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board.
You are confusing public and private. When you are out in public you are being watched by cameras that are taking video recordings while you are spilling coffee on your top and other everyday embarrassing things. None of them matter because there is no intent to harm you personally. The law requires intent to do harm before there can be any violation. So snapping someone in the background at Disneyworld picking their nose is not going to get you into trouble if you post it on Facebook unless you deliberately draw attention to it and identify the person involved with the specific intention of embarrassing them.
So I'm going to be sued for saying something on Facebook that embarrasses someone ? Bring it on.
If it reaches the legal definition of defamation then you might.
Libel and Slander legal definition of Libel and Slander. Libel and Slander synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Libel and Slander
Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.
Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board.
If you're tupid enough to let people take naked pics you deserbe what's you get.
You deserve to have your personal information uploaded to a revenge website? Where strangers are told to sexually harass and stalk you? And in one case in Texas...rape you?
although it is a hard lesson learned
there are consequences for your behaviors
Has anyone figured out why not letting strangers on line find you is a bad thing yet?
If you're tupid enough to let people take naked pics you deserbe what's you get.
You deserve to have your personal information uploaded to a revenge website? Where strangers are told to sexually harass and stalk you? And in one case in Texas...rape you?
although it is a hard lesson learned
there are consequences for your behaviors
And it's soon going to be a hard lesson learned for men who seek out revenge in this manner too.
Has anyone figured out why not letting strangers on line find you is a bad thing yet?
Let them find? Uh...the ex boyfriend supplied them with that information. The woman in question had nothing to do with it.
Has anyone figured out why not letting strangers on line find you is a bad thing yet?
There is no privacy on the internet because everything on it is open to the public at large. The best that anyone can hope for is not to embarrass themselves like Anthony Weiner did. But everyone who uses the internet leaves virtual footprints of themselves which makes it easy to trace them. Someone inadvertently used my email address to sign up for a website. That was all it took and I instantly could access everything there was to know about them on the internet. Where they lived, how old they were, how many kids, where they had their car serviced, etc, etc. One little mistake is all it takes. I sent them a heads up to be more careful in future. The internet contains information on all of us and there is no such thing as an "unlisted number". So to get back to your point "strangers on line" can find out everything they want to find about us whether we like it or not. All we can do is be circumspect in what we share.
So I'm going to be sued for saying something on Facebook that embarrasses someone ? Bring it on.
If it reaches the legal definition of defamation then you might.
Libel and Slander legal definition of Libel and Slander. Libel and Slander synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Libel and Slander
Two torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity such as a corporation. Libel is any Defamation that can be seen, such as a writing, printing, effigy, movie, or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard.
Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence; or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity. The injury to one's good name or reputation is affected through written or spoken words or visual images. The laws governing these torts are identical.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.
Defamatory matter is published when it is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. This can be done in several different ways. The defendant might loudly accuse the plaintiff of something in a public place where others are present, or make defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a newsletter or an on-line bulletin board.
No problem---I can easily embarrass people just by telling the truth about them.
Jane Doe has a wart on her tit.------Is Jane going to sue me ?
Has anyone figured out why not letting strangers on line find you is a bad thing yet?
There is no privacy on the internet because everything on it is open to the public at large. The best that anyone can hope for is not to embarrass themselves like Anthony Weiner did. But everyone who uses the internet leaves virtual footprints of themselves which makes it easy to trace them. Someone inadvertently used my email address to sign up for a website. That was all it took and I instantly could access everything there was to know about them on the internet. Where they lived, how old they were, how many kids, where they had their car serviced, etc, etc. One little mistake is all it takes. I sent them a heads up to be more careful in future. The internet contains information on all of us and there is no such thing as an "unlisted number". So to get back to your point "strangers on line" can find out everything they want to find about us whether we like it or not. All we can do is be circumspect in what we share.
Exactly. There are some search engines available that if you type your name in and do a search... it will come up with your address, phone number,email address and directions to your house (complete with satellite pics of your neighborhood). And for an extra fee they will offer up your legal and medical records. Apparently some people think they are safe from "strangers" just because the don't hand out selfies.
If it reaches the legal definition of defamation then you might.
Libel and Slander legal definition of Libel and Slander. Libel and Slander synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
No problem---I can easily embarrass people just by telling the truth about them.
Jane Doe has a wart on her tit.------Is Jane going to sue me ?
So apparently you would be one of the reasons sites that deal in revenge porn exist then ?
There is no privacy on the internet because everything on it is open to the public at large. The best that anyone can hope for is not to embarrass themselves like Anthony Weiner did. But everyone who uses the internet leaves virtual footprints of themselves which makes it easy to trace them. Someone inadvertently used my email address to sign up for a website. That was all it took and I instantly could access everything there was to know about them on the internet. Where they lived, how old they were, how many kids, where they had their car serviced, etc, etc. One little mistake is all it takes. I sent them a heads up to be more careful in future. The internet contains information on all of us and there is no such thing as an "unlisted number". So to get back to your point "strangers on line" can find out everything they want to find about us whether we like it or not. All we can do is be circumspect in what we share.
Exactly. There are some search engines available that if you type your name in and do a search... it will come up with your address, phone number,email address and directions to your house (complete with satellite pics of your neighborhood). And for an extra fee they will offer up your legal and medical records. Apparently some people think they are safe from "strangers" just because the don't hand out selfies.
There is no such thing as security. You don't get to hide away in your little corner of the world anymore. Assholes can find you anywhere.
