'Revenge porn' should be a crime

[freedombecki]

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

This is really terrible. She did wrong and he did wrong.

Mirror, mirror on the wall... who's the wrongest of them all?

 

[Politico]

So I'm going to be sued for saying something on Facebook that embarrasses someone ? Bring it on.

Not really. Pointing out someone picking their ass or nose in a pic doesn't mean you defamed them.

But that has no bearing on this situation.

 

[bianco]

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.

Write a law specifically protecting people from revenge porn.
A law specifically protecting people from having private naked photos posted on the internet without their consent.

It's easy to pass such a law.
I've heard of couples taking such photos "to preserve the woman's naked beauty for all time".
The innocent women [or men] must be protected from those out for revenge when relationships sour.

 

[bianco]

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

This is really terrible. She did wrong and he did wrong.

Mirror, mirror on the wall... who's the wrongest of them all?

In my book she did nothing wrong.
She was used and abused, and what was done to her should be a crime.

 

[dilloduck]

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

This is really terrible. She did wrong and he did wrong.

Mirror, mirror on the wall... who's the wrongest of them all?

In my book she did nothing wrong.
She was used and abused, and what was done to her should be a crime.

Her clothes accidently fell off while the camera was running ??

 

[dilloduck]

So I'm going to be sued for saying something on Facebook that embarrasses someone ? Bring it on.

Not really. Pointing out someone picking their ass or nose in a pic doesn't mean you defamed them.

But that has no bearing on this situation.

Of course it has bearing on this situation. We're talking about someone who FELT bad after someone embarrassed them on a social media page.

 

[BlueGin]

So I'm going to be sued for saying something on Facebook that embarrasses someone ? Bring it on.

Not really. Pointing out someone picking their ass or nose in a pic doesn't mean you defamed them.

But that has no bearing on this situation.

Of course it has bearing on this situation. We're talking about someone who FELT bad after someone embarrassed them on a social media page.

No we aren't. We are talking about someone who was sexually harassed and stalked by strangers after her ex boyfriend uploaded personal information and nude pictures of her on a revenge website.

 

[dilloduck]

Not really. Pointing out someone picking their ass or nose in a pic doesn't mean you defamed them.

But that has no bearing on this situation.

Of course it has bearing on this situation. We're talking about someone who FELT bad after someone embarrassed them on a social media page.

No we aren't. We are talking about someone who was sexually harassed and stalked by strangers after her ex boyfriend uploaded personal information and nude pictures of her on a revenge website.

So specifically what is it that you want to be made illegal ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Write a law specifically protecting people from revenge porn.
A law specifically protecting people from having private naked photos posted on the internet without their consent.

It's easy to pass such a law.
I've heard of couples taking such photos "to preserve the woman's naked beauty for all time".
The innocent women [or men] must be protected from those out for revenge when relationships sour.

Unfortunately.

But unlikely it would withstand a court challenge.

 

[bianco]

This is really terrible. She did wrong and he did wrong.

Mirror, mirror on the wall... who's the wrongest of them all?

In my book she did nothing wrong.
She was used and abused, and what was done to her should be a crime.

Her clothes accidently fell off while the camera was running ??

Love.

"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.

He should've given her the photos, or kept them [privately] for the memories.
He didn't.

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.

When she turned to law enforcement for help there should've been a special law covering exactly what happened.
There wasn't.
There must be, and the govt man should enact one, yesterday.

 

[Politico]

Not really. Pointing out someone picking their ass or nose in a pic doesn't mean you defamed them.

But that has no bearing on this situation.

Of course it has bearing on this situation. We're talking about someone who FELT bad after someone embarrassed them on a social media page.

No we aren't. We are talking about someone who was sexually harassed and stalked by strangers after her ex boyfriend uploaded personal information and nude pictures of her on a revenge website.

No. We're talking about why it is stupid to let people take nude pics of you

 

[BlueGin]

Of course it has bearing on this situation. We're talking about someone who FELT bad after someone embarrassed them on a social media page.

No we aren't. We are talking about someone who was sexually harassed and stalked by strangers after her ex boyfriend uploaded personal information and nude pictures of her on a revenge website.

No. We're talking about why it is stupid to let people take nude pics of you

No, that is the issue you have decided to take on. The thread is about a women working to end revenge porn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Perhaps women should just say "No tit pics until after we're married".

At least the pictures would be a jointly held asset…

 

[bianco]

There are ways...it's all a matter of the govt man and courts having some resolve.

Man jailed for posting nude photos of ex-girlfriend online | News.com.au


A 20-year-old man who posted nude photographs of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook was sentenced to six months' jail in a landmark legal case.
In the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history, Ravshan "Ronnie" Usmanov pleaded guilty to publishing an indecent article.

He was initially sentenced to six months' home detention, but on appeal the sentence was suspended, The Sun-Herald reported.

After demanding Usmanov take down the photos, the woman reported the incident to police.

According to the newspaper, Usmanov told police, "I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing [I had] to hurt her."

Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley said as she sentenced Usmanov that she was "deterring both the offender and the community generally from committing similar crimes."

#####

It's just a matter of whether or not Americans want to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by revengists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No we aren't. We are talking about someone who was sexually harassed and stalked by strangers after her ex boyfriend uploaded personal information and nude pictures of her on a revenge website.

No. We're talking about why it is stupid to let people take nude pics of you

No, that is the issue you have decided to take on. The thread is about a women working to end revenge porn.

Men can work to end revenge porn as well.

That they correctly disagree with criminalizing it doesn’t mean they’re not just as dedicated to achieving that goal.

 

[freedombecki]

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

This is really terrible. She did wrong and he did wrong.

Mirror, mirror on the wall... who's the wrongest of them all?

In my book she did nothing wrong.
She was used and abused, and what was done to her should be a crime.

In the book of Leviticus, it says you shall not uncover a woman's nakedness; it is depravity. In the book of Timothy it says a woman should be dressed in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Isaiah says that if your nakedness is uncovered, your disgrace shall be seen by the whole world. Leviticus says you shall not uncover a woman's nakedness whether she is brought up in your family or someone else's home.

She uncovered herself to get pleasure. She was not raped and did not cry out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There are ways...it's all a matter of the govt man and courts having some resolve.

Man jailed for posting nude photos of ex-girlfriend online | News.com.au


A 20-year-old man who posted nude photographs of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook was sentenced to six months' jail in a landmark legal case.
In the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history, Ravshan "Ronnie" Usmanov pleaded guilty to publishing an indecent article.

He was initially sentenced to six months' home detention, but on appeal the sentence was suspended, The Sun-Herald reported.

After demanding Usmanov take down the photos, the woman reported the incident to police.

According to the newspaper, Usmanov told police, "I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing [I had] to hurt her."

Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley said as she sentenced Usmanov that she was "deterring both the offender and the community generally from committing similar crimes."

#####

It's just a matter of whether or not Americans want to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by revengists.

Actually not.

It's matter of Americans finding ways to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by those seeking revenge that don’t violate the Constitution.

Telling how many perceive ‘banning’ and ‘outlawing’ as the only viable ‘solutions.’

 

[dilloduck]

There are ways...it's all a matter of the govt man and courts having some resolve.

Man jailed for posting nude photos of ex-girlfriend online | News.com.au


A 20-year-old man who posted nude photographs of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook was sentenced to six months' jail in a landmark legal case.
In the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history, Ravshan "Ronnie" Usmanov pleaded guilty to publishing an indecent article.

He was initially sentenced to six months' home detention, but on appeal the sentence was suspended, The Sun-Herald reported.

After demanding Usmanov take down the photos, the woman reported the incident to police.

According to the newspaper, Usmanov told police, "I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing [I had] to hurt her."

Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley said as she sentenced Usmanov that she was "deterring both the offender and the community generally from committing similar crimes."

#####

It's just a matter of whether or not Americans want to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by revengists.

Actually not.

It's matter of Americans finding ways to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by those seeking revenge that don’t violate the Constitution.

Telling how many perceive ‘banning’ and ‘outlawing’ as the only viable ‘solutions.’

Internet police---bring them on.. YUCK

 

[bianco]

Actually not.

It's matter of Americans finding ways to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by those seeking revenge that don’t violate the Constitution.

Telling how many perceive ‘banning’ and ‘outlawing’ as the only viable ‘solutions.’

What do you have in mind...'free speech'?

 

[dilloduck]

Actually not.

It's matter of Americans finding ways to protect their girls/women [and boys/men] from being hurt online by those seeking revenge that don’t violate the Constitution.

Telling how many perceive ‘banning’ and ‘outlawing’ as the only viable ‘solutions.’

What do you have in mind...'free speech'?

Honestly-----this is like telling a secret in a way. You feel betrayed if you entrust someone with something and they don't care for it the way you had hoped they would. Do you want some guarantee that life is risk free ? Some kind of punishment for blabbing?