Skip to main content

Posted without permission after making it rain!
Oh Internets, must you be always be so terrible? I mean yes you do provide endless hours of entertainment with things like White House petitions to stop Ben Affleck from being Batmanbut for each single gem that makes me smile online, there are five other things that make me want to projectile vomit. Which brings us to today's subject: revenge porn.

For the uninitiated, and for those with a shred of human decency, revenge porn is difficult to wrap your head around. It starts like this: you're lucky enough to get your partner to allow you to take illicit pics/videos of her, or she sends you them herself. Yay, everyone is having a good time. Later on, the relationship goes south, and rather than being an adult and simply going about your business, you decide to post these images online at a "revenge porn" site like Ugotposted.com (no working links here, as sending incoming traffic to these sites is like setting up tiny prayer wheels to Satan). But the pictures are just the beginning:  users of these sites, wanting to consign their victims to more than just embarrassment, also attach identifying information to these images, up to and including the subject's name, city, links to social networking sites, and sometimes even home address. Because what's a little slut-shaming without the element of physical danger?

Unfortunately, the justice system has been slow to respond to this specific kind of cyber-harassment. Despite leaving victims open to in-person as well as online harassment, ridicule, stalking, and perhaps even sexual assault, as well as  jeopardizing their ability to find gainful employment, only New Jersey, Florida, and now California have bills or laws criminalizing so called "revenge porn."  From the Huffington Post on California's current bill:

The bill was inspired by the death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year old student from Saratoga, Calif. who committed suicide after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a trio of teenage boys while passed out a party. Before Pott's tragic death, graphic photos of the incident were circulated around her high school.
These laws seem destined to get tested in higher courts on First Amendment grounds. The thing is, while legislatures try to play catch up in the digital age, people are beginning to take matters into their own hands in both legal and non-legal means. Earlier this year, a group of 23 women sued the website Texxxas.com and GoDaddy.com for violating their privacy by posting naked picture of them without their consent. On the flip side, speaking of without consent, the hacker group Anonymous has officially declared war on Hunter Moore. Hunter Moore is the man who popularized Revenge porn on his site "Is anyone up" by posting pictures and personal info on his site of a former girlfriend after she supposedly hurt his fee-fees really bad. The poor baby. I suppose I should feel bad that Anonymous hacked all of his sites, posted personal information online like his social security number and user passwords but then I remember this is the man who famously said "Yo, I can make money off of titties and fucking people over." So Hack on Anonymous. Hack on. It got me thinking though. What we need is more legal means to combat this stuff.

We'll call this the Sloan Sabbith Law. Sloan Sabbith, for those of you who don't watch HBO's The Newsroom is a financial reporter played by Olivia Munn. Recently, her character got caught up in a revenge porn storyline. The usual stuff. Naked pictures used by a former boyfriend specifically to get back at her for a break-up or other imagined slight. Sloan, after wallowing in shame for most of the episode, finally figures out a way to make herself feel better.

http://www.youtube.com/...

The thing about freedom of speech and the First amendment is like many other rights, they are not absolute. Yes you can say virtually anything, but you know (or at least you should) that you can still become a social pariah because of that speech. You could lose you job if you say the wrong thing. And what's so aggravating about the whole revenge porn phenomenon is that these people can just blithely try to ruin someone else's reputation and livelihood all from within the comfortable confines of internet anonymity. So the way Sloan Sabbith Law works is if you are a victim of revenge porn, you're allowed two free shots at your tormentor. These shots are completely absolved from criminal and civil liability. Then you are allowed to post these images online at a site called Fuckthesedouchebags.org, with your story of the ordeal complete with your ex's own personal information and links to their social media profiles. Now neither I nor anyone associated with the Non Blogosphere would advocate violence, of course. However, we will advocate that the Sloan's Law be followed exactly, and this whole revenge porn thing may just sort itself out.

Originally posted to The Non Blogosphere on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 09:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is horrible, but... (5+ / 0-)

    wouldn't this fall under child pornography laws without new laws?

    For those above the age of majority, why can't many of these cases be handled within the confines of existing harassment law?

    I don't want to come off as trying to excuse or support 'revenge porn', but I'm worried about a slew of unintended consequences coming from new laws on this subject. Generally, the person who took a photograph owns it and has the rights to distribute it. Could these new laws be used to, for example, restrict the distribution of pictures of police behaving illegally?

    If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they should be responsible for the consequences. Likewise if someone post harassing photos on a porn site, it's fair game to dox them on a douchebag site.

    •  Perhaps (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redwagon, doingbusinessas

      but that depends on how the laws are written in each state. What I'm talking about are photographs and videos of people engaged I sexual acts or just plain nudity.  

      Besides there are already laws in several states that make it illegal to record the police which is about as wrong as it gets but unless the police in question are naked on the streets, I don't see how pics of them behaving badly in the course of their job would be subject to these laws.

      •  I am not sure how we got here but, the SCOTUS (5+ / 0-)

        has plainly said that police in public discharging their duties have no reasonable expectation of privacy and that citizens not only have a right to record them (audio and video) but, police should not attempt to harass citizens engaged in this activity.

      •  adding a link to the reply above (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Debby, llywrch

        Massconfusion mentioned that laws against recording police officers were struck down.

        I just wanted to add a voice in agreement -- and include a link.

        This Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison. In most states, like NY, only one person needs to consent, so the consent of the person who is recording it is enough to make it legal.

        Many states, however, including Illinois, have “all-party consent” law, which means all parties to a conversation must agree to being recorded before recording it can be done. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them. Since police do not have an expectation of privacy while they are doing their work on the public street, video or audio recording of a police officers would not be banned.

        Just a FYI.
    •  It seems to me there basically needs to be one (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chantedor, Wednesday Bizzare, llywrch

      standard, irregardless of how "sexy" a picture is. People, after all, have similar problems when they are photographed intoxicated and such, or taking illegal drugs. The introduction of money into the equation does add problems, especially over the issue of blackmail though. Generally, while dual consent for the release of privately taken images is nice idea, and something which decent folks would agree is only the decent thing to do when the pictures involve sexual content, like the poster above, unless the law is written to say "And this only applies to pictures involved sexytimes, t.m." it will immediately begin to be abused. And if it is written to say "this only applies to sexytimes" well, it'd be more justifiable, but that raises questions of its own.

    •  I disagree with your last paragraph... (7+ / 0-)

      Having your photo taken at a public event is entirely different from a private, intimate setting, where if people are engaging in intimate behavior, they are doing so with a reasonable expectation of some privacy. That needs to be respected by people.

      Now, if a police officer is acting abusively in his duties, that's public activity. Hell, if someone records me staggering down the street, acting like a fool after a night of drinking, well, that's public activity too. If a woman flashes a crowd in public, and people take pictures... public activity (but be nice)...

    •  A consenting adult--shouldn't have to worry about (9+ / 0-)

      losing their job or the ability to be seen in public because they were unable to detect a hint of sociopath in a previous sex partner.

      In a perfect world ex-lovers would never do such a thing. But sadly, you have to wonder how many of these people of age, even knew they were being filmed?

      If someone told me that they did this to another human being, even one I thought was a bad human, it would be grounds to not be friends anymore. How could you trust them to not find a way to do that to you? Or someone else? Or do something equally humiliating and demoralizing?

      Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

      by GreenMother on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 02:19:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wednesday is a Creep (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Cream Puff

      >If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they ?>should be responsible for the consequences. L

      Let's pretend that this does not happen exclusively to women. Wednesday, you are a total complete creep.

      >If an adult posts adult pictures not of a classic public figure that person should be responsible for the consequences. These consequences should include very high levels of fines.  If the information is linked to data enabling or exhorting theft assault, then jail time is possible. Such data includes: unique identifiers, Social Security number, address, physical location.

      There, I fixed it for you.

      You odious douche-bro.

      •  Personal attack not cool. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        martydd, churchylafemme

        Although I agree with your content, name calling is unwelcome.

        You're gonna need a bigger boat.

        by Debby on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:46:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wish Creampuff would withdraw the HR. (0+ / 0-)

          I realize calling names is HR worthy.  However, for all we know, the person is dealing with the emotional trauma of this having happened to him or her, and I can easily understand someone losing it after reading a comment suggesting that it's reasonable for these pictures to be posted and used in such a terrible way.

          Rules and rules, but just as we don't want the government to blindly enforce all rules, the rules  of this site shouldn't be blindly enforced either.

          •  I can't divine (0+ / 0-)

            personal history trauma, only the content of comments.

            I don't agree that the original comment suggested "it's reasonable for these picture to be posted and used in such a terrible way."

            Questions about unintended consequences and duplication of statutes are relevant.  I hate it when people who post thoughtful if somewhat contrarian viewpoints get dumped on like this.  The sub-threads they generate can be much more enlightening than a hundred pilings-on of how bad revenge porn is.

            I understand your point about rule interpretation and I don't blindly shoot donuts at all insults.  I felt compelled to do it here because I feel reasoned debate should be encouraged on this site, and that comment was suppressing it.

            First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

            by Cream Puff on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:38:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Did you miss this part? (0+ / 0-)
        why can't many of these cases be handled within the confines of existing harassment law?
        You responded with personal insults to a thoughtful presentation of an likely unpopular viewpoint about unintended consequences .

        However strongly you feel about revenge porn, you clearly deserve a donut for this.

        First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

        by Cream Puff on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 10:59:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Homegrown Pr0n has exploded over the past few (0+ / 0-)

      years due to the advent of smartphones.

      I don't know about ya'll but i think legislators generally suck at regulating stuff on the internet. Sites that openly encourage stalking and harassment are one thing, but trading sexy pix.......

      I mean, we've already seen child porn laws used to turn horny, sexually experimenting teenagers into Registered Sex Offenders.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 09:19:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't quite the case (3+ / 0-)
      I don't want to come off as trying to excuse or support 'revenge porn', but I'm worried about a slew of unintended consequences coming from new laws on this subject. Generally, the person who took a photograph owns it and has the rights to distribute it.
      It isn't nearly this straightforward. There are a thousand little wrinkles.

      If you take a picture of me in a public space (or ... depending on circumstances, maybe in a private space also), the photograph is yours, copyright you. However, your publishing that photograph, whether commercially or non-commercially, opens you up to liability. This is why we have model release forms, although if you trust one another, a verbal agreement is also binding.

      If you publish a photo that causes provable damage to me, then even if you have a release form, you can be sued over it. (Unless the release has a 'hold harmless' clause, in which case one would be ill-advised to sign it.)

      Think about it: if the rule really were 'if you took the picture in a public place (or in a private space with consent) you can do whatever you like with it' then how would sports figures be able to stop companies from publishing their likenesses on the Wheaties box without their consent?

      Now, pictures related to news (newspapers, magazines, etc) have a lot more latitude than do other publishing venues. Likewise, public figures have much less protection from having their images poached. There're a LOT of ambiguity here, and several different tests used by courts. But it's nowhere near as straightforward as you make it out to be, and your rule ('If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they should be responsible for the consequences.') would be a very damaging rule, and in general most damaging to those with the least power.

  •  Consent for private use of a photo is (19+ / 0-)

    not consent for publication of those photos.  Please do not blame the victim.

    If a consenting adult allows their picture to be taken, they should be responsible for the consequences.
    Moreover, there have been many instances where a girl/woman has been raped and never consented to photographs of that act at all.

    Socialist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    by Kimbeaux on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 09:59:47 AM PDT

    •  Did they sign a release form? no? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimbeaux

      Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

      by GreenMother on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 02:19:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  now that gives me an idea (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexandra Lynch, ogre

        Think about it, the whole point of contracts (and the law in general) is to make trust a non-issue by formalizing rights and responsibilities as well as to equalize and depersonalize retaliation for wrongs.

        You could have "adult" stores selling boilerplate consent forms for a variety of common sexual activities to be signed and notarized ... and specialized sex lawyers for anything more specific or uncommon.  The signatories are allowed to do with/to each other whatever is spelled out on the form.  If either one doesn't comply or properly withdraw per the terms of the contract, their ass gets sued.

        Even the most conservative judge would have a hard time pooh-pooing "breach of contract".

        •  Yea, but a lot of people, myself included, (3+ / 0-)

          when I was a single person, wouldn't want to sign all that crap.

          We can't even get girls to take and use condoms and other forms of BC on them, because they think that preparation makes them a slut.

          Imagine how this will be rejected.

          I would rather that, without a release form, that it is default setting that sexual conduct is not to be filmed for public viewing.

          Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

          by GreenMother on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:43:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why am I not able to rec this comment? Would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kimbeaux

      if I could.  I found that statement more than a little disgusting.

      •  Thanks. It's likely you've missed the (0+ / 0-)

        window for reccing--I think it's 24 hours for a comment and 7 days for a diary.  

        Of course, when I can't rec a number of comments, I usually find I'm not logged in.  Duh.

        Socialist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        by Kimbeaux on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 02:23:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is really terrible stuff.... (14+ / 0-)

    Sex is a personal and private act. You owe your partner the privacy level they expect, and it is such a low and miserable thing to violate someone like that. Your partner cheats on you, or doesn't like you no more, take it like a big boy or girl, and move on.... We've seen some of the awful consequences these things have had with people committing suicide.

    Maybe there is no legal way to stop this. But we should start treating victims of this stuff like actual victims. Remove the stigma and shame. Have counseling services to people who are distraught over it. Regard the perpetrators as the scumbags they are.

    •  A Nice Thought But... (7+ / 0-)

      Some people are jerks. Both men and women. Emotionally out of control and hell bent on hurting the person they feel hurt them. It's a sickness of the mind in these people and I wonder if any of them can even be reasoned with once they have such a sense of entitlement that they feel the need to lash out in any way they can.

      The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

      by The Lone Apple on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 01:05:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People commit suicide (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      churchylafemme

      when cheated on also. But yet you mock those feelings. I guess I don't get that. People clearly aren't in complete control of their feelings or their reactions to them.  Why dismiss one side as not being "big boy or girl"? Either" feelings" are something to respect or not.

      Money doesn't talk it swears.

      by Coss on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 10:29:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Control and management (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SixSixSix, Carol in San Antonio

        of one's emotions is a big part of being an adult and a member of society.  I'd agree that mocking someone simply for having hurt feelings is not nice, but when it makes them do horrible things, I'd say the mockery is deserved.

        First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

        by Cream Puff on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:05:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I intended those comments towards the people... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cream Puff, Carol in San Antonio

          Who post private material of an ex-partner without their consent. Those people need to grow up and learn how to deal with rejection and pain like adults. I wasn't trying to make fun of those who have been hurt in general.

          Just these specific creeps who respond to bad break-ups or anger and pain by violating the privacy and intimacy of their exes. It's not cool.

          •  But by the same token (0+ / 0-)

            I could argue that the person whose nud  photo is posted on line needs to grow up and get over it.

            I wouldn't say that, but that's because the point I'm making is that it's easy to tell someone else to just get over things that are emotionally difficult to get over. If it were that easy, we wouldn't be here worrying about the hurt the person whose nude photos were posted on line is experiencing.

            You are right that this form of revenge is not cool. Its awful. But given human emotions are involved, it's wholly predictable that it will occur.

            Money doesn't talk it swears.

            by Coss on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:45:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Except that those photos and videos.... (4+ / 0-)

              Are going to be publicly displayed, and often associated with a real name that can cause all kinds of problems in terms of getting hired, or making new relationships, etc. And it's a pretty blatant form of sexual harassment. If someone were to walk up to an ex in public and pull their pants and underwear down in front of a crowd of people, it would likely be considered a form of sexual assault. Given the 1st Amendment protection of intellectual property, which probably includes photos you've taken, it probably isn't feasible to prosecute it the same way, but the effects can be even worse.

              There is a social stigma with this kind of revenge porn that doesn't really exist with the hurt feelings that come with a break-up.

              •  Again, I agree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SixSixSix

                But when one person messes with the trust of another, bets tend to be off. You can't really expect someone you violated the trust of by breaking off a relationship to care much about the trust that was assumed based on the relationship.

                I can't stress enough that people need to stop sending nude photos to others, particularly with a face in the shot. It shocks me that people are so shortsighted.

                And even beyond the nude pics, I'm certain that countless jilted lovers have posted all sorts of humiliating and embarrassing things about their exes, which can be just as hurtful to some, if not more so.

                In the Internet age, I'm just not sure how this can be avoided. You can't really outlaw hurt.

                Anyway, good discussion, I appreciate your responses!

                Money doesn't talk it swears.

                by Coss on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:59:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know we're on the same page here... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Coss

                  Personally, I have an extreme aversion to being photographed in general, let alone in any compromising situations. Hell, I have friends that have posted photos on facebook or instagram with what is clearly cocaine on a table next to them. It's crazy...

                  I'm only 31, but the generation behind me, the younger folks, their entire concept of privacy and discretion is different than mine. I hope they don't regret it. And I hope they don't take advantage of each other either, and disrespect each others privacy.

      •  I am not minimizing hard break-ups or cheating... (3+ / 0-)

        A hard break-up or being made a cuckold really can suck. But it's a part of life for most people. Unless you're exceptionally lucky, you are almost certain to have your heart-broken at some point in your life. I am not saying people can't be devastated by it, but generally, people should and do try to move on.

        Having intimate, personal photos or videos of you taken privately by a partner and then posted publicly for people to jerk off to and ridicule is not a normal part of life for most people. No matter how badly you feel betrayed by a partner, that does not give you an excuse to publicly violate someone like that.

        •  We don't disagree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SixSixSix

          But I can't see this going away until people stop sending nude photos to their significant others. I guarantee humans aren't going to stop acting petty and insane when they lose in love.

          Money doesn't talk it swears.

          by Coss on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:47:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  There's one thing lacking in these responses. (9+ / 0-)

    (And I already know people are going to bash me for being uncivilized. I can take it.)

    These goons who brutalize a girl and post pictures of her on the Internet know that there will almost certainly be little or no retribution. The law coddles them. Their parents, school administration, etc shield them. What they might get will be relatively light and will be years in the making. Goons think in the here and now, not about ramifications six months or six years down the road.

    If they knew that the parents, brothers, or friends of the girl they victimized were sure to exact justice (or vengeance, if you will) on them directly, without waiting for years of legal wrangling and courtroom tap-dancing, they would be less likely to do the things they do. "Man, if we touch that girl, you know her mom (dad, sisters, brothers, etc) will kill us all" is a great deterrent -- if they knew they were speaking literally and not figuratively.

    Call it what you will, decry it as you like. If Audrie Potts were my daughter, those three little shits would already be dead, and the next bunch who felt like going over that line might think twice for fear that the same thing might happen to them.

    Pictures of naked ex-girl/boyfriends posted to get someone back obviously does not fall under this extreme, and admittedly outside the law, standard. But rape, aggravated sexual assault, torture, murder ... they are answerable not only to the law, but to the people who love and cherish the person targeted for brutalization.

    •  I won't bash you for it. Anyone with children has (11+ / 0-)

      these thoughts, even if they decide not to act on them.

      I hope though, first of all, that it never happens to your daughter.

      We need to teach males how not to rape and make that part of the honor code that denotes manhood.

      if she didn't consent, then it's no
      If she said no, then it's no.
      If she was unable to respond, then it's default NO.

      Rape is soul theft.
      And it ruins her life and when the rapist is caught, his too.

      Safe, sane and consensual should be the motto with the emphasis on consent!

      Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

      by GreenMother on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 02:25:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed to all of the above. (4+ / 0-)

        The default is ALWAYS "no" until she says definitively "yes." And that "yes" can be taken away in favor of "no" at any time.

        I would add that any daughter of mine would be taught self-defense to as far as practically possible. Ideally, every woman above the age of eight should have martial arts training as high as she can go given her age and condition, so she can dismantle Johnny BrutalDick without difficulty. Rape is, in many instances, an extreme form of bullying, and if you break a bully's face and put him in the ICU, not only will he leave you (or your daughter) alone 99 times out of 100, but he will think twice about trying it with another woman.

        •  I assume by self defense you mean something like (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Black Max

          Krav Maga (the law enforcement version that relies on mostly less than lethal takedowns rather than the original which relies on snapping the guy's neck or shoving his nose into his brain as a "finishing move") and not Judo or Karate.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 08:55:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no interest in having them learn (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Throw The Bums Out, llywrch

            only "disabling" or "discouraging" moves. I'm a bit savage on the topic, admittedly, but to my mind, when Frat Boy Johnny tries to rape that girl, she is quite within her rights to kill him. It's up to her to decide how far she ought to go (and it's worth keeping in mind the legal ramifications and her own moral and ethical positions), but for me, he deserves to die and die hard. Her choice whether to merely disable or subdue him or to send him to hell.

            •  Well the original Krav Maga was all lethal (0+ / 0-)

              moves as it was designed for the Jewish ghettos and if you didn't make sure and kill your attacker(s) then they would just come back and get you while you were sleeping.  Didn't matter if they were fleeing at the time, you still had to chase them down and finish them.

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 11:23:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  With respect to both of you, self defense is (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ticorules, Debby, llywrch

                important, but learning to think on one's feet is also very important. Rape isn't always premised by some guy beating you up.

                Sometimes the threat is implied, but hair-raising. Sometimes someone puts something in your drink.

                Sometimes there is more than one assailant.

                Discussion rape with men is like discussion stranger danger with moms. There are lots of stereotypes about how these situations occur, that are only sometimes true.

                Teaching your daughter not to be self effacing and nice to someone who gives her the creeps is a big first step. Women can be cornered in bad situations, because they feel the need to be polite and not be a "bitch".

                Teaching your daughter how to say no, not just to sex, but to getting in a car and going somewhere, to a date, or any sort of invitation.

                Teaching her not to take drinks from new people or to leave her drink unattended.

                Teach her to watch and observe people. Teach her to detect strangeness.

                None of this is 100 percent. Many predators have learned to lie convincingly and to appear harmless. That is why it is so very very important for her to listen to her instincts. A lot of times women will have some inkling that something isn't right, but they ignore it, because they don't want to be rude or appear as a "bitch". They want to be nice and to be perceived as nice. And so they let someone in the door of their house, they walk down the street with someone, or help someone into their car [think Ted Bundy] or have a drink with someone to be nice.

                A lot of these assaults occur with people the target knows, and not just date rape either. So don't get caught up on the creep in the trench coat motif. That can happen, but that is only one avenue and not the most likely.

                Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

                by GreenMother on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 05:38:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  This has to be one of the schmarmiest aspects of (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ticorules, ban48, Bensdad, Mistral Wind

    "Little Brother." Meaning the camera-fication and subsequent virulence of images that flow constantly with rumors, fact, and unwanted truths.

    I don't need to know every little thing about everyone. And I make it a point to turn away from what appears to be nasty posts about people that look more like rumors or gossip or mean and nasty anything.

    I wish more people would do that. It would make the internet a lot more civilized.

    Gentlemen, congratulations. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training (Zed, MIB).

    by GreenMother on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 02:28:48 PM PDT

  •  Your title doesn't make sense to me: (0+ / 0-)

    "Revenge Porn: Why we Can't Have Nice Things"

    Is revenge porn the good thing we can't have anymore?

    The rules to monopoly are fair and apply equally to all. So what is your problem with joining a game-in-progress where all the properties are bought and the bank is empty...???

    by ban48 on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 05:28:27 PM PDT

  •  Uh-oh. (0+ / 0-)

    I totally want to see some of this bad stuff now. I didn't before the diary.

    By the way, that will be me posing in the Hanes tighty whities. That was really stupid on my part, but it could have been worse.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 06:35:45 PM PDT

  •  Sadly, I think this is a difficult issue (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking, Ticorules

    I feel terrible for saying this, but while revenge porn is wrong, I unfortunately think the first amendment is so broad that it still protects much (though not all*!) of it.

    I of course deplore anyone who would host these sites -- and think we should use our first amendment rights to shut these sites down by going after sites like Go Daddy, etc. very publicly.

    However, the first amendment, while not all powerful, is very powerful indeed. It takes a very compelling public interest to place bans on free speech and while I'm no lawyer, I'm not sure revenge porn alone does that.

    I hope it does that! I want it to do that! I'm just not sure it does.

    To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to cleaning the first amendment for issues like this. Why can't we ban hate speech, groups like the KKK and things like revenge porn? Most Americans think we should allow hate-filled organizations and speech to exist, but I lean a little more toward Western Europe on these issues.

    Germany has done very well banning hate groups, ensuring it doesn't return to its past. Does it make Germany any less "free?" No. I'd argue it enhances freedom -- so I think there's something to learn there.

    *I use an asterisk because this is a complicated issue when it comes to first amendment rights. Some things could be legal in certain situations, while illegal in others. For example, we could all agree if photos were leaked  from a source that the leaker didn't own -- ie the leaker got their hands on the victim's phone or computer which had the pictures on it or phished their photo cloud's password -- it would be a violation of the law. Ditto if the pictures were taken without consent, or if the photos were of minors, etc.  

    No doubt there's a litany of other examples. I'm just not sure if that applies to all or even most cases.

    For example, say person X texted their photos to person Y. Person Y is known to own a blog or tumblr and therefore is a 'citizen journalist' as we bloggers/diarists/commenters would define. Can it really be argued that person Y didn't have the legal right to post them?

    Or, rather, how strongly can that be argued?  Even if that act of revenge is an abominably horrific thing to do?

    I think there's legal gray there, which isn't me defending 'revenge porn,' but rather me saying I think we're encumbered by a first amendment that isn't as perfect as a lot of us may think or have been taught as kids in school.

    I dearly hope I'm wrong, though. Revenge porn should be shut down, but until we know if it can be shuttered in all cases through legal means, we best be using our 1st amendment rights to go after the revenge porn site owners, by eliminating hosts, ICANN servicers and other 'safe harbors' that allow them to stay on the internet.

    In the end, we may be able to shut down revenge porn sites faster that way than the courts could, using the 1st amendment itself against those who would abuse it.

    •  Germany is a *terrible* example. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, Cream Puff

      Germany has the most thorough censorship regime in the European Union. This is the country that orders video game developers to make blood either green or non-existent and prosecuted a guy for teaching his dog to Nazi salute. Post-War DeNazification is one thing, but their continued criminalization of Third Reich symbols and Holocaust denial hasn't stopped their Far-Right from embracing either because suppressing speech never works, no matter how well-intentioned. (duh)

      Did I mention that Left 4 Dead 2 and the Dead Rising series are banned from sale in Germany pfffft bahahaha

      Less funny tidbit: its also against Section 90 of the criminal code to "defame" "the President of the Federation" or "the state and its symbols". Yikes. We sure wouldn't want that sort of thing over here...

      So to answer your question, hell yeah it makes Germany a little less free.

      "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

      by TheHalfrican on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 09:41:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Alright, France. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Liberal Thinking

        Or the UK. So on and so forth.

        You can fix in on some minute parts of my argument, but my greater point remains: part of the problem when it comes to stopping things like this in the legal arena is the first amendment.

        Short of reforming the first amendment, I'm not sure how much success we can have shutting down things like these sites through the courts.

    •  The challenge for any of these state laws... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ryepower12

      Is going to be getting around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And there is actually not a lot of grey area here. For the site hosts, like godady and what not, Section 230 absolutely absolves them from liability (there is at least one court, in Texas of all places, that denied a motion to dismiss under Section 230, but it provided no explanation and the decision will likely be overturned on appeal).  And for the revenge porn sites, Section 230 probably protects them as well.  For comparison purposes, I can go to yelp and post a review that is absolutely libelous of a small business, and while I could be liable for libel (hah) yelp is absolutely immune under Section 230 (as has played out, repeatedly, in various yelp based litigation). Basically the state laws only provide an option to go after the schmucks posting this crap. The other options are off the table and any attempt at regulation would be pre-empted by Section 230.  Clearly Section 230 needs amendment, but good luck with that in this political environment.

      And Ryepower, be careful what you wish for.  Imagine a world where we have relaxed the First Amendment for so-called hate speech.  But what is hate speech? Think about the McCarthy era, the protests against the Vietnam and even the Iraq war.... is it really hard to imagine a world where some military industrial complex crazy or right wing loon turns legit anti-war or anti-government action protests into unprotected "hate speech" and finds a court to sign off on it under the relaxed first amendment protections? I don't think it is.  We tolerate the few making vile statements not because we recognize it as legitimate or even valid, but because we know that if we allow government to squelch speech that WE don't like, its oh-so easy for others to turn those laws on their head and use them to squelch legitimate protests or speech under the same banner. Basically you have to take the bad to have all of the good. Democracy and freedom of speech aren't always pretty, they are often quite ugly, but you take the bad so you can have the good (resisting the urge to break out the Facts of Life them song).  

      •  I'm cognizant (0+ / 0-)

        That any changes can be fraught with unintended consequences, but I have to think we could create a reform that was specific enough to avoid the consequences you listed.

        It's all moot anyway. There's no way in hell the first amendment would ever be reformed and I wouldn't be the first to try it. I just think it's helpful to point out that it isn't as perfect as we were taught as kids in school.

        Thanks for the info on Section 230 -- while I had the suspicion that these were basically the way things worked, it's great to know the statue and specifics.

  •  Revenge isn't terribly rationale (0+ / 0-)

    I don't know how you're going to legislate something like this. If you don't want your fee fees hurt (your term) by having your friends and family see embarrassing photos of you, you probably shouldn't hurt the fee fees of someone who has nude photos of you in their possession.

    I'm with you in spirit on this, I really just don't care for the tone of your diary. I really doubt you'd be terribly angry if a woman posted nude pics of a dude who cheated on her. .

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Mon Sep 02, 2013 at 10:11:54 PM PDT

    •  Honestly, (6+ / 0-)

      whether its a man or woman posting the pics, it's a pretty shitty thing to do. But the attaching of names, cities, social media links, and sometimes addresses is the serious problem.

      Also I'm not sure how one can never hurt the feelings of someone else. It's purely subjective. You can hurt someone feelings by 100 different ways or they can just use some imagined slight as the reason they post your pics online.

      •  It's completely shitty (0+ / 0-)

        Which is exactly the reason the person seeking revenge does it. If we could stop people from doing insane things when their feelings are hurt, we'd have a whole different sort of world. Some people go shoot up movie theaters; others just forgive and forget. Most people are somewhere in the middle when it comes to dealing with hurt emotions.

        Money doesn't talk it swears.

        by Coss on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:45:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I would be (5+ / 0-)

      Terribly angry if a woman posted nude pics of a dude who cheated on her. And I'm a woman. But contrary to some myths, not all women think it's fine and dandy for women to abuse men. Basically, I get angry whenever people abuse other people's trust.

      •  If a guy lied to and violated the trust (0+ / 0-)

        of a woman who he had posed nude for, he'd be a fool to trust that she wouldn't turn around and violate his trust by trying to embarrass him with the photos.

        The revenge itself is the result of an abuse of trust.

        To borrow from Chris Rock, I'm not saying it's OK... but I understand.

        Money doesn't talk it swears.

        by Coss on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:37:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I admit to having had an evil thought or two (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noisy Democrat

        when my ex turned out to be a lying, narcissistic jerk and it occurred to me that I was in possession of a veritable treasure trove of nudie shots (wanking and everything!) that included his face.  

        Then I realized...Wait!  I am not a consent-violating asshole!  

        It's surprisingly easy to be a decent human being when you acknowledge that even the shittiest people alive still have the right to bodily autonomy and privacy.  Hurt feelings are entirely irrelevant.

        "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy..." -Albert Einstein

        by socindemsclothing on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 08:40:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  blaming the victim (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ticorules

      your post screams 'she was scantily dressed and had a bunch to drink; she asked for it!'

      BTW: By blaming the victim

      If you don't want your fee fees hurt (your term) by having your friends and family see embarrassing photos of you, you probably shouldn't hurt the fee fees of someone who has nude photos of you in their possession.
      you aren't "in spirit on this" at all.

      Either people deserve their nudes posted because they "hurt someone's fee fees" (however that's defined!) or they don't.

      You can't have it both ways.

  •  There are a lot of Constitutional Fundies here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socindemsclothing

    They may not say it, but they're OK with revenge porn on first amendment grounds.

    Just like they're in favor of crush videos, etc.

    The constitution is a haven for people without a shred of decency.

  •  Hey! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind, Senor Unoball

    Fuckthesedouchebags.org doesn't work.  

  •  Some people are (0+ / 0-)

    assholes and deserve an attitude adjustment for doing something like this.

    Join the War on Thinking. Watch Fox News- John Lucas

    by Jlukes on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 12:36:02 PM PDT

  •  Hey girls, here's a bit of advice... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DougInNYC

    Unless your man is going overseas for a year, there is no reason to ever ever ever give him a nekkid photo of yourself, because he can always see the real thing instead. Be suspicious of any photo requests.

    And if he is going overseas for a year? Give him something that still forces him to use his imagination.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 03:40:30 PM PDT

  •  I have no sympathy... (0+ / 0-)

    for people who are dumb enough to send naked pictures of themselves to other people.  Why would someone need a naked a picture of you?!

  •  Susan (0+ / 0-)

    as Susan said I'm surprised that anybody able to make $6499 in one month on the computer. discover here MAC30.com

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site