Revenge porn

[dannno]

The older daughter of some friends of my family was dating a shitbag about 10 years ago. Something pissed him off and suddenly her entire family (including her father) got emailed a picture of her giving shitbag some head.

At no point did anyone blame anyone for anything that happened except the girl. Everybody knew he was a shitbag before it happened and told her so. She continued to date him, continued (presumably) to blow him, continued to allow photos to be taken. She has since had a child with a different shitbag, and is currently (AFAIK, I stopped paying attention) pregnant with another child from a third shitbag. And her little sister has followed suit, too, having given birth to a shitbag's child, because that's apparently what she knows.

If you all want to stop this revenge porn thing, you need to get behind a legal system that allows for somebody other than the law to take care of these people. Because in this scenario, the girl's older brother had to almost literally be tied to the furniture to keep from ending the life of shitbag #1. Everyone knew that in a court of law it wouldn't have mattered a whit what he did to deserve it.

Plenty of these women have men who would protect them. And just like almost everything else in this fucked up legal system, as soon as they tried, it would be them getting dragged off to prison. There's one thing, and only one thing, you can count on in this system: it will always spend more effort snuffing competitors than it does on solving actual crimes.

There are a million shitbags out there, beating one of them up isn't going to protect a girl from making dumb decisions. Only she can do that, and it is your job to help guide her.

 

[presence]

I agree.

What if this woman is getting undressed in the (expected) privacy of their shared bedroom, maybe getting ready to take a shower, and the boyfriend takes a picture of her while completely naked (unbeknownst to her) and then posts it online? Is that OK with this crowd too??

Theft by deception would cover that. In this case you're suggesting the model has not given consent, which is entirely different.

 

[presence]

one cannot simultaneously "give up possession" of something and "retain ownership" of that something.

possession is what is in hand
ownership is what is one is entitled to through historical circumstance
I can loan you my car; no longer possess it, but still own title to the car

 

[Schifference]

Is it common for adults to take naked selfies?

 

[presence]

Maybe I am too old school but I think there is an implied contract not to release naked pics of each other exchanged by two people in a relationship where neither one is a model or photographer. Or maybe society is changing to the point where everything about anything has to be implicitly written out in a contract form or it is permitted during such an exchange

Maybe I'm too old school but I don't let naked pictures of me be taken because I don't want them spread around and common sense says this is exactly what will happen.

I think it should be telling until recently sharing naked photo's of other people was never a crime. Photos have been around for quite a while so there is plenty of precedence.

Then look who's first... NJ and Cali, the great bastions of self reliance and liberty in our country leading the surge in a new statute for the law man to thump his violent stick over.

5 YEARS IN PRISON and $30,000 fine!!! Because MOAR GOVERNMENT!



note in the OP article... the guy wasn't guilty of revenge porn... he was guilty of posting her phone number for sex work.

Mathew Christopher Connery was charged with misdemeanor privacy in communications for listing her phone number in the casual encounters sections of Craigslist. A nude photo she had provided him while the two were in a relationship was also posted.

misdemeanor privacy in communications

disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received;

http://leg.mt.gov/BILLS/mca/45/8/45-8-213.htm

of which he is clearly guilty

but he's not guilty of "revenge porn" or even posting her naked picture because no such crime exists in MT.

and as this is the US and not the soviet russia, we tend to, thankfully, only be accountable for crimes that are on the books; "unlawful acts explicitly set forth"; not subjective social standards.

That which is not forbidden is allowed

 

[Todd]

Polaroids.

 

[cajuncocoa]

There are a million shitbags out there, beating one of them up isn't going to protect a girl from making dumb decisions. Only she can do that, and it is your job to help guide her.

As I already told you: it isn't always readily apparent that one is involved with a shitbag right away. Sometimes it literally takes years for someone's true colors to be exposed (no pun intended.) This does not apply only to men, of course.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Is it common for adults to take naked selfies?

In the mobile phone era, it apparently is, in some circles.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

I agree with presence on this.
If the person consented to the photograph, then it is the photographers property to with as they please.
If the person wanted to put stipulations on its use, they should have made a written contract for that limited use.

Bottom line, if you give something to someone else it becomes their property.
If you give me a lighter, and I start a fire with it, do you have the right to take that lighter back to prevent me starting more fires? No, no you don't.

That all being said, I think that posting revenge porn makes you a douchebag.

 

[Schifference]

In the mobile phone era, it apparently is, in some circles.

They must be full of themselves. I don't understand that whole selfie thing. Anyone taking naked photo's of themselves should safeguard them. You cannot share anything digital and expect that it remain secret.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Theft by deception would cover that. In this case you're suggesting the model has not given consent, which is entirely different.

She gave consent for the boyfriend to have it. It was never implied or intended that she was giving consent for him to share it with the world. Although in the digital/online world everyone should be aware that's always a possibility with any picture anyone has in their possession of you, going back to the beginning of time.

As for the consent issue though, I've lived with my husband for almost 39 years. Not that anyone would be interested, and if this happened, it would obviously only be for the purpose of embarrassing me, but what if he was to hide a camera in the bathroom where I take a shower? And then, since those photos are in his possession, he decided to post them here on RPF to embarrass me. Is that cool?

 

[cajuncocoa]

They must be full of themselves. I don't understand that whole selfie thing. Anyone taking naked photo's of themselves should safeguard them. You cannot share anything digital and expect that it remain secret.

True dat. I learned that the hard way 13 years ago, and for me it was a Photoshop job (I wasn't really the way it appeared in the photo.)

 

[dannno]

As I already told you: it isn't always readily apparent that one is involved with a shitbag right away. Sometimes it literally takes years for someone's true colors to be exposed (no pun intended.) This does not apply only to men, of course.

That happens sometimes also, but I think most of the time there are usually some pretty good hints and warnings that people ignore. In this case everybody told her he was a shitbag, but she didn't listen. That's really who I am targeting - people who get involved with shady characters because they think that the government will stop them from acting poorly.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That happens sometimes also, but I think most of the time there are usually some pretty good hints and warnings that people ignore. In this case everybody told her he was a shitbag, but she didn't listen. That's really who I am targeting - people who get involved with shady characters because they think that the government will stop them from acting poorly.

Yeah, I hear you where that's concerned. People always say women like the "bad boys." I don't get it. You reap what you sow.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That all being said, I think that posting revenge porn makes you a douchebag.

I hope we can all agree on this at least. Show of hands? Roll call?

 

[presence]

Is it common for adults to take naked selfies?

its common for 18-24 females prone to inciting victim drama, "poor me" to let naked pictures of themselves be taken
its common for 18-24 males prone to persecution drama, "its all your fault" to take and share naked pictures of 18-24 females
its common adults older than that group to be prone to rescuer drama, "let me help you" and insist there ought to be a law!

what is uncommon is the one who can sit back and see they all have mental illness;

albeit each pathetic and disturbing on their own levels, petty drama shouldn't be criminalized

not even for the crazy one's calling for another reason for the State to raise its inherently violent arm... "to help"

The motivations for each participant and the reason the situation endures is that each gets their unspoken (and frequently unconscious) psychological wishes/needs met in a manner they feel justified, without having to acknowledge the broader dysfunction or harm done in the situation as a whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

 

[Theocrat]

That Naughty NAP...

I hope we can all agree on this at least. Show of hands? Roll call?

Here's a question for all of the anarcho-capitalists/voluntarists about this issue: Is "revenge porn" a violation of the non-aggression principle? If it's not, then how can Mathew Christopher Connery be considered a "douchebag," "jerk," or any other negative label, if he didn't hurt his ex-girlfriend by an initiation of force?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Here's a question for all of the anarcho-capitalists/voluntarists about this issue: Is "revenge porn" a violation of the non-aggression principle? If it's not, then how can Mathew Christopher Connery be considered a "douchebag," "jerk," or any other negative label, if he didn't hurt his ex-girlfriend by an initiation of force?

I have mixed feelings about whether this is a violation of the NAP. We've discussed lots of possibilities in this thread. In the case of a woman freely giving a naked picture of herself to someone, I'd be less inclined to call that a violation of the NAP than if someone had a hidden camera taking pictures of her while she was undressing without her knowledge or consent. To answer your question, one can be a "douchebag" or an "asshole" for certain behavior even if no force is initiated (in my opinion.) You could be an asshole just for words that you say....but you have the right to say them.

 

[fisharmor]

Here's a question for all of the anarcho-capitalists/voluntarists about this issue: Is "revenge porn" a violation of the non-aggression principle? If it's not, then how can Mathew Christopher Connery be considered a "douchebag," "jerk," or any other negative label, if he didn't hurt his ex-girlfriend by an initiation of force?

I generally answer all these types of questions the same way.
Clean up the mess that is the state, and then we can start asking philosophy questions.

Right now the state takes backscatter images of people without their consent, not only capturing a picture of them naked, but also irradiating them in the process.
And nobody cares.

Right now the state forcibly performs cavity searches without warrants. And nobody cares.

Right now the state locks nonviolent people in cages knowing that they are going to be raped while inside. And not only does nobody care, but it has been a staple of comedy for decades.

Each of these is done with the implied consent of every single person who claims to be butthurt about "revenge porn". If we can get everybody who is so concerned about individual actors simply being dicks to other people (and nothing more), instead to care about the fact that innocent and/ or nonviolent people are being raped and violated with their consent, then maybe with respect to "revenge porn", I could find it within myself to register the tiniest blip of giveashit.

In other words, there are bigger fish to fry, and until they are the topic, I simply don't care.

 

[dannno]

Here's a question for all of the anarcho-capitalists/voluntarists about this issue: Is "revenge porn" a violation of the non-aggression principle? If it's not, then how can Mathew Christopher Connery be considered a "douchebag," "jerk," or any other negative label, if he didn't hurt his ex-girlfriend by an initiation of force?

There are a lot of things you can do that make you a crappy person that are not a violation of NAP. The beauty is that this exposes the person as a crappy person, and according to NAP people can choose not to associate with them.