Revenge porn

[William Tell]

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 was a little more than just posting pictures going on. It looks like the guy was posting filthy invitations in her name with her phone number. That's fraudulent and slanderous, and could lead to all sorts of terrible things. But yeah I'm critical of the NAP at times too.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Young women have to stop making bad decisions, FFS.

"I blew five guys in an hour while another guy recorded... Who could've predicted negative consequences arising!"

Look, the guys who upload that stuff out of revenge or whatever are degenerates. I have stuff on my phone that could ruin lives (or at least make them difficult), and I would never ​upload any of it. That said, don't engage in the behavior and the sensitive media doesn't exist in the first place!

 

[presence]

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?

just because something deserves a facepalm doesn't mean it requires napalm

from a theological point of view...

taking naked selfies and sending them to your out of wedlock partner is a perversion; an indecency.
allowing someone to take naked pictures of you is a masochistic act
it turns an image of your nakedness into the object of another's will; a willful vice


now this person has committed a masochistic vice and the inevitable outcome of that vice was the picture was sadistically shared; how unpredictable

if you post naked pictures of your ex girlfriend... you are a douchebag
if you let your ex boyfriend take naked pictures of you... you are also a douchebag

 

[euphemia]

Single people who give/allow naked pictures sound a little bit desperate to me.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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

Granting this distinction between "possession" and "ownership" only serves to strengthen my case.

At the very least, disjoint possession and ownership necessarily entails some kind of obligation on the part of the possessor to the owner.

Such obligations may be explicit, but in the absence of any such explicitness, there must be at least some implicit obligation on the part of the possessor (even if it is only the duty to return the property to its owner upon demand, for example). Otherwise, possession and ownership would not and could not be disjoint.

As I said immediately following the statement you quoted (with bold emphasis added and a strikeout applied to account for disjoint possession and ownership):

One may, however, conditionally give up possession (and therefore, also give up ownership) of something - and the condition(s) involved may be explicit or implicit.

It is not at all unreasonable to regard the boyfriend's "possession" of "naked pictures" of his girlfriend as being implicitly conditioned upon him keeping those pictures "private" - and it is entirely reasonable to regard his willful failure to do so as a tortious violation of that implied condition.

I can loan you my car; no longer possess it, but still own title to the car

Suppose that a friend borrows your car in order to drive his grandmother to a doctor's appointment.

Given what you previously said - namely, that "if you intend to give up POSSESSION of something while still retaining OWNERSHIP.... SIGN A CONTRACT," does this mean that you will require your friend to sign a contract explicitly stipulating (among many other things) that he will not drive your car to Las Vegas for a week of gambling and wild partying before returning it to you? Or is it simply and reasonably understood that he is not to do such a thing, and no explicit agreement to that effect is necessary? I rather think the latter - and unless you are a very odd duck, I suspect that you do as well. But even if you don't, any sensible claims court judge certainly would. And the same goes for a situation in which a boyfriend comes into possession of "naked pictures" of his grilfriend in the manner in which the boyfriend in the OP did ...

 

[presence]

Granting this distinction between "possession" and "ownership" only serves to strengthen my case.

At the very least, disjoint possession and ownership necessarily entails some kind of obligation on the part of the possessor to the owner.

indeed.

IF she had expressed ownership claim. In the case in the op, she did not. She broke up with him and left him to himself with the puctures she knew he had. If she had expressed in writing "I want my noodies back". If she had filed a "stolen property" claim. Then she had an legally justified claim to ownership of the images with a paper trail.

no paper trail no ownership

 

[presence]

Suppose that a friend borrows your car in order to drive his grandmother to a doctor's appointment.

Given what you previously said - namely, that "if you intend to give up POSSESSION of something while still retaining OWNERSHIP.... SIGN A CONTRACT," does this mean that you will require your friend to sign a contract explicitly stipulating (among many other things) that he will not drive your car to Las Vegas for a week of gambling and wild partying before returning it to you? Or is it simply and reasonably understood that he is not to do such a thing, and no explicit agreement to that effect is necessary? I rather think the latter - and unless you are a very odd duck, I suspect that you do as well. But even if you don't, any sensible claims court judge certainly would. And the same goes for a situation in which a boyfriend comes into possession of "naked pictures" of his grilfriend in the manner in which the boyfriend in the OP did ...

Suppose that a friend borrows your car in order to drive his grandmother to a doctor's appointment.
Suppose that a friends borrows your car for undisclosed reasons.

Suppose your friend gives you naked photos upon expressed condition you will never share them and store them diligently to the end of time.
Suppose your friend gives you naked photos.

 

[otherone]

If you tell someone something in confidence, and they blab to the community, should charges be filed against the blabber?

 

[forsmant]

Not one example posted.. this thread fails.

 

[presence]

Not one example posted.. this thread fails.

my bad here you go:

http://i.imgur.com/TWhXpoI.jpg

 

[cajuncocoa]

If you tell someone something in confidence, and they blab to the community, should charges be filed against the blabber?

Depends on what was blabbed. Depends also on what we mean by "charges filed." There may certainly be compensation owed for damages caused.

 

[MelissaWV]

pretending to be her seeking sexual encounters.

This got lost after the first page. It wasn't just naked photos. It was naked/compromising photos used to lure people to her home with the notion of meeting for sex. There have been cases where this is prefaced with "I'm going to pretend to resist, but don't take 'no' for an answer," essentially setting up the ex for rape. Not kidding.

You are also all assuming the photo-taking was consensual. Some of your search histories are full of voyeur porn. You really can't say it never happens, and "revenge" porn is just as easily accomplished using nanny cams of a spouse or girlfriend taking a shower.

As for posing willingly for those photos, there shouldn't be a law just against that, but all parties involved should have to think deeply about what they are going to do about it. What's the website going to do if a family member asks them to take down the photo/video? What's the ex going to do when it's very obvious they did it? What's the family going to do to the ex? Hopefully what the "model" in question is going to do is simple: never pose for photos or video like that again. If the sex is so unmemorable he needs a picture/video of it, it's not going to last anyhow.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Here's a question for all of the anarcho-capitalists/voluntarists about this issue: Is "revenge porn" a violation of the non-aggression principle?

So-called "revenge porn" is (or at least could be, depending on the particulars of a given case) a kind of "breach of implied contract" - and as such, it could indeed be considered a NAP violation.

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?

The notion that negative labels can or should be applied only to NAP violators is as bizarre and absurd a construal of the NAP as I have ever encountered ...

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

Although cases such as this may not in themselves be of any world-weighty importance or significance, they can usefully afford opportunities to consider, discuss and refine our understanding of general principles. In this way, they are sort of like real-world "cabin in the woods" or "hanging from a flagpole" scenarios.

 

[dannno]

Depends on what was blabbed. Depends also on what we mean by "charges filed." There may certainly be compensation owed for damages caused.

Not to be sexist, but women would sue each other into oblivion in this scenario..

What you do is you guard the information you don't want to come out very carefully. If you tell somebody and trust them, you have to know that they might let it out either on purpose or inadvertently. At this point, you can decide if they are someone you ever want to tell your secrets to in the future.

 

[Crashland]

I am pretty sure copyright laws would protect the person who took the picture. My understanding is that private images are copyrighted by default as long as you can prove you are the creator of the content. Sending someone a picture does not give them automatic permission to use it however they want unless you expressly grant that permission. Someone correct me if I am mistaken

 

[cajuncocoa]

Young women have to stop making bad decisions, FFS.

I don't disagree, but when/if they've made a bad decision, it's no excuse for the jackwad to do what is described in the OP.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Not to be sexist, but women would sue each other into oblivion in this scenario..

What you do is you guard the information you don't want to come out very carefully. If you tell somebody and trust them, you have to know that they might let it out either on purpose or inadvertently. At this point, you can decide if they are someone you ever want to tell your secrets to in the future.

I wasn't referring to simple gossip, dannno. I was referring to information someone may want kept secret from competitors, etc.

 

[presence]

Depends on what was blabbed. [

Generally you'll lose a defamation suit if what was blabbed was true, and you'll lose a trades secrets suit without a contract. I can't imagine much of what else could be illegally blabbed.

Depends also on what we mean by "charges filed." There may certainly be compensation owed for damages caused.

charges typically refer to crime; whereas claims refer to civil action

 

[cajuncocoa]

This got lost after the first page. It wasn't just naked photos. It was naked/compromising photos used to lure people to her home with the notion of meeting for sex. There have been cases where this is prefaced with "I'm going to pretend to resist, but don't take 'no' for an answer," essentially setting up the ex for rape. Not kidding.

You are also all assuming the photo-taking was consensual. Some of your search histories are full of voyeur porn. You really can't say it never happens, and "revenge" porn is just as easily accomplished using nanny cams of a spouse or girlfriend taking a shower.

As for posing willingly for those photos, there shouldn't be a law just against that, but all parties involved should have to think deeply about what they are going to do about it. What's the website going to do if a family member asks them to take down the photo/video? What's the ex going to do when it's very obvious they did it? What's the family going to do to the ex? Hopefully what the "model" in question is going to do is simple: never pose for photos or video like that again. If the sex is so unmemorable he needs a picture/video of it, it's not going to last anyhow.

I've brought this up a few times, and it's been ignored.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Generally you'll lose a defamation suit if what was blabbed was true, and you'll lose a trades secrets suit without a contract. I can't imagine much of what else could be illegally blabbed.





charges typically refer to crime; whereas claims refer to civil action

I'm going with "claims" in this case. And yes, there would be a contract, but that doesn't always matter to people.