4 ms·

I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful

by tomp 11y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about the verdict (freedom of speech vs privacy), but I'm really happy that the media sexist bias was exposed. It was really distasteful how they were criticising and condemning "The Fappening" (i.e. female stolen porn) while happily participating in the reverse (Hulk Hogan's male stolen porn).

tptacek 11y ago
Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be reversed on appeal.
- rco8786 11y ago
  Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I agree that they are both horrendous!
  - moistgorilla 11y ago
    While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      No.
      - moistgorilla 11y ago
        Thanks for the interesting discussion. Anyway after further thought I came to agree with you because the person in the second situation also had their privacy violated twice when they had the video/images stolen from their device and when it was spread without their consent. But I think it's pretty self-evident that doing multiple wrong things to do one final wrong thing is worse than just doing the final wrong thing.
  - Crito 11y ago
    He's pedantically pointing out a superficial difference between the two cases, and pretending as though he therefore demonstrated some profound ethical or moral difference between the two. Good job on calling him out on this and pinning him down!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- belorn 11y ago
  Sweden recently created a new law to explicit punish those who distribute sexual videos and images of a person without their consent. They don't distinguish if the images was stolen, created without the victims knowledge, or even created with consent. The law makers recognize the damage that non-consenting distribution cause.
  - natrius 11y ago
    Constitutions are created to kill popular, reasonable laws. There are plenty of disincentives for bad behavior that don't require the force of law.
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      The Gawker case is an instance where the force of law is required as a disincentive.
      - natrius 11y ago
        The American people are more creative than you give us credit for. The Supreme Court strikes down popular laws all the time, and somehow we've managed to carry on.
    - abiox 11y ago
      as well as plenty of incentives.
- sesutton 11y ago
  The way I interpreted it was that their isn't a free speech angle to either. >That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. According to Tampa police they think the tape was stolen by an employee of Bubba the Lovesponge[0]. The only essential difference I can see is that the photos of the female celebrities were created with their knowledge, which I don't think is much of a difference at all. [0] http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/50653538-story http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/50653538-story
- tomp 11y ago
  The news stories weren't very clear on the stolen or not issue - sesutton's comment suggests that it was, but if it wasn't, that indeed would make Hulk's case worse. But only in the "legal" sense (Hulk's video wasn't pirated), not in the moral sense (both his and the girls' privacy was invaded eithout their consent), which is how Gawker et al. campaigned against Fappening... As I said, I was mostly criticising their hypocrisy.
- clevernickname 11y ago
  I rarely agreed with your opinions but I never expected you to succumb to this level of doublethink.

by tomp 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

Bollea's "porn" wasn't "stolen". It was created without his knowledge and circulated by the person who created it, which is how it leaked. That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. It's a little disquieting to read a comment that suggests there might have been a free speech angle to the latter story. Bollea's case might (in fact, probably will) be reversed on appeal.

rco8786 11y ago
Is it being created without his knowledge better or wore than what happened in the fappening? I'm not sure what your comment is trying to say. Both things sound pretty horrendous.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I agree that they are both horrendous!
- moistgorilla 11y ago
  While both are horrendous, I think we can say that having intimate photos of you taken without your knowledge being spread is worth than having photos you took being spread. The reason being that in the first case your rights to privacy were actually violated twice.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    No.
    - moistgorilla 11y ago
      Thanks for the interesting discussion. Anyway after further thought I came to agree with you because the person in the second situation also had their privacy violated twice when they had the video/images stolen from their device and when it was spread without their consent. But I think it's pretty self-evident that doing multiple wrong things to do one final wrong thing is worse than just doing the final wrong thing.
- Crito 11y ago
  He's pedantically pointing out a superficial difference between the two cases, and pretending as though he therefore demonstrated some profound ethical or moral difference between the two. Good job on calling him out on this and pinning him down!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
belorn 11y ago
Sweden recently created a new law to explicit punish those who distribute sexual videos and images of a person without their consent. They don't distinguish if the images was stolen, created without the victims knowledge, or even created with consent. The law makers recognize the damage that non-consenting distribution cause.
- natrius 11y ago
  Constitutions are created to kill popular, reasonable laws. There are plenty of disincentives for bad behavior that don't require the force of law.
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    The Gawker case is an instance where the force of law is required as a disincentive.
    - natrius 11y ago
      The American people are more creative than you give us credit for. The Supreme Court strikes down popular laws all the time, and somehow we've managed to carry on.
  - abiox 11y ago
    as well as plenty of incentives.
sesutton 11y ago
The way I interpreted it was that their isn't a free speech angle to either. >That doesn't remotely describe what happened to the women whose pictures were published a few years back. According to Tampa police they think the tape was stolen by an employee of Bubba the Lovesponge[0]. The only essential difference I can see is that the photos of the female celebrities were created with their knowledge, which I don't think is much of a difference at all. [0] http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/50653538-story http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/50653538-story
tomp 11y ago
The news stories weren't very clear on the stolen or not issue - sesutton's comment suggests that it was, but if it wasn't, that indeed would make Hulk's case worse. But only in the "legal" sense (Hulk's video wasn't pirated), not in the moral sense (both his and the girls' privacy was invaded eithout their consent), which is how Gawker et al. campaigned against Fappening... As I said, I was mostly criticising their hypocrisy.
clevernickname 11y ago
I rarely agreed with your opinions but I never expected you to succumb to this level of doublethink.