4 ms·

And whether the associated videos are or aren't watched has no effect on that. Watching them causes no additional harm.

Nursie 10y ago
That's callous and fairly nonsensical. We don't say to women who are targeted for 'revenge porn' that they should just live with it.
- nv-vn 10y ago
  Yes, but we also don't consider it a crime to view said revenge porn.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    Jennifer Lawrence declared that everyone who looked at the leaked nudes of her was committing sexual assault against her (or words to that effect). The idea being that by knowingly viewing "private" content without consent is invasive. I'm not sure you can legislate it, but I found her position far more satisfying than "oh no I should never have taken the pics in the first place what a mistake to think I wouldn't be hacked".
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    "we", what's your scope there. Most people would consider it a moral wrong I'd warrant. It's like not a crime only by virtue of being a relatively new thing, and other mitigations like it being difficult to police (is there a point in making crimes you don't police and can't prosecute under).
- Hondor 10y ago
  Those women are personally identified so they can suffer real world embarrassment from people they know. Children in child porn are probably far more anonymous and untraceable as adults just from their images. I think the idea of being imprisoned for viewing a picture on a website is pretty draconian. We would never stand for it if we weren't so obsessed with vilifying sexual deviants. The argument that consumers fuel the market for producers to abuse children surely fails when there's no payment being made. Perhaps the crime should be limited to paying for it, a bit like why we don't allow payment for organ donation.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    > The argument that consumers fuel the market for producers to abuse children surely fails when there's no payment being made. Does it? In warez rings, new releases are the surest route to high reputation and broad access to content. I don't see an a priori reason why the same might not be true for other sorts of illicit content, including this.
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  Revenge porn will to me always be a copyright issue, and being one, it's up to those women (and men) to sue when they find someone violating their copyright.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    Half the time the copyright will belong to the abusive ex partner who photographed them. You don't own your own image.
crottypeter 10y ago
Are you saying that if you were abused in the 80s, you would be fine with people watching footage of it today for kicks?
- throwanem 10y ago
  I think that's unduly reductive. He seems instead to be saying that if you were abused in the 80s, you should just get over the thought of people watching footage of it today for kicks. Which is an interesting viewpoint, to be sure. I wonder whether he'd say the same to an adult victim of rape whose abuse was videoed and passed around for other people to get off on. That's a pretty close parallel, but it never seems to turn up in discussions like these, and I wonder why that is.
- tbrownaw 10y ago
  It seems to me that distributing such videos would have far more in common with defamation than with the original abuse. Merely having or watching them... is probably bad and wrong but not something that ought to actually be legally punishable.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>"Watching them causes no additional harm." // If I knew of images of me being raped as a child it would be a severe harm for me, albeit non-physical, to know that others were even now masturbating watching my defilement. Indeed I'd find it disturbing if someone were doing that to my image now, no matter if that image were pornographic or not. Now of course you may not share the same feelings as me, but thankfully such laws do protect others who do share those feelings and are in a position to be harmed in this way. Even far lesser cases of stigmatisation can be harmful, an image of one being non-sexually humiliated can cause genuine mental harm long after the initial production of that image. Is there nothing in your past that you wouldn't mind people seeing a picture of now? I got shit on by a swift [bird] the other day, it didn't bother me but I wouldn't want the image of me covered in bird-shit to be published in the paper for people to laugh at; personally I wouldn't be too bothered but it would certainly be a source of displeasure. I think we'll agree that's at the de minimis end of the scale of 'images that one might find humiliating'. FWIW lack of empathy for the suffering of others, as this appears to be, is an element of sociopathy.

That's callous and fairly nonsensical. We don't say to women who are targeted for 'revenge porn' that they should just live with it.

nv-vn 10y ago
Yes, but we also don't consider it a crime to view said revenge porn.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  Jennifer Lawrence declared that everyone who looked at the leaked nudes of her was committing sexual assault against her (or words to that effect). The idea being that by knowingly viewing "private" content without consent is invasive. I'm not sure you can legislate it, but I found her position far more satisfying than "oh no I should never have taken the pics in the first place what a mistake to think I wouldn't be hacked".
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  "we", what's your scope there. Most people would consider it a moral wrong I'd warrant. It's like not a crime only by virtue of being a relatively new thing, and other mitigations like it being difficult to police (is there a point in making crimes you don't police and can't prosecute under).
Hondor 10y ago
Those women are personally identified so they can suffer real world embarrassment from people they know. Children in child porn are probably far more anonymous and untraceable as adults just from their images. I think the idea of being imprisoned for viewing a picture on a website is pretty draconian. We would never stand for it if we weren't so obsessed with vilifying sexual deviants. The argument that consumers fuel the market for producers to abuse children surely fails when there's no payment being made. Perhaps the crime should be limited to paying for it, a bit like why we don't allow payment for organ donation.
- throwanem 10y ago
  > The argument that consumers fuel the market for producers to abuse children surely fails when there's no payment being made. Does it? In warez rings, new releases are the surest route to high reputation and broad access to content. I don't see an a priori reason why the same might not be true for other sorts of illicit content, including this.
kahrkunne 10y ago
Revenge porn will to me always be a copyright issue, and being one, it's up to those women (and men) to sue when they find someone violating their copyright.
- Hondor 10y ago
  Half the time the copyright will belong to the abusive ex partner who photographed them. You don't own your own image.

crottypeter 10y ago

Are you saying that if you were abused in the 80s, you would be fine with people watching footage of it today for kicks?

throwanem 10y ago
I think that's unduly reductive. He seems instead to be saying that if you were abused in the 80s, you should just get over the thought of people watching footage of it today for kicks. Which is an interesting viewpoint, to be sure. I wonder whether he'd say the same to an adult victim of rape whose abuse was videoed and passed around for other people to get off on. That's a pretty close parallel, but it never seems to turn up in discussions like these, and I wonder why that is.
tbrownaw 10y ago
It seems to me that distributing such videos would have far more in common with defamation than with the original abuse. Merely having or watching them... is probably bad and wrong but not something that ought to actually be legally punishable.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>"Watching them causes no additional harm." // If I knew of images of me being raped as a child it would be a severe harm for me, albeit non-physical, to know that others were even now masturbating watching my defilement. Indeed I'd find it disturbing if someone were doing that to my image now, no matter if that image were pornographic or not. Now of course you may not share the same feelings as me, but thankfully such laws do protect others who do share those feelings and are in a position to be harmed in this way. Even far lesser cases of stigmatisation can be harmful, an image of one being non-sexually humiliated can cause genuine mental harm long after the initial production of that image. Is there nothing in your past that you wouldn't mind people seeing a picture of now? I got shit on by a swift [bird] the other day, it didn't bother me but I wouldn't want the image of me covered in bird-shit to be published in the paper for people to laugh at; personally I wouldn't be too bothered but it would certainly be a source of displeasure. I think we'll agree that's at the de minimis end of the scale of 'images that one might find humiliating'. FWIW lack of empathy for the suffering of others, as this appears to be, is an element of sociopathy.