6 ms·

Are creepshots news? These threads on 4chan have been going on for as long as this oldf*g can remember. Are we really willing to allow this to be considered "s

Are creepshots news? These threads on 4chan have been going on for as long as this oldf*g can remember. Are we really willing to allow this to be considered "sexual cyber violence"? Taking a photograph of someone in public is a legal act (in the USA anyway)? Being in public necessarily puts you into the public domain with no expectation of privacy. Can we agree that taking photographs of people without their consent is nothing more than extremely creepy? This isn't violence at all. That word is very dangerous. When misapplied, it leads the uninformed to make bad decisions, expecting that they can respond to "sexual cyber violence" with actual physical violence.

Chris2048 9y ago
I agree, the scope creep of "violence" is suspicious, and likely to dilute the meaning of the word. Now, when someone complains of violence, have to clarify "you mean physical violence?" to make sure I'm not being misled..
- chisleu 9y ago
  Same here. In this case, the misapplication of "sexual violence" is even more shocking. The idea that taking a picture of a girl on the beach is in the same realm of offense as sexual assault is asinine. The same misapplication of terms lets monsters like the antifa protestors, Dylan Roof, and others claim they are responding to violence, and thus initiate force against media, police, and others.
Veratyr 9y ago
> Can we agree that taking photographs of people without their consent is nothing more than extremely creepy? In public? I'd replace "nothing more than" with "at worst". These, for example, I don't think most people would consider creepy: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/28/40-best-street-photos-2016-photographers-around-world/ https://petapixel.com/2017/01/28/40-best-street-photos-2016-...
- chisleu 9y ago
  That certainly could have been better worded, but in context we aren't talking about photographers with nice cameras like were certainly used to take those pictures. We are talking about spy cameras or cellphones generally used in a surreptitious manor to conceal the fact that ladies are being filmed/photographed. IMO, if you don't want to be photographed while scantily clad in public, don't go into public scantily clad. People want the freedom of walking around in skin tight clothes that expose the curves of every piece of their anatomy to all that who can see without the consequences of exposing the same to all who can see. Apparently public shaming isn't enough and they need to call on the fringe "everything is violence" crowd to bring illegal actual physical violence into the mix. :( Note: I have no problem with anyone wearing anything they want. I totally support it. I just dislike this topic being treated as news here.

Chris2048 9y ago

I agree, the scope creep of "violence" is suspicious, and likely to dilute the meaning of the word. Now, when someone complains of violence, have to clarify "you mean physical violence?" to make sure I'm not being misled..

chisleu 9y ago
Same here. In this case, the misapplication of "sexual violence" is even more shocking. The idea that taking a picture of a girl on the beach is in the same realm of offense as sexual assault is asinine. The same misapplication of terms lets monsters like the antifa protestors, Dylan Roof, and others claim they are responding to violence, and thus initiate force against media, police, and others.

Veratyr 9y ago

> Can we agree that taking photographs of people without their consent is nothing more than extremely creepy? In public? I'd replace "nothing more than" with "at worst". These, for example, I don't think most people would consider creepy: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/28/40-best-street-photos-2016-photographers-around-world/ https://petapixel.com/2017/01/28/40-best-street-photos-2016-...

chisleu 9y ago
That certainly could have been better worded, but in context we aren't talking about photographers with nice cameras like were certainly used to take those pictures. We are talking about spy cameras or cellphones generally used in a surreptitious manor to conceal the fact that ladies are being filmed/photographed. IMO, if you don't want to be photographed while scantily clad in public, don't go into public scantily clad. People want the freedom of walking around in skin tight clothes that expose the curves of every piece of their anatomy to all that who can see without the consequences of exposing the same to all who can see. Apparently public shaming isn't enough and they need to call on the fringe "everything is violence" crowd to bring illegal actual physical violence into the mix. :( Note: I have no problem with anyone wearing anything they want. I totally support it. I just dislike this topic being treated as news here.