3 ms·

I'll be the voice of dissent here: I think it's ok. Her whole style of clothing and even choices in hair color are norm violating, attention grabbing devices.

I'll be the voice of dissent here: I think it's ok. Her whole style of clothing and even choices in hair color are norm violating, attention grabbing devices. If she would have left well-enough alone, her picture would have faded into obscurity with millions of other pictures. Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident. While the owner of the website is not being a super-friendly-pushover, and I know his behavior falls into what society considers asshole behavior, I feel things will be really fucked up if he is legally forced to remove the pictures, or if Google cuts his page revenue. That'll be censorship in my opinion.

semanticist 16y ago
If he was legally forced to remove the pictures, I suppose that would be censorship, although not automatically bad. IP rights rely on censorship to stop other people from publishing what's covered by the IP. The problem with censorship isn't that it exists, it's that it's used inappropriately. Google deciding not to do business with a dick and/or someone who violates their terms of service is not censorship. As far as I'm aware, Google isn't the government.
sfk 16y ago
Instead, she brought more publicity to the event. She actually allowed a news outlet to cover the incident. You know, I'm positively tired of the "Streisand effect" argument. Are we supposed to let anything pass out of fear that a mildly embarrassing situation escalates? Perhaps she does not even care about the picture. Perhaps she does not want to live in a society where harassing unsuspecting individuals is acceptable. Without going public and finding like-minded people, nothing will change.