4 ms·

I just viewed the original Daily Mail and Redstate stories. I think there’s a huge difference between reporting the facts of a story as is important in a free s

I just viewed the original Daily Mail and Redstate stories. I think there’s a huge difference between reporting the facts of a story as is important in a free society, and publishing extremely personal and private nude photographs of you without your permission for all the world to see just for the tabloid salacious pornographic shock factor. I fundamentally disagree with the judge in this case. These were not shocking pictures of a crime let alone a serious one. Even if you think holding a bong in California in 2017 or a tiny tattoo of a run of the mill iron cross on her hip suddenly justifies it as depicting a crime, there is still no difference between describing it in text and showing it in picture. These are private vulnerable photos of someone naked. There is no public interest in allowing what is essentially revenge porn to be distributed of someone just because they’re a public figure. If your naked photos are used without your permission and weaponized against you and you’re not committing some crime in them that the public has a right to know about, it’s revenge porn plain and simple. This is not just smelling of misogyny, a long past of weaponizing women’s sexual side against them, but homophobia, as the “shock” factor comes in part from her being naked with another woman. Frankly, you cannot claim you value the right to privacy when it comes to Apple and Google etc. but then say, yeah showing someone’s nude photographs to the entire world without their permission for nothing more than a pornographic and homophobic shock factor is A-OK because it comes from the sacred media. There are reasonable limits on freedom of the press. Very few, but this case is undoubtedly one of them.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> showing someone’s nude photographs to the entire world without their permission for nothing more than a pornographic and homophobic shock factor is A-OK because it comes from the sacred media. The media don't have any special privileges. But the details of Katie Hill's life are of public interest.
Grieving 5y ago
I don't disagree in general but > publishing extremely personal and private nude photographs of you without your permission for all the world to see The photos were originally published by Hill and her husband for all the world to see. > a tiny tattoo of a run of the mill iron cross on her hip Given that ordinary citizens lose their jobs for the OK symbol and other such innocuous things, it feels like a throwback to another time to hear the phrase "run of the mill iron cross". > homophobia, as the “shock” factor comes in part from her being naked with another woman. I don't think so. Straight people, particularly men, have a strong physiological reaction to male homosexuality that doesn't really exist with female homosexuality. There's even evidence that the latter has historically been strongly selected for as a socially acceptable outlet for female sexuality (it "didn't count" as losing one's virginity or cheating). Hence it was often tolerated in countries that strongly prohibited male homosexuality (i.e. Nazi Germany), and when not tolerated was less fervently repressed. It would have been more shocking if the photos were of her and a male staffer.
- gurumeditations 5y ago
  > Straight people, particularly men, have a strong physiological reaction to male homosexuality that doesn't really exist with female homosexuality. That’s blatant homophobic apologia. There is no physical basis for a negative reaction to seeing gay people. That is a product of millennia of straight people banishing homosexuality from their society and perpetuating a hatred and taboo of gay people. I have never observed any non-homophobic straight person holding in their vomit when I kiss my boyfriend. The fact that you think observing gay people causes straight people to naturally have a negative reaction says a lot about what you think about gay people and homophobia.
  - benjohnson 5y ago
    Generally - heterosexual men are attached to the female form. This attraction could very well have a biological component in that a species needs children to continue. Given these predicates, it's natural to expect that heterosexual men are more likely to be attracted to two females (twice the female forms) and not two men (no female forms).
    - gurumeditations 5y ago
      That’s totally different than saying straight guys naturally find gay people disgusting.
      - Grieving 5y ago
        Human instincts are amoral. You can't blame people for having a feeling, only for not properly moderating it. > The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.13...

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> showing someone’s nude photographs to the entire world without their permission for nothing more than a pornographic and homophobic shock factor is A-OK because it comes from the sacred media. The media don't have any special privileges. But the details of Katie Hill's life are of public interest.

Grieving 5y ago

I don't disagree in general but > publishing extremely personal and private nude photographs of you without your permission for all the world to see The photos were originally published by Hill and her husband for all the world to see. > a tiny tattoo of a run of the mill iron cross on her hip Given that ordinary citizens lose their jobs for the OK symbol and other such innocuous things, it feels like a throwback to another time to hear the phrase "run of the mill iron cross". > homophobia, as the “shock” factor comes in part from her being naked with another woman. I don't think so. Straight people, particularly men, have a strong physiological reaction to male homosexuality that doesn't really exist with female homosexuality. There's even evidence that the latter has historically been strongly selected for as a socially acceptable outlet for female sexuality (it "didn't count" as losing one's virginity or cheating). Hence it was often tolerated in countries that strongly prohibited male homosexuality (i.e. Nazi Germany), and when not tolerated was less fervently repressed. It would have been more shocking if the photos were of her and a male staffer.

gurumeditations 5y ago
> Straight people, particularly men, have a strong physiological reaction to male homosexuality that doesn't really exist with female homosexuality. That’s blatant homophobic apologia. There is no physical basis for a negative reaction to seeing gay people. That is a product of millennia of straight people banishing homosexuality from their society and perpetuating a hatred and taboo of gay people. I have never observed any non-homophobic straight person holding in their vomit when I kiss my boyfriend. The fact that you think observing gay people causes straight people to naturally have a negative reaction says a lot about what you think about gay people and homophobia.
- benjohnson 5y ago
  Generally - heterosexual men are attached to the female form. This attraction could very well have a biological component in that a species needs children to continue. Given these predicates, it's natural to expect that heterosexual men are more likely to be attracted to two females (twice the female forms) and not two men (no female forms).
  - gurumeditations 5y ago
    That’s totally different than saying straight guys naturally find gay people disgusting.
    - Grieving 5y ago
      Human instincts are amoral. You can't blame people for having a feeling, only for not properly moderating it. > The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.13...