Thanks for adding some interesting info around these things. I can see how it's easy to feel this: "she used the anti-pornography laws to get her ex-boyfriend

Thanks for adding some interesting info around these things. I can see how it's easy to feel this: "she used the anti-pornography laws to get her ex-boyfriend to stop posting her pictures on social media. That's a case of the law being used for good, right?" but I'm not in agreement for a few reasons... first let me say I m 100% against people sharing intimate photos of others without permission. Things get a little different in my opinion when people become high level public figures for some reasons .. for example sharing the pics of mr wiener with hookers was not cool.. but considering he became a public figure trying to climb the political ladders and especially because part of that process was him prosecuting hookers and making PR stunts out of it.. well then sharing the pics became a slightly different thing. Anyhow I hate that anti-porn laws are used for her censoring public discourse - and if the pics were otherwise noteworthy (like they included bisexual whatever and she had voted against lgb or something) - then the photos could be censored in some type of way and published in newspapers for legit public discussion. I believe she should be able to use copyright laws alone to stop publication / sharing of her pics, and perhaps a lawsuit for defamation (not a great recourse vs poor people) - or other means. But I don't think anti-porn laws should be a thing and they should not be weaponized by the political class to hide things they don't like. (even though yes, I agree this one appears to be used "good" - I don't have enough info to be 100 on that)