6 ms·

> This characterization of revenge porn is exactly the victim blaming and minimization of harm inflicted that I was talking about. While it certainly isn't min

by tharne 5y ago

> This characterization of revenge porn is exactly the victim blaming and minimization of harm inflicted that I was talking about. While it certainly isn't minimal in terms of the harm inflicted, it very much is minimal compared to the kinds of things that police departments and courts are already dealing with. There's also a weird and very unproductive ethos that's evolved around the concept of victim blaming. Something my not be your fault, but that doesn't mean we're all free to be careless with zero chance of consequences. If I'm walking through a neighborhood at night that I know to be dangerous, it would be very foolish of me to be carrying several thousand dollars of cash on my person. That does not mean it's my fault if I get mugged and lose my money - it's purely the mugger's fault. However, my actions were stupid and I should have known better. Both those things can be true.

rectang 5y ago
Many judges, police, and prosecutors agree with you that the victims "should have known better" and that their cases are not important in the grand scheme of things, which is why it is more difficult at every step of the way to get any sex crime through the court system. Many in the media also agree with you. So do many in the wider society. (Including many in the ridiculously male-dominated HN.) All of these factors contribute to why if a victim even goes to court, not only is the likelihood of actual consequences for the perpetrator absurdly low, but the experience of going down that path will be horrible. Instead of sympathy, they get an avalanche of contempt and shame dumped on them.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  This is the thin end of the wedge fallacy. It's disproportionate to load of the possible extreme outcomes of a - true - idea on that idea. The idea is fine. Other things you list that are bad and not that idea are not fine.
  - rectang 5y ago
    Your reasoning is too convoluted and unclear to argue against.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Can you be specific? What do you need clarifying?
- alar44 5y ago
  Low convictions isn't due to victim shaming, it's due to lack of evidence. It's generally a he said she said situation with no witnesses or evidence.
  - rectang 5y ago
    We're talking about revenge porn here. Who uploaded a file is not he-said/she-said, there are going to be logs. And with regards to the question of whether there was consent, "I don't have it in writing but she said it was OK to upload our sex videos to pornhub" should be treated with extreme skepticism.
    - panda-giddiness 5y ago
      Piggybacking on this point, in a civil lawsuit you only need prove that a "preponderance of the evidence" (51% or more) supports your position. (The burden is greater for criminal cases, of course).
      - sgjohnson 5y ago
        “greater” is an understatement. It’s “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
      - quantified 5y ago
        Meanwhile, if the video is of consensual sex, the main problem is really that society looks down on people having sex. If it had all the reputational impact of a cooking video, she’d be less likely to care (though she certainly can care about anything she wants).
    - Dudeman112 5y ago
      >And with regards to the question of whether there was consent, "I don't have it in writing but she said it was OK to upload our sex videos to pornhub" should be treated with extreme skepticism I don't think you're gonna find many cases for non-professionals where they had consent and it was given in writing. I don't actually know, it's just a guess given observed human behaviour.
- tiahura 5y ago
  There’s also the small issue of the First Amendment. Anyone that thinks these revenge porn laws are going to get more than 2 votes with this Supreme Court - that’s pretty 1A absolutist - isn’t thinking clearly.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    The first amendment wouldn't come into play here. Copyright and consent laws would.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      IANAL. Copyright and all associated rights of a photo/video by default belong to the photographer/videographer. (https://photofocus.com/business/photographer-or-model-who-owns-the-image/ https://photofocus.com/business/photographer-or-model-who-ow...) There are multiple factors that are involved, but generally speaking, consent laws end at the production of the photo/video. Distribution falls under copyright. Unless the subject was surreptitiously recorded with the intent of distribution or blackmail or was trespassed upon for the recording to be made, there is no copyright or consent violation. And yes, the First Amendment does apply. In fact, there have been cases where such laws have been struck down on the basis of the First Amendment (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/475968-minnesota-strikes-down-revenge-porn-law https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/475968...).
      - rectang 5y ago
        There has long been a debate in the judiciary about the extent to which there exists a privacy carveout in First Amendment rights against disclosure of private information. What this means is that depending on judicial philosophy, either any such law must be carefully tailored (which seems reasonable and desirable), or any such law is inherently unconstitutional (which seems to me to offend common sense): https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1532/revenge-pornography https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1532/revenge-pornog... > Under current First Amendment guidelines, any laws regulating revenge pornography would have to be narrowly drawn and made in pursuit of a “compelling state interest.” Unfortunately, I agree with tiahura that there's little question how the current SCOTUS majority would rule — it's unlikely that they will find a "compelling state interest" in protecting the victims of revenge porn. The result will be that any victim without the resources and circumstances to bring and win a civil suit will be SOL.
majormajor 5y ago
Let's not claim that police are ONLY investigating rapes and murders all day. There's a lot of other time spent on stuff like pulling people over for expired tags or other more-minor-than-this shit.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > expired tags There are really only two things the government actually cares about: 1. staying in power 2. collecting taxes So yeah, they're not going to overlook expired tags.
  - quantified 5y ago
    Traffic stops that let them seize cash will definitely be a priority. So even your broken taillight means revenue.
  - tharne 5y ago
    This is very true. I lived in a fairly high-crime city for a while. The police never really investigated burglaries or car thefts because of a lack of resources. But man, leave your car parked on the street for a couple of minutes after the meter expired, and BAM! a cop would appear out of nowhere to write you a ticket.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Police have all the time in the world for drug crimes and pulling over people because “they look suspicious”.

by tharne 5y ago

rectang 5y ago

Many judges, police, and prosecutors agree with you that the victims "should have known better" and that their cases are not important in the grand scheme of things, which is why it is more difficult at every step of the way to get any sex crime through the court system. Many in the media also agree with you. So do many in the wider society. (Including many in the ridiculously male-dominated HN.) All of these factors contribute to why if a victim even goes to court, not only is the likelihood of actual consequences for the perpetrator absurdly low, but the experience of going down that path will be horrible. Instead of sympathy, they get an avalanche of contempt and shame dumped on them.

robertlagrant 5y ago
This is the thin end of the wedge fallacy. It's disproportionate to load of the possible extreme outcomes of a - true - idea on that idea. The idea is fine. Other things you list that are bad and not that idea are not fine.
- rectang 5y ago
  Your reasoning is too convoluted and unclear to argue against.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    Can you be specific? What do you need clarifying?
alar44 5y ago
Low convictions isn't due to victim shaming, it's due to lack of evidence. It's generally a he said she said situation with no witnesses or evidence.
- rectang 5y ago
  We're talking about revenge porn here. Who uploaded a file is not he-said/she-said, there are going to be logs. And with regards to the question of whether there was consent, "I don't have it in writing but she said it was OK to upload our sex videos to pornhub" should be treated with extreme skepticism.
  - panda-giddiness 5y ago
    Piggybacking on this point, in a civil lawsuit you only need prove that a "preponderance of the evidence" (51% or more) supports your position. (The burden is greater for criminal cases, of course).
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      “greater” is an understatement. It’s “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
    - quantified 5y ago
      Meanwhile, if the video is of consensual sex, the main problem is really that society looks down on people having sex. If it had all the reputational impact of a cooking video, she’d be less likely to care (though she certainly can care about anything she wants).
  - Dudeman112 5y ago
    >And with regards to the question of whether there was consent, "I don't have it in writing but she said it was OK to upload our sex videos to pornhub" should be treated with extreme skepticism I don't think you're gonna find many cases for non-professionals where they had consent and it was given in writing. I don't actually know, it's just a guess given observed human behaviour.
tiahura 5y ago
There’s also the small issue of the First Amendment. Anyone that thinks these revenge porn laws are going to get more than 2 votes with this Supreme Court - that’s pretty 1A absolutist - isn’t thinking clearly.
- etchalon 5y ago
  The first amendment wouldn't come into play here. Copyright and consent laws would.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    IANAL. Copyright and all associated rights of a photo/video by default belong to the photographer/videographer. (https://photofocus.com/business/photographer-or-model-who-owns-the-image/ https://photofocus.com/business/photographer-or-model-who-ow...) There are multiple factors that are involved, but generally speaking, consent laws end at the production of the photo/video. Distribution falls under copyright. Unless the subject was surreptitiously recorded with the intent of distribution or blackmail or was trespassed upon for the recording to be made, there is no copyright or consent violation. And yes, the First Amendment does apply. In fact, there have been cases where such laws have been struck down on the basis of the First Amendment (https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/475968-minnesota-strikes-down-revenge-porn-law https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/475968...).
    - rectang 5y ago
      There has long been a debate in the judiciary about the extent to which there exists a privacy carveout in First Amendment rights against disclosure of private information. What this means is that depending on judicial philosophy, either any such law must be carefully tailored (which seems reasonable and desirable), or any such law is inherently unconstitutional (which seems to me to offend common sense): https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1532/revenge-pornography https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1532/revenge-pornog... > Under current First Amendment guidelines, any laws regulating revenge pornography would have to be narrowly drawn and made in pursuit of a “compelling state interest.” Unfortunately, I agree with tiahura that there's little question how the current SCOTUS majority would rule — it's unlikely that they will find a "compelling state interest" in protecting the victims of revenge porn. The result will be that any victim without the resources and circumstances to bring and win a civil suit will be SOL.

majormajor 5y ago

Let's not claim that police are ONLY investigating rapes and murders all day. There's a lot of other time spent on stuff like pulling people over for expired tags or other more-minor-than-this shit.

WalterBright 5y ago
> expired tags There are really only two things the government actually cares about: 1. staying in power 2. collecting taxes So yeah, they're not going to overlook expired tags.
- quantified 5y ago
  Traffic stops that let them seize cash will definitely be a priority. So even your broken taillight means revenue.
- tharne 5y ago
  This is very true. I lived in a fairly high-crime city for a while. The police never really investigated burglaries or car thefts because of a lack of resources. But man, leave your car parked on the street for a couple of minutes after the meter expired, and BAM! a cop would appear out of nowhere to write you a ticket.
scarface74 5y ago
Police have all the time in the world for drug crimes and pulling over people because “they look suspicious”.