4 ms·

As a practical matter, throwing the matter to civil court ensures a vast epidemic of revenge porn. There are a lot of people who don't think that's a big deal.

As a practical matter, throwing the matter to civil court ensures a vast epidemic of revenge porn. There are a lot of people who don't think that's a big deal. But there are also a lot of people who do: 46 US states have have passed laws criminalizing revenge porn. There are lots of problems which are theoretically resolvable by civil courts but where the results would be too inefficient or incomplete and so criminal statutes have been passed. Criminal legislation to stem revenge porn is happening, even if you would rather it not.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
"Revenge porn" laws have been on the books for about a decade or so and haven't slowed it down at all. In fact, all they've done is push it further underground. The only practical effect has been on the media of distribution, not if or to what degree "revenge porn" is distributed. That most legislatures across the country favor over-broad criminalization does not make your claim meaningfully representative of the people who are subject to these laws or of the courts who will ultimately adjudicate the issue. Every case is tried on its own merits, not ones prescribed by popularity or mere practicality.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rectang 5y ago
  > In fact, all they've done is push it further underground. Deplatforming revenge porn is a win. Having less revenge porn on PornHub is a win. You're welcome to disagree, just as advocates for Voat, Parler, etc. would — and as companies such as Manwin who would prefer to exploit the victims of revenge porn for profit would. > Every case is tried on its own merits The vast majority of civil cases don't even become cases let alone get tried on their merits. For a huge swath of the population who do not have the expertise, the resources, the time, or the life circumstances to obtain a lawyer and pursue a case, civil courts are not practically accessible. In contrast, while reporting to criminal authorities has all kinds of issues including that those authorities may be unsympathetic, the criminal system at least does not place such outrageous demands on those who report a crime. Holding civil court aloft as a sufficient remedy for revenge porn may not be disingenuous if you actually think that a typical victim could sue, but it's wildly unreasonable.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    > Deplatforming revenge porn is a win. Having less revenge porn on PornHub is win. PornHub didn't deplatform "revenge porn". It nuked more than half of its vast library of legal content under outside pressure and questionable allegations of hosting what may or may not have been "revenge porn". Even when there has never been a law in Canada that has defined in any way, shape, or form what "revenge porn" is. Millions of videos became martyrs for a cause of dubious effectiveness and even more dubious reasoning. On a practical level, the indiscriminate purge of content did nothing but punish innocent users. If you think that substituting due process with such massive collateral damage is a "win", then one cannot conclude your opinion to be reasonable at all. > The vast majority of civil cases don't even become cases let alone get tried on their merits For vast majority of cases, civil and criminal, filings fail to pass muster for multiple reasons. Common ones are Failure to Make a Claim or Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction among other legal errors. Many claimants have a chance of refiling, however legal standards shouldn't be lowered on grounds of sympathy based upon hitherto unsubstantiated claims. That only encourages witch hunts and fallacious charges.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

"Revenge porn" laws have been on the books for about a decade or so and haven't slowed it down at all. In fact, all they've done is push it further underground. The only practical effect has been on the media of distribution, not if or to what degree "revenge porn" is distributed. That most legislatures across the country favor over-broad criminalization does not make your claim meaningfully representative of the people who are subject to these laws or of the courts who will ultimately adjudicate the issue. Every case is tried on its own merits, not ones prescribed by popularity or mere practicality.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rectang 5y ago
> In fact, all they've done is push it further underground. Deplatforming revenge porn is a win. Having less revenge porn on PornHub is a win. You're welcome to disagree, just as advocates for Voat, Parler, etc. would — and as companies such as Manwin who would prefer to exploit the victims of revenge porn for profit would. > Every case is tried on its own merits The vast majority of civil cases don't even become cases let alone get tried on their merits. For a huge swath of the population who do not have the expertise, the resources, the time, or the life circumstances to obtain a lawyer and pursue a case, civil courts are not practically accessible. In contrast, while reporting to criminal authorities has all kinds of issues including that those authorities may be unsympathetic, the criminal system at least does not place such outrageous demands on those who report a crime. Holding civil court aloft as a sufficient remedy for revenge porn may not be disingenuous if you actually think that a typical victim could sue, but it's wildly unreasonable.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  > Deplatforming revenge porn is a win. Having less revenge porn on PornHub is win. PornHub didn't deplatform "revenge porn". It nuked more than half of its vast library of legal content under outside pressure and questionable allegations of hosting what may or may not have been "revenge porn". Even when there has never been a law in Canada that has defined in any way, shape, or form what "revenge porn" is. Millions of videos became martyrs for a cause of dubious effectiveness and even more dubious reasoning. On a practical level, the indiscriminate purge of content did nothing but punish innocent users. If you think that substituting due process with such massive collateral damage is a "win", then one cannot conclude your opinion to be reasonable at all. > The vast majority of civil cases don't even become cases let alone get tried on their merits For vast majority of cases, civil and criminal, filings fail to pass muster for multiple reasons. Common ones are Failure to Make a Claim or Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction among other legal errors. Many claimants have a chance of refiling, however legal standards shouldn't be lowered on grounds of sympathy based upon hitherto unsubstantiated claims. That only encourages witch hunts and fallacious charges.