4 ms·

> People viewing explicit images of you without your consent — whether those images are real or fake — is a form of sexual violence. What if you imagine it? Wh

by golol 3y ago

> People viewing explicit images of you without your consent — whether those images are real or fake — is a form of sexual violence. What if you imagine it? What if you describe it to your friend? What if you sketch it on your tablet and then delete it?

wmf 3y ago
That's thotcrime.
krastanov 3y ago
I am sure there is a line that is difficult to draw between what is ok and what is not, but can we not at least agree that there are two very different extremes easily separated by any such line: - most folks probably will agree that imagining sexual content with your teacher and keeping it to yourself is fine - most folks probably will also agree that making photorealistic fake porn of your teacher and spreading it around is akin to defamation or sexual harassment Let's take care of the extremes, then we can worry about the difficult middle.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  What about talking with somebody else about wanting to have sex with the teacher, even the whole class? I'm asking on purpose to figure out where the line is
  - krastanov 3y ago
    I do not know. However, we can take care of 90% of the problems in this context without having an answer to your question, because most cases are far from the dividing line.
- golol 3y ago
  Yea but the spreading around is the important part. Should just creating the content be illegal? Right now it kinda is but I don't find that to be quite consistent.
npteljes 3y ago
The crux is in the distribution. Does distribution enter your scenarios? Imagining it? That can't be distributed, so no issue here. Describing it to friend? I think it's no issue, as the setting is private, and words are ephemeral. Sketch it on tablet? As long as no one sees it, it's fine. Now, let's spice these up with distribution. What if you describe it not to a friend, but to an audience at a stand-up club? Or in a tweet? Or in a written publication? What if your sketch gets photographed, and put online? What if it's a semi-known person, and a tabloid gets ahold of the photo? I think the first and second scenarios differ a lot. And that while both can be likened to sexual violence, the second group is what does real damage.
- golol 3y ago
  I agree that distribution is the key. I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. Distribution is where you are really being immoral. And if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    >I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. That's because it largely is. It's also highly unenforceable, which raises the suspicion: how would a proponent intend to enforce it? By implementing surveillance? Or would this be just used to suppress political opponents for example? >if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear. I think if law would exist, then it would define these scenarios. I feel like there are a lot of already existing situations that are similar, and also legally defined. For example a legal firearm can be stolen from somebody, or accessed by a child, and some harm is done, then in some cases, the original owner is also implicated[0]. Or with drugs, possession and distribution are usually separated, even in the case of a completely banned substance, with distribution usually being a heavier category. [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-punished-if-someone-else-uses-my-firearm-com https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-pun...

by golol 3y ago

wmf 3y ago

That's thotcrime.

krastanov 3y ago

I am sure there is a line that is difficult to draw between what is ok and what is not, but can we not at least agree that there are two very different extremes easily separated by any such line: - most folks probably will agree that imagining sexual content with your teacher and keeping it to yourself is fine - most folks probably will also agree that making photorealistic fake porn of your teacher and spreading it around is akin to defamation or sexual harassment Let's take care of the extremes, then we can worry about the difficult middle.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
What about talking with somebody else about wanting to have sex with the teacher, even the whole class? I'm asking on purpose to figure out where the line is
- krastanov 3y ago
  I do not know. However, we can take care of 90% of the problems in this context without having an answer to your question, because most cases are far from the dividing line.
golol 3y ago
Yea but the spreading around is the important part. Should just creating the content be illegal? Right now it kinda is but I don't find that to be quite consistent.

npteljes 3y ago

The crux is in the distribution. Does distribution enter your scenarios? Imagining it? That can't be distributed, so no issue here. Describing it to friend? I think it's no issue, as the setting is private, and words are ephemeral. Sketch it on tablet? As long as no one sees it, it's fine. Now, let's spice these up with distribution. What if you describe it not to a friend, but to an audience at a stand-up club? Or in a tweet? Or in a written publication? What if your sketch gets photographed, and put online? What if it's a semi-known person, and a tabloid gets ahold of the photo? I think the first and second scenarios differ a lot. And that while both can be likened to sexual violence, the second group is what does real damage.

golol 3y ago
I agree that distribution is the key. I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. Distribution is where you are really being immoral. And if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear.
- npteljes 3y ago
  >I am not really comfortable with creation or viewing of such content being illegal. It feels like thoughtcrimes. That's because it largely is. It's also highly unenforceable, which raises the suspicion: how would a proponent intend to enforce it? By implementing surveillance? Or would this be just used to suppress political opponents for example? >if you create something in a form which makes it possible to distribute, and then someone just happens to get access and distributes it, is it not your fault too? Here it becomes unclear. I think if law would exist, then it would define these scenarios. I feel like there are a lot of already existing situations that are similar, and also legally defined. For example a legal firearm can be stolen from somebody, or accessed by a child, and some harm is done, then in some cases, the original owner is also implicated[0]. Or with drugs, possession and distribution are usually separated, even in the case of a completely banned substance, with distribution usually being a heavier category. [0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-punished-if-someone-else-uses-my-firearm-com https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-i-be-pun...