3 ms·
The protection of freedom of speech is fundamental, and one that Reddit is standing by. Ah, but the crux is how you define "freedom of speech". After all, in t
by rmc 14y ago
The protection of freedom of speech is fundamental, and one that Reddit is standing by.
Ah, but the crux is how you define "freedom of speech". After all, in the USA (AFAIK), it's legal to publish the personal details of a reddit user (which is exactly what gawker did here). And yet that is not allowed on reddit. Reddit have already decided "some things are legal, but we won't allow them here".
So you have to look at what sort of speech they protect (sexual photos of children, sexual photos of people without their consent) and what sort of speech they don't protect ("outing" people who take photos of people without their consent).
- Goronmon 14y agoSo you have to look at what sort of speech they protect (sexual photos of children, sexual photos of people without their consent) and what sort of speech they don't protect ("outing" people who take photos of people without their consent). "Outing" people leads directly to harassment. It's happened plenty of times in the past to make a fair assumption that it will happen in the future as well. This is the reality of the situation. The reason you can't allow it at all is there is no good way to enforce that "outing" someone is appropriate or correct in any given instance or that the person being "outed" is the person attached to said Reddit identity at all. So that rule protects direct harm from being done on users of Reddit.
- rmc 14y ago"Outing" people leads directly to harassment Agreed. But so does 'trying to take photos of a women's secondary sexual organs without her knowledge or consent' (creepshots). So shouldn't that be banned as well?
- Goronmon 14y agoBut so does 'trying to take photos of a women's secondary sexual organs without her knowledge or consent' (creepshots). Does it? If the person in question never visited the sub-reddit in question, would they even know the photo existed?
- rada 14y agoWe know. For god's sake, of course we know. What do you think, that we are blind? That every stalker has an expensive long-range camera and magical cammo where we can't see him? That you visit one Reddit, but we visit another Reddit? Or that we visit the same Reddit but just can't make the connection that pictures that happen to other girls can happen to us? Do you also think that it's ok to have sex with a girl who's drunk and passed out as long as you clean up afterwards?
- Goronmon 14y agoDo you also think that it's ok to have sex with a girl who's drunk and passed out as long as you clean up afterwards? You say that like it's a bad thing.
- tzs 14y agoSomeone visits, recognizes the person, sends the photo to friends, and soon it is circulating in the peer group of the victim, and they are being made the butt of jokes and being harassed.
- Goronmon 14y agoAnd that theoretical harassment will pale in comparison to what results when someone tied to something controversial is outed on reddit. It's not really comparable.
- tzs 14y ago1. It's not theoretical that people get bullied and harassed for photos of them found online. 2. Violentacrez is being harassed for unnecessary acts he CHOOSE to do (violating people's privacy). His victims did NOT choose to be violeted by him. He forced himself upon him. You are right that it is not comparable. 3. Violentacrez is an adult. He can change his name and move away for a fresh start, or obtain a firearm for protection. His young victims often will not have neither of those options.
- Karunamon 14y agoSo you have to look at what sort of speech they protect (sexual photos of children, sexual photos of people without their consent) and what sort of speech they don't protect ("outing" people who take photos of people without their consent). Did you read their justification for this?