7 ms·

Courts don't exist to solve all disputes, surely. One clear indication that this is not an appropriate dispute to solve using men with guns is the fact that she

by gw 13y ago

Courts don't exist to solve all disputes, surely. One clear indication that this is not an appropriate dispute to solve using men with guns is the fact that she had to rely on awkward legal maneuvers (retroactively registering the photo with the copyright office and sending a DMCA notice) that clearly weren't intended for this. The alternative is not to engage in a different form of violence, but rather to ignore it and continue on with your life. Edit: To be clear, I'm aware that some of these victims lost their jobs. I did not mean to suggest there was no harm done. However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain.

sliverstorm 13y ago
The alternative is not to engage in a different form of violence, but rather to ignore it and continue on with your life. You and I have our beliefs about sexuality, and perhaps any one woman showing up on this website could elect to ignore it. But it's quite clear that Hunter was causing women real harm & suffering, regardless what your or my beliefs about sexuality are. Particularly considering he got people fired. I don't know about you, but someone getting me fired is not some little joke I can ignore. One clear indication that this is not an appropriate dispute (...) is the fact that she had to rely on awkward legal maneuvers I disagree. I believe that's a clear indication the legal system is currently catching up to technology, not that the law doesn't belong on the internet.
- 3825 13y ago
  > Particularly considering he got people fired. Perhaps we need to look at this from a different angle. Why can employers fire me for having a naked picture taken? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault firing as well. I think the comment was talking about changing social attitude more than anything else if I read it right. If we make it normal to have nude pictures on the Internet, then these sites will automatically lose steam.
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    Why can employers fire me for having a naked picture taken? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault firing as well. Why can people choose not to purchase from Chick-a-Fil because they dislike the anti-gay opinions of the owner? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault failure to purchase chicken as well. Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions. Except employers are not free to hire and fire, even in weird societies where that's seen as a good idea. They're not allowed to discriminate against people with protected characteristics. In this situation it's possible the employers are vulnerable to sexual discrimination lawsuit, because revenge porn websites target mostly women.
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        I'm well aware that the US is not a free society once you choose to engage in commerce. And as of next year, you won't even be free not to engage in commerce.
        dennisgorelik 13y ago
        What would happen next year?
    - Daishiman 13y ago
      > Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions. BS. We are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of several criteria. Government agencies certainly cannot refuse service on arbitrary criteria, and minority groups throughout history have had to resort to the law due to the fact that oppressive majorities might be unfairly boycotting them. There is no such thing as a "free society"; there are societies with different values and with different criteria as to who are fairly and unfairly victimized. For the record, in most civilized countries at-will employment where you can be fired on the spot without compensation for no justification is considered to be a gross undermining of worker's rights.
bjh13 13y ago
Ignoring it and continuing on with your life isn't an option if you have to worry that next time you apply for a job someone is going to search your name and find that picture. This guy wasn't posting these pictures annonymously, he was including personal and identifying information so that it would come up if you searched their name and even their facebook timeline. You should also look past the daughter in the story, what about the teacher who was fired on the spot when the photo was posted? Not only was she fired, but she would be unable to work in that field ever again. How could she possibly ignore what happened?
ebiester 13y ago
...and if you are fired because someone sees your naked photo? If someone comes up to you in a store and says, "I've seen you naked?" Both of these were examples of the harassment women go through regularly after an event like this.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Many of the photos were photoshopped.
  - tesseractive 13y ago
    I'm sure that's a great comfort if you're being harassed by people over the photos.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      Sorry, didn't mean to say it is any less of an offence.
  - ebiester 13y ago
    Yes, but I'm not a fan of the innocent/'guilty' dynamic here. No woman deserves that, whether or not the photo in question has been photoshopped.
    - chris_wot 13y ago
      I communicated poorly - my fault as I never meant to imply that!
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Stop right there - "...and if you're fired because someone sees your naked photo" by itself is a separate unexcusable problem that needs to be solved. Someone seeing your naked photo should never, ever be an acceptable reason for firing someone, no matter where you work. The original article discusses on how to prevent the naked photos from being spread; but we also need to fix this issue as well.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
makomk 13y ago
The reason she had to rely on awkward legal maneuvers involving the DMCA is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives websites like this one pretty broad immunity from legal action over everything except copyright infringement and federal criminal offences. Basically, she had to resort to a copyright infringement lawsuit because copyright holders are the only group with more lobbying power than online service providers. The courts have apparently interpreted it broadly enough to bar people from getting an injunction requiring the site to take down the offending content when they would otherwise have a basis for doing so. There's a whole bunch of entirely legal online extortion businesses built on this simple fact; the most prominent lawyer fighting these revenge porn sites - Marc Randazza, who advised her - is actually doing so on behalf of one of them and so has incentive to preserve Section 230 of the CDA.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Prudish culture? What a pathetic excuse to save your worldview that entails disenfranchising people legally simply because your hyperbolic insinuation this litigation is another form of violence.
sliverstorm 13y ago
However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain. Ah, so his villainy is rendered less villainous by this fact? His villainy is somehow not his responsibility, because his impact was indirect? Or do you mean to suggest that the wronged women, instead of pursuing the man who targeted them EXPRESSLY TO RUIN THEIR LIVES should instead undertake the relatively trivial task of changing the moral values of an entire nation?
- rakoo 13y ago
  He didn't say Moore was less villain. He's saying Moore is not the only one to blame, and that can be understood: would you accept being fired because your boss saw a picture of you having a tennis game ? would you accept if it was a photo of a lunch with your friends ? There is no reason a boss can fire you because of your private life.
  - mcv 13y ago
    This absolutely reveals a problem in society, and a problem with employee's rights and employers being able to fire people for things that are none of the employer's business. But none of that changes that Moore and his henchmen are the primary villains here. Behind bars is the only place for that kind of malice.
6d0debc071 13y ago
> Courts don't exist to solve all disputes, surely. Courts exist, among other things, to solve such relatively petty disputes as whether you were ripped off over a £50 TV, or whether people moved a fence an inch. The magnitude of harm here is clearly greater; I've yet to hear of someone otherwise stable being driven to suicide over a TV. It's not sufficient support for the idea that the courts shouldn't address something to say that someone had to do some legal manoeuvring because it's not specifically covered yet. > However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain. Why should that make a difference? He clearly was aware of the harm he was contributing to, in a fairly major way, and continued with it anyway. There was a clear line of cause and effect from his actions to the harm, that he was aware of. That this line was social rather than physical in nature strike me as an arbitrary distinction. If I put a bounty out on you, the line of effect is social rather than physical in nature as well; I didn't pull the trigger, it's just that I was talking to a greedy person who valued money more than your life.
- mcv 13y ago
  It certainly belongs in court, just maybe not in a civil one. It's a criminal case. Well, damages for the victims (surely much more than the villains will ever be able to pay) may belong in a civil court, but these people also belong behind bars for a good long time. If you're willing to ruin someone's life like that, you do not deserve to live in a way where you're capable of doing so.
mcv 13y ago
> To be clear, I'm aware that some of these victims lost their jobs. I did not mean to suggest there was no harm done. However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain. They did lose their job directly due to the actions of the villains. It was an organized attack to ruin some innocent person's life. The prudish society provides them the means, but let's not forget that these people are pure evil. There's not the slightest excuse or reason for what they did, other than pure, unadulterated malice. The nudity makes it easy, but when that tool is taken away from them (it certainly should), there are still plenty of other ways they can discredit, slander or ruin someone.

by gw 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

The alternative is not to engage in a different form of violence, but rather to ignore it and continue on with your life. You and I have our beliefs about sexuality, and perhaps any one woman showing up on this website could elect to ignore it. But it's quite clear that Hunter was causing women real harm & suffering, regardless what your or my beliefs about sexuality are. Particularly considering he got people fired. I don't know about you, but someone getting me fired is not some little joke I can ignore. One clear indication that this is not an appropriate dispute (...) is the fact that she had to rely on awkward legal maneuvers I disagree. I believe that's a clear indication the legal system is currently catching up to technology, not that the law doesn't belong on the internet.

3825 13y ago
> Particularly considering he got people fired. Perhaps we need to look at this from a different angle. Why can employers fire me for having a naked picture taken? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault firing as well. I think the comment was talking about changing social attitude more than anything else if I read it right. If we make it normal to have nude pictures on the Internet, then these sites will automatically lose steam.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  Why can employers fire me for having a naked picture taken? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault firing as well. Why can people choose not to purchase from Chick-a-Fil because they dislike the anti-gay opinions of the owner? Perhaps we need to roll back no-fault failure to purchase chicken as well. Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions. Except employers are not free to hire and fire, even in weird societies where that's seen as a good idea. They're not allowed to discriminate against people with protected characteristics. In this situation it's possible the employers are vulnerable to sexual discrimination lawsuit, because revenge porn websites target mostly women.
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      I'm well aware that the US is not a free society once you choose to engage in commerce. And as of next year, you won't even be free not to engage in commerce.
      - dennisgorelik 13y ago
        What would happen next year?
  - Daishiman 13y ago
    > Meanwhile, back in a free society, people are allowed to freely associate with whoever they choose even if we disagree with their opinions. BS. We are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of several criteria. Government agencies certainly cannot refuse service on arbitrary criteria, and minority groups throughout history have had to resort to the law due to the fact that oppressive majorities might be unfairly boycotting them. There is no such thing as a "free society"; there are societies with different values and with different criteria as to who are fairly and unfairly victimized. For the record, in most civilized countries at-will employment where you can be fired on the spot without compensation for no justification is considered to be a gross undermining of worker's rights.

bjh13 13y ago

Ignoring it and continuing on with your life isn't an option if you have to worry that next time you apply for a job someone is going to search your name and find that picture. This guy wasn't posting these pictures annonymously, he was including personal and identifying information so that it would come up if you searched their name and even their facebook timeline. You should also look past the daughter in the story, what about the teacher who was fired on the spot when the photo was posted? Not only was she fired, but she would be unable to work in that field ever again. How could she possibly ignore what happened?

ebiester 13y ago

...and if you are fired because someone sees your naked photo? If someone comes up to you in a store and says, "I've seen you naked?" Both of these were examples of the harassment women go through regularly after an event like this.

chris_wot 13y ago
Many of the photos were photoshopped.
- tesseractive 13y ago
  I'm sure that's a great comfort if you're being harassed by people over the photos.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Sorry, didn't mean to say it is any less of an offence.
- ebiester 13y ago
  Yes, but I'm not a fan of the innocent/'guilty' dynamic here. No woman deserves that, whether or not the photo in question has been photoshopped.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    I communicated poorly - my fault as I never meant to imply that!
PeterisP 13y ago
Stop right there - "...and if you're fired because someone sees your naked photo" by itself is a separate unexcusable problem that needs to be solved. Someone seeing your naked photo should never, ever be an acceptable reason for firing someone, no matter where you work. The original article discusses on how to prevent the naked photos from being spread; but we also need to fix this issue as well.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

makomk 13y ago

The reason she had to rely on awkward legal maneuvers involving the DMCA is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives websites like this one pretty broad immunity from legal action over everything except copyright infringement and federal criminal offences. Basically, she had to resort to a copyright infringement lawsuit because copyright holders are the only group with more lobbying power than online service providers. The courts have apparently interpreted it broadly enough to bar people from getting an injunction requiring the site to take down the offending content when they would otherwise have a basis for doing so. There's a whole bunch of entirely legal online extortion businesses built on this simple fact; the most prominent lawyer fighting these revenge porn sites - Marc Randazza, who advised her - is actually doing so on behalf of one of them and so has incentive to preserve Section 230 of the CDA.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

Prudish culture? What a pathetic excuse to save your worldview that entails disenfranchising people legally simply because your hyperbolic insinuation this litigation is another form of violence.

sliverstorm 13y ago

However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain. Ah, so his villainy is rendered less villainous by this fact? His villainy is somehow not his responsibility, because his impact was indirect? Or do you mean to suggest that the wronged women, instead of pursuing the man who targeted them EXPRESSLY TO RUIN THEIR LIVES should instead undertake the relatively trivial task of changing the moral values of an entire nation?

rakoo 13y ago
He didn't say Moore was less villain. He's saying Moore is not the only one to blame, and that can be understood: would you accept being fired because your boss saw a picture of you having a tennis game ? would you accept if it was a photo of a lunch with your friends ? There is no reason a boss can fire you because of your private life.
- mcv 13y ago
  This absolutely reveals a problem in society, and a problem with employee's rights and employers being able to fire people for things that are none of the employer's business. But none of that changes that Moore and his henchmen are the primary villains here. Behind bars is the only place for that kind of malice.

6d0debc071 13y ago

> Courts don't exist to solve all disputes, surely. Courts exist, among other things, to solve such relatively petty disputes as whether you were ripped off over a £50 TV, or whether people moved a fence an inch. The magnitude of harm here is clearly greater; I've yet to hear of someone otherwise stable being driven to suicide over a TV. It's not sufficient support for the idea that the courts shouldn't address something to say that someone had to do some legal manoeuvring because it's not specifically covered yet. > However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain. Why should that make a difference? He clearly was aware of the harm he was contributing to, in a fairly major way, and continued with it anyway. There was a clear line of cause and effect from his actions to the harm, that he was aware of. That this line was social rather than physical in nature strike me as an arbitrary distinction. If I put a bounty out on you, the line of effect is social rather than physical in nature as well; I didn't pull the trigger, it's just that I was talking to a greedy person who valued money more than your life.

mcv 13y ago
It certainly belongs in court, just maybe not in a civil one. It's a criminal case. Well, damages for the victims (surely much more than the villains will ever be able to pay) may belong in a civil court, but these people also belong behind bars for a good long time. If you're willing to ruin someone's life like that, you do not deserve to live in a way where you're capable of doing so.

mcv 13y ago

> To be clear, I'm aware that some of these victims lost their jobs. I did not mean to suggest there was no harm done. However, they lost their job due to the prudish culture that I originally referred to, not directly by the actions of the villain. They did lose their job directly due to the actions of the villains. It was an organized attack to ruin some innocent person's life. The prudish society provides them the means, but let's not forget that these people are pure evil. There's not the slightest excuse or reason for what they did, other than pure, unadulterated malice. The nudity makes it easy, but when that tool is taken away from them (it certainly should), there are still plenty of other ways they can discredit, slander or ruin someone.