4 ms·
"Public interest" usually distinguishes journalism from other media. Granted, this is a nebulous concept. But it is hard to make the case that revenge porn se
by rpenm 13y ago
"Public interest" usually distinguishes journalism from other media. Granted, this is a nebulous concept. But it is hard to make the case that revenge porn serves the public interest. It targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize. Even state surveillance pretends to serve the public interest - Moore and his ilk make no such claim.
The Weiner case is an arguable comparison. The character/judgment of a political leader is usually considered a question of public interest. And voters didn't reject him for the images - he was the leading mayoral candidate for a time. Only the 2013 scandal made Weiner seem irredeemably dishonest.
If anything, Weiner benefited from the gender bias in these kinds of cases.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago"Public interest" is a very nebulous concept. For example, consider this news report which targets the powerless in order to dominate and dehumanize: http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-new-tech-bro-nightmare-1280336916 http://valleywag.gawker.com/business-insider-ctos-is-your-ne... Much like the report on Pax Dickinson, revenge porn is simply exposing the (completely legal) views and opinions of an individual typically employed in the private sector. And it's doing so in a way designed to cause others to dislike the individual being reporter on. Is the report on Pax Dickinson not journalism? (Hypothetically suppose the report was based on leaked emails rather than public tweets if you believe privacy plays a role.) Appealing to the public interest really seems like reaching to me. And somehow, I suspect that the next Carlos Danger will argue that his nude selfies don't serve the public interest and should therefore be censored.