4 ms·

This is going to sound kind of ridiculous, but I think a flaw with this viewpoint is that you're saying that a "revenge porn" site is inherently bad with bad ef

This is going to sound kind of ridiculous, but I think a flaw with this viewpoint is that you're saying that a "revenge porn" site is inherently bad with bad effects and bad intent. For the sake of argument, I can imagine a scenario where an upcoming adult model submits "revenge" pictures that she took herself as a form of free publicity, or another popular revenge site that is actually run by an adult modeling company where all content is actually generated by them under the facade of being "revenge porn". Should this content be illegal? Should the site that the model submitted to be fined? What if all documentation was destroyed in the case of the second site, but it was just the state going after it? Do you trust a court of law to make these decisions accurately? These aren't easy questions, and this is why I have trouble with going after businesses that are morally suspect. It always seems to set a dangerous precedent for businesses that are on the edge or on the "moral" side of things.

drewcrawford 13y ago
Unfortunately, we have not understood each other. You are saying things like > Should this content be illegal? Meanwhile I'm saying things like > it's important not just that you have bad effects, but that you have a bad intent and > we are not prosecuting packets, but prosecuting people Let me try and use your terminology. There is no such thing as illegal content. There is content that is produced in the course of a criminal act. But it isn't the content that is illegal, it's the act. I think the rest of your comment follows from that misunderstanding of my premise, but if not, let me know, and I can respond to the actual merits.