5 ms·

How is revenge porn worse than any of other morally questionable acts (to say the least) that we decided not to police in the sexual arena? Right now, if I defr

How is revenge porn worse than any of other morally questionable acts (to say the least) that we decided not to police in the sexual arena? Right now, if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved. If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. This is especially so if the person doesn't attach any conditions at the time (though as I showed, we're even prepared not to enforce such conditions in other circumstances).

tim333 11y ago
Well, with morally questionable acts in general there is a question of whether the law getting involved will make things better. For some stuff like say cheating on your girlfriend the answer is probably no, for murder probably yes. As to revenge porn I'd lead towards yes in many cases. It the case of 'isanyoneup' for example >Hunter Moore, 26, used to run a website called IsAnyoneUp.com, which he told "Nightline" he had launched as a place for "public humiliation." I have no problem with people like that getting prosecuted which he was in the end.
elemenopy 11y ago
> if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved While I can't speak for the U.S., in New Zealand consent is vitiated by mistaken identity [1]. I suspect there is also common law precedent. > If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. Firstly, because from a policy perspective, having an intimate recording publicly and permanently released without consent massively harms the victim to the extent they may be driven to suicide, and there is no reasonable case to be made that the perpetrator should have the right to release such a recording, considering their intention is to inflict pain and trauma upon their victim. Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. It is a social norm that if you receive a sext you do not immediately post it to Facebook. I see no problem in establishing this implicit confidential relationship in statute considering the outcomes of revenge porn. 1. Crimes Act s 128A(6) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/D...
- cataphract 11y ago
  In the US, it's not as clear cut: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/11/court_rules_sex_through_use_of_fraud_is_not_rape/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/11/court_r... > Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. Lots of things are implicitly provided in confidence and yet we don't punish people through the legal system for violating confidence. If I tell a secret to a friend that would bring me disrepute if widely known and he reveals it to the world, can I sue him absent an NDA (assume that he knows that I told it to him in confidence)? As to implicit consent, we actually assume consent very broadly in other areas of the law -- see for instance the third party doctrine -- people who voluntarily give information to third parties have "no reasonable expectation of privacy". But I guess if it's the government it's OK.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > people who voluntarily give information to third parties have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" Well, under the law in many countries, that is not the case. For example, Facebook may not give any of your data to advertisers if you live in the EU. Similar situations exist in New Zealandish law.

tim333 11y ago

Well, with morally questionable acts in general there is a question of whether the law getting involved will make things better. For some stuff like say cheating on your girlfriend the answer is probably no, for murder probably yes. As to revenge porn I'd lead towards yes in many cases. It the case of 'isanyoneup' for example >Hunter Moore, 26, used to run a website called IsAnyoneUp.com, which he told "Nightline" he had launched as a place for "public humiliation." I have no problem with people like that getting prosecuted which he was in the end.

elemenopy 11y ago

> if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved While I can't speak for the U.S., in New Zealand consent is vitiated by mistaken identity [1]. I suspect there is also common law precedent. > If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. Firstly, because from a policy perspective, having an intimate recording publicly and permanently released without consent massively harms the victim to the extent they may be driven to suicide, and there is no reasonable case to be made that the perpetrator should have the right to release such a recording, considering their intention is to inflict pain and trauma upon their victim. Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. It is a social norm that if you receive a sext you do not immediately post it to Facebook. I see no problem in establishing this implicit confidential relationship in statute considering the outcomes of revenge porn. 1. Crimes Act s 128A(6) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/D...

cataphract 11y ago
In the US, it's not as clear cut: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/11/court_rules_sex_through_use_of_fraud_is_not_rape/ http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/11/court_r... > Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. Lots of things are implicitly provided in confidence and yet we don't punish people through the legal system for violating confidence. If I tell a secret to a friend that would bring me disrepute if widely known and he reveals it to the world, can I sue him absent an NDA (assume that he knows that I told it to him in confidence)? As to implicit consent, we actually assume consent very broadly in other areas of the law -- see for instance the third party doctrine -- people who voluntarily give information to third parties have "no reasonable expectation of privacy". But I guess if it's the government it's OK.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > people who voluntarily give information to third parties have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" Well, under the law in many countries, that is not the case. For example, Facebook may not give any of your data to advertisers if you live in the EU. Similar situations exist in New Zealandish law.