PRACTICE “IS AT BEST A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY, AT WORST SEXUAL ASSAULT”
|| By TAYLOR BROWN || A relationship is built on trust. A good relationship is one where both parties trust each other wholly and completely. A good relationship is one where neither party disseminates naked photos of the other party – even if it ends.
Live and let love, if you will.
Unfortunately not everyone sees things in this light.
This website – guided by the ultra-libertarian, maturity-challenged views of its founding editor, Will Folks – recently addressed what happens when this trust is broken via the dissemination of these nude photos (a.k.a. “revenge porn”).
From that post …
This website has repeatedly written against laws seeking to outlaw “revenge porn.”
“Unlike a lot of porn floating around the world wide web “revenge porn” is generally obtained with consent. Willing consent,” we wrote back in 2013. “And this process generally doesn’t involve any legally binding prohibitions against the future dissemination of said material.”
Again, this is simple: If you don’t want your junk out there … don’t put your junk out there.
Let me be 100 percent clear – Will Folks does not speak for every contributor – no matter how infrequently they write. I stand resolute in my belief that revenge porn should be completely illegal, and if one is caught distributing pornographic photos of their ex, he or she should be prosecuted.
“Why? She sent them to him!” you may say …
Yes, in most cases (let’s not even open up the “hacked webcam” can of worms), yet she never gave him permission to distribute them to her coworkers, boss, family, or world. This, in my opinion, is a form of sexual assault.
And to say “well she shouldn’t have sent them” is the same argument rape victims face constantly – “you shouldn’t have been out so late!” “You shouldn’t have been wearing that!” “Well why’d you drink so much – you were basically leading him on!”
Do you think a woman (or man) wants the rest of the world to see the most intimate parts of her body? I doubt it. It’s essentially no different than if any man came up to a woman and just lifted up her shirt – against her will – because her ex was mad and said he could.
If you don’t subscribe to this form of thought, you should at least believe it’s a violation of privacy. If you have a problem with what the National Security Agency (NSA) does in tracking you/invading your privacy — as Will Folks has written about ad nauseam — you should have a problem with this. Even if someone consented to have their pictures taken, they didn’t consent to have those photos disseminated to a mass audience.
Watch this John Oliver clip about revenge porn:
(Click to play)
(Vid: Via)
What the f*ck?! A woman has to copyright her genitals in order for it to be a crime?! This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. She literally has to send in photos of her naked body to a bunch of strangers in Washington, D.C. in order to not have a bunch of strangers ogle her body online.
I went against my better judgement and read the comments on FITS’ recent revenge porn column. Jesus, y’all; Seriously? Is it only a crime if the woman is ugly? Shame on you.
What if it was your child who naively trusted their intimate partner with their most intimate parts – would you want to see their lives ruined by the actions of a scorned lover? I doubt it. Would you want his or her future to always be tied to pornography or how their naked body looks? Does this disgust you thinking about your child’s body in a sexual manner? GOOD. IT SHOULD.
Revenge porn is at best a violation of privacy and at worst sexual harassment or assault.
I call upon the federal government and the state governments to ban revenge porn and to create stiff penalties for those who propagate the naked photos of their former intimate partner.
If some sexual assaulter/ ex-boyfriend can’t have respect for privacy, let them suffer the harsh legal repercussions of their actions.
Taylor Brown is a 20-something Wofford College graduate who somehow got sucked into politics at an early age. She is easily won over with Rush’s fast food, wine, and spirited political arguments.
84 comments
“Do you think a woman (or man) wants the rest of the world to see the most intimate parts of her body?”
Show us your tits!
Forget about that, look at those eyes!!!!!!
You posted this before, Buzzman.
Was not the real Rocky – yet again – thanks Flip!!!
“Do you think a woman (or man) wants the rest of the world to see the most intimate parts of her body?”
Uh! Isn’t that what makes the porn industry work? Have you never surfed the “seedy side” of the web? Have you ever been to Mardi Gras? Do I need to carry a permission slip so I can send Mardi Gras pics to my friends?
2015 Feminism is nothing but blaming someone else for what you willingly and wantonly do, then regret.
Don’t want it out there, don’t do it. Realize that being a Ho’ is like a tattoo. It’s there forever. There were no shortcuts in the past, and there ain’t none now, no matter that you believed in the bible of ignorant behavior written by Gloria Steinem.
You cannot have it both ways, even if the Democrats tell you, you can if you vote for them. The free lunch runs out, eventually. And you are left there w/ yourself, while Hillary is living like a queen, and you’re a lonely skank, used up.
The liberals lied to you. And they don’t pay for their lies. The stupid of you who believe it, pay. Let that be a lesson.
Your whole rant is stupid.
My sentiments exactly. I don’t see the correlation between someone sharing intimate photos with a significant other and that person being a whore. Sounds like a very judgmental person who takes life way too seriously.
You don’t see it because you’re too fucking stupid to see it. You are the type moron I’m alluding to, as a blind liberal Dumbass.
Name calling is for the intellectually bankrupt.
What usually gets those intimate photos spread around is when the guy who has them, husband or boyfriend, finds out little miss helpless has been sharing her intimate parts all over town. Taylor must be guilty of this and feels the need for special laws to protect her and other little strumpets in case a boyfriend should discover that she has been spreading more than a little influence among the old men at the capital building.
Your comment tells me you don’t get much play and feel guilty about it.
Or maybe when she left dumb-ass redneck for a real man, and his little feelings are hurt. Assholes come in all sizes, and genders.
Once more, feminists like Taylor go out of their way to prove that women really are not equal to or as good as men by demanding special laws to protect pooe widdle them from the big bad man. As usual, they need special laws and special treatment while demanding to be treated as equals.
Hilarious.
The don’t realize how powerful their juice box is.
Oh boy, this one is going to drive out the perverts in the comments section. All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Another good article, Taylor. You are right, on all points.
Ignore the mouth-breathing perves and woman-haters.
How Ironic. (:
Morning, Flip.
Awwww did you and Taylor make up and reconcile your differences over the confederate flag already? How sweet.
Oh my, Taylor! Where do I start?
(1) “Yes, in most cases (let’s not even open up the “hacked webcam” can of worms)
– This is a clear failure to logically link two ideas. When one hacks another’s webcam, this woefully misses the element of general consent; to the contrary, this act is purely criminal and an invasion of privacy. Moreover, there are federal statutes (and state) that specifically address this issue. This could not be farther related to “revenge porn.”
(2) “[Y]et she never gave him permission to distribute them to her coworkers, boss, family, or world.”
– Indeed. That is quite obvious. However, consent (aka divesting a property right) doesn’t work that way. When one relinquishes a property right with no contractual covenants or limitations, then he/she cannot later claim that another has exceeded the original scope when he/she fails to give evidence to the contrary. If we want to follow your rationale, then simply require that the dingbat willing to send their private photos out across the “interweb” (which itself is not exactly private, by the way–let down, I know) must acquire a written restriction on that property right in advance. Then you can allow civil courts handle a breach of contract claim, or the validity of a property right. Just because its a picture of your “current girlfriend or boyfriend” does NOT elevate the property to some higher level beyond our current jurisprudence. To do so flagrantly destroys all senses of law and order.
(3) “And to say ‘well she shouldn’t have sent them’ is the same argument rape victims face constantly – ‘you shouldn’t have been out so late!’ ‘You shouldn’t have been wearing that!'”
– No! Just, no! I will not allow you to trivialize a rape victim’s horrific encounter with that of someone willingly sending a picture of themselves across an unsecure network with some kind of “implied yet not actually agreed upon” restriction that should the relationship end, the right to access the image should also end. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself–especially considering you allege to have been a victim of this yourself, no? Even if one were to believe this distorted grasp of property law, how could they still analogize this to rape? Astounding!
(4) “It’s essentially no different than if any man came up to a woman and just lifted up her shirt – against her will – because her ex was mad and said he could.”
– Just, No, again! This is extremely different. I know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but there are existing laws that deal with one who lifts another’s shirt against her will. There is no consent to do.
What other implied conditions must we assume are written into the world of “life?” When one makes a decision, he cannot later retract his consent or decision just because he did not contemplate all of the possible ramifications. That’s life, dear. It sucks, I get it. However, every other FAD that leads to harmful results is addressed by correcting the behavior that leads to such results. Smoking was cool in 1950. Smoking is not so cool now that science has learned. So we encourage those to quit smoking. We don’t outlaw cigarettes, or something akin to North Korea.
(5) “I went against my better judgement and read the comments on FITS’ recent revenge porn column. Jesus, y’all; Seriously? Is it only a crime if the woman is ugly? Shame on you.”
– Agreed. That is a shame and I am in complete agreement that this was distasteful.
(6) “What if it was your child who naively trusted their intimate partner with their most intimate parts – would you want to see their lives ruined by the actions of a scorned lover?”
– Of course I would not want to see their lives ruined. Quite a silly rhetorical question, honestly. I also would not want to see my children become heroine addicts. Ergo, I will teach them the dangers of drugs as well as the dangers of social media, and sending digital information across the unsecure internet. The fix is not writing another law. The fix is simply that of any other newly discovered trend.
In final thought, I should say that I am one who agrees with you on quite a few other issues. Thus, so don’t write off my counter arguments as simply a means to always seek the controversial opinion. You have been right plenty of times, but you are flat-out wrong here, Taylor.
this is a lot of words to justify plastering naked pictures of someone all over the internet without his or her consent.
You mistake my call to reform behavior and adhere to current jurisprudence as a “justification” for current behavior. Is a corporation wrong for firing an employee when that employee posts disturbing or distasteful photos and/or disparaging comments on Facebook and Instagram? Should we write some new laws to protect the employees to look like fools and portray a terrible image of themselves and subsequently their employer?
In sum, your post was very “few” words to make no counterargument, but rather incorrectly state my original position.
this post attempts to justify plastering naked pictures of someone all over the internet without his or her consent by drawing a false equivalency.
You’re still deflecting.
False equivalency…to some extent, I’ll accept your poke. That said, (1) you continue to abstain from my current and original argument, and merely poke at my quick retort; (2) please tell me how my slightly false equivalency compares to the blatant falsity of comparing this topic to (a) rape, (b) sexual battery i.e. lifting up shirt; and (c) hacked webcams, vaguely by reference.
Quite ironic that your only substantive response is to blow the “false equivalency” whistle in light of the original article that is laden with a horrendous use of the same.
you compared posting someone else’s p r i v a t e intimate photos onto the internet without his/her consent to photos posted publicly within an employer-employee relationship. you seem legally inclined based on that property rights bit, so you must already know there is generally no expectation of privacy while someone is out in public. two very different situations.
you have also ignored that all sexually-based offenses involve one party taking advantage of another’s most private areas without his/her consent.
this is the one subject that always irks me when talking about it with what I am guessing is a fellow conservative. I don’t foresee either of us changing the other’s mind, so I don’t feel a need to continue on from this point.
TL;DR I am of the opinion that the blame rests squarely on the individual that thinks it is okay to put private images of someone else on the internet, regardless of how that individual got them. we disagree. so it goes.
Correct. There is no expectation of privacy for acts made out in public. However, you fail to realize that my hypothetical–which is not necessary to prove my point–can contain the very same aspect of someone posting a photo (of a 3rd party) given to them which results in an employer firing his employee. In other words, it is a p r i v a t e photo, just not a nude photo.
Forget the hypothetical, altogether. Good cases make bad law, plain and simple. This is more about people taking responsibility for their behavior. DON’T give someone something if you don’t want the risk of it traveling beyond its intended recipient, without taking proper safeguards. Yes, use some legal justification for your argument. Get it in writing. Get married. Hell, I don’t care, just don’t implicate new laws because you think you need a new layer of protection to make a poor decision and be shielded from the possible ramifications of that decision.
Would you analyze this differently if you accidentally forwarded the picture to an unintended recipient? Where would the line be drawn if we were to create such a vague and overly broad law? How would you prove it? (other than in such a rare instance as when one admits transmission, such as the Colleton Deputy). Good luck compelling a website to divulge its sources. In fact, most sites that don’t want to fool with subpoenas simply fail to own a system capable of retaining its sources (which is what I advise clients).
Here is my ultimate theme. Please note that I’m not lambasting the poor girls like some of the other detractors. I argue my point from an entirely different angle of judicial efficiency. The majority of my problem with this entire fiasco is the implied guarantee inside an unwritten contract because someone feels they have the right to privacy and can share intimate details with someone whom they are not married to or have no contract—-yet, the law is supposed to reform this implied contract to include future terms which may or may not be standard in the ranks? How does this apply to 3-way partnerships? How long in a relationship must someone stay for this newfound “privilege” to apply?
There are current laws that observe privacy. The federal rules of evidence explicitly provide for immunity among spouses or marital communications. The law also provides for spousal immunity in certain instances. I scoff at the idea that Jan and Joe can think they are “in love,” and after 3 weeks of dating can send each other naughty pictures and that this behavior should be protected by some implied contract. No. We need to let people know there are ramifications for poor decisions. That’s life.
However, do notice that I entirely change my tune when you expressly acknowledge an agreement. For example, have Jan send the photo with text below saying, “This is intended only for you. If our relationship ends, you must dispose of this or return to sender.” Now, Joe is potentially subject to all sorts of liability if he breaches this duty.
It is a slippery slope (yes, I said it) to condone such foolish behavior just because you “trusted” someone. The law should not be re-written to fill the gaps caused by a calamity of errors.
Were you born stupid, or did you have to work at it????
Taylor, despite my sudden change of heart after seeing your article on Breitfart, let me say this one is a good one. Clearly, any photo, given in private, where there is consent for the actual photo itself, should not be distributed to the public, or others outside of the consenting partners. I would argue there is an inherent understanding between the photo taker, and the photo subject, that the pictures not be shared. Thus, the sender is in fact violating trust and contract between the parties, and should be liable under civil laws. In other words, you want to end revenge porn, the ex girlfriends (and boyfriends) should sue the living crap out of the senders. I can assure you when you take possession of Jack’s new rice-burner motorcycle, his stereo and his vintage Gibson Les Paul – others will think twice.
this post accurately describes the issue as the victim did not consent for anyone other than the intended recipient to see the picture.
And hence, you can sue the shit out of them.
I had a girl friend once, just the picture of her tits alone, weighed four pounds.
A woman had enormous breasts and each time she met a man she’d heave her bosom. He’d heave it
back! Ashamed of her gigantic bosom, the woman went to Halmar the Faith Healer. He studied her for a while and said that faith could move mountains. She paid him a large sum of money and he started to pray. For hours
he prayed, and, lo and behold, her bosom grew smaller. Her breasts became beautiful, but now she has
two giant lumps on her ass!
There once was a girl who wasn’t feeling very pretty so she went to a genie to make her pretty. The genie told her that to make her feel pretty, he would make it so that everytime someone apologized to her, her boobs would increase by one size.
So the girl is walking down the street and someone bumps into her and says,”Oh, I’m sorry,” and the woman’s boobs went up one size. Then someone accidentally stepped on her foot and said, “I’m sorry,” and her boobs got one size bigger.
Then she’s walking down the street and a man from India bumps into her and says, “Oh my god! A thousand apologies!”
Direct working part time459.69$perday
>b……..
http://www.world.Media Point network/Money/Jobs
Revenge porn..Is that like someone else has it in for you?
More like someone has it in her, for whatever reason or whoever’s pleasur.
:-D
CONSUMPTION JUNCTION! I’ve been trying to remember that website ever since the last article. It was revenge porn mecca! My brother told me about it about six months before Howard Stern mentioned it and caused the site to crash. Sadly, to get the capacity to serve the explosion of new traffic the owners sold out and it became unusable with so many popups and auto dialer ads for hard core porn. In its heyday it was THE premiere place to go for the funniest stuff imaginable.
Boy there was some sick stuff on that site. Liveleak has mostly replaced some of the carnage videos.
That sounds like “rotten.com”. I haven’t been there in a while but it had some grizzley stuff.
You are right, Rotten.com was the “Faces of Death” sicko stuff. Consumption was frat boy, party central place. I’m scared to even peek at those places anymore out of fear my laptop will die of AIDS.
It must be one of those sites where, if you are viewing with your laptop and something oozes from the computer onto your lap, you are advised to get some diluted bleach and wipe your lap, ASAP.
For some reason, the really good things in life just don’t ever seem to last.
:-(
Taylor you made me check to see if I had done something inappropriate. Whew,I’m safe! Seriously, is this article just a shot across the bow to a “intimate partner” of yours? It is called accountability, no different from you not getting a job because your Facebook has pics of you topless holding a bong with your eyes completely baked.
I WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, DAMMIT!!!!!…and extra privileges for anybody who votes Democrat.
But I ain’t asked for NO fucking Responsibility. Us Liberals and Libertarians make the fucking mess. The adults in the Republicans Party – the people who WORK and build this country – are there to clean it up.
Obama – along with whole Democrat Party – has made that PERFECTLY clear.
Copyright applies as soon as an original work is created, and it applies to both published and unpublished works. As soon as you write, click the shutter button on your camera (or the take picture button on your smartphone), put pencil to paper or lay you own the copyright.
If the “victim” of revenge porn took the pictures (Selfies, Mirror shot, etc.) then they should pursue it under copyright laws. If the other party took the pictures it’s basically a life lesson of don’t put your junk out there for people to see. This has been going on for years, many “Men’s Magazines” used to solicit amateur photos going back to the 70s, the only difference is the audience is bigger, and pictures are much easier to take these days.
WE DON’T NEW LAWS
It’s all about the FEELZ…. typical of a “20-something”. Personal responsibility? Nah, no such thing any more.
“Do you think a woman (or man) wants the rest of the world to see the most intimate parts of her body?” Heres a thought don’t be whore and send nude pics to people. Then maybe they won’t end up on the internet, cause that has sooooo never happened to anyone.
So if a woman gives a man a nude pic of herself it is still her picture and he has to have permission to do anything with it but if a man gives a woman an engagement ring she owns it and can do with it as she pleases.
Wrong, you sound as a loser when it comes to women.
What is wrong about it? I, nor any women in my life, take or send nude photos. We were brought up with better morals and more sense than to do so.
I did ask a probative question to explore the difference between the two acts of giving. You resort to a personal attack.
He seems to know a lot about other posters’ lives, or at least fancies himself as knowing about them.
I do not infringe on your beliefs. Your way or no way, right,
Never said that. I just responded to your personal attack. I clarified my beliefs and lifestyle and inquired about why you disagreed with me.
You seem to put monetary items associated with relationships. And ok with a embarrassment of a former female after a break up.
I was associating a gift with a gift. The giver chose the gift based on their emotions, at that given time, for the recipient. That goes for the ring and the nude pics.
The ” Gift” is the woman ! If you’re a man.
Another childish personal attack. I guess if you can find fact to support your opinion that you resort to childish personal attacks to defend the weakness of your position.
Glad to disappoint, I put women before me, as I were brought up that way. Women are the salt of the earth, to disrespect that is taboo. My life and sex is your dream. Child !
What if a man gives unsolicited pictures of himself and others that are well known? Including a wife. Should I publish those? What good would come of it?
I disagree about the engagement ring – hell give the nasty ass thing back :)
If the pictures are freely given to me or knowingly allowed to be taken by me then I should be free to do with them as I please. As long as I don’t distribute it to minors or send it to people that do not wish to see it.
I disagree. In my early years I had pics that I shared, in the end, he basically stole them. I spent years trying to get them back. I finally decided it wasn’t worth it – damn I was hot! LOL. However, that is always leverage. Something shared between two private individuals, that should never be used publicly IMHO.
This entire business reminded me of this poem from ages ago — this is an excerpt–
“I KISSED YOU”
I kissed you, I own, but I did not suppose That you through the papers, the deed would disclose,
Like free-loving cats, when on ridgepoles they meet— When their squalls of “You kissed me!” disturb the whole street.
I kissed you. The impulse as suddenly came As that cold-looking cloud is transformed into flame.
My act was the lightning that glances and thrills, And yours the loud thunder that blabs to the hills.
I don’t about copyrighting bodies, but I know a lot of women who think they own the patent on one particular area.
Get away from them.
You mean ALL women have one of those? Golly!
I never knew, lol
Lady, you’re living in a fantasy world. Here in reality if you take naked pics of yourself you lose control of those images the moment you press send. If you aren’t comfortable with the whole world seeing your cha cha then don’t take a pic of it.
I have a pic if your dIck in the bath tub.
You are correct, Taylor. In everything you said.
My daughters have insurance against this sort of thing. If one of them trusts a man in this way, and he breaks her trust, then I go to jail.
Let me know what ya need.
Sounds like a really bad insurance policy. I hope you don’t pay much by way of premiums
Funny, I remember that way of thinking.
Q; What are you in for?
A; My naked daughter’s lust for some jackleg off the street.
Just doesn’t seem fair somehow but I sympathize with Roberto.
A man about 55 brings a guy about 18 to the emergency room. The doctor asks what’s the emergency, and the older man replies that the kid is his son-in-law and has an ass full of buckshot. The doctor asks who shot him, and the man replies that he did. The doctor asks why would he shoot his son-in-law in the ass, to which the man replies…”He weren’t my son–in-law when I shot him!”
Nas is a fan of revenge porn Taylor.
Hey Taylor – are these pictures of you that you sent to that other girl’s boyfriend earlier this year? You seem like such a smart, intelligent girl. Stop acting like a tramp. Yes – I’m calling you a tramp. You’re a tramp, Taylor. Tramp with a capital T.
The photo in this article is a stock photo. Reverse image search is your friend.
At some point you’ll grow up and realize that if you give someone–anyone–the opportunity to take advantage of you, they will.
Don’t ever put yourself in that position.
Any action taking explicitly to publicly humiliate, embarrass, harass, or otherwise demean a private individual should be illegal.
Nope that BS, not if used against others-Taylor messed with the wrong woman who still has every message that was sent to her now ex if needed but it’s not her way. She was raised with class, Taylor should take a lesson. Me? I love it when the hens come home to roost. Btw if you want to be taken seriously Taylor don’t let men call you tits McGee. No one but Taylor put herself in this position.
Sounds like maybe Taylor just sent out too many nude selfies and now wants to keep her green panties off the interwebs. Trying to get ahead of that long black train before it crashes?
… funny ( — “green panties?” — oh, yeah, now where have I seen those in my collections?)
I’ll never release your nekkid pics… I promise!