• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should revenge porn web sites be made illegal?

Should revenge porn web sites be made illegal?

  • Yes, make them illegal. They're harassment, not protected free speech

    Votes: 22 42.3%
  • No, they should be legal. They're in bad taste, but they're legal.

    Votes: 30 57.7%

  • Total voters
    52

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In case you're not familiar with the case, there was a web site run by a sleazy and unethical man named Hunter Moore in which people angry at their ex's would post nude photos of them against their will, photos that were originally intended to be private. They were photos that usually resulted from "sexting." Very often the victims of the unwanted uploads protested and tried to get their photos removed. Moore, predictably, refused. That site was called Isanyoneup. I can say that because it's since been taken down. Moore had been confronted by some of his victims and had always shirked responsibility with the line, "I didn't upload those photos. Someone else did." Yeah, but you set up the site that encouraged them to. Fortunately, his site is now gone. He chose to get rid of it, maybe because of pressure or guilt or legal threats. I'm not sure. That's the good news. The bad news is someone else put up the same kind of site to replace it. I won't say that site's name. The twist with the new site is it includes a link to a "lawyer" that can help them get their photos removed. Of course it's not a real lawyer. It's just the site owner getting people to pay hundreds of dollars to get the photos removed that belong to them anyway and that they never authorized being published.

The poll is whether it should be illegal to put up revenge porn sites like this. "Yes" means they should be made illegal. "No" means they should be legal.
 
They're horrific violations of privacy and betrayals of trust. If nothing else, they should be illegal because everyone willingly involved with them is scum and deserves to suffer.
 
I don't know to be honest. I think it's more of a civil than criminal matter. Like defamation etc. As I said I just don't know.
 
The guy on the website should not be held responsible whatsoever... it's true, he did not put those photos up there. And he, is allowed to encourage anything he want's to, it's a free country as long as he doesn't provide the photos himself.

The boyfriends should be held liable for everything.
 
This would mean that any-website people could freely post pictures or videos could be charged of encouraging defamation if some random dude posted something he shouldn't have.
 
Websites post all kinds of things, from exposés, to national and military secrets, and people defend the sights and people who do that as essential bastions and martyrs of freedom and rights. It's not until people actually see that such crap can personally effect them that it becomes a "problem". So keep the sites up, keep them legal, as long as they don't commit illegal acts. The freedom of speech is a double-edged sword.
 
This would mean that any-website people could freely post pictures or videos could be charged of encouraging defamation if some random dude posted something he shouldn't have.

Like I said I don't see how this could ever be criminal, but civil? Maybe. I mean I know it is a trust thing but it happens to celebrities all the time and they sometimes take legal action, sometimes they don't. It would depend on the person. I mean really, you should not be sending naked or sexy pictures to any electronic media. The responsibility is solely on the person who sent the picture/video. As soon as that happens they have relinquished control. So with no contract as to use of said media, even as a breach of personal trust, as soon as you upload it is sent through the servers of some unknown corporation. An argument could be made that ignorance of that is no excuse.

In the end if it is say tangible film on solid media, I think a case could be made that the privacy of the subject had been violate. Electronic media however, I don't see it. But hey, I am no lawyer.
 
When someone is charge for defamation on spreading a rumor that's not true, we don't sue all the news-agencies that reported the false accusation. Photos and videos are methods of communication, like speech and should be treated as such. A rumor or secret can be just as damaging as a photo or video( not as much potential because word of mouth can more easily be discarded). The one who did not have consent in the first place is the one who is guilty... everything else is free speech.
 
In case you're not familiar with the case, there was a web site run by a sleazy and unethical man named Hunter Moore ...
:doh
You calling him such does not make him such.



in which people angry at their ex's would post nude photos of them against their will, photos that were originally intended to be private.
Sharing the photo with another is not "intending them to be private".
Once you give it away, it is a gift for the other to do as they please with it.



Moore had been confronted by some of his victims and had always shirked responsibility with the line, "I didn't upload those photos. Someone else did." Yeah, but you set up the site that encouraged them to.
Hyperbolic nonsense. He didn't shirk responsibility.
The responsibility falls on the person who submitted the photo and the person who gave it as a gift in the first place.




Fortunately, his site is now gone.
And a new one will be going up shortly and he say the new one will be 'Scariest On The Internet'.
Hunter Moore, Is Anyone Up Founder, Says New Website Will Be 'Scariest On The Internet'


He chose to get rid of it, maybe because of pressure or guilt or legal threats. I'm not sure.
As he has stated multiple times, it was because of the work involved in removing photo's being submitted of those underage.


The bad news is someone else put up the same kind of site to replace it.
That's the good news.


The twist with the new site is it includes a link to a "lawyer" that can help them get their photos removed. Of course it's not a real lawyer. It's just the site owner getting people to pay hundreds of dollars to get the photos removed that belong to them anyway and that they never authorized being published.
Got evidence that it is just the site owner?


The poll is whether it should be illegal to put up revenge porn sites like this. "Yes" means they should be made illegal. "No" means they should be legal.
It is something I would not participate in, and I do not agree with him doing it, but this is, and should remain legal.






They're horrific violations of privacy
No, not really, because the photo was freely given in the first place.



and betrayals of trust.
There was trust when it was given, but that had long passed, especially since the photos were of people who violated that trust in the first place by hurting the submitter of the photo. Hence the term "revenge".



If nothing else, they should be illegal because everyone willingly involved with them is scum and deserves to suffer.
Hyperbolic absurdity.

 
The freedom of speech is a double-edged sword.
I mean really, you should not be sending naked or sexy pictures to any electronic media. The responsibility is solely on the person who sent the picture/video. As soon as that happens they have relinquished control.
Well said.

:applaud
 
:doh
You calling him such does not make him such.

No. What the man does for a living makes him sleazy and unethical. He's scum.

Sharing the photo with another is not "intending them to be private".
Once you give it away, it is a gift for the other to do as they please with it.

No, it is not. It was shared with the expectation that it would be private, that it would remain between the person giving and the person receiving. It is no less a betrayal of confidence than telling her secrets to the world.

Hyperbolic nonsense. He didn't shirk responsibility.
The responsibility falls on the person who submitted the photo and the person who gave it as a gift in the first place.

Encouraging someone to commit bad acts is just as bad as committing bad acts yourself. Worse, if you profit from it.

There was trust when it was given, but that had long passed, especially since the photos were of people who violated that trust in the first place by hurting the submitter of the photo. Hence the term "revenge".

Or so they say. One act of betrayal does not justify another, in any case.

Hyperbolic absurdity.

Allow me to be more clear, in case you think I am exaggerating. Hunter Moore is a scumbag, a worthless piece of human filth, and he deserves to suffer for what he has intentionally and for profit subjected other human beings to. He should be punished, and the fact that the law does not allow him to be punished does not mean that he is innocent, but rather that the law is inadequate. The people who have contributed to his filthy and depraved website may not be scumbags themselves, but they have-- each and every one of them-- willfully taken a large step towards becoming scumbags and they should be forced to pay some penance just so that they understand that what they have done is wrong and inexcusable.

Your defense of these men is sickening.
 
No. What the man does for a living makes him sleazy and unethical. He's scum.
:doh
:lamo
Wrong!



No, it is not. It was shared with the expectation that it would be private, that it would remain between the person giving and the person receiving. It is no less a betrayal of confidence than telling her secrets to the world.
And again you are wrong.
Such expectations are hardly ever thought of beforehand. They just do it.
Abd if that was there expectation, they should have said such when it was given.
Otherwise it was a gift for the receiver to do with as they please.



Encouraging someone to commit bad acts is just as bad as committing bad acts yourself. Worse, if you profit from it.
iLOL
It isn't a "bad act".




Or so they say. One act of betrayal does not justify another, in any case.
And we agree.
Which is one reason why I will not engage in said activities.



Allow me to be more clear, in case you think I am exaggerating. Hunter Moore is a scumbag, a worthless piece of human filth, and he deserves to suffer for what he has intentionally and for profit subjected other human beings to. He should be punished, and the fact that the law does not allow him to be punished does not mean that he is innocent, but rather that the law is inadequate. The people who have contributed to his filthy and depraved website may not be scumbags themselves, but they have-- each and every one of them-- willfully taken a large step towards becoming scumbags and they should be forced to pay some penance just so that they understand that what they have done is wrong and inexcusable.
You are exaggerating.
Your words are over emotional ridiculous hyperbole to say the least.



Your defense of these men is sickening.
:lamo
iLOL
Then be sick. It doesn't change anything I have said.
 
What's the difference between this sleazy website and any other website...say, a site that posts news or wallpapers or anything else? Is it the nudity? Is it that people are allowed to post pictures?

Or is it the fact that someone doesn't like what they see on that website?

I don't like 90% of the stuff I see posted on HuffPo. Should they be declared illegal?

Answer: No.

Why: Government censorship is ultimately a bad thing. Personal censorship is a good thing.
 
Yes, I think they should be illegal. There are ways people can protect themselves from civil laibility.

What's interesting is we have laws galore placing restrictions on things related to speech and privacy, both criminal and civil, but those either involve money or potentially embarrassing for a politician. For example: cell phone conversations transmitt over what as been historically defined a "public airways" in America. Nobody is supposed to "own" the air broadcast travel through. That's been the doctrine of American wireless communications technology since broadcasting was invented. Then politicians stared learning THEIR cell phone conversations could be listened to by hobbyists. In most cases it was just for private entertainment. You had to be within a one or so mile radius of caller. Once they traved out of that area or "cell" you couldn't hear them anymore. It would be totally random and there would be no way to know who the parties are unless they identify themselves in the call. Congress outlawed scanners that could pick up cell phone signals I think for personal reasons. What's funny is yu can buy a scanner at a hobbyist electronics store but the scanner has to have the frequencies that cell phone use blocked.
 
Last edited:
They're horrific violations of privacy and betrayals of trust. If nothing else, they should be illegal because everyone willingly involved with them is scum and deserves to suffer.

You're pretty harsh. Once something is on the internet, it never goes away. To punish people for all their lives for a few mistakes they made when they were (most likely) young or intoxicated is kind of inhumane (in most cases).
 
Yes, I think they should be illegal. There are ways people can protect themselves from civil laibility.

What's interesting is we have laws galore placing restrictions on things related to speech and privacy, both criminal and civil, but those either involve money or potentially embarrassing for a politician. For example: cell phone conversations transmitt over what as been historically defined a "public airways" in America. Nobody is supposed to "own" the air broadcast travel through. That's been the doctrine of American wireless communications technology since broadcasting was invented. Then politicians stared learning THEIR cell phone conversations could be listened to by hobbyists. In most cases it was just for private entertainment. You had to be within a one or so mile radius of caller. Once they traved out of that area or "cell" you couldn't hear them anymore. It would be totally random and there would be no way to know who the parties are unless they identify themselves in the call. Congress outlawed scanners that could pick up cell phone signals I think for personal reasons. What's funny is yu can buy a scanner at a hobbyist electronics store but the scanner has to have the frequencies that cell phone use blocked.

You left out one very important thing...

After you have told the person the information, it is now there's to do with what they want. Same applies to anything not copy-writ passed along the digital airwaves. So if you send a nude photo to someone and it is not copy protected etc, it is now their property, period. Now if someone intercepted or otherwise stole the photo while in transit, that would still be illegal. So your premise is flawed which leads to a flawed conclusion under US law. But again I am no lawyer so I may be wrong.
 
Last edited:
You're pretty harsh.

I'm Viktyr. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Once something is on the internet, it never goes away. To punish people for all their lives for a few mistakes they made when they were (most likely) young or intoxicated is kind of inhumane (in most cases).

I'm not saying that they should suffer for all of their lives-- not even for as long as their victims suffer for their actions. Only that they should suffer, only that they should know that their misdeeds hurt.
 
No, it shouldn't be illegal. If you send naked pictures to someone or make a sex tape with them, then those pictures are theirs to do with as they please unless you have something in writing stating otherwise.
 
They should be absolutely illegal and the website strictly civilly liable.
 
You left out one very important thing...

After you have told the person the information, it is now there's to do with what they want. Same applies to anything not copy-writ passed along the digital airwaves. So if you send a nude photo to someone and it is not copy protected etc, it is now their property, period. Now if someone intercepted or otherwise stole the photo while in transit, that would still be illegal. So your premise is flawed which leads to a flawed conclusion under US law. But again I am no lawyer so I may be wrong.


I might have misunderstood the question as being should it be MADE illegal as opposed to do I think its already illegal and/or not making clear the timeline as to when the example I cited was one of the first NEW laws to be enacted at the advent of the relatively new technology of digital communications/media. I'm not a lawyer either so who knows? :)
 
The Constitutuion does not protect speech that causes harm to others, such as libel and slander.
This would clearly qualify, especially given that the entire intent of posting the pictures/videos is to cause harm.
 
I don't think the sites should be illegal, but if they refuse to take down pics when the target of the public humiliation request them to do so, at that point they become as liable as the harassing ex who uploaded the pic.

Invasions of privacy are invasions of privacy.
 
It is legal, imo, and should stay legal.

When an individual knowingly participates in the photo or video and gives it to someone, they have conceded any rights to it. If I give someone else a car, it is now theirs and I have no say in what they do with it. Same with these photos and videos. A woman breaking off an engagement is not legally required to return the engagement ring, so, to me, if there are photos or videos were given to the other party, then they do not have to be returned either.

If you don't want nude or sexually explicit photos or videos of yourself put onto the net, then don't allow them to be made and don't give them to anyone. When you do, the rights to that photo/video are transfered with the photo/video and the owner of the rights to it can basically do anything they want with it.

Videos/photos that display persons who did not voluntarily participate in making them are, of course, a completely different matter.
 
Nah.

All in favor of porn. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom