• 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
Devil's advocate question: what kind of human being actually has the patience to read another person's twitter page?

I don't. I couldn't give a **** less that someone chooses to put a blow by blow posting of their day. Who gives a crap?
 
Posting nudy pics on the internet isn't defamation and libel. It's some dummy that took a picture of their tits, and now it's on the internet. Don't want your tits on the internet? Don't be a dummy and take pictures of them.

well, just because i'm enjoying myself naked (in a setting where i have a reasonable expectation of privacy), doesnt mean someone has the right to take pictures and put them online without my consent. now, people who go clothes-free in public/semi-public spaces, they're fair game! because that's silly, anyone who does that knows what they were getting in to before they let the 'titties fly'.
 
While it is very underhanded, I feel that once you hit the send button on a nude picture it is no longer private.
 
WTF? Who?... [ridiculous garbage snipped] e freely given without any prohibitive or restrictive language, such as "for your eyes only", are not violations.

You simply don't understand copyright law. You highlghted the wrong part. You should have emphasized this:

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created.

In other words, the copyright exists whether it's registered or not. I know this for a fact. I work in photography. I have actually sued a person who used my work without my consent (and won). It's open and shut. I didn't read the rest of your wind-bag post because you're so clearly wrong on this. If you doubt me, ask a copyright attorney. He'll tell you the same thing. You own the copyright from the moment you take the picture. Registration doesn't create that ownership; the ownership already exists. Registration is a tool used to prove you own the copyright if necessary.
 
Yep. If the owner of the website posted it as part of a for-profit endeavor, he could very well be sued civilly.

I'm not sure what penalties the ex-bf would face, considering that he didn't intent to make money from submitting the photo. (Presuming he was paid nothing) Maybe fraud for claiming that he had the right to give the website owner the right to publish.

The web site owner's possible defense is that he didn't upload the copyrighted material himself and therefore the person who uploaded it is guilty of copyright infringement, not he. However, he could be required to remove all the copyrighted material from his web page, which is pretty much all of it. The only possible exception is if he has a signed contract from the copyright owner stating that he has the right to publish the photos. It's extremely unlikely he has that for any of them.
 
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.

No. You are most certainly NOT allowed to encourage anything you "want's" to.
 
No. You are most certainly NOT allowed to encourage anything you "want's" to.

You're correct. For example, Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone himself. He encouraged others to kill and that's why he's in prison.
 
You're correct. For example, Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone himself. He encouraged others to kill and that's why he's in prison.

to be fair he's in jail because the people who actually did the killing were young women, and the courts were at the time, and still are, sexist and don't generally consider women to be as responsible for their actions as men. men in the same situation would have been sitting in jail next to manson.
 
There definitely appears to be a common behavioral trait between those who say "Those who don't want their boobies online shouldn't let pictures be taken of them" and "Don't want your home to be destroyed by a hurricane/earthquake/fire/Mayan death-god? Don't move there!" Either way it's a cold and morally bankrupt position to take.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Nice fallacy for lack of an argument though.
 
No. You are most certainly NOT allowed to encourage anything you "want's" to.

Actually yes he is. Now in the end there are consequences to those actions of which some may be legal.
 
The web site owner's possible defense is that he didn't upload the copyrighted material himself and therefore the person who uploaded it is guilty of copyright infringement, not he. However, he could be required to remove all the copyrighted material from his web page, which is pretty much all of it. The only possible exception is if he has a signed contract from the copyright owner stating that he has the right to publish the photos. It's extremely unlikely he has that for any of them.

The person who received the picture or person who took the picture is the owner unless illegally obtained. I think someone filming you in secret should be treated as a criminal act. However if you let someone take the picture or sent it to someone other than your own media, then you no longer own it.
 
:doh
iLOL
False. No scum there. Just a person who does something you do not like, so you instead label him negatively.

No, you are doing something I don't like by defending this scum and by engaging in your idiotic Dwight Schrute impression. You are not scum, that I know of, even if you are starting to piss me off. He takes pride in ruining peoples' lives for profit. He's scum. Your callous disregard for those lives and your refusal to acknowledge privacy and copyright laws do not change the fact that he is scum; they only make you look bad for defending and supporting scum.
 
The person who received the picture or person who took the picture is the owner unless illegally obtained. I think someone filming you in secret should be treated as a criminal act. However if you let someone take the picture or sent it to someone other than your own media, then you no longer own it.

The person who took the picture owns the copyright to it and thus has the legal right to demand that it not be posted online. The physical picture itself (if there is one) is the property of the person she gives it to, but that person has no right to copy it or to distribute copies of it.
 
The person who took the picture owns the copyright to it and thus has the legal right to demand that it not be posted online. The physical picture itself (if there is one) is the property of the person she gives it to, but that person has no right to copy it or to distribute copies of it.

Not true. In the case of celebrities for example that defence has never worked unless the picture was sold. If you give someone a picture and they post it on the internet as long as they are not making a profit, it's OK as it is there property to post.
 
Not true. In the case of celebrities for example that defence has never worked unless the picture was sold.

The person who took the picture owns it, not the person whose picture was taken. In this case, they're the same person.
 
The person who took the picture owns it, not the person whose picture was taken. In this case, they're the same person.

Hmmm... I know I said that in the first response you replied to "The person who received the picture or person who took the picture is the owner unless illegally obtained."

So I am not certain what you are getting at?

PS: Glad you are doing better man.
 
So I am not certain what you are getting at?

Basically, that while the person given the picture owns the picture itself-- and can give it away or sell it as they please-- they don't have the legal right to make copies of it. Including selling it to the website for publication. The website has no legal right to publish the picture, and cannot obtain the legal right to publish the picture without securing the permission of the person who took it.

Even under the copyright reforms I would like to see imposed, it wouldn't be legal for a for-profit website to distribute those pictures.

PS: Glad you are doing better man.

Thank you. It's been a long dark time, but I'm finally starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Posting nudy pics on the internet isn't defamation and libel. It's some dummy that took a picture of their tits, and now it's on the internet. Don't want your tits on the internet? Don't be a dummy and take pictures of them.

well, you have been arguing that it was a free speech issue. Free speech in this country has always been interpreted as applying to those things with some social or political value.
 
Actually yes he is. Now in the end there are consequences to those actions of which some may be legal.

Um, if the consequences of your encouragement are illegal then you're NOT allowed to encourage whatever you want to. Are you serious? That's the very basis of law. If something is made illegal, it means you're not allowed to do it. Stealing? Sure, you can do it but you're not allowed to.
 
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.
He should at least be held civilly liable. I believe we already have torts on the books that would cover this type of activity.

Should it be illegal? Eh, not sure I'd go that far just yet.
 
You simply don't understand copyright law. You highlghted the wrong part. You should have emphasized this:
Yes, obviously you have a distorted view of what it actually encompasses.

I highlighted exactly the potion that supported the point I was making.
So don't bother trying to tell me I highlighted the wrong portion or the portion I should have highlighted.



In other words, the copyright exists whether it's registered or not. I know this for a fact. I work in photography. I have actually sued a person who used my work without my consent (and won). It's open and shut.
As stated, your view is distorted. It is not open and shut.
When a work is given away as a gift, without any prior agreement or attached stipulations, it belongs to the person it was given to, and they can post it online for others to view.
You apparently want to confuse that with other issues which have their own particular set of circumstances.



I didn't read the rest of your wind-bag post because you're so clearly wrong on this. If you doubt me, ask a copyright attorney. He'll tell you the same thing. You own the copyright from the moment you take the picture. Registration doesn't create that ownership; the ownership already exists. Registration is a tool used to prove you own the copyright if necessary.
:doh
In other words, you can not form a coherent argument to support your position. Nor will you provide linked to evidence to support what you previously said.
These things are indications of a blow-hard.


This is what I will suggest since you obvious do not know.
Go back to your lawyer and ask the following specific question.

"If I take a nude photo of myself for another person and give it to them without conditions, can they post is online for others to view."

The answer will be an unmitigated "yes".






No, you are doing something I don't like by defending this scum and by engaging in your idiotic Dwight Schrute impression. You are not scum, that I know of, even if you are starting to piss me off. He takes pride in ruining peoples' lives for profit. He's scum. Your callous disregard for those lives and your refusal to acknowledge privacy and copyright laws do not change the fact that he is scum; they only make you look bad for defending and supporting scum.
No. It is as I said.
No scum there. Just a person who does something you do not like, so you instead label him negatively.

Funny thing. I had to look up who this Dwight Schrute character was. I didn't know as I seldom watch television or ridiculous shows as such.
So I do not see how I could be doing an impression, let alone a idiotic impression, of a character I know nothing about. lol :doh


As for you statement about "refusal to acknowledge privacy and copyright laws", not true.
There have been no such violations at this time.
 
Um, if the consequences of your encouragement are illegal then you're NOT allowed to encourage whatever you want to. Are you serious? That's the very basis of law. If something is made illegal, it means you're not allowed to do it. Stealing? Sure, you can do it but you're not allowed to.

Hatuey, it is irrelevant whether it is illegal or not. In your statement you said he could not, this is not true, period. I can encourage anyone to do anything but there is as I have said may be consequences, legal consequences included. You can pass a law stating it is illegal to throw fish into the water from a bridge. The law is a deterrent to stop people from throwing fish off a bridge, the law itself cannot literally stop anything. Realistically speaking this will not stop everyone as some ignore the consequences. So your statement is as I said not true.
 
Basically, that while the person given the picture owns the picture itself-- and can give it away or sell it as they please-- they don't have the legal right to make copies of it. Including selling it to the website for publication. The website has no legal right to publish the picture, and cannot obtain the legal right to publish the picture without securing the permission of the person who took it.

Even under the copyright reforms I would like to see imposed, it wouldn't be legal for a for-profit website to distribute those pictures.

That's the thing. People uploading their photo's and or video's (as we outlined above) to a site for free is not illegal. People upload pictures and video's on youtube etc that other people do not want shown. Since the person doing the uploading is not making a profit off those items, they are well within their rights to do so if it was sent or in any other legal way given to them. The site itself is not responsible for the content uploaded outside of copyright infringement.

Thank you. It's been a long dark time, but I'm finally starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

I am very happy to hear that. Heres to speedy progress to that light. :cheers:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom