Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
43 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

43. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 24, 2013, 17:31 yuastnav
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 24, 2013, 08:16:
yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2013, 06:51:
Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 12:53:
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 21:38:

Whether it's the Internet or 1973, it's ridiculously stupid to have compromising photos taken of yourself for anything other than professional uses.

Dating you must be a blast.

Why? It sounds to be an incredibly moronic thing to take such type of pictures of yourself and then just send them to whoever.

I agree, and said so earlier in the thread. But the argument you are making isn't what he made. He didn't say "send it to whoever," he's saying "anyone." So he's saying it's "ridiculously stupid" for a wife to let her husband take topless photos of her.

I'm saying he's boring.

Yeah but that topic is actually a bit more difficult than one might think. There are people who are more prudish (I don't even understand why being prudish is a bad thing but in all the instances where I encounter the word it is used in a pejorative way) or maybe they are asexual or something like that.
Personally I don't see the appeal in something like that (e.g taking photos of your topless wife) either and therefore it's not a smart thing for me, too, because it can have only negative consequences.
But then again: I notice on a frequent basis that I don't understand sexual people that much and that is why I have that reaction.
I mean that there is nothing wrong with calling such a stance boring but for some it is completely natural to have that stance.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 24, 2013, 08:16 Beamer
 
yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2013, 06:51:
Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 12:53:
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 21:38:

Whether it's the Internet or 1973, it's ridiculously stupid to have compromising photos taken of yourself for anything other than professional uses.

Dating you must be a blast.

Why? It sounds to be an incredibly moronic thing to take such type of pictures of yourself and then just send them to whoever.

I agree, and said so earlier in the thread. But the argument you are making isn't what he made. He didn't say "send it to whoever," he's saying "anyone." So he's saying it's "ridiculously stupid" for a wife to let her husband take topless photos of her.

I'm saying he's boring.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 yuastnav
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 12:53:
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 21:38:

Whether it's the Internet or 1973, it's ridiculously stupid to have compromising photos taken of yourself for anything other than professional uses.

Dating you must be a blast.

Why? It sounds to be an incredibly moronic thing to take such type of pictures of yourself and then just send them to whoever.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 13:35 Verno
 
I don't see how getting the pictures taken down somehow obviates personal responsibility. People are going after the website because its the source of damage to their life outside of the decision itself and because they are profiting from a dubious legality. It's really hard to go after the uploader himself as its difficult to prove cause but who says they don't do that too?

Of course it'll be a lesson to people, that goes without saying really. It doesn't mean they're somehow ignoring their own potential role either.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Far Cry 4, Prison Architect, DriveClub
Watching: Tusk, The Equalizer, The Homesman
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 13:15 Burrito of Peace
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 12:53:
Dating you must be a blast.

It was. We had a ball. Still do, more than a decade later.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 12:53 Beamer
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 21:38:

Whether it's the Internet or 1973, it's ridiculously stupid to have compromising photos taken of yourself for anything other than professional uses.

Dating you must be a blast.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 11:48 Burrito of Peace
 
Dades wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 07:29:
...if it happened to you or a daughter I doubt we'd be receiving the personal responsibility argument.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!

You are correct, "we" would not. If it happened to my daughter, I'd be having that conversation with her and asking her "What the actual fuck were you thinking?"

But hey, let's focus on the big evil website instead of taking in to account the rampant stupidity and the the personal responsibility required for being rampantly stupid.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 07:29 Dades
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 06:26:
One out of how many? I do feel for her but she's obviously the minority.

It doesn't matter if its 1 or 100, they don't get away with it because only one person complained about. People can edit video and photos pretty easily these days too. This is a pretty one sided issue and if it happened to you or a daughter I doubt we'd be receiving the personal responsibility argument.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 06:54 Julio
 
netnerd85 wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 11:09:
Can a naked photo cause damage to a career? legally, no.

It could also help your career, depending on what it is.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 23, 2013, 06:26 Burrito of Peace
 
Dades wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 22:45:
One of the women had her boyfriend take pictures of her unaware, she didn't have a choice.

One out of how many? I do feel for her but she's obviously the minority.

...one stupid choice shouldn't be a profitable venture for a (insert any company here).

If that were true, we'd have significantly less corporations in the world. Most corporations are built on the very idea that your average person makes stupid choices.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 22:45 Dades
 
One of the women had her boyfriend take pictures of her unaware, she didn't have a choice. You're not considering all of the possibilities and no matter what, one stupid choice shouldn't be a profitable venture for a revenge porn company.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!
 
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 21:38 Burrito of Peace
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 16:31:
I wouldn't say it's dumb.

Then you are forgiving to the Nth degree.

Whether it's the Internet or 1973, it's ridiculously stupid to have compromising photos taken of yourself for anything other than professional uses. If you're in to porn, then showing your assets has a very clear career advantage. Being in accounts payable or HR, not so much. Fun little perks are like getting roadhead on your way to her/his parents for dinner. Shit that, unless you are directly caught by a LEO, isn't going to come back and haunt you 5 years down the road.

It has nothing to do with trust and everything to do with comporting yourself like there is a day that exists after tomorrow. The stupid shit you do today on devices that can store and easily transfer that data to third and unknown parties will come back to bite you in the ass. It's not an "if", it's a "when". There is zero possibility that "never" is going to factor in to the equation on when something that egregiously stupid comes back to haunt you.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 16:31 Beamer
 
Cutter wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 16:24:
And women continually wonder why men think they're so stupid. 'Oh no baby, I'll always keep it private, just between us. Trust me.'

I've seen a lot of the tits of women I work with over the years because they take shots themselves! I just ask them if they have any pics and can I see one because I'm curious and they're all like 'Sure, go ahead.' Granted I don't make a big deal out of it and they know I'm cool about it, but still it boggles the mind.

Edit: Regardless, it should be the person's right to say if they'll permit it or not.

Trust is important in relationships. So are fun little perks. This falls into both. I wouldn't say it's dumb.

What is dumb is how many do this to guys they barely know, but that's more "youth" than "women." Probably not much of an exaggeration to say that 75%+ of HS girls have texted a scandalous photo to someone (my coworker was horrified when I said this, but it came up in a discussion where she found out her daughter did just that...) And it always amazes me that, when on a messageboard that actually has females, you find out that some of them have sent such pictures to guys they never met, just through online chat. At least 3 different boards I post on have had a large .zip file leak full of naked pictures. Well, probably as many were male as female, but given that no one really cares about seeing quasi-anonymous wang, everyone focuses on the quasi-anonymous boobs.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 16:24 Cutter
 
And women continually wonder why men think they're so stupid. 'Oh no baby, I'll always keep it private, just between us. Trust me.'

I've seen a lot of the tits of women I work with over the years because they take shots themselves! I just ask them if they have any pics and can I see one because I'm curious and they're all like 'Sure, go ahead.' Granted I don't make a big deal out of it and they know I'm cool about it, but still it boggles the mind.

Edit: Regardless, it should be the person's right to say if they'll permit it or not.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"Bye weeks? Bronko Nagurski didn't get no bye weeks, and now he's dead… Well, maybe they're a good thing." - Moe
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 16:21 jdreyer
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 10:52:
See, the difference is we're talking about this hurting your life, you're talking about it being the internet.

Newsflash: it's 2012. There is no clear, distinct line between "internet" and "life." If you're a teacher and naked pictures of you are found on the internet by your students guess what: it damages your life. You can, you know, turn off the internet, but you can't turn off the internet for everyone that knows you.

Unfortunately, this. We just saw the court uphold the school's side in the case of the former porn actress turn teacher.

It's sad that our society makes a big deal over this, but it does. Maybe at some point in the future, no one will care and this won't be an issue.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 16:16 Creston
 
LittleMe wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 14:32:
Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:05:
Anyway, this really needs to become classified as a crime.

I'm pretty sure it is already a crime. IIRC, if the photo is not in a public place or there is reasonable expectation of privacy, you must have signed consent to exhibit nude photos of someone.


If it was already a crime, you'd imagine either the police or the FBI would at least let you report it, and according to the article, they both pretend like it's the other's problem...

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 16:06 Beamer
 
Prez wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 15:39:
I'm like Creston in wondering why these people aren't suing the bastards who are giving the pictures to these sleaze sites.

Did it say they aren't? The primary lawsuit has 16 defendants, and is specific against the site. They may also be suing the guys that did it, with two issues:
1) It's difficult to prove that it was that specific guy that did it. It could have been a friend he shared it with (which isn't good, but lessened damages), or it could have been that his email was hacked, etc. Harder to prove than to prove it was on a site
2) These sites are businesses with revenues made primarily from the nudity of the people suing. The guys that uploaded it received nothing and probably have nothing to their names, anyway. Not much you'll get out of them, and all it really does is prevent that person from doing it again, whereas taking out a few sites will discourage anyone else from opening such a site. Domestically. Good luck trying to stop the ones that open in Russia
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 15:39 Prez
 
I'm like Creston in wondering why these people aren't suing the bastards who are giving the pictures to these sleaze sites.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 15:21 Bhruic
 
Bodolza wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 13:36:
Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:05:
Anyway, this really needs to become classified as a crime.

If posting pictures (that you own) of people without their explicit permission became a crime, it would instantly kill Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, and any other photo sharing site.

Say good-bye to news magazines as well.

There's no need to be that broad. Having sex is legal. Paying to have sex isn't (at least in most of the US). Personally I think that's stupid, but it's a good example for this situation. You don't have to make all pictures illegal to upload without permission.

Still, I'm not sure that it'd really do that much to stem the tide, so to speak. There are lots of less-than-legal things that people do online, and the lack of legality doesn't seem to slow them down.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 22, 2013, 14:41 JoeNapalm
 
Bodolza wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 13:36:
Creston wrote on Jan 22, 2013, 12:05:
Anyway, this really needs to become classified as a crime.

If posting pictures (that you own) of people without their explicit permission became a crime, it would instantly kill Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, and any other photo sharing site.

Say good-bye to news magazines as well.


Where do I sign?

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist
 
Avatar 54497
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo