Slashdot Mirror
Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"
mi contributes this excerpt from National Journal: "Sen. Al Franken is urging the FBI to more quickly and aggressively pursue and respond to reports of revenge porn, marking a rare burst of attention on a controversial topic about which Congress has typically been quiet. In a letter to FBI Director James Comey, the Minnesota Democrat asked for more information about the agency's authority to police against revenge porn, or the act of posting explicit sexual content online without the subject's consent, often for purposes of humiliation and extortion. Its popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women."
Here's Franken's letter.
The letter didn't mention what Federal criminal code violation he wanted the FBI to use to justify such a response. After a quick search, I found no such law.
It's actually pretty straight-forward. Necessary institutions and organizations were built to help first and second-wave feminism succeed. But Feminism won! Equality is in the legal books. So what's an institution to do once it's no longer needed? Make new issues to prove it's still needed! And they're willing to go further and further to survive--like using outright lies, shame, threats, and pure hatred to accomplish their means. First/Second-wave feminists are pretty pissed off at third-waves for exactly that reason.
Christina Marie Hoff Sommers, a world renowned "classic feminist" sums them up pretty well, so check out her videos or books on topics such as modern feminism's "War against Boys"--wherein boys are treated simply as "inferior girls" and essential things for them like recess are shortened and removed. Third-wavers hate her so much for using things like "facts" that they discredit, smear, and even go as far as to edit her Wikipedia page to remove any mention that she's a feminist. Pretty hilarious stuff.
Imagine a bunch of new programmers editing Linus Torvold's page and debating that he's not a "real programmer." How silly, petty, and passive-aggressive would that be?
That sounds very much like a gender-based stereotype.
I don't think you quite understand what that word means.
I don't think you quite understand what that word means.
A stereotype is a simplistic model that is held as if it were true of *all* members of some group.
Ok. I'm with you there.
So if I say, "blacks are poorer than whites in the US," that's not a stereotype
I disagree. See your own definition above. You just demonstrated a simplistic model, being held as if it was true for all members of the group. There are some fabulously rich black people in the US. Your statement is not uniformly true.
it's a statistical assertion about differences in economic attainment between groups in aggregate
You didn't assert any statistics. If you had, then it would have been such an assertion. Besides, such an assertion would make a good foundation for a stereotype. (Stereotypes aren't always bad, or unjust. That's just a stereotype about stereotypes.)
But if I say "Blacks are poorer because blacks are lazy," that's using a stereotype because it attributes something inherent to blackness.
No. It's two stereotypes. 1. Blacks are poorer. 2. Blacks are lazy. They are both stereotypes because they are both general simplistic models of a group.
Likewise if I say "Bob can't own that Mercedes because he's black," I'm implicitly stating that all blacks are too poor to own a Mercedes so that's a stereotype.
If you're simply viewing Bob and stating your opinion about him driving his Mercedes, that's prejudice. Furthermore, if Bob does own the Mercedes, your prejudice is also false. It's related to stereotypes, but different. Prejudice is "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." The basis for prejudice is often stereotypes.
On the other hand, if you're refusing to sell Bob a Mercedes because he's black, that would be discrimination. Discrimination is often the result of prejudice, which is often the result of stereotypes. Discrimination can sometimes be against the law. AFAIK, there are no laws in the US against holding stereotypes or prejudices, so long as you do not discriminate.
With regard to your other points, I agree.
Honestly, this whole thread feels like I've stepped into a man-cave of a 1960s summer camp.
Unless you have some well researched data pointing to an epidemic of kids offing themselves, clearly caused by someone they were dumb enough to let into their pants later posting a photo of their wee-wee without permission.
You make an interesting point about the number of suicides in that age group--the data you point to is inconsistent with what I learned in Developmental Psychology not too many years ago, but interesting.
But you are also victim-blaming. The AC next-door is saying she loved the attention and had it coming. These are positions overwhelmingly held by men trying to rationalize the rape of women.
You even realize this, and rationalize it by saying you're just rejecting a generalization from anecdote to generality:
To suggest that there is an epidemic of pixel-related suicides is a vile and dishonest setup of a straw man.
So is implying blame of "attacking a victim" on anyone saying otherwise.
Keep in mind that revenge porn can include recordings that were not made consensually in the first place.
Also, you have a huge number of girls in this country who are trafficked. Someone who has Stockholm Syndrome may give their "consent," but you should still be able to prosecute the pimp for making videos of them knowing they were not free to refuse, and to take the video down.
And even if it were true that she did something dumb and that she loved the attention from her boyfriend, would that make it all right to share that with the world, or brag to the two hundred people she sees every day about that time you videotaped her? No, you would deserve to have the shit kicked out of you by her friends. And that's the kind of thing we should criminalize to discourage people from doing it, because not everybody has friends who will kick the shit out of you. It doesn't have to be a felony, but I think it should be as serious as misdemeanor assault.
So the suicide was purely down to mental illness rather than the revenge porn? I suppose it is similar to deliberately giving peanuts to someone with a peanut allergy - It was their peanut allergy that killed them of anaphylactic shock, not the person who gave them the peanuts!
(</sarcasm> - in case anyone was wondering!)
Actually, you don't say whether you think revenge porn should be illegal in the US, only that victims (mainly women) should be 'man' enought to put up with it!
(I'm pleased to say that in England and Wales (I'm in England) it is already illegal - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31429026. Scotland and Northern Ireland are considering it.)
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake