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.

Comments

c'mon

[fyngyrz]

ts popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women.

It makes no difference if the victims are disproportionately any group; it would have to be UNIQUE to that group. Otherwise, if it's bad for people, it's bad for people, and no distinction need be made about age, gender or any other subgroup. It's not equality if we only consider some of the people, is it?

Re:c'mon

[sexconker]

As with most of these "issues", it's not about equality. It's about raising a major stink about a minor thing in order to get "support" (attention, votes, money, etc.).

Re:c'mon

[kick6]

It makes no difference if the victims are disproportionately any group; it would have to be UNIQUE to that group. Otherwise, if it's bad for people, it's bad for people, and no distinction need be made about age, gender or any other subgroup. It's not equality if we only consider some of the people, is it?

It's cute that you think it works that way. Guarantee'd if it was predominantly men, or hell even an equal split, that suffered from this.. not even Franken would care.

Re:c'mon

[techno-vampire]

That's not the way things work today. All genders are entitled to equal protection under the law, but some genders are more equal than others.

Re:c'mon

[fyngyrz]

It's cute that you think it works that way.

It's cute that you assume I think it works that way. It should work that way, and in order to effect any change it should be presented group-neutral. I am simply pointing out the defective assumptions and language that are complicit in making it the way it is as a matter of backlash against stupidity.

Re:c'mon

[quantaman]

As with most of these "issues", it's not about equality. It's about raising a major stink about a minor thing in order to get "support" (attention, votes, money, etc.).

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

Re:c'mon

[hey!]

All genders (and indeed all gender self-identifications) are entitled to equal protection, but not all genders *require as much*. As women move into representative numbers in jobs and supervisory positions, that situation is changing.

My wife once worked in a division of a state agency where the division and departmental management happen by chance to be women; a few years earlier the leadership had been entirely men but they'd moved on and the agency promoted from within. One day she was recounting how she and another scientist coworker had good-naturedly teased one of their male colleagues for having a habit of "man-splaining" (something which in my experience female geeks do as well). "Wait a minute," I said. "You can't do that anymore. It's called 'creating a hostile work environment'."

Now some men are still not willing to be seen complaining about higher ranking women taking the piss out of them, but the number of sexual harassment suits filed by men has been on the rise, doubling from 8% of all cases in 1990 to 16.4% in 2010. If that guy who'd been teased for "man-splaining" had complained the women could well been disciplined. Telling somebody their long-winded explanations sound condescending is being assertive and it's a good thing. Attributing their behavior to their *gender identity* is harassment.

Re:c'mon

[Electricity Likes Me]

Would +1 if I had modpoints.

Re:c'mon

[thaylin]

Who is talking about sexual assault? If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware, you just gave up some of your privacy rights.

Re:c'mon

[Obfuscant]

All genders (and indeed all gender self-identifications) are entitled to equal protection, but not all genders *require as much*.

That sounds very much like a gender-based stereotype. Exactly which genders don't require equal protection, and why?

Re:c'mon

[ckatko]

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?

Re:c'mon

[Shakrai]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

Revenge porn is a sexual assault? Seriously? Do you also regard the iCloud compromise as a sexual assault?

Re:c'mon

[ShanghaiBill]

If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware

In many cases, no consent was given. Even if it was, consent to take a picture shouldn't automatically imply consent to broadcast it to the world. A girl at my daughter's high school was a victim of revenge porn. She killed herself. That is far from an isolated case. To suggest that this isn't traumatic, and that the victims somehow deserve it, is asinine.

Re:c'mon

[ckatko]

Basically.

Women intentionally objectify themselves by using the mere sight of their naked body as some sort of "prize" and "reward" for desired behavior and you're telling me--MY GOD--some males might bypass the system altogether and look at porn, or visit prostitutes instead of jumping through their artificial hurdles? What's wrong with these men? How sick in the head do they have to be to want to satisfy their sexual needs without submitting to a long process of jumping through hoops for the potential for sexual gratification?

Furthermore, as women treat themselves as objects to be "won", you mean men might go around and show these pictures and videos to other males, as bragging rights for passing the hurdles women have created? NO. NEVER. Men aren't naturally competitive at all!

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

It is for the MRAs that come to Slashdot every Friday night for their glory at the crossroads, care of timothy.

This is no longer a pattern, it's an institution. Friday nights have become conclaves of the Slashdot Chapter of the Ancient & Royal Order of the Women Haters Club. It's kind of funny, really. I don't know this "timothy" character, but he must be a real piece of work.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

A girl at my daughter's high school was a victim of revenge porn. She killed herself. That is far from an isolated case.

Not isolated at all, and becoming more common all the time.

Re:c'mon

[microbox]

In theory you could be correct, but in the real world we find people being victimized because of the specific groups they belong to. This ranges from abject coarseness to subtle but still rather potent. I agree that the law should be written to protect everyone equally, and more attention should be paid to that, but the inspiration to get laws passed can still involve specific groups with specific grievances.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers, a world renowned "classic feminist"

Whoa-ho. Christina Hoff Sommers is the "based mom" of gamergate just because she's a feminist the way Mitt Romney is an advocate for the poor. She's from a far-right think tank that believes feminism means women staying the hell out of men's jobs and women get raped because showing your knees is basically "asking for it".

Here's a little fun game for readers with time on their hands: Google, "Christina Hoff Sommers and GamerGate" and see what you get. Come back and tell me if you think I'm exaggerating.

Re:c'mon

[microbox]

I think Sommers would still say that women's issues still need to be advanced. She does disagree strongly without mainstream feminists see and approach the issue. (And frankly so do I.) Sommers says specifically that if you are an equality feminists you are probably more tempted to see the glass as half-full, and say "wow, look how much equality we have already established -- now lets see if we can improve". In essence, this involves removing victimologies from feminism, although I do not think that Sommers uses that term.

Re:c'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

How sick in the head do they have to be to want to satisfy their sexual needs without submitting to a long process of jumping through hoops for the potential for sexual gratification?

Bingo.

This is the real reason many feminist wish to either control or eliminate porn. It's not enough to protect themselves, they want to control men's sexuality and manipulate it to their own end.

The great thing about being a man over 35 or so is that you can be honest with many in your close circle of friends about such things. I'm in my 40s, educated, make a good living, had been married once for fifteen years and have no kids. I've been told by numerous female friends (many of whom I've either dated or they've *tried* to date me) that I'm a 'catch'. Then they get really indignant that I'm not currently going out with anybody, to which I've replied 'why should I put up with the demands of a woman in a relationship when five minutes of porn and five minutes of alone time with my hand will do the trick?'

No joke: they hate it. I'd rather be hanging out with my dogs, rebuilding an engine for my project car, writing code, or rehabbing another house than sacrifice valuable time playing their games.

Re:c'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh, if you point out the ways women have a hand in their own predicaments it's now victim blaming.

Re:c'mon

[hey!]

That sounds very much like a gender-based stereotype.

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. So if I say, "blacks are poorer than whites in the US," that's not a stereotype, it's a statistical assertion about differences in economic attainment between groups in aggregate. But if I say "Blacks are poorer because blacks are lazy," that's using a stereotype because it attributes something inherent to blackness. 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 I were to say "the rate of Mercedes ownership is lower among blacks than whites" that is not a stereotype but a (made-up) statistical assertion.

So now I'm ready to tackle your question. Hitherto, men have not requires as much protection from sexual harassment as a group, because they have as a group dominated positions of authority and indeed all jobs except in a few professions like teaching and nursing. There have been cultural attitudes that give preference to men in hiring and salary, all other things being equal.

However that's a far cry from saying no man hitherto has ever needed legal protection for sexual discrimination or harassment. For example, it is legally possible to be harass or discriminate against people of the same sex. If your boss pressures you for homosexual sex, that's still sexual harassment.

Re:c'mon

[misexistentialist]

the number of sexual harassment suits filed by men has been on the rise, doubling from 8% of all cases in 1990 to 16.4% in 2010

Except the men are actually suing men since women didn't build the companies, they've got no skin in the game. This is like claiming that kicking your dog teaches the fleas a lesson, but parasites don't react until the host is dead.

Re:c'mon

[dbIII]

You are a really fucked up kid and should probably get out there and actually talk to some girls to undo some of that damage.

Re:c'mon

[twistedcubic]

Hmmm... The average income of a white man (US) is around 35% more than the average income of a black man. I'm black, and I'm sure we all would gladly take the 35% raise for the privelege of "not mattering". Indeed, the racial profiling we get makes us matter so much more than you guys! Enjoy!

Re:c'mon

[Applehu Akbar]

Sooo...how many hitchhikers do you have buried in that basement, anyway? Just curious.

Re: c'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he say anything that resembles defense of a purpetrator? Because it seems to me that you are trying to put words in his mouth to make him look bad.

Re:c'mon

[morgauxo]

Why are there so many people out there who can't comprehend that fault can lie with more than one person? This includes BOTH victim and victimizer.

If I run around a bad neighborhood at night with clothes made out of taped together money and get mugged... It is my fault! That doesn't mean what the mugger did was ok. He should go to jail just like any other mugger and I should not! Although.. if I were so stupid then maybe I should go into some sort of custody for my own protection.

Likewise if I were an atractive female and I passed out nudies of myself to any and every short-term fling. Yeah... come on, use your brain.. it's going to end up on the internet. That's the logical outcome of an illogical action. That doesn't mean the uploader is any less guilty or that the victim should be punished.

But.. I do think that lack of self-preservation common sense does reduce ones entitlement to sympathy.

Also that also doesn't mean it makes any sense to kill oneself after suffering the results of such a stupid decision. Yeah.. having everyone see your privates is going to suck. Sorry. You were a moron.

At least you can respond to anyone who claims to have seen you with "and you were surfing that site". "is your hand sore?"

Hopefully you are smarter now. I'm sure there will still be some enjoyment left to come in the many years of life ahead if you don't kill yourself. Don't do that!

Re:c'mon

[divide overflow]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

Revenge porn is a sexual assault? Seriously? Do you also regard the iCloud compromise as a sexual assault?

His premise that revenge porn "can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault" is not in any way the same as saying "Revenge porn is a sexual assault.". What you did there was to twist his words to create a straw man to attack, saying his statement about traumatization was instead claiming actual assault. Re-read his statement and you'll see he never said what you claimed as his premise.

Re:c'mon

[Shadow of Eternity]

An isolated case is exactly what it is considering that somewhere north of 90% of suicide victims are male, and it's the second leading non-accidental cause of death for boys starting at age ten. the difference is nobody gives a shit about them. Nobody gives a shit that there is a website up RIGHT NOW on oh so feminist HuffPo mocking a man's penis and inviting people to share in mocking his leaked nude pictures further. Nobody gives a shit that Jezebel's parent company spreads men's leaked sex tapes and brags about fighting legal efforts to stop them.

Well... actually... that's not entirely true. People give a shit. If they didn't they wouldn't go out of their way to minimize or erase male suicide and male victims of revenge porn.

Re:c'mon

[Shadow of Eternity]

While they're at it they should google "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" and "Karen DeCrow" to see who else western feminists like you have ostracized for not being hateful and bigoted enough. After all we can't have a black victim of child marriage and genital mutilation who advocates for women's rights in countries where they're *actually* oppressed even after her partners were beheaded in the street and had death threats to her impaled in their corpses making you all look bad. Clearly she deserved to be completely ostracized and demonized to the point of being blacklisted by universities and having honorary degrees revoked.

Yeah... you're really doing a good job showing us just how evil women like Hirsi Ali and Hoff-Sommers are while you yourself rally behind domestic abusers, rapists, pedophiles, and neonazis.

Re:c'mon

[Shadow of Eternity]

That's the EXACT brand of bullshit that denies women commit half of all domestic violence (incl. severe violence) against men because men "have power" or similar nonsense explanations.

Men being a majority of managers has fuck all to do with whether or not they're sexually harassed or need legal protections from exactly that, just like men being bigger than women on average has fuck all to do with whether or not they're abused or raped by women.

Re:c'mon

[preflex]

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.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

No, it cannot.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

A girl at my daughter's high school was a victim of revenge porn. She killed herself.

More males kill themselves than females. Why not blame society for that too?

Re:c'mon

[shilly]

Why? Go on, explain your logic.

Re:c'mon

[serviscope_minor]

And your point is? This is OK because it somehow karmically redresses the balance so we need to make more girls kill themselves in the name of equality? Or perhaps it's your pet cause and you want the OP to do something about it because your too lazy?

But well done for using some poor girl's suicide as a way to win points on the intenet. Go you.

Re:c'mon

[shilly]

Why would you use such a stupid example as "an atractive [sic] female and I passed out nudies of myself to any and every short-term fling"?

There are plenty of cases of people having pictures put up by long-term partners with whom they're in a loving relationship. And there are some cases where the pictures have been taking without the victim's knowledge.

So:
1. You're creating a hierarchy of sexual behaviour that reinforces conservative notions of what is morally "worthy", as though we're still in the 50s
2. You're deliberately ignoring that even people who are "blameless" within the rules of such a hierarchy are victims.

Re:c'mon

[shilly]

I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?

Re:c'mon

[Sesostris III]

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.)

Re:c'mon

[jareth-0205]

Who is talking about sexual assault? If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware, you just gave up some of your privacy rights.

I salute your flexibility in bending over backwards to blame the victim. Most people would know the difference between a private recording made between two people and the intentional broadcasting of that material with the intention to harm.

Re:c'mon

[jareth-0205]

Women...

By lumping 50% of the entire population into one group and blanket accusing them of the same thing, it's rather difficult to take anything you write seriously at all. It just comes over as angry backlash, and no better than the cliched "all men are bastards" call of the recently dumped.

Re:c'mon

[Movi]

Well, they deman equality of *results*, sometimes even superiority in many other fields - high paying jobs, political power, legislation benefits. So hell, why not equalize suicide rates? Hell, I'm pretty sure the high male suicide rate is either a social construct or a sign of "The Patriarchy" to them anyway.

Re:c'mon

[jareth-0205]

Your posts are a rare moment of intelligent empathy in a thoroughly depressing set of ./ comments. Some posts really do bring out the worst aspects of this community.

Re:c'mon

[shilly]

Excellent., thanks for your answer. You've made it quite clear that in your case, it's a toxic mix of both malice *and* incompetence. Well done!

Re:c'mon

[ShanghaiBill]

Well, they deman equality of *results*, sometimes even superiority in many other fields - high paying jobs, political power, legislation benefits.

Really? How many victims of revenge porn have demanded any of these things? All they are asking for is protection from one of the most egregious invasions of privacy imaginable. To imply that they deserve it because of some completely unrelated feminist agenda being pushed by completely different people, is idiotic.

Re:c'mon

[AmiMoJo]

I am saying that anyone who decides to kill themselves because of their "honor and reputation" being "sullied" is either mentally ill or a fucking moron. Or both.

So a child, particularly a female, who lives in the modern world surrounded by images of unrealistic female bodies and who is just coming to terms with her sexuality becomes mentally ill due to having images of her body posted on the internet.

That's like saying that someone who gets stabbed can bleed to death. It's obvious. It's not their fault, it's the way the human body works when stabbed. Clearly we need to try and stop people getting stabbed, through a mixture of education about how not to get stabbed and punishment for stabbers. We can apply the same solution to revenge porn.

Re:c'mon

[AmiMoJo]

considering that somewhere north of 90% of suicide victims are male

Not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Also, if you read the section on the US, it turns out that females attempt suicide more often, it's just that males are more successful.

Nobody gives a shit that Jezebel's parent company spreads men's leaked sex tapes and brags about fighting legal efforts to stop them.

A quick Google for Gawker doing this turned up nothing, do you have more specific details?

Re:c'mon

[Your.Master]

Reduction in suicides is a good thing. Relative rates of suicides between male and female people might inform what solutions are effective, but no, parity between males and females is not particularly important or "good" here. In exactly the same way that it's not important that we have parity in the number of men who are sexually harassed by their bosses at work.

Parity is a reasonable goal for allocating limited amounts of a good thing in many cases.

Instead of saying we shouldn't do something about this, how about suggesting ways we can reduce suicide that helps male people who commit suicide? Then you can assemble an argument this action on the basis of resource allocation.

Re:c'mon

[angel'o'sphere]

So what's an institution to do once it's no longer needed?
Obviously that institution is still needed.

Or how do you explain that obviously no ordinary law enforcement is taking the problem serious and takes action?

In Germany/Europe a guy who would be caught publishing "revenge porn" would minimum get 2 years in prison, depending on country ...

Only question is if he gets caught, but considering how stupid those idiots are a search warrant likely finds the movies on his computer and he upload protocols ...

Revenge porn, violation of personal rights, violation of copyright: all that has nothing to do with feminism.

Re:c'mon

[Mashiki]

How can you spot the person drinking the koolaid? They jump right into the "far-right think tank" conspiracy theory, then start making up the bullshit along the way.

Here's a useful tip, AEI employs people from the full political spectrum. CHS is also a democrat and classical liberal, sadly the fact that she came out in support of gamergate meant that her notability article on wikipedia then became a battleground for radical feminists, and people who have an axe to grind. Said people with an axe to grind also happen to be of the "social justice warrior" variety, who love to make mountains out of molehills while crying about how hurt their feelings are on first world problems. But woe to them if you actually drop a issue on actual women's rights on them, since the first thing they do is flee and scatter. So yes, you're exaggerating, perhaps ignorant to go along with it.

Re:c'mon

[angel'o'sphere]

You did not give up any of your privacy rights: distributing the video, regardless of content, is still a violation of privacy or personal rights.

Re:c'mon

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry but the guy with either a mental illness or being and idiot or both, that is you.

Being so ashamed that you rather commit suicide then stand the eyes of the glaring community is not a mental illness.

It is actually a very basic human behavior, as sad as it is.

Re:c'mon

[angel'o'sphere]

Why are there so many people out there who can't comprehend that fault can lie with more than one person? This includes BOTH victim and victimizer.

No it does not.
It is only the "fault" of the idiot uploading/publishing the video somewhere. Does not matter who filmed it.
You take a video of me and you, I publish it: my fault.
I take a video of you and me, I publish it: my fault.
You know about the video, I publish it: my fault.
You don't know about the video, I publish it: my fault.

What ever *I* do -- and often whatever I *don't* do -- it is always my responsibility, and in the case above many laws regulate that it is my "responsibility", the question so far is: it is a felony? So far not, but I'm up for laws that make it a felony.

For those who don't know the difference: uploading videos is minimum publishing and as such "a violation of personal and privacy rights" and most often a copyright violation. That means a lot of laws are already touched and "violated". However such violations only get prosecuted if the victim goes to court. If it is a felony the state goes to court. (Like in murder, theft, fraud etc.)

Re: c'mon

[BlueTrin]

Let me have an alternative point of view. I think the case you describe here should be covered by laws on minors. If you are adult and give a picture of yourself naked, you are mostly to blame although I agree as well that you should receive compensation as you never allowed distribution.

Re:c'mon

[serviscope_minor]

That parity between males and females is not a good thing?

Depends on how you get the parity. If you get it by driving more women to suicide, then congratulations, you've just made the world a worse place.

The fact that more young men kill themselves has NO bearing on that particular young woman deciding to kill herself, but some idiot always brings it up as if it's somehow OK because we need numeric equality in all things regardless of how we get it.

Re:c'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're a right-wing think tank. Funded directly by the Kochs for about $900k, and DonorsTrust to the tune of $20m. One of the Kochs is even on their fucking council. Huge ties to ALEC. I don't even live in the US and I know all this, so the only conclusion I come to is that you're an idiot.

The fact that you're describing Christina "Equity Feminism" Hoff Sommers as a democrat and a liberal is incredible. She gets almost all of her play on right-wing websites and news sources. Go and have a check of the list of people who describe themselves as equity feminists, and see the incredible company she keeps.

Not to mention your use of "social justice warrior" marks you out as either a Men's Rights Activist, a Gamergater, or one of many similar groups that all have misogynist histories - all groups that have axes to grind against women and feminism, and for some reason hold up CHS as a 'feminist', despite her defense of toxic masculinity and her hatred of anything feminist introduced past 1960.

Re:c'mon

[elgatozorbas]

Who is talking about sexual assault? If you give someone consent to take a video of you having sex then you need to beware, you just gave up some of your privacy rights.

It may not be sexual assault, but it certainly isn't a "minor thing" either. I don't think GP should have been modded flamebait. But this is /. People only care baout the difference between theft and piracy, andn ot about other people's feelings and expectations, especially if these people are women.

NO-ONE of these people gave any consent to put these videos on The Net. Is that so difficult to understand?

Re:c'mon

[elgatozorbas]

When you're in a hole, stop digging. It doesn't matter that more males than females kill tmemselves. What matters is that some people, mostly girls/women are driven to suicide because they are ashamed of something others have published about them. There is no way to make that sound okay, whatever the other statistics are.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

Well, they deman equality of *results*, sometimes even superiority in many other fields - high paying jobs, political power, legislation benefits.

Really? How many victims of revenge porn have demanded any of these things? All they are asking for is protection from one of the most egregious invasions of privacy imaginable. To imply that they deserve it because of some completely unrelated feminist agenda being pushed by completely different people, is idiotic.

No one implied that they deserved it; that's just how *you* choose to read it, which says more about you than it does about me.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?

Firstly, you shouldn't go around accusing people of incompetence when you can't even read the thread properly - I didn't reply to this message yet.

Secondly, as a matter of fact the slightly deranged group of people who keep posting stories about the *numbers* of women in certain jobs/games/industries are, in actual fact, asking for the *numbers* themselves to reflect parity. It's not my damn argument that men and women must be equally represented in $FOO.

It's illogical, irrational and inconsistent to say "parity must be achieved in $FOO, but only when $FOO is one of $BAR, $BAZ and $BAM, but not if $FOO is $CAR, $CAZ or $CAM". You can either choose a consistent viewpoint or (as many here currently do) constantly experience cognitive dissonance.

Re:c'mon

[Solandri]

It's also worth pointing out that stereotypes aren't in and of themselves bad. They're a mental shortcut our brains take to deal with the massive influx of information it receives while moving around in the real world. You're driving and see something that looks like a tree, and you assume it's a tree and will exhibit tree-like properties - stays in one spot, branches may sway a bit, a few leaves might fall. Your brain can then automatically eliminate the multitude of other possibilities for things beside the road (e.g. could run into the road), and ignore the tree as a potential threat to your driving.

What's important is to recognize when a stereotypes isn't true. If a big branch from the tree breaks and falls onto the road in front of you, that breaks the stereotype about trees being static objects which don't interfere with your driving. If you understand that "Oh, this tree broke my stereotype of trees" and react appropriately, you're fine. But if you persist in your (incorrect) stereotype and insist that branch in the middle of the road cannot exist because trees can't get in the way of your driving as long as you stay on the road, you're going to have an accident.

Re:c'mon

[meta-monkey]

Who gives a shit about "as a group?" What matters is what happens to Dave, or Sally. If Dave is being belittled because of his gender. That's bullshit. If Sally is being belittled because of her gender, that's bullshit.

This is the problem with Patriarchy Theory and 3rd-wave feminism. Yes, it is true that the majority of power in society rests with people who happen to be men. But the vast majority of men have no power. So the fact that Dave is made to feel uncomfortable at work because of his gender is in no way "all right" because the CEO of the corporation happens to be a man. Solve Dave's problem.

Re: c'mon

[twistedcubic]

You miss the point. So you're saying that you would happily give up your white-malesness, if you still get to keep all the money? You don't realize how whiny this sounds? You have more money and power than anyone else in the world, on average, and you're complaining about how much you "don't matter". This is crazy.

Re:c'mon

[fyngyrz]

1) No one should make records of acts the participant(s) intended to be private, public
2) No one should inculcate others that sexuality and bodies are shameful
3) Responsibility extends both ways - 1 is only harmful due to 2, but it harmful
4) "victim" is not in any way an inaccurate characterization of individuals in such records
5) Victims of self-destructive thoughts and actions bear high levels of responsibility
6) As with all personal & interpersonal matters, informed consent is a critical underpinning
7) Participating in pearl-clutching and increases harm and risk of harm. Don't.

Re: c'mon

[Chewbacon]

A few past girlfriends have sent me nude pics, or otherwise risqué. I would consider it far beneath me to have shared them. I don't even have them anymore. It's sad guys don't learn not to be dicks. Also suggests to me, in the FSU girl's case, the guy had issues getting over her. He's a little bitch. Grow a pair. Want revenge? Bang/date her friends.

Re:c'mon

[rea1l1]

It is our culturally indoctrinated embarrassment of our personal sexual selves that result in this sort of nonsense.

Sex is okay. Nudity is okay. What is not okay is how uptight our society is about the natural human body.
Being seen having sex by any number of people should never result in the death of an individual and any link between the two is false.

Children are inherently unbalanced - this is why there is such thing as a legal age.
If a child is having sex the parent should be held accountable and charged with allowing this activity.
Parents must be held responsible for their children's actions.

Re:c'mon

[Lehk228]

https://archive.today/Yg7gq

Re:c'mon

[ckatko]

Do you have any idea how many logical fallacies you've managed to commit?

You can't magically pull out the Gamergate card and throw away her entire career of psychology research. The mere fact people are drinking your cool-aid without subjecting it to logic is further proof that there is a huge backlash of modern feminists against classic feminists.

This woman was fighting for women's rights likely before you were even born. So your post speaks volumes more about your own confirmation bias, than it does to discredit her.

Re:c'mon

[ckatko]

A typical response. Anyone who doesn't want to hang around women all day must be broken.

You're so biased you can't even see the silliness of shaming someone for not wanting something that you assume everyone should want. Your head is on so backwards you're calling the guys that don't have an unhealthy obsession with the other gender, crazy. In your attempt to shame him, you've actually confirmed my point--that society ostracizes anyone who doesn't submit to the idea that women must be a prize to be sought after and won

Re:c'mon

[HiThere]

I feel that asinine is to mild a derogoratory term. Malicious would seem more apt. Or sadistic. Or bullying (though that's also a bit mild in the normal case).

Probably the correct description, however, is egocentricly .... and again I'm at a loss for the proper word. It would mean vicarious appreciation of another's suffering because in some way they aren't similar to the speaker. And I count it as a major form of evil that humanity suffers from.

Re:c'mon

[HiThere]

Why are you assuming that the women didn't build the companies? I definitely know that some companies were built by women. I'll agree that most companies were built by men, but not all, and often both men and women had a part in the building of the companies. Additionally more companies have been destroyed by men than by women. Additionally, often the men who built the companies aren't the one's currently running them, so claiming that those men currently running the company have "skin in the game" purely because they are men is unjust and, basically, stupid.

Re:c'mon

[quantaman]

Sorry for being a lazy proofreader, the intent of my statement was still pretty clear.

The obvious correction is to drop the 's which came from a previous iteration of the sentence, and I'm not sure the insertion of 'as' before traumatizing actually adds anything besides extra letters.

Your alternate "correction" becomes gibberish when inserted into the original sentence, and even then it still doesn't clearly convey the meaning you attached to it.

Re:c'mon

[quantaman]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

No, it cannot.

In a sexual assault you've had your naked body viewed and touched by one person without your consent.

In revenge porn an intimate moment with your naked body has been viewed by thousands or even millions of people without your consent, possibly including many people in your social circle.

Yes, it absolutely can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

This woman was fighting for women's rights likely before you were even born.

You clearly don't know a single thing about Christina Hoff Sommers. The only thing she's ever fought for was the status quo. She's written articles about why women should not be paid as much as men for the same work. She's a goddamn rape apologist for chrissake.

You need to look a little deeper into this woman and her work.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

Even the Slashdot editors themselves agree!

No, anon. Not the Slashdot editors. One Slashdot editor, "timothy". I've just had a look at the past 9 Friday nights, and each one of the MRA clickbait stories was from this one editor.

I also see from mentions of his name in Slashdot comments going back a year that he's got a bit of a... how shall I say, reputation.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

You're conflating Hirsi Ali and Hoff Sommers? That's absurd.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

I don't have to - the logic that there must be parity between males and females is currently fully accepted as is with no explanation.

Ah, I'm really glad you brought up this notion of "parity". I hope you realize that it's the phony feminists like Christina Hoff Summers who are in favor of this "parity". They even call themselves "equity feminists".

What feminists argue for is not "parity", it's an end to systematic abuse and double standard. Women don't want the right to be able to harass men on the street for how they look, they want to not be treated like objects that exist only for the approval of those men. They don't want the right to be able to post revenge porn, they want men to stop posting revenge porn.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

No one implied that they deserved it

Yes, they have. We've got multiple posts in this thread where the comment is basically, "If they hadn't ever been naked with a man, then there wouldn't be any revenge porn of them to be posted."

That's the kind of victim-blaming that you MRAs are doing every day.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

Secondly, as a matter of fact the slightly deranged group of people who keep posting stories about the *numbers* of women in certain jobs/games/industries are, in actual fact, asking for the *numbers* themselves to reflect parity

I see the mistake you're making. You think there is some desire for parity, but that's just not true.

The desire is for those statistics NOT to be used to perpetuate the myth that women don't want to be in technology because the numbers are so lopsided. I suppose the subtlety of the difference is a bit too much for you, but I thought it would be worth a try to explain.

Re:c'mon

[nbauman]

There is not much of a legal basis for "I let someone video me having sex, let them keep the recording, and now I want to kill myself because they posted it online".

Nope. I have a couple of friends who are photographers and photo editors. They take pictures all the time, but if they want to use them commercially they have to get a model release or other permission. If you want to use a picture of Albert Einstein or Marilyn Monroe, you have to get permission from their estate.

Non-commercial use would be different in some ways, but you have enough rights to your own image that the offended party and her lawyers could find something to hang you on in most states.

Re:c'mon

[Mashiki]

Oh noes. They got money from the Koches and Donors trust! How dare they, after all it's not like George Soros hasn't dumped massive amounts of money into think tanks and all the rest. For someone who claims to 'know all this' you're pretty ignorant of what the other side does, that is exactly the same.

Okay, and her getting her play there is a problem why? Oh, I see it doesn't fit your ideological agenda which means that it's bad, in turn if it doesn't fit that means they're not your particular brand of xyz person. How very polarizing of you.

Can you show actual proof that gamergate has misogynist histories? $20 says that you'll drop the same articles where the authors, belonging to said organizations have come out saying that they knew it wasn't, but did it because it 'sold the story better.' You know, like the CBC and then there's other organizations that said the same thing. Then again, if you consider today's version of feminism to be egalitarian where many of the most vocal voices call for gendercide and whine about first world problems, you're a perfect fit for it.

Re:c'mon

[Shadow of Eternity]

They both work for the AEI, they both condemn western feminists like you in the strongest terms, they both focus on actual facts and helping women that are actually oppressed... every thing you poopoo Hoff-Sommers for applies just as much to Hirsi Ali.

Re:c'mon

[Shadow of Eternity]

Well... actually... that's not entirely true. People give a shit. If they didn't they wouldn't go out of their way to minimize or erase male suicide and male victims of revenge porn.

Right on time. It's like a reflex, you can't NOT go out of your way to minimize, dismiss, and erase the tens of thousands of male deaths in favor of a wildly overinflated claim of female "attempts".

The irony is it's astoundingly misogynist of you to do this. You're saying that women are so amazingly feckless and incompetent that they can attempt suicide more than men and yet wind up being something like a single digit percent of actual suicides.

Not only does it smack of "me first!" attention whoring, it's demeaning to women.

A quick Google for Gawker doing this turned up nothing, do you have more specific details?

A quick google for "gawker sex tapes" brings up Hulk Hogan's sex tapes in literally the first five or so results. Good to see you're as "honest" as ever.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

They both work for the AEI, they both condemn western feminists like you in the strongest terms,

"Western feminists". Is that what you think I am?

I'll bet if you think really hard you can come up with the name of the logical fallacy you just committed. That's your thing, right?

Re:c'mon

[theArtificial]

One cannot simply use a phone without taking nude pictures of themselves /seanbean.jpg

Re:c'mon

[Shadow of Eternity]

Nope. It's a logical fallacy if I dismiss the validity of your argument solely on grounds of you being a western style feminist. It's not a logical fallacy if I point out that these two women have condemned people with your exact pattern of behavior and ideology in strong terms.

Re:c'mon

[shilly]

Blimey, it really is incompetence in your case, isn't it? I was replying to your specific post.

You said something, and I replied. This is not very difficult logic to follow. Well, not for most of us.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

Blimey, it really is incompetence in your case, isn't it? I was replying to your specific post.

this wasn't to me, yet you respond as if it was. Once again, before you go around accusing people of incompetence you might consider a remedial English class.

You said something, and I replied. This is not very difficult logic to follow. Well, not for most of us.

Too hard for you, though. My point still stands - parity as a goal is stupid, hence the qualifiers.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

Good post - I'll link to it in the future.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

When you're in a hole, stop digging. It doesn't matter that more males than females kill tmemselves. What matters is that some people, mostly girls/women are driven to suicide because they are ashamed of something others have published about them. There is no way to make that sound okay, whatever the other statistics are.

Society "drives" more men to suicide than women. Much much more. No claiming of "mostly women" is going to change that, and no amount of posturing is going to make it okay.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

No one implied that they deserved it

Yes, they have.

Then reply to them not to me - I haven't made that claim nor have I implied it. Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

No, it cannot.

In a sexual assault you've had your naked body viewed and touched by one person without your consent.

In revenge porn an intimate moment with your naked body has been viewed by thousands or even millions of people without your consent, possibly including many people in your social circle.

Yes, it absolutely can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault.

I'd like to see you tell a sexual assault survivor that her ordeal was as bad as someone looking at her naked photos.

Re:c'mon

[quantaman]

Because an egregious violation of someone's privacy that's can be traumatizing as a sexual assault is a minor thing.

No, it cannot.

In a sexual assault you've had your naked body viewed and touched by one person without your consent.

In revenge porn an intimate moment with your naked body has been viewed by thousands or even millions of people without your consent, possibly including many people in your social circle.

Yes, it absolutely can be as traumatizing as a sexual assault.

I'd like to see you tell a sexual assault survivor that her ordeal was as bad as someone looking at her naked photos.

Note I said 'can', not 'is'.

Typically I expect that sexual assault survivors do have it worse.

But I suspect there are many women for whom the violation of the pictures can be as bad if not worse than some classes of sexual assault.

Re:c'mon

[PopeRatzo]

Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?

Because, your statement was that "No one implied that they deserved it", when in fact they have.

That's why I replied to you. To point out that your statement was factually inaccurate.

Re:c'mon

[goose-incarnated]

Why try to argue that with me when I make it abundantly clear that I don't make that claim?

Because, your statement was that "No one implied that they deserved it", when in fact they have.

Link to a comment that makes that claim. You can only find a link to ACs?

That's why I replied to you. To point out that your statement was factually inaccurate.

Lovely - Now I am responsible for the meanderings of random ACs in a separate thread? No one, in this thread, "implied that they deserved it". Actually, from a brief squizz through the comments I seem unable to find someone making that claim that the victims "deserved" it, other than ACs.

So much for your "factually inaccurate" claim...

Re:c'mon

[sexconker]

You're comparing nude pictures taken and given to someone with consent to sexual assault?
Nope.

Re:c'mon

[sexconker]

In cases where there was no consent you don't need extra laws to protect people.

Re:c'mon

[Obfuscant]

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.

I know exactly what that word means, and that is exactly the use I was replying to. When someone says "that group doesn't require protection", then you are using a simplistic model and holding as true for the entire group. It would have been much clearer as a stereotype if you had said "some genders typically don't require protection", at which point you'd have noticed the word "typical" -- from the same root as "type" in "stereotype".

Hitherto, men have not requires as much protection from sexual harassment as a group,

And that, sir, is a prototypical stereotype. Were it proper English, that is. Had you said "some men don't", you would have been right, and you'd have been talking about individual members of the group. But to talk about the group as a whole, which you did deliberately by referring to "as a group", that makes it a stereotype.

Re:c'mon

[morgauxo]

1) There are plenty of cases of people having pictures put up by long-term partners with whom they're in a loving relationship

Most relationsips fail. Even the long ones. If you are considering giving your partner nudies you would do well to keep that in mind. Breakups are an emotional time and you never know what someone might do with the "ammo" you gave them.

Personally I think that in a better world when that happens anyone who saw the nudie would think the uploader was an imature jerk and not think any worse of the victim. So they like sex. Congradulations, you discovered that humans are mamals.

  But we all know that here in the real world there are still a lot of over-conservative types and things happen like people losing jobs over what gets posted online. So... you should consider this before giving out photos and weigh the risk/benefit. If you don't... well... that aspect of the situation IS your fault.

2) And there are some cases where the pictures have been taking without the victim's knowledge.

So.. because of that in every case everywhere everytime there is no fault to be found in the victim?

Someone plants a camera in a bathroom or changeroom... probably no fault for the victim. (unless that bathroom was at a drunken frat party or something like that)

Someone gets a picture of you outside somewhere where you thought nobody was around... well.. you took a risk and this is what happened. Sucks to be you.

"1. You're creating a hierarchy of sexual behaviour that reinforces conservative notions of what is morally "worthy", as though we're still in the 50s"

Not at all. I'm not saying someone shouldn't go to a party because it's immoral. If you don't care about people seeing your body then great, go have fun! But I will say that if you do care about seeing you naked and you go get drunk with a bunch of people with a reputation for doing such things then you are an idiot.

Oh.. and you probably should care because society cares and it could effect your opportunities in life later. Not because sex is bad and you should be a 1950s virgin but because the reality of our conservative society is an unavoidable fact of life.

"2. You're deliberately ignoring that even people who are "blameless" within the rules of such a hierarchy are victims."

I am having a hard time following this sentence. Are you saying that I am implying that EVERY victim is also guilty? If so then no... I didn't mean to make any such blanket statement. To me that is just as bad as saying that every victim is blameless. Situations are unique and should be evaluated that way!

Note... in none of these situations am I saying that the victimizer is not 100% at fault and worthy nor worthy of prosecution. Nor am I saying that the victim is deserving of further punishment beyond maybe a big lecture from a parent.

Re:c'mon

[morgauxo]

Fault != law. It would be completely unreasonable to try the victim in court and to put them in jail. It would also be unreasonable to let the victimizer off because the victim did something stupid.

You shouldn't get passed-out drunk with people you can't trust. You shouldn't let someone you don't know and trust really well take videos of you in bed. There IS such a thing as a compromising situation. You should avoid them.

There are mean, bad people in the world. We all have to know this and make our decisions based on that fact. If we don't then bad things are going to happen to us. To make decisions as though every person around us is going to always do the right thing.. that is a fault. It is not a legal fault where one should be prosecuted. It very well could be a fatal one though.

To get into these situations.. you must either have a very naive outlook on the world where you think everyone is nice. Or.. you make decisions without considering the consequences. To do either... that IS your fault.

Re:c'mon

[morgauxo]

"In many cases, no consent was given."

In most of those cases the victim can not be at fault.
Although.. if the video was taken because the girl went to a frat with a reputation for victimizing women and got drunk there it would be hard to argue that she didn't do a very stupid thing to herself.

"Even if it was, consent to take a picture shouldn't automatically imply consent to broadcast it to the world."

No, but we live in a real world not a perfect one. There are bad people out there who will do bad things. Everyone needs to consider that when they make decisions. If you don' t have ample reason to trust someone but you let them take the video anyway... that IS your fault.

It is still 100% the fault of the person uploading the video too. That person probably should be prosecuted. But you still did a very bad thing to yourself by getting into the situation and should have known better.

Would you hand your wallet to a stranger in a crowd to hold for you? "Hold this.. I'll be back in a few minutes..."

Re:c'mon

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, whom if not your partner you love and from whom you are certain (wrongly perhaps) that he/she loves you similarly would you trust more?

Your argumentation makes no sense.

Which crime?

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Which crime?

[ClickOnThis]

The letter didn't mention what Federal criminal code violation he wanted the FBI to use to justify such a response.

No, but it did mention the case of former revenge-porn king Hunter Moore, who was convicted of conspiring to hack into victims' accounts, and subsequent identity theft.

IANAL. The actual posting of "revenge porn" may or may not be a violation of Federal criminal codes. But the manner in which the material is obtained may be a violation of those codes, and apparently was for the case of Hunter Moore.

I would assume a victim of revenge porn would have access to civil courts to seek redress. But the bite of Federal law should be applied where possible.

Re:Which crime?

[stephanruby]

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.

You Google Foo must not be very strong then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn#Criminal_prosecutions

Re:Which crime?

[riverat1]

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.

Right in the post is says (emphasis added):

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, ...

IOW, Franken's asking them what they can do about it. I suppose if it turns out they can't do much that might lead to Franken introducing a bill but at this point he's just gathering information.

Re:Which crime?

[serviscope_minor]

After a quick search, I found no such law.

Why not criminal copyright infringement? Surely those laws have to be good for something, right?

Once a clown, always a clown.

[dfenstrate]

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal.
I would expect Franken, or at least someone who works for him, to know this. Perhaps he just wants it declared illegal by executive fiat, as is the practice with this administration.
But really, this ploy, and Slashdot's new social-justice-warrior driven coverage of it, is driven more by a desire to distract everyone from foreign events, Hillary's email server, and Obama's frequent and blatant power grabs.
That's actually kind of funny, now that I think of it. There's been no story posted at all about Clinton's email shenanigans. Well, we know who Dice has thrown their lot in with.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[Crashmarik]

At a guess he would like them to go after some who did something that wasn't illegal but prosecute them into oblivion anyway. Then he will take the scalp back home to his constituents.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal. I would expect Franken, or at least someone who works for him, to know this. Perhaps he just wants it declared illegal by executive fiat, as is the practice with this administration.

You're not thinking hard enough. Al Franken is a smart, patient, deliberate guy; there's a long game here. He's trolling for something else that transcends the letter's face value, and I strongly suspect it has to do with Comey's recent anti-cellphone-encryption media blitz. Check out this bit of the letter:

"As technologies rapidly advance, it is our responsibility to ensure that our nation's laws keep pace with those technologies. But it is also our responsibility to ensure that existing laws are strictly enforced."

I'd bet a dollar that Franken is trying to bait Comey into admitting that the federal government has neither the jurisdiction nor the Constitutional authority to monitor everyone's internet and phones for revenge porn, or even to remove such material when it's found. That admission will in turn be used against Comey and his agency's emotional attempts to disrupt encryption (KIDNAPPERS! PEDOPHILES! TERRORISTS!), to promote sweeping surveillance, etc.

Hat-tip to Franken.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[LessThanObvious]

Maybe we could just convince content providers to voluntarily substitute reported revenge porn images with nude photos of Al Franken. That would be punishment for all would be observers.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[quantaman]

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal.
I would expect Franken, or at least someone who works for him, to know this. Perhaps he just wants it declared illegal by executive fiat, as is the practice with this administration.
But really, this ploy, and Slashdot's new social-justice-warrior driven coverage of it, is driven more by a desire to distract everyone from foreign events, Hillary's email server, and Obama's frequent and blatant power grabs.
That's actually kind of funny, now that I think of it. There's been no story posted at all about Clinton's email shenanigans. Well, we know who Dice has thrown their lot in with.

I would expect someone who writes a comment accusing the subject of being misinformed would at least RTFA to ensure they aren't completely misinformed on that very fact:

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.

[...]

Franken wrote in his letter. "As technologies rapidly advance, it is our responsibility to ensure that our nation's laws keep pace with those technologies. But it is also our responsibility to ensure that existing laws are strictly enforced."

[...]

In addition, Franken wants information on any limitations within current law that may have impeded the FBI from carrying out investigations or making arrests. Franken, who asked for a response by May 8, is exploring whether legislation may be necessary to combat revenge porn, his office said.

In summary Franken is saying that revenge porn is a serious problem and he wants to know if the FBI can do more with the laws already there or if they need additional laws to fix the problem. Isn't this exactly what you want a legislator to do?

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[stephanruby]

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal.

At the very least, it seems to be considered identity theft.

But if blackmail, or hacking, is involved, then other charges can follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn#Criminal_prosecutions

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this exactly what you want a legislator to do?

Well yeah, but not a legislator (D) by his name who consistently calls us right-wingers out on our B.S and makes us look like the asses we are.

Sheesh.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[Obfuscant]

The reason the FBI isn't doing more to combat revenge porn is thus: It's not illegal.

At the very least, it seems to be considered identity theft.

By whom? Hunter was convicted of identity theft not because he posted the images but because of how he got them. He could have been convicted for that even without posting them.

Franken is talking about revenge porn that results in harassment, stalking, assault and murder. Those are already crimes. Identity theft is a crime. The major convictions for this porn have been the large-scale players who are acting against large numbers of people not for revenge over relationships gone bad, but monetary gain. What new laws do we need to cover that? Isn't extortion enough?

And the fact that he has to ask the FBI what laws they have to deal with the problem means his own staff is incompetent. He's a Senator, shouldn't he have a good idea of what the laws already are? Or shouldn't his staff be able to research this?

It sounds like an attempt at embarrassing the FBI for some reason. From a comedian who popularized the concept of "the me decade". It's all about him, Al Franken.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[ckatko]

>But really, this ploy, and Slashdot's new social-justice-warrior driven coverage of it, is driven more by a desire to distract everyone from foreign events, Hillary's email server, and Obama's frequent and blatant power grabs.

THANK YOU. It's like everyone's drinking the cool-aid and nobody realizes that bullshit like this happens every time something important goes on. There's a fucking nuclear deal in Iran going on RIGHT NOW... but someone, somewhere might be jacking off to pictures of women? NO WAY, STOP THE PRESS!

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[ChrisMaple]

Seeing Franken clothed is pornographic. It blisters my mind to imagine him naked.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[andydread]

...and Obama's frequent and blatant power grabs.

Hey moron. Whether it Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, using executive orders are not power grabs. It enshrined in the frigging constitution. Do yourself a favor. Stop watching Fox News and listnening to propoganda radio. Gawd people are so easy to brain wash - smh.

Re:Once a clown, always a clown.

[HiThere]

In the first place I don't recall any mention of "executive orders" in the constitution, but in the second place, even were such to exist it wouldn't justify using them in a manner beyond the powers granted by the constitution. As they frequently are. And doing so should be an impeachment offense...and not just impeachement, also conviction. Unfortunately, that means politics, and most legislators will stand by their party. (Also most legislators believe in "the divine right of government".)

Really?

[EmeraldBot]

Its popularity has ballooned in recent years, and victims are disproportionately women.

I find it disgusting that the author wouldn't stop revenge porn because it's an immoral or criminal act, but only because most of the affected audience happens to be women. Are you next going to suggest that we don't run public transportation because it is a highly efficient method of travel that is cheaper for everyone involved, but only because non-white people are less likely to own a car?

What an incredibly sexist implication.

Re:Really?

[ClickOnThis]

I find it disgusting that the author wouldn't stop revenge porn because it's an immoral or criminal act, but only because most of the affected audience happens to be women.

Nice straw man. There's nothing in the letter or TFS or TFA that suggests anyone is doing this "only because most of the affected audience happens to be women."

The overwhelming majority of rape victims are women. But we have laws against rape because it is wrong, not because women are in the majority as victims.

Re:Really?

[Shados]

The implication here is more along the line of: "revenge porn is wrong, period. Some people may not feel like its an issue because they're guys and the victims are usually women".

Re:Really?

[DJ Jones]

The "think of the women/children" card is the tactic of a scoundrel and I thought Al Franken to be above such methods - his opinion on this matter appears to favor emotion over critical thinking.

Revenge porn is a despicable concept, don't get me wrong, but you know what else is despicable? Writing laws under emotional pretense without weighing the potential for abuse. When the only thing that separates "homemade porn" and "revenge porn" is intent, god help the innocent. I can think of a dozen hypothetical situations in which such laws could be (and would be) abused and that's just off the top of my head.

Here's an obvious one: my wife and I made a sex tape yesterday (not really). Neither of us filled out consent forms because....who would? 10 years from now we find ourselves divorced due to unrelated matters. What then would prevent my ex-wife from posting the sex tape via a public computer terminal and reporting it to the FBI's "revenge porn" task force? Nothing....and it would be my word against hers and her ass on every computer screen in the country so there goes 5-10 years of my freedom.

Like most emotionally-charged laws in this country, anyone who takes issue commits political suicide so no one will stop this madness. Meanwhile America's legal system slips further into a cruel, hypocritical mess written with the "best" of intentions. It's a shame, I like Al Franken.

Re:Really?

[Shados]

And this is why only a small tiny fraction of rapes ever end up with someone ending up in jail. "Your word vs hers", and without evidence, you can't throw someone in it. There's always going to be issues because our system is broken, mind you, but that doesn't mean you should just go and make it legal.

In the same way here, if there's not enough evidence, so be it. But there's some people that literally flaunt about it. You can get enough evidence to stop THOSE at least.

Re:Really?

[Shakrai]

I find it disgusting that the author wouldn't stop revenge porn because it's an immoral or criminal act, but only because most of the affected audience happens to be women

Playing identity politics is what Democrats do best. Step into your time machine and review the coverage of NYPD's so-called stop and frisk policy. The chief argument made against it was that it "disproportionally affects minorities." Very few people in power on the left argued against it on the basis of the 4th Amendment, or could even acknowledge the basic fact that it's humiliating to treat people as criminals merely for walking down the street. The legal and political arguments made against it lead one to conclude that that they would be perfectly okay with the policy if whites were stopped in equal numbers.

Re:Really?

[manwargi]

"And this is why only a small tiny fraction of rapes ever end up with someone ending up in jail. Your word vs hers", and without evidence, you can't throw someone in it.

Are you kidding? It is quite the opposite. The accusation alone creates a scandal that smears the name, image, and reputation of the accused while the accuser is kept anonymous, and heavens forbid the accused is famous it becomes a scandal the media guarantees they will never live down. Many prosecutions succeed based on "her word" alone, and even of the ones that don't, the stigma haunts the accused for the rest of their lives and the journalists that made a lot of noise about the accusation will make far less about the acquittal.

Mind you, I am not saying a victim's identity should not be protected, but either both should get privacy or both should have their names revealed. The way it stands now makes a false accusation entirely too potent.

Re:Really?

[Shadow of Eternity]

You just made the grandparent's point entirely by accident. The overwhelming majority of rape victims are women because the definition of rape does not count men raped by women as rape victims. Per Koss men are not raped by women because they "choose to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse". This is why the federal government counts men raped by women as "other" and not "rape" victims in the National Intimate partner and Sexual Violence Survey. This is a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation. "Rape" as reported statistically has a very narrow and specially tailored meaning. "Rape" as people understand it means something else entirely.

If you look at the actual data itself the number of men made-to-penetrate and the number of women penetrated in each year of data released so far has been virtually equal. The only difference is men are categorized as "other" and women as "rape" victims.

Re:Really?

[HiThere]

Well, we do have various "violence against people" acts called things like assault, battery, etc. But I'll agree that it should be equally wrong to comit violence against all people. So that act should be restated. And there should be exceptions for cases where there is mutual agreement.

OTOH, women are typically smaller and weaker than men, so typically women need more protection. But there are clearly cases where that's not true.

Re:Really?

[HiThere]

I doubt that the point was a point of legality. I suspect that the actual majority of rapes are comitted by men. And probably the majority of the victims are women.

If your point about the statistics collected by the federal legal system is correct, that is an interesting addendum, and a note of a rather strange kind of prejudice, but I doubt that it's statistically important. (OTOH, clearly "other" tends to hide matters.)

I find it quite difficult to accept your assertion that "If you look at the actual data itself the number of men made-to-penetrate and the number of women penetrated in each year of data released so far has been virtually equal." and would like to know what data this asserion is based on. Do you have a citation?

Re:Really?

[Shadow of Eternity]

I suspect that the actual majority of rapes are comitted by men. And probably the majority of the victims are women... I find it quite difficult to accept your assertion that "If you look at the actual data itself the number of men made-to-penetrate and the number of women penetrated in each year of data released so far has been virtually equal." and would like to know what data this asserion is based on. Do you have a citation?...

I literally cited the exact name of my source right there in my post, which is only a few sentences long.

Re:Really?

[HiThere]

So I went to http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre... but nothing on the visible page displayed (AFAICT) a link to the raw data. It did say
"Note: Javascript is disabled or is not supported by your browser. For this reason, some items on this page will be unavailable. For more information about this message, please visit this page: About CDC.gov."
which may explain that. But I don't think I'm going to enable JavaScript.

I was actually hoping for a link, but perhaps they don't have the data in a form accessible without JavaScript.

Re:Really?

[Shadow of Eternity]

So what you're saying is you have a full citation, you know exactly where the data is, but because of your own arbitrary reasons (javascript and whatever else you come up with next) you refuse to follow through on your side of this and actually look at the data.

I can give you a citation, I can't make you actually look at it.

Knee Jerk Responce

[rtb61]

The problem here is a knee jerk response by an individual who should know better. When writing news laws care should always be take with, how reliably facts can be obtained about the action, how readily can the law be defrauded, how difficult will it be to be reliably prosecuted and how does the harm occur. The biggest problem with revenge porn is it underlies a basic deceit, about how differently people act in private compared to how they act in public and who they pretend to be. Those who feel the most victimised by revenge porn will factually be those who are most likely to judge others negatively when they are exposed, the greater the their negative judgement of others the more they feel the sting when they are exposed. This of course only holds true for adults. When it comes to minors, different story of course but who to blame when a minor exposes another minor, easy peasy, the 'ADULTS', that allowed it to occur, whether through perversion or greed and that greed guilt emphatically pointed at web sites that allow it because they are too greedy to spend money on preventing it (for many web sites, a simple policy of no minors allowed, does make sense) and this is also something governments should be paying attention, unsupervised minors do not really belong on an adult internet.

probably legal outside of california

[superwiz]

Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but if someone gave consent to be taped during sex, they don't retain the rights to what happens post-production (unless you have California-style copyright regime where you can copyright saying "hello" with an accent). Because movies are their business and SAG is so influential there, you can probably control who and why sees your performance even after you gave consent. This isn't about Al Fraken defending women. He doesn't give a damn. It's about Al Franken trying to create welfare for lawyers and Hollywood by creating case law which makes a more stringent copyright regime nationwide. He already tried to use a dumb judge's decision in a rape victim's case to try to force all federal contractors to be required to submit to no-arbitration-clause-allowed-for-sexual-harassment in their contracts. This is just about feeding trial lawyers. Victims don't get more money from suing than they do from arbitration. But Democratic party gets a lot more money from trial lawyers than they do from anyone else.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[Shados]

The whole "what people do with the video" isn't the problem in itself. Its that a specific subset of usage of said video squarely fall into various categories of sexual harassment, extortion, etc. This wouldn't get prosecuted as a copyright case.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[hey!]

Bingo. It's not a copyright issue at all. Sure, the person taking the photo or video "owns the copyright". All that grants him the right to limit copying activity by others. But if a photo happens to contain confidential or private information, owning the copyright doesn't automatically grant you any additional rights to do things with that confidential information. You can well own copyright to photos that you have no right to redistribute for any number of reasons.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[hey!]

If you own a picture, or video, or recording, including the copyright - you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

I'm glad you're not a lawyer because that is untrue in many, many situations. You can't take a picture of a celebrity and use it in advertising for example, even though you can publish that very same picture in a tabloid newspaper article full of unflattering insinuations. Sure you own the copyright but that doesn't grant you the right to use the information in that picture any way you want.

Here's a close parallel. Suppose you're an insurance adjuster and you get permission to photograph earthquake damage inside someone's house. You own the copyright to those photos, but no right to use them other than for documenting damage for the claim. You can't put them up on your public website.

On the other hand, if you're a newspaper photographer and you get permission to photo the earthquake damage inside someone's home you *can* put them up on your website. What's different is what a reasonable person would expect he's giving permission for you to do.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[superwiz]

You generally don't need a permission to photograph inside of someone's home if you have been given the right to enter the home. You can record anything you can observe unless you agree to surrender the right to record as a pre-condition for the right to observe. If someone let's you into the house, you can record anything you want and (outside of crazy places like California) own the copyright on what you recorded. If you record something embarrassing, it's no different from overhearing an embarrassing conversation of someone talking on a cell phone in public. The conversation is private, but by allowing you to observe it, they allowed you to disseminate what you observed. The act of recording is indistinguishable from the act of observing. Again, unless, you are in an insane place like California.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[superwiz]

In your example, the threat is the problem (the function) rather than the fact that it was posted on line (the form). If you can observe something, then you have a right to record it and should have the copyright on the recording and the right to disseminate it. Which, strictly speaking, makes revenge porn no different from kiss and tell.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[superwiz]

You do realize that copyright is a legal structure created and determined by the government, and its terms can be modified and defined as to public policy, right?

Not per se. Article one explicitly states that intellectual property regimes are to be established for the purposes of promoting useful sciences and arts. It's not a carte blanche prerogative of the legislature.. It has a designated purpose. Simple act of allowing someone to see you naked is not an act of an artistic performance. Doing so for the purposes of coitus is a biological imperative (akin to going to a doctor to get a check up). Agreeing to be observed carries with it agreeing to have someone remember the observation. And the observer should retain the copyright of the observation(if (s)he, for example, talks about it) or recording because observation and recording are the only parts of the act which have any artistic merit. Simply showing up to be there naked to have your biological imperative fulfilled is not an artistic or a scientific endeavor. So it merits no intellectual property protection.

Re:probably legal outside of california

[superwiz]

Shorter version: because simply having sex is just a biological function. It has no more artistic value than eating a sandwich. If you allow someone to observe you eat a sandwich, you allow them to remember it, record it and play the recording. The same is true of allowing someone to see you naked. Letting someone observe you is not in itself art. It only becomes art if you are performing at the time. If you are just being yourself, sorry, you don't get a copyright on that for the reasons outlined in my previous post.

Re:There's This Little Thing Called the Constituti

[ClickOnThis]

[...] I cannot see that "revenge porn" is anything that could be affected by the eighteen "Enumerated Powers" listed in the Constitution. These are the only legitimate powers that the Federal government has.

[...] I think the STATES should prosecute "revenge porn" viciously.

Fine, but that won't work if the victim lives in a state that has revenge-porn laws, and the perpetrator lives in a state that does not.

Re:There's This Little Thing Called the Constituti

[Anonymous Coward]

Commerce clause. Unless the porn isn't posted on a website that's available across state lines... but then who would care then?

Here's a thought

[the_Bionic_lemming]

How about not letting yourself be filmed or sexting?

I know - that's silly. We all need the government to be draconian when you've made a very big mistake and need someone punished. It's not your fault that the lech is humiliating you ...

Re:Here's a thought

[Guy From V]

Exactly.

Re: Here's a thought

[BlueTrin]

It is a crime because you never had the right to distribute. It is not hard to get it.

Re: Here's a thought

[BlueTrin]

Getting the picture does not implicitly gives you the right to distribute, it is not hard to understand.

Re:Here's a thought

[rea1l1]

If this is happening to your teenage daughter then YOU should be held responsible.

FBI Director to testify:

[Kohath]

The fact that revenge porn is not against Federal law has "impeded the FBI from ... making arrests".

He is a Senator, he can write laws

[drnb]

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.

Well he is a US Senator. So the lack of a law should not be too much of a problem since he is one of the very very few people in the country that can write and submit a new law to the US Congress.

Look past left or right wing bullshit..

[TiggertheMad]

....Or rather than all these paranoid theories, perhaps he is just a decent guy who thinks revenge porn is just a shitty thing that should be made illegal. People who do this sort of thing are ass wipes and prosecuting them will, to some small degree, make society better.

Re:Look past left or right wing bullshit..

[ChrisMaple]

The idea that Franken is a decent guy is the funniest thing I've ever heard about him.

Re:Look past left or right wing bullshit..

[HiThere]

To me it looked like he was asking that the agency not look the other way, and to find existing laws that applied to cases. It's not as if the FBI always enforces the law. Often they decide the benefit is not worth the effort. And it's quite difficult to execute revenge porn without breaking SOME law. As someone else suggested copyright infringement. (I really doubt that posters generally have a signed permission to publish the image.)

Nothing, but the LAW

[TiggertheMad]

What then would prevent my ex-wife from posting the sex tape via a public computer terminal and reporting it to the FBI's "revenge porn" task force? Nothing....and it would be my word against hers and her ass on every computer screen in the country so there goes 5-10 years of my freedom.

Nothing except perhaps, the fact its against the law. IANAL, but I think that is covered by:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

...And if she were caught falsely reporting a federal crime, she would be the one doing 5-10 years. (Lying to the feds is a really bad idea, unless you like orange jumpsuits.)

Re:There's This Little Thing Called the Constituti

[Shakrai]

Fine, but that won't work if the victim lives in a state that has revenge-porn laws, and the perpetrator lives in a state that does not.

If the video was shot in the victim's state that state may well be able to claim jurisdiction. Of course, unless you're arguing that the ends justify the means I really don't see how you've responded to or refuted the point made by the GP....

Re:There's This Little Thing Called the Constituti

[rworne]

You missed the part: who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state .

One would have to be in the state that forbids the activity, commit the crime and flee to another state.

Then you can be extradited.

Otherwise Texas would be busy nabbing everyone in the U.S. who orders stuff from Bad Dragon.

Grandstanding

[ChrisMaple]

If Franken were serious about this, he would have just sent the letter to the FBI, but not made it public. By publishing the letter, he's saying "Hey look at me! I'm the glorious defender of the innocent! Vote for me! Vote for me!

Re:Grandstanding

[Dragonslicer]

If Franken were serious about this, he would have just sent the letter to the FBI, but not made it public. By publishing the letter, he's saying "Hey look at me! I'm the glorious defender of the innocent! Vote for me! Vote for me!

Exactly. How dare a United States Senator make government business visible to the public.

You don't know Franken - you are wrong

[bussdriver]

He was recently elected; he isn't getting any points for doing this now - if that were the case he'd wait many years before doing this.

He needs media attention to create pressure and build momentum plus we have the worst congress probably in our history so stuff like this is all that has a chance of passing. It still won't end up with a law during this congress.

You can't retroactively withdraw consent

[Karmashock]

If you let me take naked pictures of you when we're in a relationship... then you can't retroactively withdraw your permission to have those pictures.

So... I have every right to have them.

The question then becomes, do I have the right to put them on the internet without your approval? That is a little dicey because I don't think the legal system gives you more right to naked pictures of yourself then just pictures of yourself period. They're both just "pictures".

I think the big mistake is having naked pictures in the first place. If you're uncomfortable with your naked body being digitally spread around, then maybe don't take have those pictures taken even by someone you currently trust.

That is my response whenever I see some person whining about their naked body on the internet... I just think "well, you were stupid enough to let it happen."...

Is that insensitive? If I had a daughter, that's what I'd tell her. I'd say "see that actress complaining about her naked body on the internet? What is the best way to avoid that happening to you?"... and the answer is "don't get naked pictures taken". If you're naked and a camera comes out, cover up and get mad. Or if you don't care because you haven't bought into the cultural shame of being naked... then who cares. Either way. If you have the shame, don't let the pictures be taken. If you don't, then no issue either way.

Also you don't need to have someone's actual naked photos to do revenge porn.

Grab a random porn pic and photoshop a face on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And how can that be illegal? I mean, messed up... but illegal to use photoshop?

Re:You can't retroactively withdraw consent

[Karmashock]

The bullying laws are on questionable constitutional grounds. You're coming very close to challenging the first amendment with that stuff.

I mean, what is bullying and what is not? Couldn't I cite almost anything as bullying to ME and thus get it shut down?

Re:You can't retroactively withdraw consent

[Karmashock]

Sharing your bank account information with someone opens the possibility that they're going to drain your account and go to Cabo on the money.

Your comparison is actually pretty good. Restrict your nude photos to the sorts of people you'd give your banking information and you should be fine.

I don't give my banking information to anyone. I also don't give anyone nude photos. Why did this sound like a good comparison to you?

Re:You can't retroactively withdraw consent

[Whorhay]

Bullying is really just dressed up harrassment. And the states have all had their own various definitions for that for a very long time. Like much of the body of law they all depend heavily on what a jury of your peers or a judge might find to be reasonable. So far as harrassment and bullying goes I haven't seen much concern regarding whether or not it's constitutional. Revenge porn is treading a pretty fine line in regards to whether or not it is harrassment. Building a business around it is a pretty foolhardy thing to do, though I suppose if you came out on top legally it could make you pretty wealthy.

Re:You can't retroactively withdraw consent

[Karmashock]

You can't have a stable society if everyone has such thin skin. If you have such thin skin then you have the police running around throwing people in jail for an unkind word or possibly just not making another person feel good.

And before you know it, the society turns into an endless series of witch trials officiated by a group of people that gain power by claiming other people are heretics or witches. And then everything turns to shit because not only are you not preventing harassment or bullying but you've given harassers and bullies the ability to throw people in jail simply because they're better at painting others as being heretics and witches.

The solution here is to raise the bar of what is and is not harassment to such a level that actual evidence can be seen and that the courts are not overwhelmed with minor infractions.

As to posting nude photos on the internet, it is a scummy thing to do and I don't approve of it. At the same time, I don't see the point in sending the police after people that do it... and even if you were to do such at thing, proving that X person did it is going to be complicated.

Lets say for example that the person complaining just got the password of the other person... then he or she took nude selfies and then put those nude selfies on the that person's facebook or whatever.

How can you say that X person did it when it is possible that they didn't even do it?

There is this perversion of due process that has become common lately where people just presume the plaintiff isn't lying their fucking ass off. And it is most common in sex/women's issues where people just ASSUME the girl isn't suckering everyone.

Now am I saying she always will? No... but you need proof that the guy did it or get the fuck out of court.

Policing that with any kind of competence is going to be almost impossible. And really society has better things to worry about than whether or not nude photos were posted on the internet.

Best advice... and again, I'd say this to my daughter... is don't get nude photos taken of yourself unless you're okay with your grandmother seeing them.

It is a choice. You want to be a naughty girl/guy and get photos taken of yourself? Pictures have then be taken.

if the pictures were taken without your consent that is another matter. I'm generally not going to give a fuck about pictures you took, gave to someone else, and then got leaked on the internet though. Life is too short. Stop wasting my time.

Re:He LOVED whores

[Oligonicella]

Nowhere in the Bible is she mentioned as being a whore.

Re:Lesson for women: before allowing explicit phot

[MechaStreisand]

What good would that do if it was a hacker who released the photos, not the SO?

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

Meanwhile PopeRatzo still frequents and supports websites that loudly and proudly display revenge porn and leaked nudes, even going so far as to openly mock the victims and invite further derision be heaped upon them for their genitals, provided those victims are men.

Hypocritical? Maybe. But it's an easy leap for someone who already claims to support equality yet rallies behind domestic abusers, pedophiles, neonazis, and rapists.

Re:Another "progressive" wants to limit freedom.

[Shadow of Eternity]

The Left has been acting like the Right, but with a different flavor to their censorious authoritarian moralism.

No. What is this, the 1960s?

[Etherwalk]

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.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

That's an interesting accusation you have there. Do you have proof?

Re:Comments so far are pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Like yours is any better; no substance, only emotional drivel. At least they're trying to have an actual conversation, you on the other hand scream insults at people who disagree with your myopic world view.

Re: Why just pictires or videos

[BlueTrin]

No, just don't give the pictures to anyone else. It is actually very obvious. If you post pictures from someone else without consent you are breaking the law in this case. Nothing hard to understand.

Re:Right on time

[PopeRatzo]

I'm a MGTOW,

You poor, pitiful sonofabitch. It's easy to "go your own way" when no women want anything to do with you.

One issue though: I'll call a mangina like you out on your bullshit in person, and take it up to physical confrontation when warranted if it escalates. Do you have the balls to do the same?

No, you won't and no you don't. There's a reason accounts like yours were given the name, "Anonymous Coward".

Cyberbullying in general needs prosecution

[pubwvj]

Cyberbullying in general needs prosecution. It is not just revenge porn that they need to go after but all the cyberbullies. Currently there is no way to deal with these criminals because you would have to bring a lawsuit in their local court against them which costs a great deal. The police show no interest in dealing with the problems. It crosses state lines. It's a national and international problem, work for the FBI at least for the state by state cases.

bah!

[morebetterthanyou]

Immoral isn't necessarily illegal. Nor should it be. Why are only intimate or nude photos at issue? What about revenge non-porn? What if a Muslim or the Jewish person secretly eats pork or is an atheist, and I publish photos of this to harm familial relationships after a bad breakup? Shouldn't this also be protected? Or if someone uses the "n-word", "c-word", or "f-word"? It is the same thing. It is using knowledge of a person to cause distress for the purposes of revenge. Or say a lad or lass decides to tell the world about how tiny my---err, um... some guy who isn't me has a tiny penis to humiliate him after a breakup? Implying someone is a slut is no better or worse than any other attempt to humiliate. Hell, even simple shit like mocking inability to spell (which could be due to a person being differently advantaged) really should be prohibited as it could cause distress. Nudity and sex require no special protection. 97% of adults have sex. Not having sex makes you weird and worthy of scorn. Extortion is already illegal. (We also have to consider legitimate things that cause distress. Reporting accusations of crimes should not receive protection unless the individual is convicted.)

Not sure it needs criminalized

[spauldo]

I can see three categories here:

1) Victim is underage. Child porn laws apply, obviously.

2) Victim did not consent to be photographed. I don't know what the law says here, but I could see the justification for making this a criminal offense if it's not one already. A reasonable expectation of privacy would be a standard - being photographed by a spy cam in the bathroom isn't the same as being photographed sunbathing on a nude beach.

3) Victim did consent to be photographed, but did not consent to have the photographs published. This should be a civil matter. It's a dick move, sure, but it's not a matter for the police.

I'm not sure new laws need to be made, but existing laws may need clarification.

Trafficking "huge" ... actually not.

[fyngyrz]

Also, you have a huge number of girls in this country who are trafficked.

The data does not support that contention. Here's a link with some well-researched facts, complete with useful references. I suggest some reading in a thoughtful vein.

There is overwhelming evidence that the "trafficking" narrative is agitprop specifically designed to trigger moral outrage. Those who spread the meme and those who believe it are the actual victims here.

This just in ...

[CaptainDork]

The owner of a now-offline "revenge porn" website based in California was sentenced Friday to 18 years in prison, the San Diego office of the state's attorney general said.

Kevin Christopher Bollaert, 27, had been found guilty in February of six counts of extortion and 21 counts of identity theft. He faced a maximum of 23 years in prison.

Here's the story.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

No, you won't and no you don't.

Careful. He might be a navy seal who can kill you in over seven hundred ways and that's just with his bare hands!

Rights aren't what you were taught

[fyngyrz]

The only rights one ever actually has are those rights that someone, somewhere is willing to enforce. Anything else is pernicious, deceptive myth based on hand-waving, not fact.

You can't take something someone doesn't actually have in the first place. That doesn't mean they'll be okay with whatever you do, because most people live within an illusory worldview that presumes immunity and safety on multiple fronts where those safeties and immunities do not actually exist.

The key to dealing with this reality in the most successful way is to understand what is actually going on. If one proceeds under the assumption that no one will screw them because "rights", one is very likely to suffer multiple screwings, some of which may be profound. Unfortunately, neither modern parenting or our public educational system does a proper (or often, any) job of informing people about this particular issue.

Re:Rights aren't what you were taught

[CaptainDork]

Move to the US. We have a document that lists the rights and it describes how the rights are not granted ... they are an attribute.

Re:Rights aren't what you were taught

[fyngyrz]

Move to the US.

I'm a US citizen. I live in the US.

We have a document that lists the rights and it describes how the rights are not granted ... they are an attribute.

Yes, we do. That document does two things. Both of which are 100% subordinate to exactly what I said above.

First, it enumerates a small set of rights that the government is enjoined against interfering with. The constitution, however, has no power -- there's no constitutional punishment for congress making, and the legal system enforcing, violation of those rights. Which is one of the prime reasons why we have multiple laws that are fully realized interferences with the very rights specified in the document. The only way such interference can be prevented is if someone with power takes up the cause of defending them. This completely backs up the assertion you were responding to.

Second, constitution refers (vaguely) to other rights in the 9th amendment, stating that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that the various government bodies of lawmakers can make laws against exercise of those rights, whatever they may be, with impunity. And they do.

For instance, perhaps you might assert you have the right to walk outside naked. No one else is damaged by this; at worst, they might do damage to themselves because they have been conditioned to be neurotic, but that, of course, should not be your responsibility, any more than it should be your responsibility for walking by someone wearing a hat when said person is neurotic about hats.

Therefore, any infringement on a presumptive right to walk around outside naked should be construed as denial as defined in the ninth. But no one in power will defend this right (primarily because they are also neurotic, or catering to the neurotic, but I digress.) Consequently, it does not actually exist other than as a mental exercise or within very limited, generally quite private, circumstances. This is true for anything you can imagine that is not explicitly called out in the constitution.

Again, this precisely makes my point. When there are no powerful people backing a right up, then it's no more than an idea of no particular consequence unless one incorrectly assumes it is more than that, in which case, other people with power will show you the error of your ways, and you will indeed incur consequences. Not the ones you thought you should, either.

Bottom line: We have a document that talks big, but has no legal teeth. Without people who have, and are willing to use, the power to enforce the very rights that it lays out, and for that matter the ones that it does not, they simply do not exist in any objective sense. They're just concepts you are extremely ill-advised to rely on.

Executive Orders

[rea1l1]

Actually, executive orders are not mentioned once within the constitution. They only have force of law because they are a part of "private law" (as opposed to common law). You are subject to "private law" in this nation if you are a "United States Citizen" which was a class of citizenship that did not exist pre-civil war and was made for the recently freed slaves. Prior to the civil war, everyone was a citizen of their state. Prior to the civil war, the united states was a group of nations united for defensive purposes, each locally self-ruling.

Today we stand as the Forcefully-United States, one body, dominated via violence. We are no where near our founder's intents.

Re:Comments so far are pathetic

[HiThere]

Most of the comments seem to me to be arguments about whether it *is* legal, not about whether it should be. (I'll grant that generally people seem to feel that the current laws justify the belief of the poster.)

The best post, to my mind, was the one implying that it should be the job of the state governments. Or the one saying that only in California would it be illegal. (I think that last is probably wrong, but then I live in California, so my view of the current laws may be biased. But I believe that unless one is a "public figure" one owns the right to reporductions of ones image. However this could be only California law, even though I believe that it's generally true. [IANAL, in case that wasn't obvious.] And if I am correct then publishing the image of someone without their signed permission is a copyright violation.)

Re:Right on time

[PopeRatzo]

Some of us have low UID and also frequent 8chan. And are female.

In the eternal words of #GamerGate, "Where is your proof?"

Re:Right on time

[PopeRatzo]

I guess that's a "No, I don't have any proof."

Trafficking huge.

[Etherwalk]

There is overwhelming evidence that the "trafficking" narrative is agitprop specifically designed to trigger moral outrage. Those who spread the meme and those who believe it are the actual victims here.

Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims. Read their stories. Watch Tricked on netflix or any of a dozen trafficking documentaries.

Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."

Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking (some of the big cities have them) and ask what they see on the street. More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

It's a complex issue, and people sometimes overstate their case statistically. But it is very real.

Re:Trafficking huge.

[theArtificial]

You've moved the goal posts from images uploaded somewhere to human trafficking and prostitution. This is the type of slip weaselly people use when discussing illegal immigration, not to mention there is no such thing as illegal immigration, and flip over immigration issues. They're separate issues.

Yes, the methodology by which the statistics are gathered is suspect. That's because there isn't a gallup poll; it's a criminal activity and people don't answer the phone and say "Yes, I traffic in women."

"It's a really big problem, I watched Netflix and heard some stories." A similar thing occurred with D&D and a fear campaign around satanic crap. Do you have anything better than a "trust me it's a big problem"?

Yes, there are people who just decide to go into prostitution for economic reasons and are psychologically healthy about it. They of course defend their profession from statistics that show a lot of young women are not voluntarily in the trade, and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that

"There are people in an industry that I don't work in, but that I have watched some completely unbiased shows on (trust me), and they don't know what they're talking about!"

and a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

This comes off much like a "think of the children". You used girl elsewhere, however, young women are by their very definition a woman, for woman to apply that would mean at least 18 (an adult). This continues the line of thinking that women are children and cannot make decisions on their own behalf. Let's not forget that girls mature faster than boys, and they're taught about people touching them - something boys aren't. Not to mention there are "a lot" (another weasel word, see how that works?) of 18yo males who enlist and deploy and are maimed or meet an untimely end. Take a story in the paper if it was about a young man, they'd drop the young part and just refer to him as a man. There's an effort here to paint this in a particular light. Why would that be?

More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

Is it so, or could it be that it's easier to share things nowadays? Look at all the (disproportionately female) teachers raping students, is this a new phenomenon? Or is it something that's occurring with the same frequency and just broadcast further and faster? Another example is how people are worried about sending their children outside when crime is following a 40 year trend downwards.

Since you're fond of think of the children angle how about a present scandal occurring at this very moment. Human trafficking involving Chinese citizens coming over and having anchor babies. I've seen this with my own eyes, too. People who pay tens of thousands of dollars to come here and have a child on our dime by claiming to be destitute when at the Hospital. Getting back to the original issue, as far as these picture websites, your stance is that there isn't enough laws on the books to address these sites? That's rich.

Re:Lesson for women: before allowing explicit phot

[TFAFalcon]

If it's a hacker, then they already broke the law. So why bother adding another law?

You REALLY need to do some actual research

[fyngyrz]

Suggestion: talk to some trafficking victims.

Locating someone who legitimately fits the definition would be nearly impossible. However, counter suggestion: Dig yourself out of the propaganda you've been fed. Example -- don't simply read that, although it is quite accurate -- actually follow the links in it and confirm for yourself.

More and more girls who are younger and younger. The average age has gone down over the years--you used to every once in a while see a girl who was underage. Now it's all the time. Girls who are underage cannot consent.

The underlying assumption you are working from is incorrect. You assume those girls were coerced, and therefore had to consent. While the (ridiculous, but that's a different subject) legal "age line in the sand" that permits young sex workers to consent and to make choices for themselves has not been crossed in either instance, it still requires coercion by another person, not personal choice without interpersonal coercion -- informed or not -- in order to meet even the vaguest concept of "trafficked."

Reasons to enter into the sex worker trade are myriad. The money can be good, and of course our society offers advantage in direct proportion to the amount of money one has. As long as that is the case, income, even the perception of income, will be a prime motivator. Sex work can be fun. It offers both self-management and self-reliance, and this in turn can allow setting one's own schedule as opposed to the typical wage-slave. It can be rewarding, particularly in service to those who are unable to otherwise obtain sex with others due to the intense social stigma associated with looks and/or physical handicaps. Presently there's an element of legal risk, as well as one of push-back, and either or both may serve as titillation.

Any combination of the foregoing (and other similar issues -- post is long enough as-is) can serve to provide sufficient motivation for someone legally underage to decide to go this way. These are not in any sense "trafficked" individuals. They are, at most, people whose decisions you disagree with, who are breaking (arbitrary, ridiculous) rules based on their own decision making.

Which, if you want to concern yourself with it, is something completely different. But at least it is real, unlike the entire trafficking narrative. Arguments can be made and countered for both views on it. Trafficking is, in any significant sense, illusory. Arguments against an imaginary problem are inherently unproductive at the very least. All they do is paint a highly inaccurate picture of the world, which can (and has, in this case) lead to all manner of negative outcomes.

Now go out to one of the cops who is actually properly trained in dealing with human trafficking

You mean like this?

But it is very real.

In the sense that it hasn't happened zero times, yes, it's real. In the sense that it's in any sense a significant social problem affecting numerous individuals, no, it isn't real at all. It is in fact one of the most overblown and pernicious hoaxes pulled on the public in recent years. You've been hoodwinked.

a lot of them aren't even going to understand that some young women they think are their voluntarily have been effectively brainwashed by someone who collects all of their profits and buys them an ice cream cone and says that they care.

Again, the facts do not support your assertion. You are regurgitating propaganda. Not facts. Learn the facts. Only when in possess

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

Gawker and Huffpo both proudly display their leaked male nudes and sex tapes, and PopeRatzo is openly a huge fan of Jezebel and other SJW operated or leaning websites.

Re:Right on time

[PopeRatzo]

and other SJW operated or leaning websites.

"SJW operated or leaning websites".

This is how they talk. Really. It really makes you wonder why GamerGate is not more popular, no?

Re:Lesson for women: before allowing explicit phot

[MechaStreisand]

I'm not in support of a new law. I was calling out the AC for not thinking things through.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

You're talking like there's some grand comspiracy here. If two big websites are doing such a thing it ought to be really, really easy to prove it to me. The fact that you haven't speaks volumes. What next? A few links to some easily forged twitter screenshots on an obscure blog?

Based on numerous such conversations, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that anyone who uses the phrase "SJW" is a raving idiot.

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

Jezebel openly mocks rape and domestic violence victims and even brags about committing domestic abuse against men, encouraging its readers to commit abuse and violence. Yeah I'm going to call that a website operated by and pandering to the SJW crowd.

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

Except you can google "gawker sex tape" and hulk hogan's sex tape, and their refusal to take it down even when sued, is literally in the first page of results. Likewise finding HuffPo mocking Greg Oden's penis is trivially easy.

There's an irony in you talking about conspiracy theories though given you subscribe to an ideology almost wholly defined by its conspiracy theories of unprecedented size and scope.

Life isn't like the movies

[dbIII]

No. As I wrote above I think your lack of life experience has biased you into having a pathologically skewed view of women that has very little relationship with the wider reality and that has led you to spread some rather disgusting bullshit you should have grown out of in high school.
Perhaps if you focus less on opportunities for sex or lack thereof you will notice that women are people too.
I'm from a generation that's considered to be sexist but you angry entitled virgins take the cake.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

Except you can google "gawker sex tape" and hulk hogan's sex tape, and their refusal to take it down even when sued, is literally in the first page of results. Likewise finding HuffPo mocking Greg Oden's penis is trivially easy.

It's remarkable. You make claims and refuse to back them up. When challenged you insist that I ought to do the leg work to verify different but related claims. You're still deathly silent on providing evidnece for your original claims. You may well remember that you were making accusations about PopeRatzo.

There's an irony in you talking about conspiracy theories though given you subscribe to an ideology almost wholly defined by its conspiracy theories of unprecedented size and scope.

Oh I remember arguing with you before! You're the chap who makes up random shit about me and the aggressively attacks it. This ought to be good. So tell me, what ideology do I subscribe to?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

It's remarkable. You make claims and refuse to back them up. When challenged you insist that I ought to do the leg work to verify different but related claims. You're still deathly silent on providing evidnece for your original claims. You may well remember that you were making accusations about PopeRatzo.

My god man you're like a work of performance art. I literally just told you how right out in the open this is. It's almost mainstream freaking news online, it's right there. This is like you refusing to believe the sky is blue and demanding I provide evidence while I keep shouting "Look out the goddamn window it's RIGHT THERE".

Revenge Porn

[ElAngelo]

I've been reading about the 'ugotposted' case.

The guy does deserve jailtime, in my opinion, but 18 years? I think that rapists don't even get that much, unless I'm mistaken. I assume that the extortion of the girls made the penalty so extreme and most likely they also want to prevent copycats like myex, http://theporndude.com/,... to continue their operations, since it seems to be pretty lucrative.

Revenge porn isn't going to go away though, but it's nice that victims have the law on their side, although once something is online, it's near impossible to get it 100 % removed.

Maybe schools can do something about prevention in sex education class? If girls are better informed about the consequences of sending 'nude selfies' to their boyfriend, then we'll see less victims in the future.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

I literally just told you how right out in the open this is. It's almost mainstream freaking news online, it's right there.

Yes, indeed, you keep on telling me it's so without ever bothering to prove it. Since you seem to lack a good memory, let me remind you of your original claim:

Meanwhile PopeRatzo still frequents and supports websites that loudly and proudly display revenge porn and leaked nudes, even going so far as to openly mock the victims and invite further derision be heaped upon them for their genitals, provided those victims are men.

So please tell me again how PopeRatzo is mainstream news?

I provide evidence

I don't really understand how you believe making bald claims on a forum is providing evidence. Then again, you're one of those people who used the term "SJW" non ironically, so I guess I shouldn't expect much from you.

Apparently It's QUITE Illegal

[Toad-san]

As a later Slashdot article confirmed:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... 'Revenge Porn' Operator Gets 18 Years In Prison

[cheers]

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

This must be what it feels like being in the twilight zone. It's right there Serviscope. I'm not making bald claims. I'm pointing at the evidence and saying it's right there, just go to the goddamn website and look at it.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

It's right there Serviscope.

You are basically a liar at this point. You know very well that I'm referring to your original claim about PopeRatzo, because I've told you. You keep on pretending that it's a different claim and trying to prove that. In other words you are trying to deceive me about your orginal claim.

Fortunately, I am actually capable of reading and looking at your past post which I quoted. So no amount of gaslighting will work because there is a public record of what you said.

And I note that you STILL haven't provided evidence. You do know that the burden of providing evidence is on the person making the claim right? Simply saying "there is evidence go and find it" makes you look like a fool.

Re:Right on time

[Shadow of Eternity]

You are basically a liar at this point. You know very well that I'm referring to your original claim about PopeRatzo, because I've told you. You keep on pretending that it's a different claim and trying to prove that. In other words you are trying to deceive me about your orginal claim

You, PopeRatzo, and Animojo at the grustrag three of social justice here in slashdot. All three of you blatantly cheerlead for what passes for feminism these days. You don't get to wave a warbanner and then say "oh but not when it's inconvenient!".

And I note that you STILL haven't provided evidence. You do know that the burden of providing evidence is on the person making the claim right? Simply saying "there is evidence go and find it" makes you look like a fool.

I'm not saying "it's out there go and find it" I'm literally saying "It's right fucking here". Do you want it in MLA? APA? Chicago? Turabian? Because at this point what you're doing is literally the equivalent of looking at a works cited page and saying there's no evidence provided. I can give you a citation, it's on you to actually GO TO IT.

Re:Right on time

[serviscope_minor]

Lol and the evidence is not provided. Pro tip: if you fail to provide evidence, yelling louder AND LOUDER that you really have provided it while not actally providing it makes you sound silly.

You made a claim about PopeRatzo.

That evidence is NOT just right out there. And you've never given me a citation. Try, you know, using a URL.