Slashdot Mirror


Right To Be Forgotten? Web Privacy Debate in Italy After Women's Suicide (ndtv.com)

The suicide of a woman who battled for months to have a video of her having sex removed from the internet is fuelling debate in Italy on the "right to be forgotten" online. The 31-year-old, identified as Tiziana, was found hanged at her aunt's home in Mugnano, close to Naples in the country's south on Tuesday, reports Agence France-Presse. From the report: Her death came a year after she sent a video of herself having sex to some friends, including her ex-boyfriend, to make him jealous. The video and her name soon found their way to the web and went viral, fuelling mockery of the woman online. The footage has been viewed by almost a million internet users. In a bid to escape the humiliation, Tiziana quit her job, moved to Tuscany and tried to change her name, but her nightmare went on. The words "You're filming? Bravo," spoken by the woman to her lover in the video, have become a derisive joke online, and the phrase has been printed on T-shirts, smartphone cases and other items. After a long court battle, Tiziana recently won a "right to be forgotten" ruling ordering the video to be removed from various sites and search engines, including Facebook.

227 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. "words have consquences" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but actions shouldn't be remembered

  2. Bravo indeed by qbast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "after she sent a video of herself having sex to some friends, including her ex-boyfriend, to make him jealous."

    Stupidity kills.

    1. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Absolutely. This is all her fault.

    2. Re:Bravo indeed by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah - if an ex sends a video of her having sex to make you jealous, sharing it with the world at large is pretty much the ultimate F U response.

      "So do you want to see just how not jealous I am?" *click*

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    3. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So she fired off a video with the intent of harming someone else, and ended up harming herself.
      Sorry, no sympathy. I know she's a woman and everything but that doesn't mean she gets a free pass.

      Now, if she'd been hacked and the video was stolen then it'd be a different story entirely.

    4. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A "free pass"!? They started putting her words on t-shirts, dude. For one mistake. For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.

    5. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Nice conclusion there, McCoy. Except there wasn't a "case". There was no trial, and there was no impartiality. It was a lambasting by the court of public opinion, an audience which happened to be the world. Sharing a sex video should not result in worldwide mockery and a subsequent suicide. If you don't see how this is problematic, then you're part of the same squad of repugnant trolls who cause these sorts of issues, sir.

    6. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet you call the people mocking her "neck-beards" and "basement-dwellers". So why would anyone care what they think, as they are so diminished in your eyes?

      I suspect the mockery wasn't just random internet trolls, who move on to new victims, but her friends, family, coworkers, etc who she had to deal with everyday, which sent her over the edge.

      In that case, she shared the videos with the very people who later turned on her - which is rather ironic, and also deflates your argument.

    7. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair, my mistakes are typically not as grave as sending a sex tape to someone who has a motive - nay, a justification - to want to get back at me.

    8. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      well if he filmed "his biggest mistake" and sent it to an ex-girlfriend (ex's are ex's for a reason) what would he expect to happen?

      if it was that big of a mistake, why film it? why send it to an ex, who obviously is an ex for a reason? people don't film their biggest mistakes and send them to anyone!
      NO SYMPATHY

    9. Re:Bravo indeed by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      biggest mistakes become an object of mockery

      Windows Mobile.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re: Bravo indeed by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Despite the apparent acquiescence of neck-beards on Slashdot, having the ability to share personal information without sharing it with the entire world is something greatly desired by actual human beings.

      And this capability has never, ever existed. Even huge corporations have tried to make it happen through a collection of technologies and laws called Digital Rights Management and despite tens of millions of dollars and system after system, DRM falls or is circumvented through the final 'analog hole'.

      It's possible to have sympathy while still acknowledging that the risks that led to this outcome were entirely hers to bear in her obviously ill-thought actions that started this. The extreme nature of her particular extreme cultural influence is certainly abnormal, but it does show how ridiculous it is to expect the right to be forgotten to actually do a damn thing.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re: Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I think it's reasonably certain that she did NOT understand the consequences. You do understand what I said about this being a new phenomenon, right? People don't naturally think "if I share this with a small group of people, it's liable to be shared by the world." Likewise, it's not judicious to suppose she "deserves" worldwide condemnation. There are many, many cases we are seeing where people are getting into similar situations. This ought to tell you that online shaming is a problem, and it's not going to stop by us throwing our hands up and saying "eh, it's her fault." Because really, it's not her fault: it's a new situation created by technology that humans weren't equipped to deal with.

    12. Re:Bravo indeed by hey! · · Score: 1

      Stupidity kills.

      ... And sooner or later most of us act stupidly.

      And that's if you're lucky. You see it's our connections to other people that makes us vulnerable. In particular there's nothing like the successful engagement of the gonads to turn someone smart into a dumbass. It's easy to maintain your illusion of invulnerability if your life is spent in your parents' basement watching porn and posting condescending Internet screeds.

      I'd rather be what TR called "the man in the area", balls and all.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...like Star Wars Kid, Tron Guy, Chris Crocker, Numa Numa Guy, or any number of other YouTube 'celebrities' who were subjected to public humiliation by millions? You realize this is super common, right? Did you get mad all those other times?

    14. Re:Bravo indeed by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      Three mistakes. The first mistake was making a sex tape in the first place. This can be mitigated by using proper file encryption and not giving the file to anyone else. The second mistake was talking on the sex tape, thus personalizing it further. As above, proper encryption and lack of distribution can stop any consequences. The third mistake was sending it to her ex-boyfriend and three others. At which point she was up shit creek and everything that followed was her own damn fault for being a moron.

    15. Re:Bravo indeed by mjr167 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this falls under... "If you don't want the whole world including your mom and your pastor to see it, don't take pics and put it on the internet".

      Sometimes you really do need to think things through before you act cause sometimes "oops" just doesn't cut it.

    16. Re: Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 2

      No sir, it does not show how ridiculous it is to expect the right to be forgotten to do a thing. That's a technological problem -- it has absolutely nothing to do with why or how her video was shared in the first place. If you want to argue whether or not we have the means to solve the problem of sharing information and redacting it, then I'm all for it. But don't argue that it's a "ridiculous expectation" and certainly don't argue that it has anything to do with her decisions.

    17. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 2

      Yes. This is a universal problem not limited to shaming of a sex tape.

    18. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who truly need "protection from shame" aren't the ones making sex videos to get revenge on someone, and then sending them out to multiple people.

    19. Re:Bravo indeed by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If she'd been smart she would have gotten a formal copy right on the video, AND...copyright/trademark on the phrase she used "You're Filming? Bravo".....and made a fortune off this attempt to get back at someone that backfired.

      There's always a silver lining somewhere if you just will look for it, and not take yourself out of the gene pool prematurely.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re: Bravo indeed by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      She committed suicide? Video or it didn't happen.

      Seriously, this is beyond stupid. She was the one guilty of revenge porn. Why should anyone treat this differently than when the guy does it?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re:Bravo indeed by Aereus · · Score: 1

      This case went well beyond the normal bounds of "going viral" it appears. But she should know the #1 rule of sharing things on the internet: Once it's out there, it's on the internet forever. How many other cases have we seen of people trying to quash embarrassing photos or videos online? Has it ever worked? No. Even if it were possible to prevent them from sharing on the original file, he could have recorded with his phone and passed it on. Especially since it was sent to an ex to piss him off...

      People may WANT to only share in a limited fashion, but we do not yet live in a world where that is possible. In THIS world, once it's out there, it's out of your hands.

    22. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Yes, because everyone is has a mastery of informational security and best practices. Only the "morons" do not.

    23. Re:Bravo indeed by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're seeing a new phenomenon relative to the entirely of human existence -- it's not natural for people to adjust to.

      What are you talking about? For how much of human history do you think it was easy for average people to leave their society and start a new life? For how much of human history do you think average people had a large enough community to enjoy actual anonymity at any point in their life?

      For most of human history you had small villages with a few hundred people, so anything you did followed you for life. I'm probably even being generous with that "few hundred" figure. Even in large cities people were segregated into smaller communities. What do you think would have happened to a woman who had sex in public for their ex-boyfriend and a few other people to watch in 1200 AD? It probably wouldn't have a happy ending for the woman.

      Our society (especially in the US) has enjoyed perhaps a couple hundred years providing an unusual level of anonymity and chance for a new start in life. The final result of the information age will almost certainly put that to an end. Our societies need to spend more time dealing with the consequences of a lack of privacy and the permanency of information instead of kicking that can down the road with stupid laws and an idealistic view of human history.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    24. Re:Bravo indeed by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Does this qualify her for a Darwin award?

    25. Re:Bravo indeed by Dishevel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      She sent the video specifically to hurt someone.
      She killed herself over it.
      World works just like we want it to. Go home SJW.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    26. Re:Bravo indeed by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world.

      Granted there are people who share share private information in confidence with their friends and family but this isn't what happened. She sent a spiteful and mean video to her friends and ex-boyfriend in order to publicly humiliate and hurt him. It became more public than she had intended but if it had humiliated only him I imagine she would be feeling awfully satisfied.

      I wouldn't do that to an ex and if one did it to me I wouldn't be sharing it with the world... the entire situation is out of control.

    27. Re:Bravo indeed by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look I feel bad for the gal, but:
      she sent a video of herself having sex to some friends, including her ex-boyfriend, to make him jealous.
      Has nothing to do with file encryption or security best practices... It is *common sense* not to do something such as this. Sending someone what is effectively self destructive in an attempt to anger them is literally begging for retaliation, while providing said ammo.

      This woman was stupid on an epic scale.

      Star wars kid, tron guy, etc. all silly and sure, embarrassing, but not actually damaging nearly at the level of a sex tape.

      What. Was. She. Thinking?

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    28. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Fine. It was certainly ill-advised on her part. And good for you that you wouldn't do it. But she did do it -- she did make a mistake. A mistake, perhaps, but not even an illegal mistake. But the consequences are what are extreme here -- the consequences were effectively death by social condemnation. She was scarlet lettered. And there was no trial, there was no judge and jury, and there was no moral considerations for what she did or did not deserve. Her life systematically became a nightmare, and what we should be talking about is how that nightmare in incongruous with the fault in her actions.

    29. Re:Bravo indeed by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I would largely agree with you, but the whole sending to Ex partner to incite jealousy is simply too stupid. Even in "The before time" something such as this would have made it around to all the gal's friends. The ex easily could have duped it and handed it out.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    30. Re:Bravo indeed by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      no, intentional suicide is a disqualification.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    31. Re: Bravo indeed by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because really, it's not her fault: it's a new situation created by technology that humans weren't equipped to deal with.

      The new situation is people who think there are no consequences for their actions. The Scarlet Letter was published in 1850, and I'm guessing it wasn't a revelation even then that public knowledge of questionable sexual behavior could have severe consequences for the rest of your life (or even result in death quite quickly).

      We need to realize as a society that privacy and anonymity were the aberrations in human history.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    32. Re: Bravo indeed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Facebook had just removed the videos and prevented them from being re-uploaded, maybe banning accounts that did so after being warned, that would have been enough. Combined with de-listing on major search engines the problem would have been near as possible resolved.

      Facebook doesn't do enough to ID videos and remove them automatically. YouTube has that technology, just try uploading a modern movie and see how long your account lasts.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    33. Re: Bravo indeed by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People have feelings. They make mistakes, then change in response to those mistakes. The horrible thing about this is, she was actively prevented from growth by people who wanted to freeze her identity at a moment in her development which caused her pain, and force her to writhe there, suffering, for the rest of her life.

      You can make all the comments you want about openness and transparency and accountability, and they may have merit, but that doesn't change the fact that this woman genuinely grew past the point where these videos accurately reflected her as a human being, she tried to communicate that, no one would listen, so she killed herself. The people didn't have a greater understanding, they had a misunderstanding which could not be corrected, and we lost her and everything she had to offer as a consequence.

      I can relate. I wish I'd hung myself instead of trying to overdose, I might be enjoying her peace.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    34. Re:Bravo indeed by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      if it was that big of a mistake, why film it?

      I think you're completing missing the point. The "mistake" wasn't her having sex. The mistake was her sending the video to her ex.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    35. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Alright, fine. You make a mistake in a primitive society. You are shamed -- because shame exists for a reason, right? But you have the opportunity for redemption. You have the opportunity to speak and reason with those that shame you. You have the opportunity at redemption. But it's different for other reasons, also. In those societies, if you wanted to share a secret with a select few, you may do that. They may talk about it with others, but there is no method of instantaneous mass distribution. And when distributing that information, there is no concept of anonymity for them, either. You see, it works both ways, and it's a little ironic like that: the person who we condemn has no privacy, but we can condemn that person behind an assumed anonymity, so that we suffer no consequences for the things we say or do about that person. So yes, this is a brand new phenomenon.

    36. Re:Bravo indeed by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Reap what you sow >>>> "right to be forgotten"

    37. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Going out on a revenge sex binge after getting dumped? Yeah, it really kind of is a mistake, unless you see sex as a meaningless indulgence instead of an act of love.

    38. Re:Bravo indeed by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand she attempted to do this to her ex-boyfriend by sending it to him and their friends in a public and humiliating manner. Had this not been a revenge sex-video, she may have succeeded in doing to him what she did to herself.

      If she had instead started shooting a gun at him and it ricochet and hit her would you still be thinking the same way? Would you be saying that it's not fair because her aim is poor?

    39. Re:Bravo indeed by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      Don't forget also that if somebody repeated your secret, they could not prove what they said.

    40. Re:Bravo indeed by coinreturn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck you.

      Well sure, as long as you're not taping it.

    41. Re:Bravo indeed by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Bush, Trump, Weiner ... I don't see them committing suicide. Trump has pinata effigies for crying out loud.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    42. Re:Bravo indeed by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      It was everybody's responsibility not to hound her to death afterwards, but they did.

    43. Re:Bravo indeed by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      If she'd been smart she would have gotten a formal copy right on the video, AND...copyright/trademark on the phrase she used "You're Filming? Bravo".....and made a fortune off this attempt to get back at someone that backfired.

      There's always a silver lining somewhere if you just will look for it, and not take yourself out of the gene pool prematurely.

      I'm pretty sure she didn't expect the video to go viral, and certainly didn't expect her spontaneous comment to become a meme.

    44. Re:Bravo indeed by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      He almost certainly didn't get a license of sharing the video with the world. If he lived in GB, he'd be now in prison for copyright violation, and the punishment for putting the video online would've been worse than if he'd raped her instead as revenge. Or at least when the new law gets into place.

    45. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong, since man started living in communities is was possible for an individual to pick up stakes and move to somewhere that he would be anonymous. The only way you would be recognized is if someone from your past showed up.

      Disgraced in London--move to Cardiff, a fool in Paris--move to Nice etc. etc. etc.

    46. Re: Bravo indeed by guruevi · · Score: 2

      There are certain things you just can't ever live down. If you murder someone, you don't get to change your identity and say you made a mistake and then live on. Many a politicians make mistakes that will live on forever. If she got an STD or a kid from the ordeal, she can't just move to Tuscany and forget about it. People make mistakes, some will follow you for the rest of your life, that's called being an adult.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    47. Re: Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 3, Informative

      But this IS new. While public shaming certainly existed before (and, interestingly, is considered inappropriate in our modern judicial system), to not admit that instantaneous electronic dissemination of information by anonymous individuals -- who face no consequences for their actions -- is radically different than what any society has ever dealt with before would be absurd.

    48. Re: Bravo indeed by ravenscar · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd say the ability to do things like this with relative anonymity was a new (and now past) situation. For most of human history around most of the world the population density was such that if you did something "notable" everyone in your town knew about it and it stuck with you forever. Sure, you could move and leave your reputation behind, but you were left to deal with being a stranger in a time when strangers were not treated favorably.

      That said, I agree that it's a shame that some decisions have such an adverse impact on people's lives - especially when those decisions probably are due to a momentary lapse in judgement and really cause no or minimal harm to others. Sadly, the world has been shitty in this way for a very long time.

    49. Re:Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Then what do all the anonymous cowards who also distributed the video deserve? If we're measuring her just desserts by her single action, then what of the collective actions of the millions who also distributed the video? They face no condemnation, and furthermore they understood that they faced none in sharing in the humiliation of this woman. I wonder now what the ex thinks after someone I assume he once cared about killed herself. Did he think it was justice? And if not him, then who decides if it was just? Because she didn't fire a gun and have it ricochet back to her -- if "firing a gun" is our metaphor for distributing a video in order to make a boyfriend jealous, then what resulted was a machine gun by a million turrets raining down on her from anonymous gunmen.

    50. Re:Bravo indeed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.

      Maybe the problem is the magnitude of her mistakes. I'm pretty sure just about the whole world has seen what I look like fat and naked on a beach with a very cold pecker, at least I know the pic has gone around. I don't think it became a meme anywhere, but there's still time.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If that's how copyright works then we're a lot more fucked than I thought. Because that's completely stupid.

    52. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't her making the video and sending it to him and his friends/family constitute some sort of revenge porn/harassment?

    53. Re: Bravo indeed by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The horrible thing about this is, she was actively prevented from growth by people who wanted to freeze her identity at a moment in her development which caused her pain, and force her to writhe there, suffering, for the rest of her life.

      Some people become a meme and they survive the experience. Some don't. Don't suggest that anyone forced her to suffer. They did confront her with her actions on a daily basis, but those are her actions. How she feels about them is her business.

      I can relate. I wish I'd hung myself instead of trying to overdose, I might be enjoying her peace.

      If you truly can't be happy again, then I support your decision. But these things do pass, even what happened to her. Some people survive many years of torment and go on to live if not a normal life, at least a full one.

      I can't speculate intelligently on why she killed herself when others don't. There's lots of potential reasons. Maybe she lacked a support network others have, or perhaps it's something about her upbringing, or even her brain chemistry. But her suicide does not inherently tell us whether there should be a right to be forgotten.

      What we really need (eventually?) is acceptance or tolerance, not to be forgotten. What we need to know as a species is that people do stupid shit, then they are remorseful, and then they change. I don't believe that the right to be forgotten is a step in that direction. It is instead an attempt to deny human nature, and pretend it doesn't exist. My fear is that it will actually lead to a less permissive society, because we will become so very good at pretending things won't happen; while at the same time, it will provide more opportunities for abuse, for precisely the same reason.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Bravo indeed by davester666 · · Score: 1

      See Anthony Weiner...of course, he seems to have some kind of compulsion to text images of his wiener to other people.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    55. Re: Bravo indeed by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. The porn video was made and distributed to exact revenge on him. That's the essence of revenge porn. Intent - it counts, especially in determining guilt or innocence in criminal acts such as this one.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    56. Re:Bravo indeed by johanw · · Score: 1

      The copyright holder is dead so who's going to pay for a lawsuit? Certainly not the RIAA - thet only work for big American companies.

    57. Re: Bravo indeed by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Firstly, the internet has not been around "for a long time" on the totality of the human scale. And no, people do not consider the consequences of sharing electronic information. We see that time, and time, and time again. And what of the consequences? Are they just? Should we give up the ability to share any personal information in this age without expecting it to be condemned and mocked worldwide by anonymous fools? I for one think that's incredibly depressing, and I think it means in many ways that the information era has resulted in a social reversion to barbarism.

    58. Re:Bravo indeed by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is a common mistake you made here.

      You messed up two things.

      1. Doing something stupid.
      2. Having a free pass to do something illegal, just because someone else was stupid.

      Yes, it is stupid for instance not to lock your front door. But it is still illegal to burglar a house with an unlocked door. Everyone who forwarded the video was doing something illegal. And it is not the fault of the woman when someone else does something illegal. It's primarily the fault of the people doing something illegal. But she was still suffering the consequences of someone else acting against the law.

      Whoever excuses criminal behavior with the stupidity of someone else has a deeply twisted mind.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    59. Re:Bravo indeed by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Despite the apparent acquiescence of neck-beards on Slashdot, having the ability to share personal information without sharing it with the entire world is something greatly desired by actual human beings. We're seeing a new phenomenon relative to the entirely of human existence -- it's not natural for people to adjust to. People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world. Just because you send a sex video to a few friends (as ill-advised as that might sound), it does NOT mean you should face world-wide mockery by basement-dwellers. So yes, this is a big problem. Brushing it off as "stupidity" is callous and ignorant.

      I'm seeing you defending her all the way as if what she did should be forgiven and forgotten. I agree that it should be forgiven, but it does not mean her action could simply be forgotten because it is impossible (think reality). I believe that the fault lies on both herself and the world. It was her fault to send her sex tape, especially for whatever reason she did, to her ex. And it was the world fault to keep mocking her for her mistake (I didn't say it was her ex's fault because it was tit-for-tat). However, I believe that she handled the consequences wrong. In other words, she did not admit that the consequence stemmed off from her own fault but rather ran away from the problem -- ran away from where she lived, changed her name, and finally committed suicide. If she admitted the fault in the first place and did not expect that everyone would forgive/forget her, she would have accepted what happened and ignored the mockery. Then the mockery will subside by itself even though it could take a long time.

      I hope that this incident would teach many others who usually want to do some things without thinking further in the future. It is a good lesson to those who are still living, and may be good for those who had done wrong. It is not easy to admit your own fault and has no expectation to be forgiven/forgotten, but once you can do it, it is the best way to handle this kind of consequences...

    60. Re:Bravo indeed by MooseTick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Star wars kid, tron guy, etc. all silly and sure, embarrassing, but not actually damaging nearly at the level of a sex tape."

      How is a sex tape damaging to most people? I think its a shame that basically everyone likes sex, nearly everyone enjoys sex, yet its somehow offensive and humiliating for people to know or see you having it.

    61. Re:Bravo indeed by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      From what I understand he was not even her ex exactly at the time. The first video was just her form of a dear john letter.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    62. Re:Bravo indeed by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      If the only intent of the video was to make her ex-boyfriend jealous then why would she also send it to their friends if not to publicly humiliate him? Why would it be a sex-video if not for revenge? Do you think it would be out of line say that maybe she wanted a million turrets raining down on her ex-boyfriend or at least she wanted him to suffer?

      She could have just posted up clothed pictures of her new boyfriend all over facebook for everyone including the ex-boyfriend to see and made him jealous.

    63. Re:Bravo indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      While that probably was one of the things she was thinking, I'm not sure that's the relevant answer.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    64. Re:Bravo indeed by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      People sending you unwanted explicit materials could indeed be found liable.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    65. Re: Bravo indeed by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Well, she's dead now. She reached a point where the suffering had gone on so long that she felt putting a rope around her neck and strangling herself until her vision went black and she shit her own pants.

      But hey, at least you know the shameful history of a woman you have never met on the other side of the world.

      Priorities, right?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    66. Re:Bravo indeed by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I sort of agree with you, but would point out that all of your examples signed up for a public life. If you go into politics and you don't have an effigy made of you, you're probably not really getting all that far. If *they* cry about it, well, then they're idiots.

      This woman did something that is pretty much self destructive and, let's be honest, stupid even for someone who doesn't know "information security practices". I mean, all you have to do is think ahead a little. Yeah, you may have made him feel bad, success. Now that he feels as bad and probably angry as she wanted him to, what is he going to do? Well, it just so happens that he has a nude video of you having sex. I wonder how that happened?

      I agree that this world can be incredibly unforgiving for something like that which gets into the public eye. And that's why I encourage people to do what ever they can to understand and teach their children that actions have consequences. There are no takebacks on some things no matter how much you cry or sue about it.

      I'd like to say that this was karma hitting her in the ass for being manipulative, although I'd have to agree that this is all out of proportion to what probably was deserved. Unfortunately, that's the way life goes.

    67. Re:Bravo indeed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Her estate, which is probably her parents. And this sort of thing could certainly make a parent upset enough to take it on. Especially if they think that they can sue targets big enough to pay off the legal fees.

    68. Re: Bravo indeed by TWX · · Score: 1

      Actually it has everything to do with her decisions. She knows how to copy a file. She knows how to send a file to other people. One can even argue that she knows how to receive a file shared with her to then turn around and share it. It's not a great leap to the realization that anyone that receives the file can turn around and redistribute it.

      The only failure here is that she did not consider the full ramifications for her actions, and she has paid a terrible price for those actions. People have tried to counsel against this in the past, "don't do anything that you wouldn't want your grandma reading about in the newspaper," "don't write down anything you don't want others to read," etc. This problem has been known forever, and basically boils down to not doing things that one will be ashamed of, or to at least not document those things.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    69. Re:Bravo indeed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Although that wouldn't save him from charges of passing it on. If he wanted to go down the harassment route, the only other people to see that video should have been the cops.

      I'd say the boyfriend might well have done wrong here, although my sympathy for her is limited. It was a bitch move which was followed up by a dick move. I'd say he would deserve the copyright lawsuit, just like she got herself into her own mess by being manipulative.

      I do feel bad, though, that she took her life over it. Which is why most of us, when faced with people acting this way, should not act to make it worse for our own amusement.

    70. Re:Bravo indeed by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Well, if there were t-shirts made with the phrase... so I'd say that it could easily have gone beyond her peer group and relatives. At that level, you could get random people who have seen you in that video and have never even known they existed until they find you to harass you, or you see them walking by in that t-shirt and they realize who you are.

    71. Re: Bravo indeed by ranton · · Score: 1

      to not admit that instantaneous electronic dissemination of information by anonymous individuals -- who face no consequences for their actions -- is radically different than what any society has ever dealt with before would be absurd.

      It has always existed; it's called gossip. Tracking the source of gossip is a little easier than authorities tracking the source of anonymous online leaks, but not that much easier. The only difference is concrete proof can be provided now, which in most cases is a good thing because gossip with a complete lack of proof is not taken as seriously.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    72. Re: Bravo indeed by ranton · · Score: 1

      And no, people do not consider the consequences of sharing electronic information. We see that time, and time, and time again.

      No argument here, although a few more decades of ruined lives has a good chance of changing this perception.

      And what of the consequences? Are they just? Should we give up the ability to share any personal information in this age without expecting it to be condemned and mocked worldwide by anonymous fools?

      Until our society grows to the point where we realize everyone has aspects of their life which could invite juvenile ridicule, it is absolutely the correct decision to never share personal information digitally which we wouldn't broadcast to the world. Never bitch about work or a friend over text, never email / text / snapchat nude photos, etc. This is basic stuff which unfortunately a vast majority of people don't realize is important. Hopefully enough of these stories changes that naive ignorance in the general public.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    73. Re:Bravo indeed by ranton · · Score: 1

      In those societies, if you wanted to share a secret with a select few, you may do that. They may talk about it with others, but there is no method of instantaneous mass distribution.

      You can still do this today, just don't talk about it digitally. 100 years ago if you sent a letter to a friend it also had the chance of being stolen. Your friends still had the ability to tell others and start gossip.

      but we can condemn that person behind an assumed anonymity, so that we suffer no consequences for the things we say or do

      This is certainly a slight difference from the past, but once a mob starts attacking someone, individuals in that mob rarely face consequences for their actions. Not many members of lynching mobs, or people pelting others with mud or excrement in a pillory, ever faced consequences for their actions.

      This is just the modern version of a pillory.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    74. Re: Bravo indeed by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Right because if she only wanted to make him jealous she wouldn't have recorded herself having sex with someone else and sent it to her ex-boyfriend and their friends. She was out to publicly humiliate him.

      I have no idea how anyone can be that mean and spiteful but a few of my friends and I as well have had exs that have cheated in order to break up but that was before the rise of the internet and smartphones.

    75. Re:Bravo indeed by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      It's not because some politicians decided that something was a "crime", that I also consider it as a crime. My moral values and who I excuse are not determined by some politicians, they are determined by me, and only me.

    76. Re:Bravo indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did the woman have consent from the other person in the video to share the video?

      Why doesn't the media feel bad for him? Oh, that's right ...

    77. Re: Bravo indeed by William+Baric · · Score: 2

      No, this is "radically different". This is not even new. The whole village was always aware of all gossips about everyone. The only difference is the size of the village we live in. We went from living in a village of a few thousand individuals to living in a village of 7 billion individuals.

      Not only was there a lot less anonymity in the past, but there was also a lot less forgiveness. In the past, her behavior would not bring her only mockery, but animosity. She would have been relegated to the social status of a completely worthless whore. No one would have supported her and she would have been socially ostracized. In the past, no one would have cared about her suicide. Not even you.

      Was the past more morally correct? Are we now more morally correct? This is debatable. But one thing is for sure, your argument is plain false.

    78. Re: Bravo indeed by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Argh, I meant "this is not radically different".

    79. Re: Bravo indeed by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      There was more than one sex session, and more than one man (sometimes at the same time). Moral of the story: The desire for revenge, when acted on, can destroy you.

      If you really want revenge, wait 5 years and see if you still feel the same way. If you do, wait another 5 years, and if you still feel the same way, see a psychiatrist. Time heals (almost) all wounds.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    80. Re:Bravo indeed by guruevi · · Score: 2

      I don't find it at all "Out of proportion". HER reaction is out of proportion to what happened. Sure you may have a month or so of being laughed at on the Internet and then Paris Hilton or whatever other fucktard releases a video or someone kills a gorilla and everybody forgets all about you and your stupid memes. I think it was Louis CK or Jim Gaffigan that said: if you don't like what people say about you online, stop googling yourself every 5 minutes.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    81. Re:Bravo indeed by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Do you masturbate in public?

      Because it's on the same level as releasing a sex tape for the world to see.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    82. Re:Bravo indeed by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Do cameramen own the copyrights to Hollywood movies?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    83. Re:Bravo indeed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think the likely result of this will be that people change their name multiple times in their life. Whenever something bad gets documented on the net, it's time for a new identity.

      The "right to remember" is meaningless if people don't have a unique, fixed identifier.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    84. Re:Bravo indeed by Toonol · · Score: 1

      But in primitive societies, the village is the whole world. If you're shamed, for all practical purposes, everyone in the universe will know it forever. And leaving is unthinkable.

      And...

      You have the opportunity to speak and reason with those that shame you. You have the opportunity at redemption.

      I think you may not understand why we call them primitive.

    85. Re:Bravo indeed by Sique · · Score: 1

      Strangely, it is. There are rights like the "right to your own picture". As the person depicted in the movie, who is not just some random person in the background, but prominently featured, she has the final say about any publication. Uploading that movie to any publicly accessible site denies her that right and is illegal.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    86. Re:Bravo indeed by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You're conflating illegal and impossible.

      If everyone in the world following every law in their current jurisdiction is a fundamental condition of your willingness to live, you might as well die right now. Because that ain't gonna happen, buddy.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    87. Re: Bravo indeed by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      People who were not criminally pampered when young, expect to live within the limitations of reality. Gravity exists, and that means stepping off my 7th floor roof is not a great idea. We do not have the technological means to prevent harm to people stepping off 7th floor roofs, so it is ridiculous to expect that a right to not come to harm when stepping off 7th floor roofs be effective.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    88. Re:Bravo indeed by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Precisely in these couple hundred years, democracy has flourished in the world. And precisely the latest ("final " is a strong word) result of the information age through data mining and allied sciences coupled with callousness of people sharing personal information, can convert democracy into something far worse than most autocracies.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    89. Re:Bravo indeed by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Actually what humiliated her wasn't that these millions watched it. Her knowledge , conviction and obsessing over that these people watched it was what humiliated her.

      Those millions are an unnecessary part of the story.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    90. Re:Bravo indeed by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      A "free pass"!? They started putting her words on t-shirts, dude. For one mistake. For all the people screaming about accountability in her actions, I'd like to see you have your biggest mistakes become an object of mockery for everyone in the world.

      works good for trump.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    91. Re:Bravo indeed by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      I think this falls under... "If you don't want the whole world including your mom and your pastor to see it, don't take pics and put it on the internet".

      Sometimes you really do need to think things through before you act cause sometimes "oops" just doesn't cut it.

      kids today... the internet generation seem to think that when they're in communication with some person or group, that it constitutes some sort of private house party, and "what happens in vegas stays in vegas"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    92. Re:Bravo indeed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      But what about if you send a copy of your front door key to someone you know has reason to be mad at you? Is it not in the least bit her fault when she intentionally sent the video of her having a revenge sex spree to her ex boyfriend to get him jealous? At some point you have to ask what the person was thinking. Yes, putting the video online is in bad taste, but sending a video of yourself having sex with someone to an ex isn't in your world?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    93. Re: Bravo indeed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The internet has been around longer than this woman was alive. Yes, it has been around a long time.

      She chose to send out the video to make her ex jealous, she was a terrible person, and got publicly shamed for her activity. Do you think she should have the "right" to rub her ex's nose in her sex life to make him jealous?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    94. Re:Bravo indeed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      But, once it did, there is nothing stopping her from registering the copyrights and trademarks cayenne8 mentions. In fact, the publishing establishes prior ownership.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    95. Re: Bravo indeed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It is not a legal requirement placed on Facebook. You expect them to create a system that complex out of the goodness of their hearts? Oh, and if they do it, they lose safe harbor, so they can be sued for any video the miss.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. It wouldn't be a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too bad most societies have such hang ups about sex. It's our only biological reason for existence and yet, there are all these taboos about it.

    Partly, it's ancient patriarchal values that may have a link to biology (hide the women so some other guy doesn't fuck her and displace my genes.). And of course, we have Christianity that is an anti-sex death cult that has warped Western society from our enlightened advanced Greco-Roman roots (Goddamn you to Hell Constantine I!)

  4. Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're asking for something that is impossible, to be a "Right"

    The "online" part is irrelevant (and just as impossible). I can no more "forget" on demand short of you lobotomizing me, and you don't have that right.

    So, lets stop tossing words like "rights" around, when they cannot apply.

    BTW, she handled it very poorly. She could have milked it (trademarked the phrase) and become a famous porn star, with a catch phrase and all. Embrace that which makes you famous (like the Kardashians) and you'll be both Rich and Famous.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re: Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      It IS impossible.

      And she did make her own choices. What she doesn't want to deal with, are the consequences OF those choices.

      1) she chose to be filmed
      2) she chose to give that video away

      Those were her active choices. The consequences of those choices aren't hers to make.

      You go to the top of a mountain, and open up a down pillow, and scatter the feathers to the wind (your choice), Now, go gather up all the feathers you just let blow away. Once that pillow is ripped open, and the feathers fly, they are impossible to gather back. There is no "right" to have the feathers gather themselves back into the pillow, no matter how badly you feel about the situation.

      Labeling consequences as "hate" is simply a lame attempt at engendering an emotional response to affect people's actual reasoning power. It works far too often. Care to try again ?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re: Right to be Forgotten by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      The only question is why you hate and oppouse her freedom to make her own choices.

      She made her choices. She can't make or force choices on others though.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Right to be Forgotten by hey! · · Score: 1

      The "right to be forgotten" isn't about brainwashing. It's about record retention.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re: Right to be Forgotten by TWX · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually gone through the legal process of getting a favorable ruling and then trying to get that ruling enforced? Because you don't sound like you have any idea what that involves. Trying to enforce this ruling would be playing whack-a-mole on an infinitely large grid where each time it pops up a new legal battle has to be mounted.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Who's record was it, once she gave it away?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Right to be Forgotten by hey! · · Score: 1

      That is the very issue in question: what privacy interests an individual enjoys with respect to information that is in other people's possession. Your argument completely begs the question.

      I suggest you actually educate yourself on information privacy issues and law before taking such an unequivocal position.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re: Right to be Forgotten by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it is not impossible.

      Sure, you will never remove it from individual hard drives, but that doesn't mean you can't remove it from being shared on the Internet.

      I get that it may go underground and shared p2p but if you remove it from major public web sites, it is effectively gone as far as the main stream public is concerned.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Right to be Forgotten by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe she aspired to something greater than porn, an industry that at the best of times does not treat people well. She wasn't asking for people to erase their memories either, just to have Facebook block the video from being shared which it entirely within its power to do.

      People make mistakes. Europe is not like the US, we don't punish people for the rest of their lives in all but the most exceptional cases.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: Right to be Forgotten by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      This isn't about feathers, though I will point out to you that there are clean-up crews all over the world. They clean up litter.

      And yes, you can be punished for littering.

      That's a consequence of your choice to act inappropriately.

      And it is a continuous effort. Not an impossible one though. We keep picking up trash.

      Don't you know how the world works?

      You completely missed the point of analogy. The GP meant that once you let go feathers that way, it is impossible to gather them all back and put them into the pillow again. Similarly, the consequence of the incident has already surfaced, it is impossible to completely erase it from the world...

    10. Re: Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You fail at analogy because you're trying very hard to be pedantic about it. And you come across as the chickenshit Coward you are.

      yes I can pick up those feathers.

      You probably "can" in theory.

      1) In theory, theory and practice are the same
      2) In practice, theory and practice aren't the same.

      Which is why liberal elites cannot fathom how the real world actually works.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re: Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      That is not why we have courts. There is nothing in Tort or criminal law that would support her getting every copy of her off the internet. She should have sued for damages (at best) or like I said above, made herself famous for it. IT worked for the Kardashians girls.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Right to be Forgotten by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You need a particular type of personality to be someone like a Kardashian and be able to blissfully make money from notoriety. And that family has a support structure where the mom not only allows it, but frankly, probably encouraged that sort of thing.

      This woman's mother was probably not of that breed and clearly, neither was this woman herself.

    13. Re:Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      If I scream, "I'm GAY" from a stage, and a hundred people hear me, do I have a right to control that information (and every one of those people in perpetuity) because 1) I am not gay, and 2) it might affect me and 3) it is easily repeatable and 4) I think I have a right to control private information?

      I am actually educated, and have well thought out viewpoints (opinions), and just because you disagree, doesn't make me an idiot.

      My position is unequivocal only because I realize that Scale doesn't really matter here, nor should it. Here it is in a nutshell

      “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
        Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Right to be Forgotten by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      we don't punish people for the rest of their lives in all but the most exceptional cases

      Consequences aren't "punishment". Though I hear that equivocation a lot by liberals. "I had sex, I don't want to be punished with a child ", "I got a tattoo on my face, and now nobody will give me a job, why am I being punished?"

      That kind of reasoning always kinda makes me sick to my stomach. The second point is, that if you play it like the Kardashians did, you can become rich and famous and marry a douchbag rapper ... okay that last part sounds like punishment ...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Right to be Forgotten by hey! · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what about other kinds of information that leak into the public domain? For example what about when I give someone information for purpose A, and they use it for purpose B? Or what about information that leaks out of my life simply because it's impossible to live in an adiabatic bottle.

      Don't feel insulted, this is really is a complicated issue. Simple, certain, categorical statements nearly always lead to unexpected consequences. I spent many years as a practicing system architect and as part of my ongoing education I took university courses in information privacy law and ethics. This doesn't make me an expert, but it does qualify me to recognize simplistic positions.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Right to be Forgotten by hey! · · Score: 1

      I assume the law is fluid in this matter -- which it is -- and that in its current state disagrees with how most layman imagines it works -- which it does.

      I understand that you can't stop people from judging you; but the "right to be forgotten" isn't about that. It's about record retention; "the right to be forgotten" is just a snappy label that misleads people who take that label literally.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re: Right to be Forgotten by Toonol · · Score: 1

      There aren't any women on Slashdot.

    18. Re:Right to be Forgotten by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      You always assume too much. My point was that we allow criminals to be reformed and move on with their lives in most cases. Yet when it comes to someone who made a mistake and it was publicised on the internet...

      Before making assumptions, it's better to ask for clarification if there is any doubt.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Right to be Forgotten by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Don't expect disciples of the cult of the "law" to understand how the real world works. They are generally stupid enough to think they can change reality with letters on some paper. That has never worked and cannot work. It can (maybe) discourage some extreme behaviors, but even that is a sketchy proposition. I really do not think there have been fewer murders since it became "illegal", for example.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. That's not how the internet works by Pablopelos · · Score: 1

    People need to be accountable for their actions, heck even teenagers know that what they post might prevent them from getting a good job one day. This is the age we live in and we have to control our 'media' that we create. Everything is remembered somewhere and the internet makes it findable.

    1. Re:That's not how the internet works by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

      People need to be accountable for their actions, heck even some teenagers know that what they post might prevent them from getting a good job one day. This is the age we live in and we have to control our 'media' that we create. Everything is remembered somewhere and the internet makes it findable.

      FTFY.

  6. Re:Blame Someone Else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I like to call it "stripper logic"

  7. we need to be protected from stupid decisions? by citylivin · · Score: 2

    "she sent a video of herself having sex to some friends"

    How about don't use your real name online? Just because everyone in the world seems to have abandoned that concept in the last 15 years doesn't make it any less important, or relevant.

    This is not a problem for the internet, its a problem of novice internet users emailing sex tapes around. I would have some sympathy if she was hacked, but she clearly brought this on herself. We all make mistakes, but we don't all make fools of our self online using our real information. That's a fairly specific choice she made. It may not have been thought through, but let that be a lesson to everyone who decides emailing a sex tape around is a good idea.

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  8. emule by Ecuador · · Score: 1, Troll

    Connect to an emule server, search for Tiziana Cantone and you will see a multitude of results. There are 5-6 short explicit videos, including fellatio, multiple partners and even some "alone time", plus a few not explicit pics.
    I was curious myself, because I know there are thousands of women out there that are named on their leaked videos and I don't think people actively go after them with memes etc, so I wanted to know what was different here. I don't really see anything out of the "ordinary" (sure most such videos don't have multiple partners, but the "minority" that does still is a really big number, so we'd say it is a common occurence). So I guess it is the place, perhaps Napoli is a bit of a "closed" society and that's why she drew focus and ridicule? Judging from their films and their politicians (don't think just of Berlusconi's parties - they even had a famous porn star, Cicciolina, elected in parliament), I'd think Italians would be more casual about sex...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  9. What has been seen... by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    What has been seen cannot be unseen. What has been posted, once downloaded by anyone at all, cannot be unposted.

    I've taken things down at the request of the party filmed, even though it has always been innocent. (You are NOT going to be passed over for promotion because of a video of you breakdancing while drunk.) In these cases, it was not too late. Hardly anyone "scrapes" YouTube, they just watch and move on. But if your video has already become a meme? You're screwed (no pun intended). All the shouting in the world isn't going to make it go away.

    The lady here made several mistakes, all from the same root cause: delusion. She was delusional when she thought it was a good idea in the first place. She was delusional when she thought thousands of people were going to comply with a directive to "forget" and destroy the file, when it had already reached memetic levels. She was delusional when she thought that moving to another city would significantly decrease the chances of someone who had seen the video recognizing her. And she was delusional to think that the people who made her into a meme will give a flying fuck she became an hero. Many of them are edgy enough to even claim it as some sort of victory.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:What has been seen... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      On the other side of the coin, I think that everyone has a right to control their own image and content. What may make sense at one phase of your life may not make sense later on.

      People change as they get older. Someone should not have to live the rest of their lives paying for a single mistake.

      I know that it is not a popular view point, but I do support the "right to be forgotten".

      I don't think it is impossible to achieve either. Sure, once out in the public domain, it will never be fully erased. But that isn't the point. All that needs to be achieved is for search engines to stop indexing that content. That's really all this is about. People will still be able to privately host the stuff and there will be legal routes the content owner can pursue to remove that stuff, but for the majority of the population, the person will not exist because it won't come up in a search.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:What has been seen... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      On the other side of the coin, I think that everyone has a right to control their own image and content. What may make sense at one phase of your life may not make sense later on.

      They do! And she gave up that right by disseminating the information so widely that it was impossible to put back in the bottle. She sent it to sufficient parties that it was then subsequently resent to sufficient additional parties to become a meme, at which point it was literally impossible to remove all the information. Even if it were not impossible, though, it would be a far more grievous wrong to humanity to attempt to force it to forget what it has seen than the wrong done to one woman which she brought upon herself by deliberately inflaming the anger of the recipients.

      I don't think it is impossible to achieve either. Sure, once out in the public domain, it will never be fully erased. But that isn't the point. All that needs to be achieved is for search engines to stop indexing that content. That's really all this is about.

      That's a fat waste of time, because it won't remove the information. And it forces people to do something stupid that will cost them money. It tampers with our collective information-comprehending abilities. It is essentially a [minor] crime against humanity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:What has been seen... by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I think that everyone has a right to control their own image and content

      What? I want to have an image of a sexy, successful, go-getter, who can solve all the problems of the most powerful countries and companies such that they choose me as their supreme leader.

      Instead, I have an image of a fat nerd, who is not the supreme leader of my family of 4, let alone any country or company. Where do I sign up for this right to control my own image?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  10. Are you for real? by stkris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The four comments on this story all blame the woman for her own stupidity?

    Are you guys for real? Yes I assume you are guys.

    Just because someone makes a stupid mistake we don't have the right to keep on blasting her for it! And she asked please would you stop and leave me alone. And the idiots still kept on pestering her. Making t-shirts? I cannot belive it! Sure - it's not illegal to do that but the people doing it place themselves square into the neanderthal part of the intelligence and compassion scales! I bet you guys know how to google - so don't just take my word for it - but an environment in which you are continously beeing harrassed can cause all kinds of damage in a persons soul. Some people in Italy and on the net really should think hard and long about their own behaviour! Are you all 13 years old? I don't think so!

    And then to come here and you all continue the blame fest on her for beeing harassed and mobbed enough to take her own life? HELLO! She took her own life. That is no joke!

    I had to thaw up my old account for this because I'm shocked and ashamed of what Slashdot has became.

    1. Re:Are you for real? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      "Just because someone makes a stupid mistake we don't have the right to keep on blasting her for it!"

      Actually, you do have the right. It's not morally acceptable, it's bullying, but it is free speech. I do wish people would be a little more responsible of their mocking of other people. None of us are immune to becoming the next "idiot on the web".

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      She did a stupid, vain thing on the internet and got made a laughingstock by millions as a result, same as Tron Guy, Star Wars Kid, Chris Crocker, or any number of other internet 'celebrities.' I doubt you launched to the defense of them, though. Wonder what's different here? Hmm...

    3. Re:Are you for real? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Wait, who else is to blame for the woman's stupidity besides herself?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      What part of "she was quite happy to screw up her ex's life but coudn't take it when her own shit started to come back at her" are you not getting?.

    5. Re: Are you for real? by John+Allsup · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Social awkwardness, Aspergers, and so on have this nasty side to them. The natural desire and curiosity is there, the lack of social graces makes it hard to satisfy, the loneliness when others' social and sex lives work and yours dont can be excruciating, and the means to remedy the problems is often either taboo, niche, or unattainable. The pressure to enjoy spreading naughty videos is strong, and sensible alternatives non-existent. By seeing these people as 'akward herberts' to be sidelined, ignored and labelled away compounds the problem.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    6. Re:Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Calling out rape culture? No one was rapped. One person was badly harassed after she tried to play mind games on another person and lost. She was due some harassment because she tried to harass others, but so got far more than she deserved.

      She didn't have the strength of character to survive it. And yes, I know how it feels. I've attempted suicide too. I see her as stronger than me since she was successful and I wasn't. But it was still all self-inflicted, people put too much importance on what other people feel about them. You can't change other people, she should have done a better job ignoring them and sending the police after anyone directly harassing her. That is not a personal insult at her, it is an abstract assessment of the issue which may help other people in similar situations. Trying to hide it means more people will make the same mistake.

      Calling this rape culture is why at lot of people downplay rapes. Nothing in this story has anything to do with rape.

    7. Re:Are you for real? by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having sympathy for the woman and having outrage that these kind of stupid decisions end up creating even more stupid laws are not mutually exclusive. Having more outrage about laws that affect billions of people (even if only slightly) than sympathy for a single human life is also quite natural, consider 150,000 people die each day.

      If there was no such thing as Right to be Forgotten laws, there would be nothing but sympathy for this woman. But considering the political climate it is reasonable most of us are upset at the people peeing in the pool everyone else has to swim in.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    8. Re:Are you for real? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh they're for real.

      We live in the golden age of priggery. The salacious tone of the posts make it a little harder to see, but the essential quality of any prig isn't what he's for or against; it's that petty, self-righteous tut-tutting.

      This newfound possibility of being a foul-minded, vulgar prig is what makes this the Golden Age.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Are you for real? by silanea · · Score: 1

      What did you expect? That people laud her wisdom? She was somewhere between 30 and 31 years old when she sent a sex video of herself to her then ex partner to hurt him and to other people. She harassed her ex, and by sending it to (I assume) mutual friends she also humiliated him within their social circle. She is not really a victim here. If she could not handle the heat, she should not have lit the fire. No sympathy. Really, none.

      To the other commentator who mentions rape culture: Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    10. Re:Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Q: How many depressed people does it take to change a light bulb?
      A: None. They are worthless, couldn't change the bulb anyway, and should sit down shut up and starve to death in the dark.

      A man orders a pizza and answers the door when it rings. The pizza delivery man smiles and opens the box, showing an 8-inch long partly coiled fresh poop. The man looks at it, then back at the pizza delivery man, and says, "Would you do me a favor, would you take this stinking worthless piece of shit away from my house and go fuck yourself with it?" The pizza delivery man says "Sure. It's $15 for the pizza. But before I take her, why does she only have one black eye?"

    11. Re:Are you for real? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It might be illegal. Driving someone to suicide is illegal in many places. Getting t-shirts printed and continuing to harass her after she asked them to stop quite possibly opens them up to prosecution.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Are you for real? by sgrover · · Score: 1

      The guy (assuming) who posted the private video to a public forum. THAT is who deserves the blame, and the bullying.

    13. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Totally disagree. She made the video expressly to humiliate her ex-boyfriend. She distributed it to his family and friends. That's called revenge porn.

      Nobody gets a free pass on this regardless of their sex. Anything else sends the message that women need to be protected from the consequences of their own decisions because they are women. Your comment is both sexist and misogynistic - if it was the ex making sex videos of himself and sending it to her family and friends in an attempt to humiliate her, and she spread it around, we'd be laughing at the dumbass and celebrating his Darwin award. Let's not have double standards based solely on sex - it's demeaning to women.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:Are you for real? by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would you assume that? Unbelievable.

    15. Re:Are you for real? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are completely and utterly wrong.

      1. She engaged in consensual sex act.
      2. She approved of it being filmed (Bravo!)
      3. She sent it, unbidden, to former lover & friends.

      Those were her choices. There was never ANY agreement that the video was private. And most assuredly, the recipients would not have agreed to it. She gave up her privacy when she CHOSE to send the video to others, without any agreement in place.

      They had the freedom to do what they wanted with it. She tried to embarrass her ex-lover by sending it, so he turned around and embarrassed her by sharing it further.

      The ONLY one at fault is her.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    16. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Read it again. This was not a private message. She made and publicly disseminated the video in an attempt to humiliate him this family and friends. That's called revenge porn. There is no excuse for that sort of behavior, doesn't matter that in this case the perp was a woman. Ultimately, she got what she wanted to inflict on him, and couldn't handle it. Hubris.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re: Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      I'm assuming from your username you are actually female, in which case Thank you for being female and also understanding the true meaning of equality, and standing up for it!
      It boggles my mind how so many women apparently think a clear double-standard is somehow self-evidently right, and worse, how so many pathetic manginas agree with them.

    18. Re:Are you for real? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he was just hitting back. Remember the first act here was with malicious intent. She sent him that video for a reason, and that wasn't because they were in a happy relationship.

      She's both stupid and a bully.

    19. Re:Are you for real? by sinij · · Score: 1

      +1 for calling out the rape culture (no mod points right now)

      I know, what is this with men daring to question women's actions?! We must put them back into their place, by force if necessary.

    20. Re:Are you for real? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The four comments on this story all blame the woman for her own stupidity? Are you guys for real? Yes I assume you are guys.

      Yes and Yes.

      Read the story, the woman made a sex tape and sent it to her ex to make him jealous. Thats where it all started two acts of supreme stupidity:
      1. Making a sex tape. If she hadn't of recorded herself doing it then there's be nothing to see.

      2. Sending it to her ex as an attack. If you do record yourself on the job, its best not to share it... doubly so with anyone you don't explicitly trust (as in with your life). This bit is triply stupid because she sent it to someone she didn't like and didn't like her deliberately.

      You cant even blame the ex-boyfriend for sharing it that much either. This wasn't a tape they made together in a relationship, it wasn't something that was released accidentally, its something she made expressly to get back at him.

      And as for blaming the internet, the internet is an inanimate object, an inanimate, non-anthropomorphic entity that contains a lot of porn. The internet does not feel jealousy, or rage, or remorse, or pity... it just delivers whatever a user requests.

      So yes, the blame lies entirely on the woman who tried to get back at her ex. Its her fault for doing it and her fault it backfired.

      But this is Italy. so there will be a court ruling that will be universally ignored until a politician is caught with his pants down... which should be in about 20 minutes (Silvio, is that you I hear in the background).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    21. Re:Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> HELLO! She took her own life. That is no joke!

      Yes she did. That was her choice too. Clearly she wasn't exactly great at making good decisions. Its really nobody elses fault.

    22. Re:Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Rape culture? Really? Your PeeCee thinking is pathetic, and most definitely part of the whole problem rather than part of the solution.

    23. Re: Are you for real? by cecurry · · Score: 1

      I think you are uninformed. She did not make the video with her ex, she made it with someone else. This is not "revenge porn." Secondly, this really isn't about what she did -- it's about what happened to her. We could all agree that what she did was a mistake, and very likely immoral. However, the consequences were both unpredictable and fatal -- and that has little to do with her actions. The cause for the same, in fact, had nothing to do with the fact that she made her boyfriend jealous, but everything to do with the fact that millions saw her having sex and were mocking her for it. Suppose this was a sex tape that was stolen from her -- the consequences would very likely be the same. She might still be humiliated by millions of anonymous individuals, and in fact that is what has happened to many men and women. Is that right? Do you think it's "justice"? We have a real problem in this society with public shaming because never before has sharing such information about others on a mass scale been a possibility. This is not about "a free pass", it's about having a civil society without our private lives becoming a token of scorn by the entire world.

    24. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      By choice, so I've experienced the double standard from both sides, and it's just stupid. We complain that women aren't treated equally (and we aren't) and then want to be treated differently when it's convenient? That's just reinforcing the "inherent inferiority of women" mentality that studies of trans-people, as the best experimental subjects for exposing such gender biases, shows definitely exists. Here's an example in the other direction.

      Asking for equality while also wanting to be shielded from the consequences of our decisions "because woman" is hypocritical, and men are just as guilty of reinforcing this attitude, as we see in the comments. Conditional equality is no equality.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    25. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think YOU are mistaken. I never said that she made the videos with her ex - she made them with other men (including more than one at a time) after the split, with the express purpose of humiliating him in front of his friends and family to whom she distributed the videos.

      When she distributed it to people who never even asked to see it, she lost all right to claim any sort of "privacy." There was no prior "understanding" between her and any of the recipients that "hey, this is private, just fyi, so keep it confidential." She was attempting emotional blackmail, and the motivation makes it revenge porn.

      If someone tried to humiliate me, I'd make it very public (actually, already happened a few times) as a way of holding them accountable for their actions. They would have NO right of privacy in what they had said. Anything less gives power to the perp, and she was the perp in this case.

      She was the one who tried to do the whole public shaming thing, but, like pissing in the wind, when the wind doesn't blow the right way, you're going to get splash-back.

      Once you make something public, there's no take-back. That's the way the world works, and has worked long before the Internet. Gossip is part of human nature.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re:Are you for real? by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

      Yes, assume we are guys. Because guys have had to take responsibility for the stupid shit they do which can affect them the rest of their lives since always.

      Congratulations, you found out you can't be a total bitch and that there is actually something people can do about it.

      It's like if you live in a small town, you do something douchey, it'll take a few years for that to be let go. She committed suicide after one year. I don't mean that she deserves to be "harassed forever" but yeah, there's going to some consequences for the stupid shit you do and there isn't a reset button, there is no undo, and won't be gone in a few weeks.

      This kind of shit has serious god damn consequences. Yeah that big old fucking word everyone hates, consequences, because everyone hates talking about them for fear they may have to suffer their own consequences for their actions and no one wants that!

      Yeah it's a bit extreme the way things go on the internet. But you know? Get off the internet, that's step one. Step two, change name. Be done with it. It'll go away after a few years, someone else will do something stupid and humiliate themselves online.

      Here's my simple steps of you'll fuck up live with it.

      Step 1 - Doing stupid shit can have real consequences that can last for awhile.
      Step 2 - Realize you can't get away with treating people however you want and going "Not my problem"
      Step 3- If you fuck up, and, most of us will, live with it. LIVE with it. That's called paying the price for you actions.
      Step 4. It will go away, it will get better, you need to get the fuck over it, so will everyone else.
      Step 5. If you see someone else fuck up, let it go after awhile, don't be too much of a dink, you'll fuck up too one day.
      Step 6 Threats are never okay. Don't make people fear for their safety. They can have fear of looking like an idiot for awhile, but don't invade their personal space.
      E.G Leave their fucking home out of it, don't bother them at home, and in general don't do any targeting.

      Stop using victim blaming as your excuse word for everyone being allowed to do stupid shit with no consequences. It's stupid to take the safety off a saw blade, and if you get your hand cut off, and you tell that person don't fucking do it, there's a good chance you'll get your hand cut off. Do you call that victim blaming? He was a fucking victim of the saw blade? The guard had it out for him? No. Victim of your own stupidty is not victim blaming. Stop finding more ways to not be responsible for yourself.

    27. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She made multiple videos, each with her having sex with one or more men, in a misguided and ultimately fatal attempt to humiliate him. She sent those videos, unsolicited, to his friends and family. The intent makes it revenge porn. She was trying to send the message "see how many men want me", and instead sent the message "I'm a stupid slut." She was the one who lost all right to privacy when she willfully sent them unsolicited to his friends and family.

      Anyone who doesn't live their whole life in the drama bubbles on Facebook or twitter could have told her the risks, but she probably wouldn't have listened anyway. The desire for revenge clouded her judgment.

      That so many posters automatically assume that the guy was the perp shows just how much sexism is alive and well.

      It would equally be revenge porn if, in an attempt to humiliate a neighbor, they had intentionally distributed porn featuring the neighbor's kids to all the members of the neighbor's church. "Look at how my neighbor raised their kids." The intended target doesn't have to be in the video. Humiliation by association. It's real.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    28. Re: Are you for real? by cecurry · · Score: 1

      Oh, then you simply don't understand what "revenge porn" really is. And she didn't "make it public", not intentionally anyway. In fact, anyone who did make this public was participating in "revenge porn." What you don't seem to understand is that this is a private matter between a few hand-selected adults. To sit there and point your finger at a woman who killed herself due to an unbearable amount of public humiliation is unconscionable.

    29. Re: Are you for real? by cecurry · · Score: 1

      That's a silly definition. Look, a person has the right to make a porn of themselves and to distribute it. Whether or not it was her intention to humiliate her ex is beside the point. Negating the wishes of her partners in the video (which brings up other issues), what wrong did she commit against the ex? He doesn't own the rights to her sexuality. Now what could very be revenge porn is whoever distributed the video outside of the circle. It might very well have been done for revenge by the ex, and it's certainly not his right to do that.

    30. Re: Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 2

      I totally agree that men are just as guilty of reinforcing this attitude. In fact I'd blame men more than women, since women are only human and like most of us are obviously gonna try for whatever they can get.

      Due to a combination of the traditional-gender-model brainwashing most males get right from birth at home and school, and the PeeCee bullshit that the mass media continually bombard us with, apparently very few men can even mentally grasp the concept of true gender equality. Most just go along with it rather than ever call out instances of blatant double-standard behavior, so are directly guilty of further enabling it, and more than a few are (wierdly) actively encouraging it. Meanwhile the rest of us just shake our heads in frustration.

    31. Re: Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Total bullshit.
      > This is not "revenge porn."
      Of course it was. The article clearly says she circulated it explicitly to screw over her ex.

      > Secondly, this really isn't about what she did -- it's about what happened to her. .... However, the consequences were both unpredictable and fatal -- and that has little to do with her actions.

      *sigh" A perfect example of yet another lame female-apologist white-knight mangina argument. Everything that happened was a a direct consequence of her own choices. She chose to spread the tape. No one forced her. She chose to commit suicide as a result of the consequences of her earlier decision. Again Her choice.

      >> Suppose this was a sex tape that was stolen from her -- the consequences blah blah blah

      Setting up a some stupid strawman set of circumstances in which you may actually have a point doesn't change the fact that you clearly don't have one with respect to the actual circumstances.

    32. Re:Are you for real? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      And then to come here and you all continue the blame fest on her for beeing harassed and mobbed enough to take her own life? HELLO! She took her own life. That is no joke!

      You can't very well say we should all self-censor, now, to avoid hurting her feelings, as that ship has permanently sailed. No reason, anymore, not to have an honest conversation.

      Her motivation for sending that video was reprehensible. Her actions were an attempt to bully her ex-boyfriend, and could potentially have pushed HIM to consider suicide. It's tragic she killed herself, but at least a little bit karmic that her bad actions backfired on her. Lots of people have a sex tape leaked, and don't kill themselves. It seem to be the light shone on her own lack of compassion which she couldn't handle facing.

      After all, who among us doesn't laugh at stupid criminals? They're people with feelings, families, and tragic stories, too. She should have gotten compassion and comfort from her friends and family... Not the world at large, and it's silly to ask for, or expect any such thing.

      Everyone has to live with their own mistakes. Whether that's sending out a video or driving poorly and killing someone. You don't get to tell the entire world to bend over backwards to accommodate you. That goes for her sending out her video, as well as her death. Would you like to pass a law that says people have a right to undo their suicide, too?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    33. Re: Are you for real? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Oh, then you simply don't understand what "revenge porn" really is. ..or perhaps YOU don't.

      >> And she didn't "make it public", not intentionally anyway.
      Sorry but "intention" doesn't trump actual actions (unless you're Hillary Clinton). Otherwise drunk drivers that unintentionally killed someone would get off too.

      >> To sit there and point your finger at a woman who killed herself due to an unbearable amount of public humiliation is unconscionable. ...And there it is.. the all-too-predictable "Moral high-ground" argument....

    34. Re:Are you for real? by cecurry · · Score: 1

      The "I had to thaw up my old account" wasn't me. But besides that, I don't know what bottom-feeding forums you visit, but maybe we all ought to condemn public shaming as a universal wrong. I certainly do. It doesn't matter whether it was a woman getting shamed for a sex video or a boy getting shamed for a silly light-saber video.

    35. Re:Are you for real? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      While she did not have the power to keep that video from being spread by the recipient, I am distressed that this is being referred to as an example of "rape culture".

      Yes, she was powerless to stop her ex-boyfriend from acting. His was a despicable act.

      On the other hand, she not only put the ammunition in his hands, but her original intent was despicable as well.

      The sad part is that, unless both of these people were chronic assholes, she was probably upset and did something stupid, and then she upset him, and made him more liable to do something stupid in response.

      Calling this an example of "rape culture" is a distraction from a very important reason to carefully evaluate her actions. She may not have had any power to prevent the action of her ex-boyfriend, but she herself had the power to control the risks to herself in facing that fate. As an adult, she *must* be responsible for protecting herself. She was 31 years old, not 13.

      Now, if she had sent that video to her current boyfriend with good intentions and after making an agreement about how it might be handled and expected her boyfriend to be an adult about it, I could certainly see how blaming her would be victim blaming. In that case, she protected herself, perhaps not as much as she might have (by not making the video at all), but her risks were reasonable, and her intent was good and she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      That said, I agree that there should be a more balanced discussion of blame and actions taken. But trundling out the rape culture concept *does not actually do this*. If anything, you've focused more attention on the woman, and have not actually opened a discussion on the actions of the ex-boyfriend or the culture at large by being so focused on the innocence of someone who, frankly, was unfortunate but far from innocent.

    36. Re:Are you for real? by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      What did she do to screw up her ex's life, exactly?

      She sent him a nasty message. A message that mostly said she could do fine without him, thanks. He was not in the video. The only "shame" directed at him was basically a statement that it was possible for somebody to exist and have a sex life without involving him.

      Yeah, it was a bitchy thing to do, but it was a single message and there was zero chance that the whole world was going to start taunting him about it. It wasn't going to even be part of his life for more than a couple of minutes, and there was sure as hell no way that thousands of people would be on his case and forwarding it all over the Internet for years to come.

      Absolutely no comparison. Not even a potential comparison. There was no chance that anything even vaguely close to what happened to her could have happened to him. Sorry.

      And if it had, that would have been a bad thing too. Even if HE had somehow invited it.

    37. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      As soon as you make something public, which she did when she sent the videos to his friends and family, it's no longer private between her and her ex. She did it for the express purpose of humiliating him - she wouldn't have been able to achieve her goal if she hadn't made it public to others who were not in the video, especially since it was unsolicited. By your own definition of revenge porn, she actually is guilty.

      The friends and family were not involved until she sent them the video. They were not in the videos, they didn't ask to see them, they had no prior knowledge of their existence, they had no involvement with the videos whatsoever. Since they had no prior involvement, she certainly made the videos public when she sent them.

      She got her Darwin Award fair and square, same as anyone else who sets out to harm someone else and ends up suffering the consequences is getting their just desserts. Everything was solely her choice - the making of the videos, distributing them, and her suicide. Who else is to blame? Nobody.

      If you share something with someone in confidence and they then share it with your whole family and friends, they have made your secret public.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    38. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      As soon as she distributed it, the die was cast. Nobody else forced her to make the videos. She didn't make them with the intent of keeping them private. And she certainly distributed them to people who didn't even know they existed, or had asked to see them.

      It was strictly for revenge. Hence, revenge porn.

      Emotional harm is real, otherwise we wouldn't have laws against harassment, and her actions were harassment. It would be no different than you sleeping with someone over an extended period, then there's a fight and she decides to take revenge on you by distributing graphic pictures of herself before and after the sex change to your whole family. There are two ways to handle such a situation - be humiliated, or foil their intention by distributing it further since they're already been "published" within the legal definition.

      As for the "right to be forgotten", the judge ordered that SHE pay $20,000 (or euros, don't remember, from another article). In other words, she was not blameless, and she should be responsible for the costs of exercising the "right to be forgotten".

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    39. Re:Are you for real? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Being willfully obtuse does not a response make, AC.

    40. Re: Are you for real? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's a silly definition.

      Because it interferes with holding different people to different standards?

      Whether or not it was her intention to humiliate her ex is beside the point.

      It's the entire point.

      Negating the wishes of her partners in the video (which brings up other issues), what wrong did she commit against the ex? He doesn't own the rights to her sexuality.

      Obtuse non sequitur.

    41. Re:Are you for real? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      She sent him a nasty message. A message that mostly said she could do fine without him, thanks.

      You're mostly leaving out 95% of the story. Why?

    42. Re: Are you for real? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Who's to say it was her ex who distributed the videos? It's not like he was the only one she sent them to. Anyone she sent them to could have spread them around, and that's pretty much inevitable nowadays when you share salacious stuff too widely. Two people can only keep a secret if one of them is dead.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    43. Re:Are you for real? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      To the other commentator who mentions rape culture: Do you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?

      They don't, and I would suggest they can not understand what they're talking about, because 'rape culture' is a meaningless, il-defined, and self-contradictory concept. If they could define exactly what rape culture was, it would either be horrible and rare, or common and unremarkable. They would rather leave it a nebulous concept, able to be used globally for accusations whenever desired, and immune to any objection.

    44. Re:Are you for real? by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      Do feel free to mention any specific relevant items. I don't see any.

    45. Re:Are you for real? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If we all condemn public shaming, it will be public shaming. Will we condemn ourselves then? Or, doing what this woman didn't but should have, refrain from doing something we will be publicly shamed for, which means not condemning public shaming. But that is weird, right?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    46. Re:Are you for real? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Please point out which of her actions were not stupid?

      Yes, that is messed up, but it was her that created this mess in the first place. You cannot have freedom without some people doing utterly stupid things and some others giving them their 15 minutes of fame for it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    47. Re:Are you for real? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Femifascism at its best.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    48. Re:Are you for real? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, by the usual logic of modern feminists turned round, she committed aggravated sexual assault.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    49. Re:Are you for real? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Again, it's not private if you share it unrequested, and especially as revenge.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    50. Re:Are you for real? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      If you say something in private, that doesn't give that person the right to tell the public.

      Yes, it actually does if there's no agreement in place. Especially if you're trying to be malicious as was the case here.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  11. Re:Blame Someone Else by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blame Someone Else for your own stupidity.

    Agreed.

    She must be an American at heart.

    There are stupid people all around the world, my friend. Pointing the finger at a country and calling its people stupid is like pointing at the Sun and calling it helium.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  12. Here's one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The right not to make a sex tape, put it on the internet, and the complain when people on the internet see it.

  13. Re:Blame Someone Else by micahraleigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America takes a lot of derision from other countries because we tend to focus on individual freedom/responsibility.

    At least compared to other places.

    The suicide part ... that was ultimately her decision alone. If someone "forces" you to commit suicide, it's not really a suicide.

  14. Avoid TFS. Ad-blocker blocker site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Avoid the story. It's running an ad-blocker blocker.

    Fuck that shit. All you content owners: If you don't want me running an ad-blocker, go fuck yourself. If I really want your content, I'll just wget your whole fucking site.

  15. Not a right to be forgotten problem by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Modern society's attitudes to young women and sex are basically a fucked up mish mash of caveman reproductive instincts and simplistic religious bigotry. By making sex rarer, subject to various social conventions and expectations, you cultivate perverse fascinations, and inhibit maturity.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  16. Re:Ultimately, we are what we do by PPH · · Score: 1

    a learning experience for young impressionable girls

    Not really going to happen. There are still people who think girls are supposed to be raised innocent of the realities of life until they are old enough to be married off. At which time, it will be their husband's job to lock them safely away from the big bad world in a castle*. Religious nutjobs, I'm talking to you.

    *More likely a single-wide mobile home.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. today's lack of freedom by climb_no_fear · · Score: 1

    In the 90s, I lived in San Francisco. There was (and still is) a well known race called Bay to Breakers. While there are serious runners, the race is best known for thousands of people in costumes and various states of undress, including naked or body paint.

    A drop dead gorgeous friend wanted to run in body paint but was afraid to run alone and asked me if I would join (in body paint, of course). Being gallant, I said sure (ok, perhaps part of me wanted to see her naked in body paint).

    If you did this today, you'd immediately be posted all over Facebook, so many people decide not to engage in harmless fun anymore.

    I really feel sad for the younger generation

    1. Re:today's lack of freedom by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Because running nude will get ones picture posted to the net in 30 seconds, that's the sole reason to abandon the entire race?

      What's sad is you thinking not being able to run nude is a loss to the younger generation rather than the entire race not being run.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  18. Not possible by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    They might as well create a right for the murdered to be "Restored to life" while we're legislation impossible acts.

    Realistically - information isn't going to be removed from the internet. It's like playing the world's worst game of whack-a-mole.

    I do have sympathy for most victims of leaked nudes photos or video - this one is a tad hard to feel bad for because she intentionally sent it to an ex she was on bad terms with. Generally though - that's a bit of an exception to the rule.

    That said, despite it being wrong. Despite the fact that it SHOULDN'T happen - if you film yourself nude or in a sexual act, there is a very real possibility that that file could end up on the internet. Could be that you shared it with someone and they reshare it, or it could be an unauthorized hack, however the simple reality is that though that information ethically should remain private, realistically it might not.

    To me, if you can't accept a small risk that whatever you film just MIGHT be seen by the world, then I wouldn't recommend filming it in the first place. It's akin to an old gambling rule: No matter the odds, never place a bet you can't afford to lose.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  19. That poor woman by sinequonon · · Score: 2

    The internet is a very cruel place. We see the worst aspects of the human race on a daily basis. I don't know how we fix that.

    --
    -Bob-
    1. Re:That poor woman by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I agree, and the worst of it is the utter stupidity of some people. This woman is really at the peak of that. There is no fix for stupid.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  20. Re:Why not use DMCA or equivalent? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    Name any major film for which DMCA takedown notices go out by the bucketload and I'll bet you half a meatball sandwich that it's over on The Pirate Bay waiting for download.

    Such measures of limited sucess. If the motive is financial, there might be some benefit. If you can "crackdown on piracy" and manage to eliminate enough bad copies to boost legitimate sales by some percentage, then your actions are considered successful - to a degree.

    However when the goal isn't financial, and instead is just to remove all traces of a piece of information from the internet - it can't be done. Thousands of people now have that file on their hard drive. Its being shared on torrent networks. Links are posted to obscure forums spreading it further.

    I don't care how much you yell, scream, or pass feel good laws, you can't unscramble an egg.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  21. Re:Fuck her. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Easy. She sent a sex video to her ex with the express intent to hurt him.
    This proves she has zero class.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  22. Re:Fuck her. by Dishevel · · Score: 2

    Every humans life starts with a specific amount of value.
    That humans actions raise or lower that value over time.
    She was a person who not only wanted to hurt other people, but did so in a stupid way. Then when her actions unsurprisingly backfired she lacked any ability to deal with it in an adult manner and just made shit worse. She was a bad person, that dug a hole and then attempted to fix it by digging deeper and was of the opinion that the only solution was death.

    She looked decent, that though, sadly was the limit of that lives worth.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  23. The right to be forgotten .... by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

    Is similar to the "right to remain silent" ... you have the "right" the REAL question is ... do you have the ability?

  24. Hardly a new problem (Re:Bravo indeed) by mi · · Score: 1

    People want to share personal information with other human beings without sharing it with the rest of the world.

    This is hardly a new problem — we've had it for thousands of years.

    Your secret becomes less and less secret the more you share it with others. There is no "right to be forgotten" — and there never was. The prospect of it ever becoming mandatory to submit oneself to a memory-erasing procedure — such as to satisfy a court's order in a divorce case — scares me more than anybody watching me having sex...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  25. Re:Ultimately, we are what we do by MondoGordo · · Score: 1

    Please .... Religious nut-jobs are generally more affluent than that ... a double-wide at least. :)

  26. Yes, I too wonder, where SJWs stand on this by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When Brendan Eich was "outed" as an opponent of "gay marriage", the online bullies forced his resignation from Mozilla's top job.

    When blamed for the resulting degradation of Mozilla software's quality, the bullies insist, it was their First Amendment right to criticize and boycott Mr. Eich — and that he should have known, that "words have consequences" and censored himself.

    Resigning is no different from suicide in this case — a person is driven to an unpleasant and unwanted action by the words of those, who hate/despise him...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Yes, I too wonder, where SJWs stand on this by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the bullies insist, it was their First Amendment right to criticize and boycott Mr. Eich

      ... and they were right. They do indeed have the right to speak and boycott.

      Resigning is no different from suicide in this case

      Except the resignation was driven by constitutionally protected speech, and the suicide was not. Even if you want to argue that she had no privacy rights, she still owned the copyright on the video, and no one else had the right to copy or publish it without her explicit permission.

    2. Re:Yes, I too wonder, where SJWs stand on this by mi · · Score: 1

      ... and they were right. They do indeed have the right to speak and boycott.

      Sure, sure. And I have the right to find their speech reprehensible and condemn them for causing the degradation of Mozilla software, don't I?

      she still owned the copyright on the video

      So that — the copyright — is your sole argument? Suppose, the copyright was owned by the cameraman, who released the video to public domain? Or the video was "fairly used" by the news-organization to report on the story and/or whatever else?.. Or, maybe, it was leaked by an insider or hacked by "the Russians"?

      So, hey, your only problem with folks driving a woman to suicide is that they violated somebody's copyright doing so... You said it...

      But, according to TFA, you are wrong — it was not the revenue lost to "theft" of the creative work. It was the mockery and bullying, that killed her.

      Now, suppose outing Brendan Eich required some moderately illegal sleuthing/breaking-in... This is Slashdot, where the right to anonymous speech is generally cherished (even if it is not cherished by the State of California). Would you have condemned the outing and the resulting boycott then?

      Of course, not — because how the bullies get the information is irrelevant — it may be a FoIA request, an e-mail hack, or insider job (the last two far more illegal than copyright violation). What matters, is that they use it to bully their victims.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Yes, I too wonder, where SJWs stand on this by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Even if you want to argue that she had no privacy rights, she still owned the copyright on the video, and no one else had the right to copy or publish it without her explicit permission.

      I'm not being a jerk; really trying to make sure I'm not missing something... If you're a child and someone else (parent) takes pictures (videos, whatever) of you, the child (you) have the copyright on them, versus the individual(s) that took the pictures/videos (parents)?

    4. Re:Yes, I too wonder, where SJWs stand on this by swalve · · Score: 1

      The cameraman always has the copyright. It is his/hers to trade away if thet want.

  27. Thank you by Scorpinox · · Score: 1

    Thank you for being the one to say something; you're a good person. The other comments here are unbelievable. It's sickening that we live in an age where an entire country of people can quickly turn on a person for something they did in their private life and ridicule them until they feel that death is the only escape. And perhaps the worst part is that so many people don't seem to recognize the bigger picture of it happening.

    1. Re:Thank you by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Tell me that you would say/feel exactly the same thing if it had been a male not a female.

    2. Re:Thank you by Scorpinox · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course I would be sickened. The capability of mobs to destroy people's lives now, regardless of the person, is disturbing.

  28. What an idiot! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    You do not have the privilege or right to have the internet clean up your mistake that you yourself made. If you don't want something recorded on video, don't record it on video. If you do, don't send it to anyone. That's beyond common sense.

  29. Re:Why not use DMCA or equivalent? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    But quick takedowns for relatively unpopular videos(sextape of a non-famous woman in italy) will tend to essentially erase them from internet memory.

    I think you'll find that simply doesn't work. People like what's forbidden. A quick takedown of a relatively unpopular video will suddenly make it QUITE a popular video. As a matter of fact since this woman's suicide I'd bet the number of people that have seen this video has tripled.

    The easiest way to ensure people want something is to tell them they can't have it, and on the internet people wanting something means it gets shared everywhere.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  30. Constitution... doesn't apply in Italy by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Just to elaborate a bit, all speech is constitutionally protected in the US; anything other than that is simply the result of oath-breaking on the part of congress, and/or state legislatures, and justices, and wholly constitutes invalid law. Not that invalid law is any less unpleasant when the government uses it to commit violence upon your person. Which it does with grinding regularity.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Constitution... doesn't apply in Italy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just to elaborate a bit, all speech is constitutionally protected in the US

      ... except for libel, slander, perjury, credible threats, inciting violence, copyright violations, security clearance violations, illegal recordings, disclosing sealed court documents, public obscenity, etc.

  31. A shame indeed by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, it's truly a shame that the world has become a place where you cannot escape your mistakes, large or small, if someone, anyone, is the least bit interested in seeing to it that you can't. No matter how hard you try, no matter how sincere you are, no matter what lengths you go to to adjust your behavior or act in ways to mitigate or reverse any damage you might have done, or have been perceived to have done.

    It's part and parcel of the retribution over rehabilitation mindset, I think. Despicable, really.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re: A shame indeed by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Panopticon.

      Indeed. And there's this.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  32. Women's? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Was it one woman or several?

  33. The Analog Hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    DRM falls or is circumvented through the final 'analog hole'.

    The analog hole is exactly the problem here. You've put your finger right in it. Er, on it.

  34. Information doesn't "want" anything by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Information doesn't want to be free. You, and people like you, want it to be free. How many people get hurt in the process isn't important enough to you to alter your desire, or, it may be that you simply are unable to comprehend the damage such a desire often does.

    This may well be one of the reasons you describe yourself as a "socially awkward geek." I wouldn't be proud of it, frankly. And, as I see you're posting AC, perhaps you are not.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  35. come on, you can read by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Do you see any of that as exceptions to protected speech in the constitution? No, you don't. No exceptions exist; speech is constitutionally given 100% blanket protection:

    Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

    There. See? Not "except for this speech or that speech", but "speech." Not "this press or that press, but "press." Not "some law", but "no law."

    The things you bring up are exactly what I meant when I said "invalid law." Law made in the face of an explicit prohibition to do so; law made in the face of oaths given to honor the constitution. Those laws are unequivocally are the result of oath-breaking, they are unconstitutional, and they are consequently invalid law in precisely the way I described it.

    Try to keep up. You can object, but you really should read for content so you can object to what was actually said.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:come on, you can read by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Do you see any of that as exceptions to protected speech in the constitution?

      No, but the Supreme Court sees exceptions, and their interpretation of the Constitution is the only one that matters.

      It means what they say it means.

    2. Re:come on, you can read by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Which, again, is exactly what I was saying. They ignore their oaths, and do whatever they want. Just as congress and various state legislatures do.

      SCOTUS has the unique distinction of having awarded themselves a pseudo article 5 fiat power to de facto amend the constitution via Marbury vs. Madison, and they've been radically out of hand ever since. Congress and the state legislatures simply act in defiance of their oaths without additional formalized justification. The fact that the public has let them get away with this while in possession of a tool (voting) that would let them prevent it is one of the key pillars supporting our current form of government, which is an oligarchy.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re: come on, you can read by orlanz · · Score: 2

      Actually SCOTUS is designed just fine (screaming Fire ... Building.. Etc). It's the check against their power that is broken... Congress and Executive.

      SCOTUS was specifically designed to avoid the whims of the political parties and sway of public opinion. That's why their word is supreme and the positions are lifetime.

      SCOTUS only says what is correct per their expertise. Rarely are they wrong. If there are problems with their rulings, it is up to Congress to fix or address. Unlike the Executive, people have direct voting rights to Congressional members.

      But I guess it is just more money and fun to talk about ONE position for 2 years... sadly nothing better is on TV.

    4. Re:come on, you can read by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Which, again, is exactly what I was saying. They ignore their oaths, and do whatever they want.

      Be careful what you wish for. The current interpretation of the First Amendment is much more expansive than it used to be, and protection of free speech in America is likely far broader than the founding fathers intended. Most law enforcement in America is done at the state and local level, and until the Incorporation Doctorine was adopted in 1925, the Bill of Rights did not restrain state and local governments from censoring, jailing dissidents, etc. The Bill of Rights only applied to the Feds. The states were only constrained by their own constitutions.

      God bless the Supreme Court of the United States.

      Disclaimer: The case in TFA occurred in Italy, so we are seriously veering off topic here.

    5. Re:come on, you can read by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court isn't responsible for anything but the proper enforcement of incorporation, which is plainly spelled out in codified law in the Fourteenth Amendment:

      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

      If anything, they have interpreted against the literal meaning of that, which has the implication that states have only the same claims and powers (the inverse of privileges and immunities) as Congress, and thus conversely (when combined with the ninth and tenth amendments) people have privileges and immunities against the vast majority of laws that state governments pass.

      In other words, go down the list of enumerated powers for Congress. The ninth and tenth amendments spell out that those are the only kinds of things Congress can pass laws about, and all other action or inaction on the part of the people or the states is permitted. Then the fourteenth amendment says the states are as limited as Congress, which makes virtually everything on the part of the people permitted. Not actually everything, but a lot more than is actually permitted in practice.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    6. Re: come on, you can read by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      screaming Fire ... Building.. Etc

      So you would arrest everyone who instantiates a fire drill in a school then? Oh, wait -- the presumption is that people can be, and are, trained to deal with this. So no, it's not "just fine", instead, it's mommyism, and illegal mommyism at that.

      If you want to do this legitimately, then article 5 is right there for you to make your changes. Until then, it's garbage law.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    7. Re:come on, you can read by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Be careful what you wish for.

      There's a lot of truth to that. Part of why we ended up where we are is because congress was too cowardly to actually act according to article 5 and make the changes that society needed, some of which were obvious and slam-dunk (excepting nuclear and biological weapons from the 2nd, for instance, wasn't likely to meet any significant resistance at all); instead, they chose fiat lawmaking, and SCOTUS went right along.

      Some of the laws we have are very appropriate to our social structure. But they aren't constitutional.

      What I wish, I can't have, because it would require going back in time and getting those foul fuckers in congress to do their jobs correctly.

      Oh well. Long live the oligarchy.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re: come on, you can read by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I understand it (and I may be wrong) the idea is that "Free Speech" is not a defense for actions that happen as a direct result of your speech.

      For example, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and nobody leaves and the show continues and nothing happens, I can't be arrested just for yelling "Fire!" If I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and the show stops and everybody gets up and calmly leaves the theater, the theater owner could require that I pay for a whole new show for those people. And, of course, if I yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and everyone panics and runs for the exits and tramples others and they're injured or killed, I can't claim "Free Speech" as a defense when I'm held accountable for the deaths of those people.

      Free speech is not a "get out of jail free" card.

      That said, I do think we're seeing more and more laws coming down the pike that try to prevent bad things from happening by basically saying, "You can't say that!"

    9. Re: come on, you can read by swalve · · Score: 1

      Like what? Name a law.

  36. Errrm, ... seriously, I don't get it. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    So this women deliberately had sex with multiple men at the same time. Ok, I understand that. I've had my share of threesomes & orgys/âoegangbangs" and the ladies always loved it.

    She had herself filmed while doing so. For free. Ok, I get that too. Some people dig this, and if she and her lovers looked good doing sex she'd being doing other people a favour with nice free amateur pron. Good thing.

    Here it gets weird: She had herself filmed to make someone - aparently her ex-lover - jealous. Thats imature, silly and dumb, but whatever.

    She sent her ex-lover and some other peole the video. Ok. Fits her plan and intent.

    Then she gets hysterical as the video ends up on the internet. Calls for legal measures to have the video removed, gets depressed and finally kills herself. ... I mean WTF??!?

    Isn't it blatantly obvious to *anybody* that step 2 already basically guarantees that your sextape will end up on the internet with anywhere between a few hundred up to a few million seeing it? What is wrong with people? ... This whole szenario is so patently absurd I almost have difficulty believing it.

    I seriously don't get it.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  37. Sad - but by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    This woman, who thought to perform an act that she would later kill herself over, is really not a right to be forgotten issue.

    Its a sad story of a person with mental health issues. A lot of people have been recorded having sex, and a lot of it has made its way onto the internet. And they do not kill themselves. Her issues were probably there before she decided to try to make her ex jealous. At some point, she thought that was a good action, then she decided it was so humiliating that her only recourse is killing herself? That doesn't ring like a person so humiliated by the internet, but a person with deep issues.

    Sad that she didn't try some counseling before such a drastic action, or someone close to her didn't try to intervene.

    tl;dr version - not a right to be forgotten issue, but a depression, possibly bipolar problem, coupled with people who would like to censor the internet - shamelessly trying to take advantage of her demise for their own purposes.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  38. Re:Fuck her. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Every humans life starts with a specific amount of value.

    I'm worth about tree fitty

    She was a person who not only wanted to hurt other people, but did so in a stupid way. Then when her actions unsurprisingly backfired she lacked any ability to deal with it in an adult manner and just made shit worse.

    Yes, but it needs some study because of the strange aspects of it. Distributing a video of yourself engaging in sexual activity to some people, and in an attempt to make an ex-boyfriend jealous, is a little odd. Then when it gets seen by more people, you find that the solution is killing yourself?

    It's impossible to make a diagnosis from afar, but this sounds more like bipolar depression than stupidiy. Bad decisions without regard for the consequences, then deciding that the results merit suicide, just speaks to something else than embarrassment. I do suspect the poor woman had treatable mental problems.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  39. Re:Fuck her. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Irregardless of her other mental conditions, when she sent that video specifically to hurt another person ...
    Fuck her.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  40. Stupidity has consequences... by gweihir · · Score: 2

    Why is this a surprise? Why do some people think others should be protected against their own, severe stupidity?

    Seriously, it was completely clear and obvious that this video would end up on the Internet. After all, she published it (by sending it to her ex) without conditions or restrictions on its use. That somebody utterly stupid (sorry for speaking ill of the dead, but it is a fact here) may take their own life when they realize how massively they have screwed up is also not new.

    There is _zero_ need to do anything here. Stupid people will always be around and it is not possible to make the world safe for them. A lot of damage can be done by trying though, so the effort itself is utterly evil.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.