Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Navy, Marines Prohibit Sharing Nude Photos In Wake of a Facebook Scandal (fortune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the sign-on-the-dotted-line dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: The Navy and Marine Corps issued new regulations that ban members from sharing nude photographs following a scandal involving military personnel sharing intimate pictures of their female colleagues -- some of which were taken without their knowledge -- in a secret Facebook group. The new statute, which was signed Tuesday by Acting Navy Secretary Sean Stackley, went into effect immediately and will be made permanent when the next edition of the Navy's regulations is printed, according to Navy Times. Military courts will handle violations of the new rule. The crackdown comes after a Facebook group was uncovered featuring naked photos of female service members. The group was eventually shut down by Facebook after a request from the Marine Corps. The Center for Investigative Reporting found that some of the photographs posted on the Facebook group may have been taken consensually, but others may not have been.

79 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. The Village People will be upset by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    No reason now to be "in the Navy"

    1. Re:The Village People will be upset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression it wasn't female members they wanted. Or maybe I'm just mixing up the message from their other hit song.

    2. Re:The Village People will be upset by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Navy's always had sort of a conflicted sexuality.

      As they used to say in WWII, "Don't come knockin' if this destroyer's a rockin'"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:The Village People will be upset by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What sort of cunt uses the perjorative 'fags'?

      Ironic indeed given you're talking about marines and the Navy.

  2. Ick by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    That's really creepy.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Ick by Imrik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may have missed the part where a many of the pictures were taken without the knowledge of the subjects.

    2. Re:Ick by GNious · · Score: 1

      Once again, common sense has flown right out the window....

      Seriously, if you do NOT want to risk having nude or even more compromising images of yourself being posted online or in dead tree form....DON"T EVER BE NUDE ANYWHERE, AT ALL!

      There, FTFY.

    3. Re:Ick by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      And if you don't want to risk having your Porsche stolen, take the bus.

    4. Re:Ick by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'm suddenly reminded of a character on Arrested Development.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  3. Good luck with that! by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good luck with this policy. At best a few sailors or marines will be busted each year for their stupidity, but the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.

    I've never been in the armed services but I was under the impression that one of the most important rules for those in authority was do not give orders that one knows will not be followed. Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Good luck with that! by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple solution. Required genital tattoos with identifying numbers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: Good luck with that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But then sailors who undergo gender reassignment surgery will lose their ID...

    3. Re: Good luck with that! by TWX · · Score: 1

      You could put them on the pubic mound. Unfortunately tall blonde women may end up with, "Lucky You" instead of whatever serial number was called for.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Good luck with that! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.

      That is the way it should be. Unless there is an actual complaint, who cares? If there is a complaint, you can't weasel out of it by saying "She said it was okay".

      Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.

      Not really. Just like with civilian laws, there are some that are taken seriously, and others that are routinely ignored.

      Disclaimer: I was a Marine, but that was back before photography had been invented. Semper Fi.

    5. Re: Good luck with that! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      All armed services members need to be protected. That's the whole fucking enchilada. They wear protective gear; they protect each other; they protect us. A Marine that doesn't feel the need to be protected is going to be a dead Marine if they aren't sectioned out first.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re: Good luck with that! by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm guessing you've never served in the Armed Forces.

      Part of what it means to be in the military is that you're expected to look out for your buddies, whether male or female. You're supposed to be able to count on them to have your back, and you theirs. The military is expected to act as groups, not as a gaggle of individuals, and spends lots of time training to do exactly that..

      Personally, I'd believe that this sort of conduct was already punishable under a number of UCMJ articles - certainly under Article 134, "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline." I'm not a military lawyer (or lawyer at all), but depending on circumstances there's a number of other Articles that such activity would likely be in violation of. Regardless of that, though, this kind of conduct is utterly toxic for any sort of unit, and I'm not in the least surprised that they're cracking down on it.

    7. Re:Good luck with that! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I was a Marine, but that was back before photography had been invented. Semper Fi.

      Back then, you used to pass around woodcut prints of naked women. They were harder to carry in your wallet, though.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Good luck with that! by meglon · · Score: 1

      I've never been in the armed services....

      Clearly. Don't worry though because you've obviously got enough company (of people who don't know dick about the military) to vote your comment up.

      Orders in the military are followed; you don't get an opinion about it. The reason is that, unlike most professions, that next order may place you in mortal danger. Refusing to follow orders will get you disciplined.... you don't get to pick and choose.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    9. Re:Good luck with that! by chrpai · · Score: 1

      \I've never been in the armed services but

      No offense, but you should have started and stopped right there. No offense, but since you've never served you don't know what you are talking about and it isn't your concern anyways. Start by reading UCMJ article 134 aka "General Article". It's the one they can throw at you because they felt like it. Certainly what has happened in the FaceBook groups falls under the description of bringing discredit to the armed forces. USMC.. You Signed (the) Mother* Contract. All your SJW snowflake rights were waived at the door. Semper Fi

    10. Re:Good luck with that! by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1

      You mean for once it's not the gay boys causing trouble in the military??

      --
      slashdot: A failed experiment.
    11. Re:Good luck with that! by jittles · · Score: 1

      Good luck with this policy. At best a few sailors or marines will be busted each year for their stupidity, but the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.

      I've never been in the armed services but I was under the impression that one of the most important rules for those in authority was do not give orders that one knows will not be followed. Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.

      I dated a Navy JAG for a bit and they actually love these kinds of orders from Sec Navy. Well, commanding officers do. It's a great way to get rid of someone you don't like because it's easy to selectively enforce the rule. Not only that, but when it comes time to prosecute, the JAGs often request a reduction in sentence or charges and the commanding officer for the unit in question is able to accept the reduction, or not, based on whether they want that person to be able to stay inside of the command. There are, of course, risks to the commanding officer if they choose to keep someone who later causes problems, but most of the time it's the officers or enlisted people that they want out of the Navy that have these charges brought against them to begin with.

    12. Re:Good luck with that! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Don't worry though because you've obviously got enough company (of people who don't know dick about the military)

      Does that include you?

      Orders in the military are followed; you don't get an opinion about it.

      Just up the thread, a guy who was in the marines:

      Just like with civilian laws, there are some that are taken seriously, and others that are routinely ignored.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    13. Re:Good luck with that! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Good luck with this policy. At best a few sailors or marines will be busted each year for their stupidity, but the vast majority of incidents will never see any enforcement.

      I've never been in the armed services but I was under the impression that one of the most important rules for those in authority was do not give orders that one knows will not be followed. Issuing orders that won't be followed helps destroy one's own authority.

      If you think that following orders is a question of only choosing the ones you agree with, you really don't want to consider a career in the armed services.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Good luck with that! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What problem would that solve? They want to catch the people doing the recording, not the ones being recorded.

      Which may also differ from the ones doing the uploading.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    15. Re: Good luck with that! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      These guys have no respect for fellow human beings. Shameful.

      FTFY. Why is this specifically about marines? :P

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    16. Re:Good luck with that! by Megol · · Score: 1

      O_o;;

      How old are you? Are you a vampire?

  4. as usual, title and summary incorrect by iggymanz · · Score: 5, Informative

    sharing of "intimate images" (defined) that were taken without consent is what is prohibited:

    2. Article 1168 of reference (a) is added to read as follows:
            a. 1168. Nonconsensual distribution or broadcasting of an image
                    (1) The wrongful distribution or broadcasting of an intimate image is
    prohibited.
                    (2) The distribution or broadcasting is wrongful if the person making
    the distribution or broadcast does so without legal justification or excuse,
    knows or reasonably should know that the depicted person did not consent to
    the disclosure, and the intimate image is distributed or broadcast:
                            (a) With the intent to realize personal gain;
                            (b) With the intent to humiliate, harm, harass, intimidate,
    threaten, or coerce the depicted person; or
                            (c) With reckless disregard as to whether the depicted person
    would be humiliated, harmed, intimidated, threatened, or coerced.

    1. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thanks for the text, though your summary doesn't quite say the same thing as the text. You said it prohibits sharing of intimate images "that were taken without consent," but what this text actually bans is sharing of intimate images where "the depicted person did not consent to the disclosure." The word "disclosure" isn't defined, but presumably it would also cover instances where the TAKING of the image was consensual but the DISTRIBUTION was NOT consensual.

    2. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      sharing of "intimate images" (defined) that were taken without consent is what is prohibited:

      Not quite. Not only the "taking", but also the "distribution" must be consensual. So just because your GF lets you photo her boobs, that doesn't give you the right to share the photo with others.

    3. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well, great big ole fail there. Forget to define intimate didn't we, so https://www.google.com.au/sear.... Wow Google, you so evil, intimate image of mother and child. What the fuck US navy, seriously, take a picture of mother and child and go to jail, how fuckings nuts are you, sounds like some tools need to get grip of themselves or is that loosen up their grip, you know choking the chicken, buk buk bu-gaacccckkkk.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, the article defines "intimate" too, look it up if you are curious what they meant

    5. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      So just because your GF lets you photo her boobs, that doesn't give you the right to share the photo with others.

      The same goes for your wife.

      Your wife or ex-wife is not allowed to post naked pictures of your GF on Facebook.

    6. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Actually, it really should. Even RMS has repeatedly stated that different types of information should be covered by different laws - since there is no one-size-fits-all that works. Generally usefull technical information (like source code) ought to be freely redistributable, artistic expression should be redistributable but not usable for derivative works without consent, and individual private information like medical records should not be redistributable at all without specific consent. Intimate photos clearly fall in the 'individual private information' category.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:as usual, title and summary incorrect by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Various revenge pornography laws deny the right to distribute images of a particular nature.

      I suspect a model release form would suffice, but good luck getting an ex (or colleague that didn't even know you'd taken the pictures) to sign one of those.

      Could get interesting if the subject tries to revoke a release form. No idea what happens there. Lawyers get richer, is my guess.

  5. The price of "freedom" by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Center for Investigative Reporting found that some of the photographs posted on the Facebook group may have been taken consensually, but others may not have been.

    50 years ago, all of those photos would have been classified as obscene materials and no one would have voluntarily taken them except between some husbands and wives. The single most overlooked practical value that the "old norms" had was simplifying things to the point that someone with a 80 IQ could merrily engage with the opposite sex and know with 99% certainty what was permissible and what wasn't.

    The issue also applies to rape as well, outside of clearly forcible rape. Legal fornication acts as static against the signal as far as law enforcement goes. They must now prove purely a state of mind and cannot rely on circumstantial evidence like "normal girls don't ever have one night stands with men they just met."

    In many respects, it is not at all obvious that we are freer today than we were when social and legal conventions were simpler and tighter. Now, if anything, the degree of subjectivity is enormously empowering to bureaucrats and law enforcement. Hell, our own former Vice President said that literally all drunken sex involves a female rape victim. That means if you are married, and your wife happily has drunken sex with you, you are open to being accused of rape between the legal acceptance of marital rape and various other statutes like the ones regulating intoxication (and that the state does not need the "victim's" permission to prosecute).

    I'll go pop a soma now. It'll take the edge off of our brave new world.

    1. Re:The price of "freedom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      50 years ago, all of those photos would have been classified as obscene materials and no one would have voluntarily taken them except between some husbands and wives.

      50 years ago is 1967, and I can assure you, there were LOTS of such photos even then. Mostly using Polaroid Instant Film, but some that required developing.

      The thing is, now we have a lot more cameras, and no need to even wait for the photo to develop.

      The issue also applies to rape as well, outside of clearly forcible rape. Legal fornication acts as static against the signal as far as law enforcement goes. They must now prove purely a state of mind and cannot rely on circumstantial evidence like "normal girls don't ever have one night stands with men they just met."

      On the other hand, they also sometimes have interest in actually giving a crap that rapes occurred, in marriage, outside of marriage, and in circumstances they'd just laugh off otherwise.

    2. Re:The price of "freedom" by quantaman · · Score: 2

      The Center for Investigative Reporting found that some of the photographs posted on the Facebook group may have been taken consensually, but others may not have been.

      50 years ago, all of those photos would have been classified as obscene materials and no one would have voluntarily taken them except between some husbands and wives.

      And a woman would have her reputation destroyed with an affair, or depending on the social circle, pre-marital sex.

      The single most overlooked practical value that the "old norms" had was simplifying things to the point that someone with a 80 IQ could merrily engage with the opposite sex and know with 99% certainty what was permissible and what wasn't.

      Whenever you see a seemingly simple set of rules start thinking about how you can get around them, think about how far you could "engage" with the opposite sex before going too far and realize everyone back then was doing the same.

      I suspect the rules were a lot more complicated than you realize.

      The issue also applies to rape as well, outside of clearly forcible rape. Legal fornication acts as static against the signal as far as law enforcement goes. They must now prove purely a state of mind and cannot rely on circumstantial evidence like "normal girls don't ever have one night stands with men they just met."

      Try charging someone with date rape 50 years ago, hell, try charging them with marital rape, in most places it didn't even exist!

      In many respects, it is not at all obvious that we are freer today than we were when social and legal conventions were simpler and tighter.

      In most respects the major freedoms we lost were the freedom to use our power to take away other's freedom.

      Now, if anything, the degree of subjectivity is enormously empowering to bureaucrats and law enforcement. Hell, our own former Vice President said that literally all drunken sex involves a female rape victim.

      No, the author of the article was just a disingenuous hack who was deliberately misinterpreting Biden's comment to ignore the obvious fact that Biden meant too drunk to consent.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:The price of "freedom" by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      50 years ago, all of those photos would have been classified as obscene materials

      Horseshit. People have been sharing photos of naked people since the camera was invented. There's nothing at all new here. 50 years ago you could have gotten in deep shit for sharing photos of naked people without their consent. Today you can get in deep shit for sharing photos of naked people without their consent. Heck 65 years ago men were staring at nude images of Marilyn Monroe purchasable from a News outlet. The concept of consent and model releases predate Playboy too.

      The only thing that has changed is that women stopped just lying and taking it when a superior male told them what to do. Incidentally the majority of this changed 50 years ago as well.

      If you only just discovered the brave new world, you must have been in a long coma.

    4. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Drunken sex IS rape - unless you had consent for sex BEFORE she got drunk. Drunk people cannot consent. Now I enjoy a few glasses of wine before a romp too - but if alcohol and sex are both on the menu, I make damn sure we have an agreement about the sex BEFORE the booze is pored. Not because of any fear of legal repercussions- because I'm not an asshole.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:The price of "freedom" by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      I believe that things were just as complicated then, the only difference was that people hid them better. People always get turned on by sick shit, and will always look for the law's blindspots.

      --
      Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    6. Re:The price of "freedom" by swb · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that in this apocryphal past the GP describes it sure seems like there were a lot of affairs. It seems that when I'm reading something about history and I run into so-and-so having an affair, taking a lover, etc.

      And prostitution was pretty widely established and widespread, which I assume was something of a tacitly accepted alternative to more socially disruptive extramarital sex -- no ruined reputations or social reputations, especially if a pregnancy occurred.

      Whatever the public and religiously minded sexual norms were in days of yore, it sure seems like there was still a lot of sex going on, however furtive it was.

    7. Re:The price of "freedom" by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Drunken sex is not necessarily rape. Drunk people are accountable for their decision to drive a motor vehicle and are frequently accountable for their choice whether to have sex.

      Personally I prefer to avoid drunk women. They're just not attractive - unless I'm very drunk myself, in which case they're legally obliged not to rape me.

    8. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      By law, you cannot consent to sex unless you are of sound mind - if you aren't legally able to drive, you aren't legally able to consent to sex. Legally - it's not different than fucking a 15 year old - and in both cases, it's rape.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    9. Re:The price of "freedom" by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      In most respects the major freedoms we lost were the freedom to use our power to take away other's freedom.

      There's a perception and, in some cases, a correlated reality that we've lost reasonable human behavior, too. Flirting is considered sexual harassment, depending on the context; in some cases, an action is either cute or creepy depending entirely on if the recipient responds well (e.g. "admirer" vs "stalker", same thing).

      At my place of work, they explicitly put in training that sexual harassment doesn't occur on the first offense of non-tangible-action harassment. That means if you tell a coworker she's hot and you want to hook up with her, that's not sexual harassment unless you keep doing it; if you tell a subordinate you want her boobs and threaten her promotion, that's sexual harassment the first time it's even barely suspected.

      Meanwhile, if 500 guys walk by a girl and each whistle at her once and are unaware of each others's existence, the Internet makes a video about it and calls whistling sexual harassment.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    10. Re:The price of "freedom" by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares. I've had this discussion before. I got women involved and they started arguing that it's their fault if they get fucked while blind-drunk. At a point I just gave up and went back to playing video games.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    11. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The law cares. The police cares. Judges care. Cyclists from Sweden care - enough to tackle your arse and hold you down until authorities arrive. It seems rather a lot of voters care. In fact... it would seem that your assessment of "nobody" is based on an exceedingly small and unrepresentative sample size.

      If you have sex with a woman who is too drunk to drive, and did not get consent while she was still fully sober, you deserve to go to jail for a couple of decades -where you will get to experience the same crime you committed toward her on a daily basis and hopefully come to understand why this is not something that anybody should ever experience.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:The price of "freedom" by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, I'm in America, this happens all the time, nobody gets arrested, and DJs in bars universally encourage people to drink more alcohol by suggesting they're going to take some hot drunk cheerleaders home tonight. I've already made the argument and literally nobody cares. The same people will argue that it's wrong and rape on Facebook or in an open Internet forum, and then forget they said that when Saturday Night rolls around and they're buttfucking two 20-year-old underaged drinkers--after showing up to the bar at 11pm so the girls are already pretty into it and they don't have to wait for them to get drunk (yes, that's a popular strategy).

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    13. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Yeah, well, I'm in America
      So were those cyclists from Sweden. They were exchange students - and the heroes of the Brock Turner case.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:The price of "freedom" by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Why would fucking a 15 yr old be rape? I guess if you're in a position of authority, you can abuse that but the idea that in some places a 15 yr old can't consent while in other places a 13 yr old can consent seems arbitrary.
      Same with the idea that a small woman who had one glass of wine no longer being able to consent. Pissed drunk, I can see but it is still a fuzzy line

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    15. Re:The price of "freedom" by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      if you aren't legally able to drive, you aren't legally able to consent to sex

      I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this if it was actually applied equally. But in almost every case I've seen (yes, admittedly just anecdotal), when both a man and a woman are drunk and have sex, it's the man who gets blamed. If they're both drunk enough to not be able to consent, then either they raped each other or there was no rape.

      Obviously, if someone is sober or just tipsy and takes advantage of someone much drunker than they, that's a different ballpark.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    16. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Perhaps - but the law has to draw the line somewhere, that's one of the reasons we HAVE laws.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That, however, is an entirely different and in fact entirely unrelated problem.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:The price of "freedom" by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's entirely unrelated; if we said drunk sex wasn't rape, then the problem wouldn't exist. It's a different problem, with additional causes, but entirely unrelated? No.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    19. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      But it would still BE rape to have sex with somebody unable to consent. That we don't take rape of men as seriously is a whole different problem - no less serious - but quite unrelated in causes and best responses.

      Marital rape was always rape - it didn't magically turn into it when we finally started recognizing that in law - the law just took rather long to catch up with basic decency.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    20. Re:The price of "freedom" by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      in some places a 15 yr old can't consent while in other places a 13 yr old can consent

      Not in North America. At a state level, the lowest is 16.
      Unless you go to Mexico and further south.

      seems arbitrary.

      Well, yeah. How else would you do it? Have the jury talk to the victim and decide case-per-case whether they consented? That's a terrible idea.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    21. Re:The price of "freedom" by Megol · · Score: 1

      Strangely those that use that argument tend to ignore the case of very drunk guys hooking up with very drunk gals and having sex (the standard). Do they then rape each other?

      Ludicrous!

    22. Re:The price of "freedom" by Megol · · Score: 1

      So you are an idiot. Thank you for wasting my time.

    23. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's not an 'argument' it's the law. If you don't like the law - then get politically active and convince your representatives to change the law.

      Good luck with that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    24. Re:The price of "freedom" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Suppose I see a young woman limiting her drinks, and I spike them. She gets blind-drunk and I take advantage of the situation. It seems to me that it's my fault.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:The price of "freedom" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Rape laws now often have exceptions for when the two people are sufficiently close in age. In this state, a 13-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old isn't necessarily rape, but make one of those two 15 years old and it is.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:The price of "freedom" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are flat out incorrect. Getting consent before drinking means nothing. Consent can be given or removed at any point. As soon as someone is drunk any consent they previously gave is invalid as they aren't of right mind to properly evaluate the situation and actively give/withdraw consent as needed. Even a written and signed contract isn't good enough. It is legally impossible to have sex with a drink female, it's always rape. Males on the other hand should know better. For some reason it's near impossible to rape a male. If you're hard then you're consenting, which is completely not how the body works.

      Drunken people are at fault for driving. It's a double-standard, especially against straight males when the female isn't arrested for rape.

    27. Re:The price of "freedom" by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that long ago that the age of consent was raised from 14 to 16 (misremembered as 13-15) here and a 14 yr old can still legally consent to sex with a 19 yr old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Rape cases often do involve trying to find out if the victim actually consented or not, though I don't think it is the jury doing the asking.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    28. Re:The price of "freedom" by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The problem is when the line is drawn to make some special interest group happy rather then based on reality. Drunk driving laws for example, the legal limit here seems to get lowered every time some cute girl is ran over by someone who was pissed drunk. Does smelling a wine cork really turn you into a bad driver? Does lowering the legal limit really stop someone who ignored the limit previously?
      Likewise, are some young woman in certain countries/states really less capable of consenting?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    29. Re:The price of "freedom" by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That is. In that case, you've adulterated the drinks without her knowledge. That's a legal distinction that can counter any argument in any non-retarded legal climate--that is to say: if the local courts determine that women in general go out, get drunk, and accept the consequences as a matter of culture (because "let's get drunk and screw" is a thing as much as "I was drunk when I said that!"), they might or might not claim the venue implied tacit acceptance of sexual advances while drunk; if you knowingly and purposely conceal the administration of an intoxicant to a woman, she hasn't made a consensual decision to become intoxicated, which is a hell of a lot more concrete.

      People are arguing whether or not hooking up while drunk in a bar is a crime against the drunk party(/ies). In America, the normal cultural answer is "no", which is perplexing but still a factual description of how people perceive bar hopping. Nobody's been insane enough to argue that drugging someone without their knowledge isn't date rape.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    30. Re:The price of "freedom" by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I think perhaps we're arguing about slightly different things. My point was that when both parties are unable to consent, that men almost always still get blamed, not that male rape isn't taken seriously (although that is also true, and also - as we agree - a problem). If, legally, we said that in situations where both parties are unable to consent - but are still conscious and consenting as much as possible in their inebriated state (to address loopholes that assholes would abuse) - that no crime was committed, then most of the problem I'm talking about would go away.

      I'm not advocating for changing the legal definition of rape so that drunk people can always consent, but I'm saying that in situations where two (or more) drunk people willingly hook up, neither/none of them should be charged.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    31. Re:The price of "freedom" by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      But those are two sides of the same coin. In this scenario - both parties are guilty and victims - the most sane thing is for the law to take a hands-off approach, much like Romeo-and-Juliet laws do for statutory rape when both parties are below the age of consent. The reason this doesn't happen in this scenario is because the male rape part of the equation isn't taken seriously.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    32. Re:The price of "freedom" by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's a fair argument.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  6. Wikileaks needs to look into this by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I'm awaiting the Wikileaks for this. Because the sailors work for the citizens and whatever, of course.

  7. Perhaps an over-simplification by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    What if she is in the shower, changing room, bathroom, etc. Can you guarantee that someone won't come in and secretly take pictures?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Perhaps an over-simplification by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Why does that need a separate decree, rather than just being prosecuted...?

    2. Re:Perhaps an over-simplification by chammel · · Score: 1

      By making this an "Order" even if they cannot find anything to charge you with you can still be charged with failure to follow a direct order. A lot of the orders like this allow the military to reprimand or charge someone under the Uniform code of Military Justice (UCMJ) without having to go back to congress to get the UCMJ amended.

      --
      Neutrons are slippery little rascals, they can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect.
    3. Re:Perhaps an over-simplification by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Why does that need a separate decree, rather than just being prosecuted...?

      Because to prosecute someone for taking secret pictures of someone in the shower, you need to prove that that specific person took the pictures.

      To prosecute someone for posting them online, you only need to prove they posted them.

      They may have been taken years before they were posted, or they may have been taken by someone else. They may have been taken with permission, but not with permission to post.

  8. Compounding a bad decision with another one by supercell · · Score: 1

    So the idea of male / female armed forces was really not that well thought out. I mean do they really think a bunch of late teen/20 somethings will not sharing nude pictures this day and age? They are creating more problems than existed in the first place.

    1. Re:Compounding a bad decision with another one by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Sharing nudes ? Not a problem. Taking nudes ? Not a problem. Still not against the rules either.
      Doing either without the consent of the nude people - big problem.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  9. Skewed by freudigst · · Score: 1

    As if American men weren't clearly desperate enough already...

  10. USMC and USN are separate military services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let me explain something to you fags who never served : Marines are in the Navy.

    Nope. USMC and USN are separate military services. Although they both report to the same governmental agency, the Department of the Navy, which is run by the Secretary of the Navy, a civilian. The CG also reports to this department when they are on military missions rather than law enforcement missions.

    1. Re:USMC and USN are separate military services by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Separate but pretty intertwined. Marines hold some of the same shipboard positions as sailors, and the USMC has no medical corps -- it goes into action with Navy corpsmen.

  11. seriously? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    They had to make a rule that tells people not to do this?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  12. Re: by kurkosdr · · Score: 2

    Can I have some sample pictures of that Facebook group, so I can gain a further insight into that delicate problem?