Try looking at it from the other direction: someone, perhaps a fan or competitor, sees the pic on the bodybuilder’s website, and then comes across the prostitute posts, either accidentally by directly reading the SDMB or by googling the image. Shazam – defamation etc. made possible through the SDMB. The question now is whether or not such defamation should be prohibited, supported, or ignored.
And you think that person is going to assume, “Hey, turns out she’s a prostitute!” and not, “Looks like someone grabbed one of her public photos off of Google”?
Some will, and some will not. Do I really need to point out examples to you of people jumping to the wrong conclusion, finding scandals where none exist?
Not at all in my opinion. But we do have a couple of other rules that catered to such when they were created. So it’s a reasonable question to wonder what is the rule in this case. Why is my question being ignored?
I’d really like a BLT where the bacon is really crunchy, and the lettuce nice and crisp. Unfortunately, like your answer, one isn’t available right now. We’re discussing it in the mod loop. When we reach a consensus, we’ll let you know.
Well, then I guess we’re good here, because there’s zero chance of any sort of harm befalling whatsherface because someone on the internet stole a picture of her torso.
I wonder how the rules would be applied if one were to insist that one’s self was a male prostitute, go into the Santorish details, and then link to a pic of Ed with his eyes and forehead covered while asserting that the pic is of oneself?
Methinks that the reluctance to declare that kinkyescort’s behaviour is not acceptable is based on the probability of real world consequences being de minimus, and that such reluctance would change if the defamed person was closer to home. I do not think that is a sound basis for a decision on this issue.