First, let me start off by saying that both acts were a gross violation of trust, and possibly illegal. That said, I don’t really get the differences in how the public is reacting to these to fairly similar incidents. The recent Apple i-cloud leak of photos has prompted commentary comparing the leak to rape, and the people looking at the photos to sex offenders. I’m talking about comments like these:
Compare that to the commentary when the Anthony Weiner photos leaked:
I think the disparity in treatment is even worse considering the outcomes. I don’t think any woman who has had her photos leaked has suffered any career damage as a result. Weiner’s career was destroyed. They guy became a walking joke because of his poor judgment. Also note that almost no one has an issue saying Weiner has poor judgment. Furthermore, the media had no problem interviewing these women who leaked or commented on their private conversations with Weiner. Those women are, in my opinion, just as guilty of an ethical breech as the people who leaked and shared the Lawrence pictures.
Now there are some differences, notably the apparent motivations of the perpetrators. That said, why does it matter if the impetus is prurience rather than political destruction? The latter actually seems more personal and offensive to me in some ways. There is also the issue that the photos were stolen by a third party as opposed to being sold by an involved party. Again though, why does that matter if we are arguing about privacy, consent, and agency? Clearly Weiner would have wanted to keep his photos and conversations private, so why doesn’t he have the same rights as the Slate author argued women do?
Why is the fair to say Weiner was an idiot for not anticipating betrayal committed by the consenting adults he sent pictures to, but unfair to say actresses and actors who take compromising photos of themselves, then upload them to the cloud are exercising similarly poor judgment? Is it egregiously poor? No. Does it excuse the crime committed? No. But it does strike me as similarly to the poor judgement exercised by someone who sends large sums of cash in the mail, or who leaves their bike unlocked in a city. Of course you don’t deserve to be victimized, but smart people should recognize they are taking a calculated risk.
Do you think the differences in how these cases are perceived is because Jennifer Lawrence and others in this case are generally likable, and Weiner (or even Paris Hilton, whose privacy has been violated in similar ways and whose house has been burglarized by fans) isn’t? Why is the Lawrence breech prompting other women to show their breast on Twitter in solidarity, while the Weiner case prompted jokes and derision? Is that really a fair double standard?
Are you insane? There is a big difference between sending dick pics to someone who then leaks them and having private images stolen and then released. If that isn’t clear to you then any discussion is meaningless.
In the case of Jennifer Lawrence and the other female celebrities, somebody broke the law and hacked into their private accounts and published their private photos.
Weinergate broke because he sent a dick pick to a woman who had done nothing to solicit the picture or imply she wanted to see his wang and she wound up sharing the picture with the world.
It’s worth noting if the the authorities capture the hacker responsible he’ll probably get something like ten years in prison, which is what the guy who hacked Scarlet Johannsen and Mila Kunis’ phones.
There’s reason that Jennifer Lawrence’s reps want the FBI involved while Weiner tried to prevent the FBI from getting involved.
At best, the Weiner case is revenge porn which is still a similar ethical breach and often illegal. The pics of Weiner were leaked without his knowledge or consent. Do you think that isn’t wrong?
Correct.
That is in debate. I think at least some of the women he spoke to have later admitted they were either exchanging photos themselves, or were engaging in a sexual conversation (which was also leaked). But let’s say Weiner misread the situation and sent the pic without being explicitly asked. Does that give someone else the right to sell the pic?
I suppose it’s because Weiner didn’t want any more scrutiny or attention. That doesn’t really speak to the issue.
Let me add that I think the level of scrutiny people like Weiner and Lawrence should be subject to is commensurate with the foreseeability of the their private words and images being exposed. The same applies to Apple as well. I don’t hear people absolving Apple of culpability here because someone broke into their systems. They needed to exercise better security protocols because they should know that they are routinely subject to these intrusions. Same applies to any celebrity thinking their privacy is sacrosanct. It probably should be, but we all know it’s not. Given that reality, uploading photos you don’t want to be seen is exercising poor judgment. It’s not an attack on women, or a victim-blaming any more than any other leak is. It’s just the people being shitty, and people who should know better failing to realize it.
Yes, it is. There were (unfortunately) several incidents with Weiner. In some of them he was soliciting, but in others he was engaged in mutual sexting with women, whot then opportunistically sold him out; this was the case with the charming Miss Sydney Leathers, for one.
Do you have a cite for that? Yes, he accidentally posted a photo on his public Twitter feed, but that is not the photo (or the discussions) in question.
…if you send me a private message using the straightdope messaging system, there is nothing you can do to stop me from distributing telling everyone what you wrote short of an injunction. And if you sent me a photo of your dick it wouldn’t be very nice of me to show everyone else your dick, but it wouldn’t be illegal.
Which is completely different to what the hackers did.
Why wouldn’t I be. Please explain to me the fundamental difference between what Sydney Leathers did to Weiner and what the guy in this article about revenge porn legislation in CA did?
…how about we stick to the comparisons between the Jennifer Lawrence leak and the Weiner leak first? Only ten posts into your thread and you already want to change the subject?
Yes, the law views them as very different. That is clearly not the issue. The issue is why one foreseeable breach of privacy is different than another? Because one breach was committed by opportunists, and the other was committed by opportunistic thieves? Because I don’t think people are getting riled up about the theft part as much as the usurpation of agency and breach of privacy.
I don’t think any reasonable person would not realize that naked pics of famous people are routinely stolen. Fairly legitimate magazines pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for pics of a famous person’s baby. Is there any doubt people would go to absurd lengths to get compromising photos of the celebrities themselves? Producing such things, then uploading them is tantamount to accepting the risks that go along with such things. Additionally, it was clear even before the Snowden leaks that technology doesn’t even guarantee a basic expectation of privacy. Especially if you are uploading to another computer and trusting a faceless corporation to protect you. Why is it considered heresy to point out that you cannot be shocked, surprised, or amazed when your privacy is invaded, and that as a famous person, you need to do more to protect yourself if you don’t want things like this to happen.
Not sure where your confusion lies. In the OP, I said, “I don’t really get the differences in how the public is reacting to these to fairly similar incidents”. I only mentioned in passing the differences with regard to the law. Now if you want to argue that the act of them being stolen is the main issue, that’s fine. BUu then why all these comments about how each person viewing the images is violating these women anew, and how the breach of privacy is the issue.
Plus, I sincerely doubt that if Justin Verlander had intentionally leaked the photos of Kate Upton, we would be paying him for interviews and putting him on TV like we did for Leathers and others in the Weiner case. It’s not just a matter of HOW the public got the photos, it’s a larger double standard that may in fact be valid, but seems to have worked to Weiner and others’ detriment.
…there wasn’t an outcry when the Paris Hilton or the Kim Kardashian sex tapes were made public. The issue isn’t simply the “violation of privacy”, but the hacking and the violation of the law.
And the subject is “Why is the Jennifer Lawrence leak worse than the Anthony Weiner leak?” That question has been pretty much answered. There are big differences between the two cases.
I’m not confused. These aren’t fairly similar incidents. They are nothing alike at all.
You need to prove your initial premise first: that these two incidents are similar, before we can even consider debating that premise.