# Why is the Jennifer Lawrence leak worse than the Anthony Weiner leak? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2014, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328 "2014-09-03T03:17:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/101 "2014-09-06T01:55:49Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I agree with **Jimmy Chitwood** : > I think **Brickbacon** has a good point to make about the double-standard w/r/t to gender and sexual privacy, though he has made it somewhat poorly. The better counterpart to the celebrity hack would have been the nude photos of NBA player Greg Oden, which were clearly hacked and released against his will, and to which the media response was largely “holy cow, look at how big this guy’s dick is!” (To judge the differing tone of that controversy, it was _Oden_ who apologized for the photos’ existence. AFAIK, it was not investigated) > > I also note that Justin Verlander doesn’t seem to be getting the same victim treatment as Kate Upton does, even though her entire career and celebrity is based on her willingness to be photographed nearly-nude and capitalize on her sexuality, while his has nothing to do with it. (And yes, I’m aware that some of the hacks involved women that don’t trade on their sexuality; AFAICT, though nobody’s making the case that McKayla Maroney’s more of a victim than Upton is). > Mind you, I’m not shocked or surprised by any of this, nor am I even necessarily opposed to it – but then I think that our different treatment of male and female sexality (mostly) makes sense, becuse we do in fact have fundamentally, biologically, different sexual natures. > > It’s more of a problem for the people who want to both > > - Complain that a promiscuous woman is judged more harshly than a promiscuous man. > AND > - Act blase about Oden or Verlander’s photo hack (or even make it a topic for humor) but treat a woman’s differently. > > _That_ is bullshit. And I think that’s the kind of thinking **Brickbacon** was responding to. If **Brickbacon** had made these arguments, the thread would have gone differently. Weiner was the wrong counter-point. There is a type of sexism in the way the different victims have been treated in the media coverage, depending on gender. I was not even aware men were targeted by hacker(s) until recently. It was all JLaw _Boobies_ etc. Definitely a slant towards the titilating. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/102 "2014-09-06T03:08:43Z")
Let’s first get the storyline and facts right. A quick reference to the scandal is [in wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandals) so I’m not going to repeat the whole thing, but here’s the basic plot. 1. Act I > [@](#): > > On May 27, 2011, using his public Twitter account, Weiner sent a link to a photo on yfrog[11][21] of his erect penis concealed by boxer briefs to a 21-year-old female college student from Seattle, Washington, who was “following” his posts on the social media website.[22] Though the link was quickly removed from Weiner’s Twitter account, screen shots of Weiner’s original message and of the photo were captured by a user identified as “Dan Wolfe” on Twitter and subsequently sent to conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart who published them on his BigGovernment website the following day. 1. Weiner goes into full denial. > [@](#): > > On June 1, Weiner gave a series of interviews in which he denied sending the photo and suggested that someone, perhaps a political opponent, had hacked into his accounts and published the photo.[24] Weiner also said he could not say “with certitude” that the photo was not of him. He suggested that the image might be doctored, saying, “Maybe it did start being a photo of mine and now looks something different or maybe it is from another account.”[25][26][27] He did not ask the FBI or U.S. Capitol Police to investigate the incident[28] but said he had retained a private security firm to look into this matter because he felt it was a prank, not a crime.[29] Several liberal bloggers accused Wolfe and Breitbart of planting the photo and message as part of a scheme to defame Weiner. 1. Other come forward. > [@](#): > > On June 6, Breitbart posted a cropped, shirtless picture of Weiner obtained from a second woman on the Internet.[23][35][36] and said Weiner had sent more pictures of himself, including at least one that was sexually graphic.[37] My note here: IIRC, a major motivation for others coming forward was that Weiner was lying about the initial photo. 1. Caught in a lie, Weiner comes clean. Sort of. > [@](#): > > After publication of this information, Weiner held a press conference in New York at which he apologized, saying, “I have not been honest with myself, my family, my constituents, my friends and supporters, and the media” and that, “to be clear, the picture was of me, and I sent it.”[38] After prompting from reporters, he specifically apologized to Andrew Breitbart.[39][40] He also said he had “engaged in several inappropriate conversations conducted over Twitter, Facebook, email and occasionally on the phone” and had exchanged “messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years”. He added he had never met or had a physical relationship with any of them. He said he was “deeply ashamed” of his “terrible judgment and actions”, which he called “very dumb.” 1. Political reaction > [@](#): > > On the afternoon of June 6, 2011, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for an investigation by the House Ethics Committee to determine “whether any official resources were used or any other violation of House rules occurred”.[53] A number of Democratic and Republican congressmen called for Weiner’s resignation.[54] On June 7, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called for him to resign, and challenged Pelosi to suggest the same. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R, VA) said he should resign, opining: “The last thing we need is to be immersed in discussion about Congressman Weiner and his Twitter activities.”[55] House Democrats who called for him to resign on June 8 included Representatives Allyson Schwartz ¶, Mike Ross (AR), Mike Michaud (ME), Niki Tsongas (MA), Larry Kissell (NC) and Joe Donnelly (IN).[56] On June 11, Nancy Pelosi, DCCC Steve Israel, and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz called for Weiner’s resignation.[57][58] Weiner requested and was granted a short leave of absence from the House to obtain professional treatment of an unspecified nature. 1. A “stolen” pic. > [@](#): > > During an appearance on Sirius XM radio on June 8, 2011, Breitbart showed hosts Opie and Anthony a photograph of what he claimed to be Weiner’s nude genitalia. One of the cameras in the room caught the cell phone’s display, and the hosts subsequently leaked the photo by publishing it on Twitter.[46] Breitbart stated that the photo was published without his permission, and later told KFI radio, “These people have admitted that they did this surreptitiously and illicitly and they lied in the process saying that they didn’t even have a camera in the place.”[47] Weiner’s spokesperson issued the following statement: “As Representative Weiner said on Monday when he took responsibility for his actions, he has sent explicit photos.” The attempt to label as a double standard the calls for Weiner to resign with the sympathy J-Law, et al. is absurd. There are significant differences which clearly demonstrate While the OP wishes to separate the extenuating events from the reactions, this flies in the face of accepted, natural human ethics and behavior, as well as being codified into law. Actions which result in the death of another depend entirely on the circumstances as to classify it as first degree murder, second degree, manslaughter, self defense or an accident. First, Weiner was engaged in reckless acts which he, himself, classified as wrong. I think that the majority of Americans who agree with him. In stark contrast, The actresses were doing nothing different than millions of others. That is, sending nude photos to one own SO and not with random strangers on the internet when you are in a committed relationship. Second, and importantly, the premise of the OP’s entire argument was that the situations were the same because the nude photos were deciding factor when clearly the condemnation of Weiner, was because of his lying and attempts to coverup his embarrassing, reckless behavior. Well, as well as his reckless behavior. Not all politicians who have affairs get hounded out of office. However, those who do, tend to have lied or been reckless, or had particularly wide stances. While **brickbacon** wishes to have us believe that Weiner had not gone to the FBI because of privacy reasons, it’s obvious the reason is because he was lying and the FBI would quickly find out. Third. The person who leaked the initial photo of Weiner’s (joke goes here) received it through actions which were clearly legal, in contrast to the hackers who set out to illegally invade someone’s privacy. I’ll pause here to state in my opinion that had the exact equivalent situation were to have occurred, that is, had someone hacked Weiner’s phone to obtain a photo he was sexting with his wife, it would have a non-story. Certainly with his unfortunate name it could have been the target of a few jokes on the late-night programs, but it would not have been a career killer. The person who leaked the photo had set out to find dirt on Weiner. There could be a debate on the ethics of this, but the actions were not illegal, and without Weiner’s reckless, wrong behavior, the person could not and would not have found the picture. Forth. The women who came forth with other photo did so, IIRC, in response to Weiner lying and attempted coverup. Their motivation was to expose his falsehoods. This is clearly different than hackers who obtained the actresses’ photos illegally and with the intention of invading their privacy. Finally, for the stolen image, yeah, I’m sure that it sucks, but this was already after people were calling for his resignation. Other than the circular route to being leaked, the circumstances were similar. The recipient of the photo had released it after all of the other problems had come to light. I’m not seeing the double standard here. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/103 "2014-09-06T03:19:40Z")
Sexual privacy matters more to women than to men. Because (at the evolutionary level) sex has greater consequences for a woman than for a man. This isn’t complicated. And it’s the reason why leaking naked pictures of Hugo Chavez is not the same thing as leaking naked pictures of Mikayla Moroney. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/104 "2014-09-06T03:28:44Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I think **Brickbacon** has a good point to make about the double-standard w/r/t to gender and sexual privacy, though he has made it somewhat poorly. The better counterpart to the celebrity hack would have been the nude photos of NBA player Greg Oden, which were clearly hacked and released against his will, and to which the media response was largely “holy cow, look at how big this guy’s dick is!” (To judge the differing tone of that controversy, it was _Oden_ who apologized for the photos’ existence. AFAIK, it was not investigated) How exactly is that a better counterpart? Greg Oden’s pictures were supposedly sold to gossip sites by a woman he was in a casual relationship with. Pretty much exactly what happened to Weiner. Verlander (or Dave Franco) is a closer comparison to Lawrence given that their photos were stolen in the same hack, but the resemblance obscures a larger point I am making. Weiner was an apt example because the reaction was not largely indifference as it was with Verlander, but rather scorn and ridicule based on private photos and conversations. These private communications were then used to demean and destroy him. The public largely exacerbated the harm inflicted upon him by people he trusted. So while the deafening silence about Verlander allows one to draw a distinction between the treatment of men and women in these situations, it doesn’t fully articulate larger empathy gap that exists for people who are deemed to be unworthy respect and fair treatment. As I said, it’s not just a gender thing; it’s a conscious choice society makes on who can be victimized and who is allowed to seek redress. > [@furt](#): > > It’s more of a problem for the people who want to both > > - Complain that a promiscuous woman is judged more harshly than a promiscuous man. > AND > - Act blase about Oden or Verlander’s photo hack (or even make it a topic for humor) but treat a woman’s differently. > > _That_ is bullshit. And I think that’s the kind of thinking **Brickbacon** was responding to. I think I pretty clearly expressed those sentiments among others. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/105 "2014-09-06T04:03:15Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Wrong again. The technically has nothing to do with the relationship between the parties involved but rather WHO took the photo. I’m not arguing about the technicality, I’m arguing about what makes Weiner’s pic dissemination not “revenge porn”. > [@](#): > > Again, please cite the fact that the Weiner photos were unsolicited beyond the one accidentely posted on twitter. Why would I want to argue that he never sent unsolicited ones beyond the unsolicited ones he _did_ send? remember that the twitter “mistake” was actually supposed to be an (unsolicited) PM to Gennette Cordova. > [@](#): > > Also please explain why the standard of privacy given to Lawrence (eg. Don’t look, she doesn’t want you to see them) doesn’t apply to Weiner regardless of how they were released? If you can’t grasp the difference between “stolen” and “lost”, I can’t help you. > [@](#): > > More importantly, the term is not solely applied to exes releasing photos for “revenge”. You seem to have a hard time grasping this idea that the term is more broad than that. It applies generally to people releasing compromising photos and videos against one’s will. So says you. I differ. One’s will isn’t the definitional aspect - or are all paparazzi crotch shots “revenge porn” to you? There has to be an element of personal revenge in it, for it to be “revenge porn” - doesn’t _have_ to be exes, that’s just the usual route. > [@](#): > > Bullshit! A second ago you accused me if being hyperbolic and intimated such commentary didn’t exist. No, I implied you were hyperbolic about the article you actually linked to in the OP: “ **And his linked article doesn’t say anything like that** , so hyperbole is clearly his strategy”. It’s not like you couldn’t have linked to the Time article if you knew of its existence. I think you went all hyper about the first article, got accused by me of hyperbole, and then found the article that mentioned rape. You did not post the OP having read an article mentioning rape, because you’d have linked to it if you knew of it. Rant first, research second, seems to be your strategy here. > [@](#): > > Regardless, all you had to do was ask for a link, not assume such things weren’t being said by many. Why should I do your work for you? You’d already shown a tendency to exaggerate, given your characterization of the article you used in the OP. So the onus was on you or BigT to back up what was looking increasingly like a strawman. Which you eventually did, so yay! for you, bro. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say anyone here said it was rape. I didn’t say you said anyone here said it was rape. > [@](#): > > Either way, defend your position. If you think it’s sexual assault, go ahead and make that argument. I have to _defend_ the idea that exposing someone’s nudity in public against their will is a form of sexual assault? I don’t have to, it defends itself. Note I’m not claiming this is any legal definition. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/106 "2014-09-06T04:22:20Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > The attempt to label as a double standard the calls for Weiner to resign with the sympathy J-Law, et al. is absurd. That is NOT the comparison at all. Did you even read the OP? Answer this very simple question. Why is it wrong to view Lawrence’s leaked photos and but perfectly acceptable to view Weiner’s? > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > While the OP wishes to separate the extenuating events from the reactions, this flies in the face of accepted, natural human ethics and behavior, as well as being codified into law. I am simply applying the same standard the commenters I linked to and others suggest to the Weiner case. Furthermore, you blanket statement about the law and “natural human ethics” is just not true. Yes, the HOW matters with a death, but it doesn’t with insider trading or possession of stolen property or drugs for example. It matters in the case of a death because the law carves out many logical exceptions and mitigating circumstances to apportion culpability. Many crimes, strict liability crimes for one, don’t for a number of good reasons. I can’t act on insider information whether I hacked into the CEO’s email or he accidentally sent me the same email. There are tons of cases where ethics and the law do not make the distinctions you are attempting to. Similarly, how private photos were obtained is not really germane to the discussion of whether the person whose privacy is being violated has no say in the matter. The bottom line is being a “creep” doesn’t mean you give up your right to privacy, nor does it make you less of a victim when someone takes advantage of you. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > First, Weiner was engaged in reckless acts which he, himself, classified as wrong. I think that the majority of Americans who agree with him. In stark contrast, The actresses were doing nothing different than millions of others. That is, sending nude photos to one own SO and not with random strangers on the internet when you are in a committed relationship. Weiner did stuff millions of other people do too. Even if you assume he was being unfaithful, that is no more the public’s business that nude photos of an actress are. Again, why does him being a bad husband make it okay for people to look at private pictures of his penis? Please walk me though your logic. All the people on your side keep saying is, “he’s a bad guy and he sent “unsolicited” pics to young women, so that means it’s okay for me to look at them too”. How do you get to that last step morally speaking? > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Second, and importantly, the premise of the OP’s entire argument was that the situations were the same because the nude photos were deciding factor when clearly the condemnation of Weiner, was because of his lying and attempts to coverup his embarrassing, reckless behavior. Wrong. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > While **brickbacon** wishes to have us believe that Weiner had not gone to the FBI because of privacy reasons, it’s obvious the reason is because he was lying and the FBI would quickly find out. You are completely twisting what was said, and the timeline. That also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. We all know he lied. Several people involved in this leak have lied too. It doesn’t matter in either case. Weiner clearly could have gotten the authorities involved as many of the latter leaks were clear cut cases of theft by deception. Like most people in prominent positions, such investigations are rarely worth the scrutiny given the downsides. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Third. The person who leaked the initial photo of Weiner’s (joke goes here) received it through actions which were clearly legal, in contrast to the hackers who set out to illegally invade someone’s privacy. First, the person who leaked the photos was not the hacker AFAIK. Second, the legality of how the photos were obtained isn’t relevant. > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > I’ll pause here to state in my opinion that had the exact equivalent situation were to have occurred, that is, had someone hacked Weiner’s phone to obtain a photo he was sexting with his wife, it would have a non-story. Certainly with his unfortunate name it could have been the target of a few jokes on the late-night programs, but it would not have been a career killer. Which just show how you _completely_ missed the point. If your situation happened, and it was non story save being the topic of a few jokes on late night, that is pretty clear evidence of a double standard. Did you see any late night jokes about Lawrence and others? > [@TokyoBayer](#): > > Forth. The women who came forth with other photo did so, IIRC, in response to Weiner lying and attempted coverup. Their motivation was to expose his falsehoods. So I can invade your privacy to prove you are lying? > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Sexual privacy matters more to women than to men. Because (at the evolutionary level) sex has greater consequences for a woman than for a man. This isn’t complicated. And it’s the reason why leaking naked pictures of Hugo Chavez is not the same thing as leaking naked pictures of Mikayla Moroney. At an evolutionary level? Care to elaborate on that? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/107 "2014-09-06T04:25:29Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Sexual privacy matters more to women than to men. Because (at the evolutionary level) sex has greater consequences for a woman than for a man. This isn’t complicated. And it’s the reason why leaking naked pictures of Hugo Chavez is not the same thing as leaking naked pictures of Mikayla Moroney. Oh my goodness. Do people really buy these just-so-stories? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/108 "2014-09-06T04:39:54Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m not arguing about the technicality, I’m arguing about what makes Weiner’s pic dissemination not “revenge porn”. I am saying it fits the definition pretty neatly. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Why would I want to argue that he never sent unsolicited ones beyond the unsolicited ones he _did_ send? remember that the twitter “mistake” was actually supposed to be an (unsolicited) PM to Gennette Cordova. I am asking you to cite that the photos currently available on line were unsolicited? > [@MrDibble](#): > > If you can’t grasp the difference between “stolen” and “lost”, I can’t help you. If you can’t grasp the difference between “irrelevant” and “immaterial”, I can’t help you. > [@MrDibble](#): > > So says you. I differ. One’s will isn’t the definitional aspect - or are all paparazzi crotch shots “revenge porn” to you? There has to be an element of personal revenge in it, for it to be “revenge porn” - doesn’t _have_ to be exes, that’s just the usual route. There was an element of revenge. For some, it was to out him as a liar. For others like Breitbart, it was because they disagreed with him politically. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No, I implied you were hyperbolic about the article you actually linked to in the OP: “ **And his linked article doesn’t say anything like that** , so hyperbole is clearly his strategy”. Which makes no sense given I didn’t say that such things were specifically said in the article I linked to. > [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s not like you couldn’t have linked to the Time article if you knew of its existence. I think you went all hyper about the first article, got accused by me of hyperbole, and then found the article that mentioned rape. Bullshit. Do you think it was just sheer luck I happened to find one of many articles backing up my assertion after the fact? Could it be that this line of reasoning had been oft repeating in the media, and thus shouldn’t require a cite? Moreover, if you did want a cite, you could have asked, not erroneously assumed I was being hyperbolic. > [@MrDibble](#): > > You did not post the OP having read an article mentioning rape, because you’d have linked to it if you knew of it. Rant first, research second, seems to be your strategy here. That’s a lie. Plus, it makes absolutely no sense. Again, do you think it was sheer chance such an article was written, that I mentioned it and other comments like it in the OP, yet had no idea if such commentary was out there? > [@MrDibble](#): > > I didn’t say you said anyone here said it was rape. You pretty strongly implied it… and you were wrong. It happens. Be an adult and own it. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I have to _defend_ the idea that exposing someone’s nudity in public against their will is a form of sexual assault? I don’t have to, it defends itself. Note I’m not claiming this is any legal definition. So is viewing both Lawrence and Weiner’s photos is a form of sexual assault? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/109 "2014-09-06T04:57:36Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I am saying it fits the definition pretty neatly. Nope > [@](#): > > I am asking you to cite that the photos currently available on line were unsolicited? I wouldn’t know the provenance of whatever’s online, I don’t go looking for weiner pics and am not about to start now. > [@](#): > > If you can’t grasp the difference between “irrelevant” and “immaterial”, I can’t help you. Cool comeback, bro. > [@](#): > > There was an element of revenge. For some, it was to out him as a liar. For others like Breitbart, it was because they disagreed with him politically. No. Malicious intent =/= revenge. Revenge is personal. > [@](#): > > Which makes no sense given I didn’t say that such things were specifically said in the article I linked to. It was the _only_ article about Lawrence you discussed. And the only part of that you emphasised was the bit about “an attack on female agency”, which, yes, would be hyperbolic to call anything like rape. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. Do you think it was just sheer luck I happened to find one of many articles backing up my assertion after the fact? Nope, I’m sure it took a diligent search. > [@](#): > > Could it be that this line of reasoning had been oft repeating in the media, and thus shouldn’t require a cite? I certainly didn’t see any media articles labelling this “rape” before your link. > [@](#): > > Moreover, if you did want a cite, you could have asked, not erroneously assumed I was being hyperbolic. No “erroneously” about it. I was going by your own OP and the article linked in that. > [@](#): > > That’s a lie. Are you under the [mistaken impression](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448632) we’re in the Pit? Reported. > [@](#): > > Plus, it makes absolutely no sense. Again, do you think it was sheer chance such an article was written, that I mentioned it and other comments like it in the OP, yet had no idea if such commentary was out there? Yes. I think you wrote the OP with hyperbolic intent, knowing full well that the nature of Internet commentators would provide you backup you needed, without yet having seen those comments firsthand. Or _why did you not use the Time article in your OP_? It provides much better support than the article you did use. > [@](#): > > You pretty strongly implied it. No, you very strongly inferred it, and thereby missed my actual point > [@](#): > > So is viewing both Lawrence and Weiner’s photos is a form of sexual assault? Oh, unquestionably yes. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/110 "2014-09-06T05:35:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Nope Can’t argue with that logic. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No. Malicious intent =/= revenge. Revenge is personal. Revenge needn’t be “personal”. Look up the word or any handful of cases described using the term revenge porn. Here’s [wiki’s](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge_porn) take on the term: > [@](#): > > Revenge porn is sexually explicit media that is publicly shared online without the consent of the pictured individual. Notice how it doesn’t speak about exes or revenge having to be “personal”. > [@MrDibble](#): > > It was the _only_ article you discussed. Wrong. I was the only article I linked to and quoted. There is a difference. For the sake of brevity among other things, I am not going to link to any and every piece of material I have read to inform my opinion. Every OP doesn’t come with a bibliography and works cited page. The idea is that if you want clarification on an claim or assertion, kindly ask for it. Don’t passive-aggressively whine about how I am bending the truth. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Nope, I’m sure it took a diligent search.I certainly didn’t see any media articles labelling this “rape” before your link. That speaks to your search skills, not mine. > [@MrDibble](#): > > No “erroneously” about it. I was going by your own OP and the article linked in that. No, you erroneously assume the absence of a link you thought should have been there meant the point was unable to be substantiated. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Are you under the [mistaken impression](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448632) we’re in the Pit? Reported. Good on you. Glad your whistle works. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Yes. I think you wrote the OP with hyperbolic intent, knowing full well that the nature of Internet commentators would provide you backup you needed, without yet having seen those comments firsthand. Again, you are making a factually inaccurate claim about me with no evidence. Please back it up or retract the statement. Not only does it not make any sense for me to do that, but it would add essentially nothing to the argument. My issues isn’t that people are comparing this to rape; it’s that there is a clear double standard here. Why would I say I had read multiple comments claiming such a thing without knowing if such a thing actually happened or was able to be linked to? Did my fevered imagination somehow will this commentary posted in several fora, by several people, and written about in well known publications, into existence? Do you think it’s a coincidence that my OP, the Time article, the tweets, etc. all happened within a day or two of one another? > [@MrDibble](#): > > Or _why did you not use the Time article in your OP_? It provides much better support than the article you did use. Why don’t you just compose everyone’s OPs for them then? The Time article was written _because_ of that idea being out bandied about. Surprisingly, regular people notice things reporters report on too. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Oh, unquestionably yes. Okay, and do you think most others feel they BOTH are violations. If so, how do you explain mainstream publications treating them differently? More importantly, if you recognize the double standard, why are you arguing with me? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/111 "2014-09-06T06:06:33Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Revenge needn’t be “personal”. Of course it must. It’s built into the definition of revenge. Here’s [wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revenge)’s take on it, for instance: "Any form of personal retaliatory action against an individual, institution, or group for some perceived harm or injustice. " “I did it because i disagree with your politics” is not revenge. I’m going to leave aside the rest of your post and just address the last bit, since characterizing using the mod reporting system as intended as whistleblowing is not worth addressing, and the rest is irrelevant to the main argument > [@](#): > > Okay, and do you think most others feel they BOTH are violations. No, I don’t think so. Most people probably reckon “it’s different for boys” or “he was asking for it so it’s OK” or some such bullshit. I’m not arguing that they’re not both violations. I’m saying they’re differences of degree. > [@](#): > > If so, how do you explain mainstream publications treating them differently? Double standards. > [@](#): > > More importantly, if you recognize the double standard, why are you arguing with me? All I started arguing about, was that the Weiner pic posts were not revenge porn. Then I addressed BigT’s point about rape. You’ve supplied cites which address the latter, so all that’s actually left to argue about is “what is revenge porn”. I disagree with Wiki’s definition, because I believe a clear element of revenge must be present to call it revenge porn. For everything else (Weiner, the Lawrence/Winstead/etc pics), I think the term “nonconsensual pornography” is more appropriate. Even the folks at [EndRevengePorn.org](http://www.endrevengeporn.org/lets-call-nonconsensual-pornography/) think it’s a good term, BTW, and [acknowledge](http://www.endrevengeporn.org/faqs/) the term “revenge porn” is misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/112 "2014-09-06T11:07:56Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > That’s a lie. Plus, it makes absolutely no sense. Again, do you think it was sheer chance such an article was written, that I mentioned it and other comments like it in the OP, yet had no idea if such commentary was out there? > You pretty strongly implied it… and you were wrong. It happens. Be an adult and own it. > So is viewing both Lawrence and Weiner’s photos is a form of sexual assault? Gonna have to warn you for that one brick bacon. You can’t call another poster a liar in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/113 "2014-09-06T13:14:11Z")
I’d say very very few people will pay money to see Anthony Weiner’s pecker. I have my VISA card in hand, where can I find the Jennifer Lawrence pictures? Yes, I’m being silly, but that’s the difference: one has cash value, the other doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/114 "2014-09-06T13:32:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Of course it must. It’s built into the definition of revenge. Here’s [wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revenge)’s take on it, for instance: > "Any form of personal retaliatory action against an individual, institution, or group for some perceived harm or injustice. " > > “I did it because i disagree with your politics” is not revenge. Of course it is. Even though the element of revenge needn’t be present, clearly it fits in this case anyway. The retaliatory action was releasing the photos, and the perceived harm was his voting record, lying. It is, of course, very personal in Weiner’s case. What part of that definition doesn’t fit in your mind? > [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m not arguing that they’re not both violations. I’m saying they’re differences of degree. Why? If the moral standard is not to view private photos people don’t want you to see, how can there be a difference in degree? > [@MrDibble](#): > > I disagree with Wiki’s definition, because I believe a clear element of revenge must be present to call it revenge porn. For everything else (Weiner, the Lawrence/Winstead/etc pics), I think the term “nonconsensual pornography” is more appropriate. Even the folks at [EndRevengePorn.org](http://www.endrevengeporn.org/lets-call-nonconsensual-pornography/) think it’s a good term, BTW, and [acknowledge](http://www.endrevengeporn.org/faqs/) the term “revenge porn” is misleading. Misleading perhaps, but we are not arguing if there is a better term, but rather how the term is used today. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/115 "2014-09-06T13:58:38Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Of course it is. Even though the element of revenge needn’t be present, clearly it fits in this case anyway. The retaliatory action was releasing the photos, and the perceived harm was his voting record, lying. It is, of course, very personal in Weiner’s case. What part of that definition doesn’t fit in your mind? I think you have a very weird, idiosyncratic definition of “personal” - none of these people had a personal relationship with Weiner - they either had a professional one, or none at all (I’m not referring to any of the women he was actually sexting/cheating with reciprocally) . > [@](#): > > Why? If the moral standard is not to view private photos people don’t want you to see, how can there be a difference in degree? So you see no difference between the dissemination of photos that I keep private, locked-away, even, and photos I send over unsecure channels to random people I don’t have a personal relationship with? I should feel _equally_ as violated when these land up in public view? You don’t see the difference between a violation of absolute privacy, and a violation of ( imposed, unasked, unagreed-to) implicit confidentiality? Not saying republishing Weiner’s pics afterwards isn’t morally bad. But there’s shades of moral wrongness, at least in my own worldview. Having something stolen from you is worse than having something you lost be picked up > [@](#): > > Misleading perhaps, but we are not arguing if there is a better term, but rather how the term is used today. …and the people _who named their site after it_ say that it’s not really a useful term, and prefer another. I \*am \*arguing that there is a better term. It’s obvious that there _are_ people who use the term the way you do. They’re wrong, too. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/116 "2014-09-06T14:51:18Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Which just show how you _completely_ missed the point. If your situation happened, and it was non story save being the topic of a few jokes on late night, that is pretty clear evidence of a double standard. Did you see any late night jokes about Lawrence and others? [I saw this bit on Conan.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw-lAvn8yKA) > [@even\_sven](#): > > Oh my goodness. Do people really buy these just-so-stories? Men are from Mars; women are from Venus. Men were lone wolf hunters; women were communal gatherers. Men are photographers; women still fear the scary soul-stealing box. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/117 "2014-09-06T15:04:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I think you have a very weird, idiosyncratic definition of “personal” - none of these people had a personal relationship with Weiner - they either had a professional one, or none at all (I’m not referring to any of the women he was actually sexting/cheating with reciprocally). First, I would bet Breitbart had a personal relationship with almost all prominent politicians given his background. Two, most of the photos and commentary we are talking about were released by people in a sexting relationship with him. Three, [personal](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal) doesn’t just imply an close relationship. [QUOTE=Webster’s] relating to an individual or an individual’s character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner \ [/QUOTE] The leak was clearly fits the definition. > [@MrDibble](#): > > So you see no difference between the dissemination of photos that I keep private, locked-away, even, and photos I send over unsecure channels to random people I don’t have a personal relationship with? No, as far as my right to see them. Why would that matter to a third party who looks them up on Reddit or Google? Such a distinction has bearing on the likelihood of them becoming public, but it doesn’t mean outside parties then have a right use them however they want. To use an analogy, I don’t have anymore right to download “Happy” by Pharell even though he has performed it everywhere, and it has played on the radio than I do a song stolen and leaked before it’s release. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I should feel _equally_ as violated when these land up in public view? You don’t see the difference between a violation of absolute privacy, and a violation of ( imposed, unasked, unagreed-to) implicit confidentiality? First, there is no such thing as absolute privacy, especially when you upload something to the cloud. Second, the issue isn’t _how_ violated a person should feel when their photos are out in the public. It’s whether the public has a right to those photos. They don’t in almost all circumstances. The nature of how they found their way into the public sphere is important in other contexts, but not this one. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Not saying republishing Weiner’s pics afterwards isn’t morally bad. But there’s shades of moral wrongness, at least in my own worldview. Having something stolen from you is worse than having something you lost be picked up But there is no difference in me buying those items knowing they belong to you and that you want them back. > [@MrDibble](#): > > …and the people _who named their site after it_ say that it’s not really a useful term, and prefer another. Right, so “useless” they named their site after it? :dubious: Makes perfect sense. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I \*am \*arguing that there is a better term. It’s obvious that there _are_ people who use the term the way you do. They’re wrong, too. Accept that use of the term determines who is correct. Your opinion, or the existence of a more technically accurate term doesn’t matter at all. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/118 "2014-09-06T15:13:06Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > [I saw this bit on Conan.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw-lAvn8yKA) Pretty funny, but it’s not poking fun at the actual celebrities who had photos leaked save Kim Kardashian. That part is actually pretty telling because despite her having had things leak, having had personal property stolen, and having had her privacy violated in almost every imaginable way she is still considered fair game for this kind of ridicule on those bases for some reason. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/119 "2014-09-07T12:58:18Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > First, I would bet Breitbart had a personal relationship with almost all prominent politicians given his background. Again, this shows you have a very idiosyncratic definition of “personal” - or don’t understand the difference between “personal” and “professional” relationships. > [@](#): > > Two, most of the photos and commentary we are talking about were released by people in a sexting relationship with him Not the photos I’m talking about, as I said already. > [@](#): > > No, as far as my right to see them. Why would that matter to a third party who looks them up on Reddit or Google? Such a distinction has bearing on the likelihood of them becoming public, but it doesn’t mean outside parties then have a right use them however they want. To use an analogy, I don’t have anymore right to download “Happy” by Pharell even though he has performed it everywhere, and it has played on the radio than I do a song stolen and leaked before it’s release. Stupid analogy - the issue isn’t whether I have a legal right to it, it’s whether Weiner should feel _as violated_ as Lawrence. It’s the difference between me taping a Pharrell song of the radio and listening to it, and me breaking into his house and nicking the master tapes for a song he’s just written. Yes, legally, the first is copyright violation. But it’s \*nowhere near \*as violative as the second act. > [@](#): > > First, there is no such thing as absolute privacy, especially when you upload something to the cloud. Bullshit. Pedantic bullshit. If I take a pic, and sync it with the cloud, I can still have every expectation that the only people who have a right to see it are me and whomever I share it with. That hackers (or the NSA) can tap into it doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to privacy, it just means my rights got violated, is all. > [@](#): > > Second, the issue isn’t _how_ violated a person should feel when their photos are out in the public. Yes, it is the issue: **you asked me** “how can there be a difference in degree”, I’m telling you how, and then you say that’s not the issue? It’s the entire fucking issue. > [@](#): > > It’s whether the public has a right to those photos. No, I already agreed they don’t have a right to see them. This is not the issue, nor was it the elaboration you asked me for. > [@](#): > > But there is no difference in me buying those items knowing they belong to you and that you want them back. Yes, there is. Morally, there’s a difference - one was stolen from you, the other you gave away and then regretted giving away. But you’d already given it away, it wasn’t stolen from you. Now, I think your wishes that it not be disseminated should be respected (if it’s not in the public interest that it be) but that _does not mean_ I have to treat you as a victim of theft. You are a victim of your own stupidity, not theft, and morally, those are not accorded the same weight. > [@](#): > > Right, so “useless” they named their site after it? :dubious: Makes perfect sense. Take it up with them, it’s their FAQ. Maybe they regret the name. Maybe they mean “End [use of the term] Revenge Porn” (I don’t think so). Maybe it sounded good at the time, and now they’ve changed their thinking. What is not in dispute is that they think the term is limited and misleading. > [@](#): > > Accept that use of the term determines who is correct. Not when even you admit it might be misleading, and others say it definitely is such. > [@](#): > > Your opinion, or the existence of a more technically accurate term doesn’t matter at all. Says you. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328/120 "2014-09-07T16:28:39Z")
I object to the term “Weiner leak”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-jennifer-lawrence-leak-worse-than-the-anthony-weiner-leak/697328.md?page=7)