Late to the dick party, as usual.
But I just wanted to send John Mace a picture of my dick. Both of my Dicks, actually.
Please don’t share it with TMZ.
The second dick never lived up to the first dick, in my opinion.
Except it’s a gross violation! What’s next? Telling people they should be happy they got robbed, and now they can enjoy the benefits of a simplified lifestyle? It’s not so bad your rapist got you pregnant, it’s the miracle of life?!
Where does a woman’s will fit in to your thought process?
If he had been sending dick pictures to his wife and only his wife and it got out somehow, he’d still have a political career. You can’t just hand-wave away the infidelity. People were disgusted by Weiner because what he did was creepy and pathetic, not because it was sexual.
It matters because the claim that it was infidelity,or that he cheated on his wife, or that he broke his vows, is not really valid or applicable.
Not usually, especially in more recent times. It’s an informal rule when you are caught cheating as a politician: never resign. those that do are usually not forced out by their constituents, but rather their colleagues.
But why is that okay? Why is the content of the message our business, or something we have the right to sit in judgment of? I cannot imagine people doing the same thing if one of these recent celebrity pics was something considered risque. What you are essentially arguing is that not only does he have no right to his privacy, but also that society gets to judge the content of these photos leaked against his will for evidence of perversion. Is that really fair at all?
Here.
Which is why I said in the very same sentence you quoted that that law would not apply. The issue here is your reading comprehension, not my wording. The point was to challenge the contention that “revenge porn” is understood to be as narrowly defined as an ex taking revenge by pushing compromising photos rather than someone publishing photos against one’s will. That is how the word is generally used. The only reason the law is so narrowly tailored is to avoid butting up against free speech issues. Read the article about the law if you need further clarification.
That’s not my argument at all. Did you even read the OP? I will quote the relevent portion for you:
You’d have a more compelling point if the Op-Eds written about the cloud hack were mostly about the theft itself and tangential issues rather than about how viewing the photos is tantamount to a sexual violation, or how this is an attack on female agency and sexuality, or how privacy and ownership of compromising images is inviolable. Yes, it’s understandable that the interest is naturally gonna be higher when such an invasion involves a widely popular and well-liked actor and the biggest tech company on the planet, but coverage has largely focused on distinctions that don’t exist, and highlighted the hypocrisy of many of these people taking moral stands.
Or a man’s, right? Funny how all these article largely gloss over the fact that men’s images were hacked and leaked too.
You have no idea whether there was infidelity, so I think you should stop stating there was without proof.
Your comment really highlight the crux of the issue. You feel you have the right to declare Weiner “creepy” and “pathetic” based private photos and conversations you should have never had access to. As if it were a crime to do what he did; one that absolves others from granting him a modicum of privacy and respect. As a privacy matter, it’s fruit of a poisonous tree.
Additionally, his creepiness and perversion have nothing to do with his ability to do his job, be a respected and productive member of society, or create legislation. His sex life is none of your business. The fact that someone he wrongly trusted sold him out doesn’t mean it now becomes your business any more that Apple having lax security measures does. You can keep harping on the idea that he is a weirdo who might of cheated on his wife. That however has ZERO bearing on whether it’s only for people to google private pictures of his penis to laugh at him.
Did you even read your own link? It does NOT say that the photos themselves were the damaging aspect - it says the opposite:
“A new poll by New York 1 and Marist College found 56 percent of registered voters in New York’s 9th congressional district think Weiner should stay, despite bold public lies about his online behavior and the embarrassing details that have since come to light.”
“The results indicate that the majority of Weiner’s constituents are willing to separate his personal behavior, however objectionable, from his professional performance…”
I can’t fathom that anyone is trying to argue this. If it were just nude photos that were leaked and it didn’t involve marital infidelity, lies, and general creepiness, he’d still be in office (even though a photo of your own dick is quite a bit more salacious than a simple nude shot).
And now you’re trying to argue that infidelity is not anyone’s business, but voters tend to think it’s an indication of non-trustworthiness. You lose on that aspect too.
I was arguing in my post that the polls indicated his constituents didn’t want him to resign. I see (now) s/he was asking for a poll showing the photos as doing the damage, not his behavior. My poll doesn’t draw that distinction, so allow me to retract the latter post.
Again, do you have some evidence this was infidelity? Furthermore, why is it your business, and why do you feel entitled to call him creepy?
Who gives a shit what voters think? I would bet most people viewing Lawrence’s photos feel they have a right to do that as well. Why should it matter what Weiner does in his private life or if he cheats on his wife?
Most politicians do, especially those running for re-election.
Copyright is, basically, the right to make copies (there’s a bit of clue in the name) and to prevent others from doing so, or to licence them to do so.
So, I write a book, and I sign an agreement with a publisher whereby he prints and distributes it, but I retain the copyright. You buy a copy of the book. If you then lend your copy of the book to your spouse, friend or whoever, there is no breach of copyright there, because no copy has been made. But if you photocopy the book and sell or give the copy to someone, that’s a breach of copyright.
Same goes for letters. If I receive a letter addressed to me, the default is that the letter itself belongs to me (so if it is stolen, for example, I am the victim of the theft not you, and I am the one who sues to recover it) but the copyright belongs to you. This default can be changed by explicit or implicit agreement, but you do need to be able to point to that agreement. As the owner of the letter, I can handle it how I like - burn it, put it in a drawer in my desk, frame it and hang it on the wall, lend it to a travelling exhibition, donate it to a national or university library. I just can’t make copies of it, or authorise anyone else to; only you can do that.
Pretty much the same goes for photographs. If I take a pretty photograph and make you a present of a print, you own the print and can deal with it how you like, including displaying it in a place where others will see it. But I own the copyright, so you can’t make copies or licence others to do so. This doesn’t change if the photograph is not pretty, but risque or obscene, unless you can argue that the mere fact that the photograph is risque or obscene creates an obligation of confidentiality; that it’s sent to you on terms that you won’t show it to strangers. But it’s hard to argue that if I myself am sending copies of the photograph to strangers, or near-strangers, and that is in fact how you came by it.
In my thought process, these women used their will to take nude photos and upload them to the Apple cloud. Can you prove otherwise?
I’d love to live in a world where privacy is protected. No NSA, no wire-tapping, no credit card numbers stolen, no hacking of private media.
But I refuse to play what-if when anyone with a brain could see this coming from a mile away. Throw your hands up in exasperation; I shrug.
The thing about it being hackers doesn’t answer why this particular incident, and not any other leaked photos (including sex tapes) is apparently rape.
I actually made my decision based on that. I’ve looked at other leaked photos, and didn’t feel there was anything wrong with it. Why shouldn’t I look at these? Why should I remain willfully uninformed while discussing the topic?
A lot of rumors are even starting about the images because people haven’t actually looked at them, not even a censored version that doesn’t show anything.
Here are some things you wouldn’t know from the talk about them: a lot of them are clothed. Many cut off the face and there’s no way to know if they are who they are supposed to be. Some are clearly from professional pics, and some are just seem to be random porn actors. Some of them are even censored.
Only the photos of Jennifer Lawrence herself seem to definitely be exclusively self-shots she randomly took. And those are the ones that people are making rumors about being some sort of photoshoot.
I actually considered pitting the people crying rape. They are belittling rape. This is a breach of trust and privacy. That’s bad, but it’s not rape.
“because of minor technicalities” is more of what you said. But “They were not Weiner’s ex-partners” is not a “minor technicality” you can just handwave away in the bit you don’t actually quote. Context is King, eh?
The issue actually seems to be that you’re incapable of arguing without ad hominems. I can read just fine.
Not by me, not by the law, not by others. I read the article, I just don’t agree with it or you.
The only people calling this rape are the unquoted commentators mentioned by the OP (And his linked article doesn’t say anything like that, so hyperbole is clearly his strategy), so come up with some cites, so we can share your ire…
My point is that it is in incredibly poor taste to gloat after someone is victimized and to point out what you imagine to be “upsides” to their being violated. That goes triple when it’s a crime with a sexual element.
Understand that your comment isn’t made in isolation, but in a context where “you should be grateful for it” or “come on, it’s not that bad. Surely you enjoyed it a little bit” have a long history of being used to further humiliate and degrade victims.
It is a minor technicality given who takes the photo is not really the point.
I said it didn’t apply when I quoted it. How is that handwaving? If you think the the term doesn’t include people who take their own pics, make that argument. It is a technicality, and one that would have been addressed in the legislation if it could be narrowly tailored enough.
That’s fine. It’s your right to have baseless opinions.
Here is an article discusses the point just mentioned with quotes from several people.
The relationship between the person disseminating the photo and the person in it is the whole fucking point of what makes it revenge. Passing on unsolicited dick pics isn’t revenge for a failed personal relationship. It’s sweet, sweet justice.
You’re doing it again. “I said so” is handwaving.
Who took the pics is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned (but not to that legislature, apparently). What’s relevant is the relationship between the disseminator and disseminated.
:rolleyes:
Which wasn’t linked in your OP, and wasn’t discussed in this thread before now. So nice, and all, but just reactionary. No-one here’s called it rape. (and I disagree with that article, it very much is a sexual assault, on par with verbal harassment)
You’re absolutely right. I would be mortified if I had my privacy violated like that. I shouldn’t tried to spin it into a positive in the manner like I did. It was in poor taste.
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.
Wrong again. The technically has nothing to do with the relationship between the parties involved but rather WHO took the photo. The difference being the law applies to an ex disseminating a photo they took, but not one taken by the victim even if the image was essentially the same, and it was released by the ex for the same reasons.
Again, please cite the fact that the Weiner photos were unsolicited beyond the one accidentely posted on twitter. 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? 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.
Bullshit! A second ago you accused me if being hyperbolic and intimated such commentary didn’t exist. Now you are backtracking saying I should have linked to something pretty ubiquitous and easily google-able. Regardless, all you had to do was ask for a link, not assume such things weren’t being said by many.
I didn’t say anyone here said it was rape. Either way, defend your position. If you think it’s sexual assault, go ahead and make that argument.