|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Revenge Bill fPasses ! |
| 1-17 of 17 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 05-21-14 03:28pm - 3642 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Revenge Bill fPasses ! PROVIDENCE, R.I. — The Rhode Island Senate has approved a revenge porn bill that would make it a felony to post sexually explicit photos of a person online without permission. Senators approved the bill 33-0 that would carry a maximum possible penalty of three years in prison, up to a $3,000 fine, or both. Under the new law, a person would be guilty of “unauthorized dissemination of indecent material” when using a device to “capture, record, or store visual images of another person 18 years of age or older engaged in sexually explicit conduct or of the intimate areas of another person” when that person “would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The lawmakers said tougher penalties might make someone think twice before they post such pictures. “Posting explicit photos of a former partner without that person’s consent is extremely hurtful and embarrassing. Penalties need to be strong to ensure that people think twice before attempting to degrade an individual in this way,” Lynch said in a statement. She described revenge porn as a “new kind of virtual assault” that “disproportionately targets women.” The legislation was first proposed by Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s office a few years ago as part of a package of Internet safety bills. Kilmartin told the Providence Journal, “The latest phenomenon of individuals posting intimate photos and videos on ‘revenge porn’ sites with the mission to embarrass exes takes the exploitation and degradation of people, especially women, to a new level of depravity.” He added, “Passage of this legislation will give victims some comfort that the perpetrators will be held accountable.” Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 05-23-14 02:33am - 3640 days | #2 | |
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster  Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
I think this is a pretty good decision; I know that the EFF is worried about this kind of legislation overreaching, and that is a legitimate concern, but nevertheless there is a deficiency in the law when it comes to revenge porn. Not too long ago we had a model who'd had their real name posted alongside some of our photos on a scummy revenge porn website. The website made it's money by offering to take posts down for $400; basically blackmail, except that nothing is illegal. Luckily for the model, in this instance, the pictures were ours; so we were able to get the page taken down on a copyright infringement basis. How messed up is it that it's more illegal to host unlicenced images than it is to publicly extort someone? | |
|
||
| 05-23-14 05:58pm - 3640 days | #3 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I may not believe in hell, but if there is one I hope there's a special pit reserved just for revenge porn assholes.  Sadly I see revenge porn as the logical byproduct of the ubiquity of the digital camera combined with some people's desires to use the permanence of the Internet as a weapon. And this is in a world where "Don't Be Evil" Google's Eric Schmidt has said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."  That's a chilling statement, worthy of a comic book villain and very much a reflection of our vile victim-blaming culture. If a girl didn't want to have her nude photos posted on the Internet then maybe she shouldn't have taken them in the first place. Right, because when you have a boyfriend take photos of you, you're not just having sex with him, you're having sex with everyone he's ever been with. I think after revenge porn the next thing I hate is slut shaming, or the double standard our society places on the sexual activities of men versus women. If a man has had multiple partners or lots of casual sex, why, he's just being a man, fulfilling his instinctual desire to spread his seed far and wide. But if a woman does the same thing--fuck her! No one gave her permission to do that, and any humiliating thing that comes out of it is her fault, and hers alone. Thus, you get malicious pricks like Hunter Moore, a sleazeball so cruel and shameless he makes Girls Gone Wild's Joe Francis look like Voltaire. If you haven't heard of him, Moore founded Is Anyone Up?, a revenge porn site that he eventually had to sell because of numerous complaints that alleged the site involved stolen photos and possibly underage postings. In a truly just world an immoral Internet parasite like Hunter Moore would be taken to the top of a very tall building and thrown off, but I'll settle for an indictment from the FBI instead. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 05-23-14 06:24pm - 3640 days | #4 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User  Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
It shouldn't even really be called revenge porn - more aptly it's extortion. The porn part is an afterthought. It's mostly about doing psychological harm to the victims and extracting money from them. These assholes are giving porn a bad name. If I could delete all their bullshit from the internet with the push of a button, you can bet that I would. These revenge porn assholes have generated so much bad press that there's federal revenge porn legislation coming down the pipeline soon. Hopefully they draft it in a reasonable way, but more likely it will have unintended consequences. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. | |
|
||
| 05-23-14 11:31pm - 3639 days | #5 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
You have point there, LPee23. "Porn," in my book, implies consent. Posting this shit without people's permission is anything but consensual. Sort of like how some people insist on the term "sexual assault," when the word "sexual" usually implies a consensual activity, not a crime against someone's will. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 02:33am - 3638 days | #6 | |
|
David19 (0)
Active User Posts: 32 Registered: May 16, '08 Location: California |
I'm curious what you think of beach voyeur sites like ilovethebeach.com. Such sites feature photos of topless (and sometimes nude) women in public contexts like the beach. The women are topless by consent, but they haven't consented to be photographed and definitely not to have their photos used on a porn site. There is an implied sexualization of these photos--the women are being used as topless models on a porn site when that may not have been their intent. OTOH, unlike the so-called "revenge porn" sites, the beach voyeur sites are not set up specifically with the purpose of revenge or humiliation of the women photographed. And the women did agree to bare their breasts, and sometimes more, in a public context as opposed to "revenge porn" where it was intended only for a specific lover. | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 02:41am - 3638 days | #7 | |
|
David19 (0)
Active User Posts: 32 Registered: May 16, '08 Location: California |
Where I think these "revenge porn" sites cross a line where the law needs to get involved is when they use someone's real name and/or real contact info. If you notice, with consenting porn sites, it is very unusual for someone to be using their real name--especially if the porn is at all explicit. It is almost always done under some kind of stage name. So if you violate that norm, I think you better be very clear that you have the model's permission in writing--or face very serious legal consequences. Edited on May 25, 2014, 03:25am (David19: correct minor typo) | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 05:51pm - 3638 days | #8 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
Love 'em or hate 'em, I think they're soon to be a thing of the past. It's kind of amazing that they can continue to operate, but don't think that things will stay that way forever. Would I personally walk down a nude beach and snap photos? No. Would I want to be one of those creepy "bird-watchers" offshore with a telephoto lens? No. Do the majority of the women already baring it all at a nude beach know that this stuff goes on? Yes. Most do not care. That being said, with new regulations coming, the sites with true voyeur content and no documented consent will have a tough time. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. Edited on May 25, 2014, 05:56pm | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 07:51pm - 3638 days | #9 | |
|
David19 (0)
Active User Posts: 32 Registered: May 16, '08 Location: California |
I don't see force of law changing things. Most of these photos were taken in Europe while the change in law referred to in this thread is a US law. The ability of the USA to influence how things are done in Europe is waning--for reasons that go well beyond issues involving porn. I mean, nude photos of Angela Merkel in her youth were posted on the Web fairly recently. If Europe were going to act via force of law to change things, I think that would have clearly been the opportunity. Yet Europe didn't act. I'm not saying that there won't be a cultural shift but I don't see the USA dictating legal terms to Europe regarding porn any time soon. | |
|
||
| 05-25-14 08:47pm - 3637 days | #10 | |
|
David19 (0)
Active User Posts: 32 Registered: May 16, '08 Location: California |
IMHO this is another reason why beach voyeur sites aren't particularly vulnerable to force of law. Most (women on those sites) don't care. There may be a few women whose photos are posted who are exceptions--and who raise a big stink about their photos being posted. These sites can always--reluctantly--remove the photos of the few women who do care without it significantly impacting their business model. By contrast, the "revenge porn" sites are a direct assault on the reputations of the women (and men) whose photos/videos are posted--and I assume that the vast majority of people "featured" on those sites do care very much. | |
|
||
| 05-26-14 08:51am - 3637 days | #11 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Whats odd is people do this type of thing with others privacy every day on face book, and there is no outcry, you place nudity and its all of a sudden taboo. Many a lives have been destroyed on FB and Twitter with clothes on. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 06-02-14 10:17am - 3630 days | #12 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
I figured that at least some of the subjects of Ilovethebeach's videos were plants because an inordinate amount of them seem to have massive boobs. Also the videos on that site are "too good" if you know what I mean, 5 minutes or more focused on the same person without being spotted? Very little camera shake, zooming in and out, all without suspicious looks? Anyway, in any case, they are being filmed in public areas and so aren't subject to the same protections as if they were on private property. | |
|
||
| 06-02-14 02:16pm - 3630 days | #13 | |
|
David19 (0)
Active User Posts: 32 Registered: May 16, '08 Location: California |
A lot of the videos and photos on that site do seem a little "too good" especially the long excellent quality videos of inordinately large breasted women. OTOH someone posting on a non-porn site (I prefer not to say where) claimed that two female friends of his, while on vacation, had had their photos taken topless completely without permission and ended up on that site. They were unsuccessful in getting the photos removed. They were topless by choice but never agreed to have their pics taken. So you can take that FWIW. | |
|
||
| 06-02-14 02:16pm - 3630 days | #14 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User  Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
Any of that reality stuff appears fake to me. Anyway, I really don't care to watch a girl drunk and acting foolish. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 06-02-14 03:47pm - 3630 days | #15 | |
|
LPee23 (0)
Active User Posts: 399 Registered: Jul 14, '13 Location: USA |
Speaking of drunk girl porn, looks like WDGirls.com (Wild & Drunk girls) is closed to new members now. It was an awesome Russian site, actually very high quality, too bad it didn't live long enough to get its first review here. Anyway, I bet it's just coincidence that it closed now, because the models did supposedly sign contracts, but you never know. Better to be pissed on, than to be pissed off. | |
|
||
| 06-02-14 08:02pm - 3630 days | #16 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
+1  Drunkenness is not a turn-on for me. Yes, alcohol lowers inhibitions but that's only because we're a little too prude, reserved, and morally restrained to fully enjoy life sober. I mean, does anybody really fantasize about a love interest having to get drunk before she would do anything with you? For me, drinking is frequently a way to (temporarily) forget how unfair and unpleasant reality is, but not a way to fulfill any fantasy.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 06-06-14 08:36am - 3626 days | #17 | ||
|
AWpress (0)
Active Webmaster Posts: 118 Registered: Nov 20, '12 Location: The Netherlands |
The former is arguably an incarnation of the latter. It's because of this doublestandard that the victims of revenge porn are overwhelmingly women; the social penalty for being exposed as promiscuous just isn't as severe for men. It'd be nice if society could move past it's obsession with female sexual agency, and quit worrying about what a woman does with her body. But until then, the next best thing is opposing stuff like revenge porn.
Indeed, an alternate term for revenge porn is 'non-consensual pornography', a term I think is better. Firstly, 'revenge' corrolates vaguely to justice/come-uppance, or at the very least cause-and-effect- in turn, pointing down the road to victim blaming. Conversely, 'non-consensual porn' points to r@pe, without over-sensationalising the issue. Make no mistake, though, I do think the comparison is a fair one, though not an equivalent one. People who do this kind of thing are definitely in the same spectrum; misogynists who think women should be ashamed of their sexuality, using that to inflict shame and hurt upon someone for pleasure or a sense of satisfaction and superiority. Edited by Staff on Jun 06, 2014, 10:09am (Khan: edited dis-allowed word) | ||
|
|||
| 1-17 of 17 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
