California "Revenge Porn" law.

Quote by lafayettemister


Physical assault is different. It's physical, obviously. When someone hits you, it's different. It's touch, it can cause physical damage and harm. A black eye on one person is the same thing as a black eye on another person.

Posting something online that causes someone to FEEL humiliated is different. What humiliates one person may not humiliate another. Basing crime on emotions and feelings is a dangerous step. One person may be humiliated by topless pics of herself broadcast online. But another person my FEEL humiliated by having his story of molestation and abuse broadcast online via blog or whatever.

The problem as I see it is how to you calculate what is or isn't enough humiliation? What's the test for that? It's too subjective to quantify for a legal definition.

And then there's the gray area of personal responsibility. No, I'm not saying anyone deserves anything. But a person does have some control over their own actions. Assault is a crime. But if I walk up to Mike Tyson and tell him his wife is a whore, chances are he's going to knock me out. Did I deserve to be knocked out? No. Is he in violation of the law to knock me out? Yes. Could I have prevented it? Yes.

Some things can have a better impact on society via civil litigation. If some dude posts a sex video of his ex online somewhere, she finds out and sues him for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, it will make quite a few other guys NOT do the same thing he did. The reason newpapers don't print untrue things about people isn't because they're afraid of going to jail but rather they know they'll be sued for millions of dollars.

Quote by Mazza


LM, I think it's already well-established that in cases of domestic abuse that verbal and mental abuse are just as destructive as physical abuse - in fact, I'd say more so - one generally heals quickly from a physical injury, but the long term effects of emotional abuse can last a life time. How many kids who were bullied no longer bear the scars of that?

While you may not be causing 'actual physical' to a person by posting these pics - the knock on effect could be devastating and lifelong

Quote by lafayettemister


There is something she can do about it, she can sue in civil court. Whether or not she would win is anyone's guess.

The only way to protect one's privacy is to not share what you don't want to be public.

There's not much difference between sharing a private shared picture and sharing other privately shared intimate information. What would be more hurtful? If a person shared pics of an ex's body or sharing secrets shared between lovers? Such as if a person tells a bf or gf about past abuse, something they were arrested for, molested as a child, had an abortion, something private and not for public consumption and then after the couple breaks up, the ex shares that information verbally or in print? Would that person also be charged with a crime? The victimized person's privacy has been destroyed, but if it's true then no law was broken.

There are lots of people on Lush that have topless and/or nude pictures open for everyone to see. Or open only to Lush friends. I have several friends who I've seen their bits and pieces. But, in chatting with them I've learned some very intimate and personal details about their lives. Those details getting out to the masses would be more hurtful to them and more of a betrayal to them than if I shared a picture of boobs. (of course I'd do neither) I'd have violated their confidence and their privacy, but I wouldn't not have violated the law.

Plenty of ex spouses have spread private details about their former husbands and wives, stuff that was meant to never be shared. And is more damning than boobie or dick pics. Privacy isn't just about pictures and images, it's about lives. If you criminalize freely given/taken pictures then you'll have to criminalize the spoken and written word in relation to privately shared personal information.

Quote by lafayettemister



I agree it can be long lasting. But people generally don't go to jail for verbal and mental abuse. They typically lose divorce cases and custody of their children more than they are convicted of a crime and go to jail for it.

There are also plenty of people that have lifelong emotional scars from bad parenting. Even if it wasn't necessarily abusive, it could have been unsupportive to a child. That doesn't make it a crime. It's awful, but not criminal.

A dad could be ashamed of his gay son and disown him. That's an awful thing to do to a person and would and could leave lifelong and devastating effects on a person.. but it's not criminal. You can't lock the dad up for being an asshole.

Quote by lafayettemister


A dad could be ashamed of his gay son and disown him. That's an awful thing to do to a person and would and could leave lifelong and devastating effects on a person.. but it's not criminal. You can't lock the dad up for being an asshole.

Quote by LadyX


Ah, the whole army high-horse thing. Got it.

Easy on the all-caps, it's a bit annoying when it's done in every post.

Quote by Wildcat
I'm not too sure how I feel about this. I feel some responsibility lies with the person being filmed. If you never want to go "viral" then don't be filmed, at least not with your face in view.

I wonder just how many of the porn images of themselves people post on Lush have ended up on porn sites. I know you can't copy and save images, but a screen shot is just too easy to take, crop it, then there you have it. A lovely graphic porn pic with a smiling face.

Some posters would be horrified if their bosses and co-workers or family saw more than they bargained for. Is their privacy being violated? Hardly. If you don't want to be identified, as we sometimes say in Oz... put a bag over your head.

Do I come off as being hard on the subject, too right I am. I place a very high value on myself. What I have is priceless. If I've offended anyone, I can live with that.

Quote by Wardog
OT but FYI.
Marion Morrison was an EXCELLENT actor who portrayed a number of heroic figures both historical and fictional. For that reason he was given a draft deferment so that he COULD make movies portraying those kind of figures, so as to promote national pride and patriotism. However, once that war came to an end; it left him and his publicist with a problem of "perception" they needed to overcome. Many another actor HAD gone to war and some (like Audie Murphy had been decorated for their valor and heroism in battle). BUT, the publicist came up with a BRILLIANT idea! He developed a "credo", an impossible to live up to in real life list of things that a rugged, he man and big bad tough guy would and would NOT do! AND, he named it after the actors SCREEN NAME! Problem solved! And, thus the "John Wayne Credo" was born. Enjoy, one and all; I'm off to other, lighter threads.

Quote by overmykneenow


No it doesn't and no he can't unless given express permission by the content creator. Much like buying a DVD doesn't give me the right to share it online.

Quote by elizabethblack
This is obviously one of those subjects that run the gamut of emotions. I knew from the beginning of reading this forum that I would be in the minority and it wasn't until lafayettemister and dancing.doll posted that my reasons were expressed so well by both of them. Mazza also had excellent points, as did KinkyKiwi80. I am against legislating against morality. I have been intensely involved in criminal justice matters and I know some laws of good intention fail miserably though deliberate intent or mistakes. Without going into all the reasons, I ended up being a member of Families Against Mandatory Minimuns (FAMM) for the last 18 years or more. Seemed like a logical thing to do: pass mandatory laws so no judge could make stupid judgments. Wrong. It tied the judges hands, but gave prosecutors full rein to charge defendents with whatever they wanted under the umbrella law of "conspiracy". This brought drug convictions to an all-time high with long sentences way out of proportion to the crime. So now we have more people in prison, per population, than any nation on earth. Just Google FAMM.org and read some of the actual cases. Punishment should fit the crime. Some judges are assholes, but one size does not fit all and it is better to let the judges made the decisions rather than the prosecutors who have no boss. And criminal convictions are not for a few years but for the rest of their life. Wish the world was a better place, full of intelligent, loving, caring, decent people. I hope this whole forum will lead others to think about how to handle such nastiness. Including what parents do to their children with their cruelty of belittlement and the hazing and the bullying.

Quote by Mazza
I still maintain that the most important thing is to educate our people.

Of course there should be penalties for those who break the law and inflict injury on others (be that financial, physical, emotional or whatever) but we really have to work together as a society to teach what is and is not acceptable.

I think that we're becoming much more secular and isolated, and the onset of technology only feeds that.

We need to remember that we all have a duty and responsibility as a member of society and that not only means living by example, but getting involved with others to 'do the right thing'.

The things we are talking about in this thread are only becoming more common because we tolerate, condone, ignore or don't do anything about them.

Now, I don't have the answers, but I think that only changes of the type I've referred to will actually bring about change?

Naive, I know...

Quote by Wardog
DPW- He was nevertheless GIVEN a deferment; was he not? Therefor, just what part of my statement do you contend was "not correct"? incomplete and not correct are NOT the same thing; and I didn't see that it made a difference one way or another, so I saw no reason to include it.

Quote by Wardog
Granted, given at the end of the day it's all the same. Nor, do the specifics of HOW it came about really matter. What I was talking about was the "damage control" to his image done AFTER the fact.

Quote by Wardog
LOL Once again my point sails right over your head. "Other careers" are ALSO irrelevant, as is whether or not he was "the only one". ALL that IS relevant is the ACTUAL origins of "The John Wayne Credo". And, how utterly meaningless an impossible to live up to in real life LIST of things that "real men" either DO or DON'T DO; truly is. Leaving myself out of it, I have known a great many REAL MEN, who have done several of the things on that list; to include my father, who never served a day in the military inspite of TRYING to enlist in ANY branch of the service that might take him in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

Quote by Wardog
No, I don't know that anyone had any "image" problems as a result of the war. I do know that several actors returned from it and went on to have long active careers in films. Lee Marvin, Eddie Albert, Glenn Ford and Ernest Borgnine among others. The ONLY Hollywood types I know of who had problems involving the military were Walt Disney and Steve McQueen; both of whom were given dishonorable discharges from the Marine Corps. I don't know what the deal was with Disney, but McQueen was stationed at the Delmar area of Camp Pendleton in California, where he was a tank driver. SOOO, one weekend for some crazy reason he drove his TANK through the main gate, nearly ran over the gate guard, parked it in front of a bar and was having a beer when the MP's showed up to arrest him! LOL

A correction for an above post:

Steve McQueen received an Honorable Discharge in 1950 from the US Marine Corp. The rumor that he was dishonorable discharged is false. He did serve 90 days in the brig once. He also saved several other Marines lives once, getting them out of a tank that was going into the Artic water.

McQueen actually talked favorably of his service in the Marine Corps, saying, "they made a man out of me."

Responding to a 10-year-old off topic post 😄👍