jmcentire

Dr. Laws, while I understand the reasons you dislike RP; I'm very concerned about the ramifications of the laws you're encouraging. You said your interest in RP came when your daughter's email was hacked and a topless photo of her was leaked. There are already anti-hacking laws. Additionally, if we can expect people to be responsible when it comes to online activity like banking, why can't we expect some amount of common sense when it comes to shuffling digital images of ourselves? This wasn't a case of someone being unknowingly photographed. It was a case of someone being willingly photographed and then transmitting that photograph electronically to one or more persons.

In one of your posts, you say:

Revenge porn is legal in all states except three. However, 22 states have introduced legislation to outlaw it. Website operators are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A federal law would be ideal because then it would be possible to hold the website operators responsible rather than simply the people who submit content.

This sort of a law sets an unreasonable precedent. If website owners become responsible for things which are said or shown on their websites, they will have to manually filter everything themselves. There's simply too much data being generated for this to be reasonable. Additionally, why stop there? Why not hold telecom companies and ISPs responsible for the actions of people using their infrastructure? Can I sue the state for having built the roads which allowed the drunk driver to damage my car -- not to mention suing the driver, the people who maintain the roads, the people who built the car, maintained the car, sold the car, made the liquor, sold the liquor, et cetera?

The only reason people want to target the website owners is because the website owners are much more accessible targets. These laws are vengeance laws seeking to exact punishment on someone, anyone just so the victim can feel vindicated rather than remorseful about allowing their significant other to record an intimate moment. Because a technology can be used for something distasteful does not mean we should ban that technology. It's a ridiculous stance for someone who has a doctorate in Social Ethics.

• Edit: thanks for gold.

Also, when speaking about remorse versus vindication above, I don't intend to suggest that anyone who appears nude in media should feel remorse. Rather, those who are seeking legal action under laws which cast very wide nets seeking accountability likely feel remorseful.

How do you differentiate between reddit and "revenge-porn" websites? Having a clear metric which unambiguously bifurcates legality is central to any well-written law. While a famous quote, "I know it when I see it" is a notoriously bad solution.

Additionally, Dr. Laws is overloading the term "revenge porn." She noted her disappointment in the conventional understanding that suggests RP is sourced in angry exes. Her daughter, according to what we've been lead to believe, was the victim of a hacker. In another post, she mentioned photoshop. Neither of the latter seem to be fueled by the idea of "revenge." This, to me, would be central to the concept of "revenge porn."

If we go by what Dr. Laws has said, why wouldn't sites like reddit be held responsible for the content posted by its users? The best bet is to determine if the website bills itself as a source of RP. The obvious problem then is that RP sites will simply claim that they had no idea that a photo was photoshopped or acquired illicitly.

If you attempt to penalize them, anyway... what happens when someone from /r/gonewild decides that posting was a mistake and claims they hadn't given permission for the image to be uploaded? How do you verify that consent was collected properly? Even in the "industry," collecting consent is problematic and currently relies upon collecting a physical signature and a photo copy of a picture id. Will reddit then be expected to send representatives and notaries public to user's houses to collect releases?

In the modern, digital era, the scale necessitates innovation. Conventional means are no longer reasonable or even possible. As a consequence, we must be particularly mindful of the potentially far-reaching ramifications of any legal wording.

I didn't say that they should feel remorse. I suggest that, if victims are seeking to punish anyone involved in any way, it seems apparent that they are seeking to turn remorse into vindication.

I agree that they should do whatever they want with their bodies and that it shouldn't be used beyond their wishes. I'm merely arguing against the legislation Dr. Laws has suggested she supports in her various comments.

If someone forcefully gains access to something against the owner's wishes, that is a violation and the guilt is wholly theirs.

I agree. And, I'll note, this has nothing to do with a website operator. In fact, there are already anti-hacking laws. In fact, I am also disagreeing with Dr. Laws's use of "revenge porn" to include cases which have nothing to do with revenge. Like hacking or photoshop. The problem isn't the idea that revenge porn is undesirable or that people who steal private information and use it for their personal gain ought to be punished. The problem is the proposed solution which suggests a profound lack of understanding of technology, philosophy, and law.

Dr. Laws, I understand I posted late with the original -- and now with this. I was more interested in the wider discussion than expecting to hold you personally accountable for anything. In fact, I think it's great that you're trying to correct an injustice. I'll address your response in segments.

Firstly, victim-blaming, women-hating, and misogyny. I think you'll find that in no sense did I mention male or female unless I was discussing a particular case wherein the sex of the party was known. Further, while I do not believe the victim of RP is wholly responsible and absolutely DO support the pursuit and punishment of the individual who is harassing them, neither do I believe that we, as a society, should ignore or dismiss any and all actions on the part of the victim. Not as a form of blame as though it resolves the issue; but, rather, as a path to understanding so that future incidents may be handled better. It's absolutely possible that, in you previous example, the credit card holder did everything reasonable and was still the victim of fraud.

Your second point was comparing website owner responsibility for RP with CP. You'll find a lot of responses in this thread from me acknowledging the similarities and also describing some of the differences. While no one can ever produce CP legally, topless photos aren't illegal in and of themselves. This difference is very significant when it comes to enforcement. Administrators of a website like reddit immediately knows that CP is illegal. However, they do not know if a topless photo is RP or innocent. I'd like to note, again, that I fully support punishing harassers and in no way seek to defend their actions. I feel you're conflating my disagreement with a law which specifically holds website owners accountable with a tacit defense of the perpetrator. Making RP illegal is an issue separate from adding specific legislation targeting website owners. Incidentally, I do disagree with RP as a specific inclusion to the list of exceptions for the first amendment -- as I've noted in many threads, I'd much prefer targeting harassment in a more general sense.

You go on. The great thing about DMCA and copyright as it is used today is that there is an established standard for who owns the copyright. Even then, there are a multitude of cases wherein DMCA and copyright has been abused or misused. They target clear cases of fair-use, for instance. The abuse of DMCA should never serve as a shining justification for a new law. Even while CP is easy, just the step toward copyright is clearly problematic. This is a step even further removed wherein you're not dealing with copyright itself -- you're dealing with who took the photo, whether consent was issued then (in no written form, mind you), to whom consent was issued (again, without written documentation) and for what purpose. And, yes, I think DMCA notices should be changed to increase the burden on the copyright holder to prove misuse prior to issuing a take-down. As it stands, the legal power of the RIAA and MPAA dwarf that of parents posting videos of their children singing "happy birthday." Additionally, false take-down notices should carry large penalties. But, we digress.

As far as the CCRI statistics are concerned, it seems like an rationalization for reactionary legislation and I'd like to point out, once again, that I am not defending perpetrators of RP.

Your second point is spot-on. When CP is obvious, everything is much easier. Consent for CP can never be granted. There is no case wherein something that is obviously CP was legally made, uploaded, and hosted. If, however, something is questionable -- an individual will turn 18 at midnight and a topless picture is taken just before the atomic clock ticks over (poor photographer's watch is slightly fast) -- it's much more difficult to deal with in a legal context.

Additionally, CP is illegal. CP websites, by extension, are illegal. We're not differentiating between 4chan and a CP website. We're saying all instances of CP are illegal and we're allowing websites the benefit of the doubt in dealing with it.

The legislation suggested doesn't target RP (which I think harassment laws should subsume and would love for them to be evaluated) -- it makes website owners accountable for the content of their site in a scary way.

Again, if RP is illegal then site owners should make a "reasonable effort" to deal with it. "Reasonable effort" is vague and that's why some very old-looking teens slip by and some rather young-looking adults don't. For CP, it's a challenge even though no consent for CP can be given. For RP, what's going to happen? Even here, users check a box saying they are over 18 when visiting a NSFW subreddit. That's "reasonable effort."

The complain I intended to make was that reactionary laws appealing to methods common before the digital age aren't reasonable or actionable in the modern era. I'm not saying RP is good or that producers and distributors thereof ought to be lauded. I'm saying that we must look at the enforceability and specificity of laws in the context of the digital world.