Microsoft has given power to victims of revenge porn by way of letting them remove sexually explicit content material of themselves from its offerings.The term “revenge porn” refers to uploading explicit images of a person’s ex-partner in an attempt to damage their reputation or embarrass them. Users can submit an online support form to report this content, including related police reports and restraining orders.
Read more: http://tinyurl.com/ph8oj6u
So, I get that people don't want their bad selves on the internet... But does it really warrant media censoring? Does this not violate our right to freedom of information and expression? I know it's someone else's business but they made it another person's business when they gave those photos or let them take the photos. That person can then do what they want with them. You can't censor things just because it makes you look bad when you choose to do those things in the first place.
Yeah they do. That is until they give you an image of them with no stated requirements or contractual obligations. You give someone something and its theirs to do with as they please. I'm not saying is okay to try to make someone look bad but as a general rule I avoid doing things I would be ashamed of people knowing. And I certainly wouldn't let there be evidence of such things. Even if there was evidence I definitely wouldn't give it to someone else. That's just stupid. Edited for auto correct errors
I might be really wrong and probably legislation is different in each country but: Giving someone a picture, film, audio or whatsoever media allows that person to have it, but not to broadcast it in any way (including internet). It's different if you're in a public place, like streets, countryside, etc. then your image can be used (example: pictures of a demonstration or the queues for concert tickets, etc). The naughty pictures of a girlfriend / wife are not broadcastable (is that a word?) since you don't have the rights for her public image. When I worked in porn we were dead serious about it, to the point of -almost- being sued for not blurring the plate number of a passing-by car in a street scene. About avoiding potentially embarrassing things, I don't think it's a valid argument. We all do silly stuff. We all make mistakes. We do things that are not silly nor mistakes, but years later we look at them in other way. Sending your years-long boyfriend a topless pic because you miss each other and are horny is perfectly right. If that couple breaks years later, posting that pic in hate is totally wrong.
A license plate is different in that is involving someone not involved in the act. It's a third party who didn't willingly take part in the act so I'm not sure that's the same thing. I'm pretty sure there is something about selling an image without permission as it's for gains. We all make mistakes. I do but I'm not mad at people for bringing it up or telling people or even showing pictures of it. If I give you a picture of me is yours. I gave it to you without pretext, that makes it a gift. When people go through divorce and the man wants the ring he bought his woman back it comes down to "Was it a gift or a promise?" If it was a gift is hers and she can do what she wants with it. If it's a promise it legally must be returned at means request. ( this is regardless of gender) When someone gives you something like that is a gift, not a promise unless stated. I can't buy you a car and then tell you what you can and can't do with it legally. You can argue that a car doesn't make someone look bad but that doesn't make it but a gift. It's a dick thing to do I agree but a gift is a gift. Still doesn't merit censorship
While I agree on certain aspects, think that self-image rights are not treated the same as physical objects property. The first analogy I can think of is an itunes song. You can use it, delete it, etc. but you can't legally post it for public download on a forum.
Of course, you don't sign a contract for each whatsapp conversation you have, but I'm pretty sure similar terms apply when related to personal pics. I don't know if "don't facilitate posting really personal and possibly harming pictures of someone without their consent" equals to "censorship". Maybe it's because I've worked in porn, so "revenge porn" is specially awful to me. We're living in a really hypocrit society where a woman can lose her reputation or her job just for being shown doing something that's not even illegal. I've met some really gifted models that suffered a lot of slut shaming from the same guys who pirated the porn she was doing. Some of them were threatened with losing their childrens custody (not a chance, in Spain, but it was a terrible fear for a mother). So, I'm terribly biased and I'm on Microsoft's side. I just can't believe I just said this.
But that's the problem with "revenge porn" (I don't like that name, for it's not porn, it's only slut shaming). It's not a risk you take with a one night stand. It's a healthy, normal, funny thing you do with someone you love, and maybe have lived with for years. I can't put the person I love into the "can't really trust" bin.
I can totally understand the frustration and no one should ever lose their job for something like that. The iTunes thing. You may not be able to let other people download it but you can post it online for other people to listen to or in this case watch. Also those songs are purchased not gifted so it's not the best analogy but I see where you were going with it. I totally understand your bias. And a lot of what you say isn't simply bias. It's experience. I just don't think people should be able to put themselves in compromising positions and then be mad someone used it against them. Also the people who are sending in the revenge porn aren't owners or operations of the site. And since they are not making money of it they are essentially gifting to the site that which they were gifted. I'm also a bit biased having been raised to avoid those compromising situations and to me the fact that someone would put themself in that situation in the first place is an oversight on their part. I can't believe you just said that either! Lol