There are websites on the Internet devoted to “revenge porn”, apparently, which is where, on the failure of a relationship, someone chooses to post kinky photographs of a former girlfriend or boyfriend online. Other similar cases would include the posting of revealing self-images without the person’s authorisation, although not necessarily as a result of the failure of a relationship.
It has been announced that “revenge porn” will now be illegal.
I’m sure the people whose photographs are posted online will be upset — but I’m not so sure this should be illegal. Someone who has sent others such photographs, and there are many people who send such images to all and sundry, has chosen to put such images into the public domain. A person with a certain level of standards would never send such images in the first place. Why should such people be allowed to control the image after it has left their phone or computer?
Like it or not, revenge porn is a well-deserved punishment of a certain type of person. As the people involved are not children — which is another issue — why is this going to become illegal?
Indeed, where is the substantial harm? Few people look at such websites, and the chances of anyone finding a certain person’s naked images on a revenge porn website are close to zero. Even if someone’s images become known within the local community, there is still no genuine harm involved.
It seemed once that the Internet was a zone of freedom, where most of the laws that complicate life in the real world didn’t apply or weren’t applied. Now there is a frenetic attempt to legislate for the Internet. Would it not be more sensible to take the view that the bar for “serious harm” relating to anything posted online must be very high indeed – given the huge amounts of information, reliable and unreliable, on the Internet, and the “throwaway” nature of all postings on the Internet? Unfortunately, the Internet was a great opportunity for libertarians to support the development of a new realm of life that was not encumbered with petty laws – and yet that chance is now slipping away from us.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How very odd. People taking nude photographs of each other supposedly in private (which is odd in its self – if they are undressed and together what are the private photographs for?) and then one party taking these photographs and spreading them about.
It seems like a matter for the civil law (a breach of promise legal case), not the criminal law. Unless the photographs were stolen by someone – in which case the crime of theft has been committed.
Well, this is one of the usual Progressivist laws which are really about pursuing a campaign rather than addressing criminal acts. In this case, they are salami-slicing porn, gradually extending more and more categories that will get people into legal trouble. The other aspect of it of course is the simple feminist idea that women should always have protection. One notes that the rhetoric is all about protection of women. Anecdotally, the only “revenge porn” I can remember looking at was back in the internet dark ages, a woman posting pictures of the boyfriend who dumped her to show he had a tiny willie. Hey ho.
Naked pictures are an embarrassment. So are a lot of things. Logically extending the principle, the salacious reportage of private matters for the purpose of embarrassment would be generally illegal. But of course that is not going to happen.
Anyway, not about what it claims to be about this. Just more of the progressivist use of the law as a means to further their campaigns.
I don’t know your general positions, so I’d like to ask if you are a supporter of abolition of copyright law.
If you are, then your position is coherent.
If you support retaining copyright law, however, I do not see how your position stands any reasonable test. Copyright law means that, for example, a record company can sell millions of copies of a musical recording to all and sundry, but a recipient placing a copy for public access is in breach of law. By the very same token, anyone distributing naked photos of a person without their permission is in breach of law.
In fact, with model claims to copyright being common knowledge (that’s why porn performers sign release forms), “revenge porn” appears to be already illegal and all that remains is enforcement of existing laws.
Yes, I do favour abolishing or scaling back copyright. Whether models can claim copyright depends on the law of the country. As far as I know, they may “claim” it, but in most countries copyright lies with the person taking the photo. If a man takes a photograph of his girlfriend, it is naturally with her permission – and so he owns the rights to the image.
I have checked, apparently there is a difference here between US and UK law. In the US there is a “right to publicity” that would make commercial use of someone’s images actionable without a release.
UK does not have this but there still seems to be some protection against “offensive use”, but that may be unclear now. Perhaps all they are doing is clarifying that legislation?
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, this is private opinion based on a search).