We can't be amused by disgusting louts who post naked pictures without the naked person's consent??
Anyone actually think "Revenge Porn" will go away when there's money to be made? Anyone think this "Revenge Porn" law will curb abuse any more than those stickers on your CD that say "Copying this CD is punishable by a $5,000 fine and a year in jail" ????
It seems that everyone ignores those warnings and "shares" every bit of music they can get their hands on. And why? For REVENGE.
REVENGE is really behind why decent people (like you and me) steal the music and movies and books and warez...and don't feel too guilty about it. We're ENTITLED, aren't we? It's revenge against having to pay for something when we already pay too much for everything!
WE LIKE OUR REVENGE and justify it because in our daily lives we're so screwed by the government, by taxes, supermarket prices, by every aspect of "the system." Any little way we can have "power" and get something free to make up for how much we over-pay...we take it. Then we make excuses that the artists are rich, the record labels make all the money anyway, that the person stolen from can make it up by selling t-shirts, or that we're "entitled" to FREE because it's information and all information should be FREE. Or it's fair use because we say so. Something like that. Now let's go watch a "Robin Hood" movie or a flick about pirates...our heroes!
So what the fuck, say the Revenge Porn guys...the bitch posed for the nude pictures, now she isn't giving it away FREE, so...REVENGE!
File sharing has not been dented in the least just because there are laws against it.
Revenge porn MIGHT not be a lucrative idea for a website anymore, but it will not disappear. Not when it's so easy to spread somebody's name out there via "social media" with a link to a blog or a cloud with the nude photos.
There are loopholes here bigger than Kim Kardashian's cunt hole, and almost as wide and deep as Kanye's asshole.
First off, this doesn't apply to leaked photos or videos of stars, right? They are "public" figures. It also wouldn't apply to photos NOT taken by a loved one...like topless shots of Kate Middleton. She should know better than to sunbathe in a remote location when some camera monkey hanging upside from a tree a mile away has a telephoto lens. And the photo might technically be "news." Oh, what's Kate up to? The world has a right to know!
If a guy takes a photo but doesn't have a model release...isn't it still his photo? Not to publish, no, but...maybe YES...if he can claim it's his "civil liberty" to express his anger at a bitch who isn't blowing him anymore. Maybe he can claim it's "art" or "news." He can claim that he's promoting the ex-girlfriend in case she wants a career as a nude model. A guy can claim quite a lot...assuming he ever has to. The odds of him appearing in court are miniscule.
How do you get the guy to court, or even get a cease and desist and have the picture taken down?
Doing that would "ruin the fun" and profits for The Great God Google...who make sure a search for "revenge porn" always yields good results (and pops up plenty of ads). They don't want to block a search for a particular person or remove a photo from view.
Let's question how many hoops a woman would go through to get The Great God Google to give up the ISP of a blog that has posted a revenge porn photo of her. She'd probably need to hire a lawyer and spend more than the $1,000 fine the guy will never pay.
If he posted the picture on an easy-to-get Hans Demented blog from Google (make that five blogs...or ten)...how much time would it take to do something about it? Once a photo is up in cyberspace, thousands and thousands and thousands of people can seen it every day AND download it.
Will this law make it more difficult for somebody to grab a Facebook or Instagram or Blogspot account, use an anonymous ISP scrambler, and start flooding the Internet with salacious photos AND the woman's name address and phone number?
What we've NOT learned from "file sharing" and hackers, is that saying "against the law" does not deter anything. Fines need to be increased and Internet anonymity restricted, at least so that it's quick and easy for an ISP to locate a troublemaker.
Fuck the "civil liberties union" if they don't get it. Make sure bloggers and website owenrs sign up with valid identification. Let ISP providers block anonymous pipeline services if it makes tracing and identifying potential felons more difficult.
In the real world, do we let people walk around in masks, going into banks and schools? Are we concerned with their anonymity or our safety?
The reason there's so much nasty activity on the Net, from revenge porn to file sharing to cyberbullying, is down to three words: "because they can." The two big reasons they can, is that these assholes can be anonymous, and they know that the law is not likely to do much to them if they're stupid enough to be tracked down.
PS, does a bill signed in California actually mean anything in the other 49 states? Or does a woman have to go to California, prove somebody downloaded or saw the photo in California, and THEN chase after the company that provided the website or the blog?
Kudos, though, to the bi-partisan support this bill got. It was submitted by a Republican, and signed by a Democrat, Governor Jerry Brown. You remember Jerry. It's safe to say that he either didn't take any nude pix of Linda Ronstadt, or...they had an amicable split, and he's not going to gain "revenge" by leaking pix of her split to anybody on line.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.