Is this how we should handle Dick Pics?

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

How many people would think she would be out of line for sharing an email or text if these guys threatened her or called her names? Hell yeah they want it to be private, that way they wouldn't get in any trouble. That way they wouldn't be labeled a creep. It's not considered proper to just send people naked pictures of yourself and for good reason. We aren't talking about sharing information. This isn't sexting, this is harassment.

It definitely is harassment. And I'm completely in favour of calling it out and reporting it.

All that being true I do believe there's no improvement for anyone by sharing the picture itself. Even criminals deserve privacy, even if they themselves violate that of others.

It's not right to murder murderers. It's not right to rape rapists. It's not right to harass harassers. Doesn't mean you should do nothing. Criminals deserve appropriate punishment, they do not deserve to be stripped of their own rights simply because they don't respect those of others. The rule of law should apply to everyone equally.

I don't quite understand how this answers my question of why the victim of harassment ought to have fewer options than her harasser does, unless you mean that a law has some inherent quality of goodness about it, which I disagree with. The law exists to strip freedoms from us, and it is good if the freedom stripped is in service of a good purpose; for instance, I have lost my freedom to murder you, but that's probably good because it increases the odds you won't be murdered. What good do you believe is accomplished by preventing the victim of harassment from sending evidence of that harassment to third parties in order to shame her harassers? Is it that you think conflict resolution should be monopolized by the police? I hope not, because the police ain't doing shit about it, while outing scumbags to their girlfriends seems to be working; in other words, it accomplishes the good of protecting Ms. Sears from abuse.

The law also guarantees certain rights for all people, even criminals. And I do think a monopoly of conflict resolution belongs to the state ( not just the police ) and if the state is inadequate then that's the area that should be improved. I do not believe anarchy is the answer. If the cops are ineffective then call out the cops.

Having your own rights violated does not give you the right to violate the rights of others, not even those violating yours.

The victim shouldn't be getting more options. It's the harasser that should be getting less options. And even without sharing the picture itself I don't see how Ms. Sears can't still contact relatives and describe what happened. Just don't share the picture, it's not yours to share even if it was received in harassment.

Do you not understand what privacy is? You can't claim that you expected privacy when you broadcast something. If you do, then you need a dictionary.

I think a private message has a clear expectation of privacy even when send to an unknown person with intent to harass. The message should be reported. The person making it should be called out. The contents of the message should not be shared.

I'm not arguing for immunity of the harasser. I'm arguing that even harassers deserve a basic right to privacy and that said right doesn't interfere with them receiving what's due.

I'm saying that the problem with harassment as it's currently happening isn't a shortage of vigilantes ripping harassers apart without any regard for the harassers's rights ( and yes, they do still have those ) in righteous anger. It's the ineffectiveness of law enforcement and online services in dealing with or preventing said harassment. That's the area that's in desperate need of improvement. That's where efforts need to be made to make people understand the seriousness of the problem.

You seem to mention violated 'rights' a lot here, regarding privacy. Privacy a big thing, however, legal-wise.

I assume your referring to 'Public Disclosure,' which is aptly summarized by wikipedia.

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy." Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.

I'd be curious if you could provide legal precedents that private communication of uncomfortable facts constitutes a charge of violation of privacy. A cursory examination reveals only cases where people or organizations were charged when they publicly disseminated information. I am unable to find anyone who has ever been charged, let alone prosecuted, for sharing questionable information privately, unless the intent and result of that sharing resulted in a financial loss (Losing ones job for being outed, for example).

In fact, thinking on it, such a law would be, quite frankly, horrifying. Which makes me want to see these laws more.

 

[mecegirl]

Revenge porn usually covers pictures or video that was given with consent.

Does that mean that if I had a girlfriend and she surprised me with a naughty snapchat without me giving prior consent, I would be legally safe to send that picture onto her family?
This seems to me like an area that one would not want to be grey.

There are times when consent is implied. So right or wrong most would assume that this is something that you two have talked about before and she knows that you'd like being surprised like that. But if for whatever reason you two don't have that sort of relationship, then yeah. Spousal rape is a similar thing. Some couples wouldn't mind just getting it on whenever, but if one partner doesn't want it, then they don't want it. There was a time when spousal rape was legal, luckily that has changed. All sorts of abuse can happen within romantic relationships so an anything goes doesn't protect people well.

Most would hope that you'd talk it over with her first since you have some relationship with her and talking it out is an actual option. Especially if you want to continue the relationship. If not, then the rule applied regardless of gender. Unwanted sexual contact is unwanted regardless. Imagine if a hypothetical man has chosen to hold off sex till marriage for religious reasons and he dates a woman who knows that about him. What if she kept trying to tempt him with such pictures? That's a really crappy thing to do. She shouldn't get off scott free just because she's his girlfriend.

Besides, you don't even have to do/report anything. People are victims all the time and they don't report it. Back to spousal rape for a moment. Husbands and wives wake each other up with oral without asking all the time. Sometimes its appreciated. But when it's not a conversation should clear the air. But some spouses won't take no for an answer and continue trying to wake their spouse up in that way, that sort of spouse should face consequences.

In the case of dick pics there usually isn't even a solid friendship, much less a romantic relationship. So talking it out isn't even an option. Even in the case of a long standing friendship, because of the friendship you'd think the sender would have enough of a clue to ask before sending. But being someone's friend doesn't cover creepy behavior.

But, a trial like that would be good for passing laws to make dick pics illegal. A good lawyer might be able to talk their way into winning, might. Good lawyers can do many things. They would have to do a good job covering for the fact that the pictures were unwanted. However the fact is that the pictures were meant to be private, because no shit... We all view sending pictures like that as creepy of course the harasser wouldn't want it shared. Either way, all it would do is call attention to the problem and get legislators ready for action.

Is it not already illegal? It certainly is in my country, the UK. I believe they're covered under the Communcations Act 2003. Although I've never heard of of someone being charged because of a dick pic. Probably because the vast majority of people realise it would be a waste of their time and public money putting every random perv on trial.

In the US? Sorta. If it were someone who sent it to you repeatedly then yeah. The issue is the format. You can't mail a physical picture out of the blue, but you could send a digital one. The law just hasn't caught up with technology yet. So its one of those things that should be illegal, and most expect to be illegal but it isn't. And with things like that the momentum to actually make or amend a law can be slow.

 

[s0denone]

Assuming Danish and American law are pretty similar on this regard (and I am fairly confident that they are):

I'm afraid @AccursedTheory is right. Slander and libel have to be untrue to be criminal.

If she had said "Send me an apology or I will send the picture to your mother" it would be blackmail but no judge or jury would convict her.
"Send me 100 dollars or I will send it to your mother" would be blackmail and probably result in a conviction, albeit very minor punishment.
"He sent me five of these" would be defamation, if he sent less than five, though is unlikely to result in conviction: "I get so many, I got them confused, I am sorry"
"He sent me this one" is what happened and is not defamation. I'm afraid it is a classic case of "res ipsa loquitur" - as in it speaks for itself, upon review of the picture. Should the legitimacy of the picture be called into question and the court being unable to retrieve the EXIF data from the file and it potentially being sent from an unregistered phone, it is still very unlikely it will result in consequences for the one revealing it.

...But again, on the subject of "defamation", it has to be untrue for it to be criminal. You can make a case that it is ethically wrong to broadcast personal facts - and if someone goes out of their way to do it, you can file harassment charges against them. This case would in no way constitute that, though, I'm afraid. If she was sharing the picture with people not otherwise connected with the dick-pick-taker, it might very well qualify as harassment - but while sharing it with a boss or a family member is certainly vengeful, and I'd say quite malicious, it isn't criminal.

 

[Hagi]

There is no rule of law though. That's the problem. She can't just go to the cops with this and expect the behavior to stop, not just for her, but towards other women as well. So until the law catches up people will take care of the situation on their own. The law can't cover what isn't illegal and at the moment unsolicited dick pics aren't illegal. Should be, in the same way streaking/flashing is ,but they aren't. So I'm simply not down for holding a victim to a higher standard than the harasser when there is no higher authority to appeal to.

If there's no rule of law then the focus should be on achieving that. Laws aren't static remote things people have no influence over. She should definitely campaign for achieving such laws. I'm merely saying the picture itself shouldn't be used during that campaign. It adds nothing and only takes away.

I don't think that's holding the victim to a higher standard. I think that's holding the victim to exactly the same standard, it's just a standard the harasser broke. Which doesn't mean I'm not holding the harasser to that standard and finding him short.

The harasser falls short. The harasser should face measured and appropriate consequences for that. But none of this changes the standard for the victim.

You seem to mention violated 'rights' a lot here, regarding privacy. Privacy a big thing, however, legal-wise.

I assume your referring to 'Public Disclosure,' which is aptly summarized by wikipedia.

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy." Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.

I'd be curious if you could provide legal precedents that private communication of uncomfortable facts constitutes a charge of violation of privacy. A cursory examination reveals only cases where people or organizations were charged when they publicly disseminated information. I am unable to find anyone who has ever been charged, let alone prosecuted, for sharing questionable information privately, unless the intent and result of that sharing resulted in a financial loss (Losing ones job for being outed, for example).

In fact, thinking on it, such a law would be, quite frankly, horrifying. Which makes me want to see these laws more.

I don't think there's a legal precedent, either for or against. Just like there's most likely no legal precedent for dick pics being harassment.

As I've mentioned previously I'm merely going of what I think is a reasonable interpretation of the laws in question ( which do vary between countries ).

Based on that I can only conclude that sending dick pics is harassment whilst at the same time concluding that said pictures are still private facts and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.

Again, considering the response I'm getting, I'm not arguing that sending dick pics is fine and dandy, it isn't. I'm not arguing it in any way, shape or form isn't harassment, it is. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be talked about, it should be. I'm not arguing the harasser shouldn't face consequences, he should. I'm not saying the picture in question shouldn't be used in any official investigations, it should be. I'm merely arguing that the picture in question should be kept in confidence and not made public.

I don't think that's such a strange thing. I think that's quite reasonable and in line with how I view laws regarding public disclosure of private facts.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

You seem to mention violated 'rights' a lot here, regarding privacy. Privacy a big thing, however, legal-wise.

I assume your referring to 'Public Disclosure,' which is aptly summarized by wikipedia.

Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy." Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.

I'd be curious if you could provide legal precedents that private communication of uncomfortable facts constitutes a charge of violation of privacy. A cursory examination reveals only cases where people or organizations were charged when they publicly disseminated information. I am unable to find anyone who has ever been charged, let alone prosecuted, for sharing questionable information privately, unless the intent and result of that sharing resulted in a financial loss (Losing ones job for being outed, for example).

In fact, thinking on it, such a law would be, quite frankly, horrifying. Which makes me want to see these laws more.

I don't think there's a legal precedent, either for or against. Just like there's most likely no legal precedent for dick pics being harassment.

As I've mentioned previously I'm merely going of what I think is a reasonable interpretation of the laws in question ( which do vary between countries ).

Based on that I can only conclude that sending dick pics is harassment whilst at the same time concluding that said pictures are still private facts and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public.

Again, considering the response I'm getting, I'm not arguing that sending dick pics is fine and dandy, it isn't. I'm not arguing it in any way, shape or form isn't harassment, it is. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be talked about, it should be. I'm not arguing the harasser shouldn't face consequences, he should. I'm not saying the picture in question shouldn't be used in any official investigations, it should be. I'm merely arguing that the picture in question should be kept in confidence and not made public.

I don't think that's such a strange thing. I think that's quite reasonable and in line with how I view laws regarding public disclosure of private facts.

It's strange because you're arguing about it in this particular case. Should it be legal to post nudes of others on the internet without their permission? No, and there's currently a push towards shoring up the law on that issue.

Did Emily Sears make dick pictures, or the identities of those who sent them to her, public? As far as I can tell, she didn't. Being ratted out to your Mom in a private message is not public communication.

 

[JimB]

I do think a monopoly of conflict resolution belongs to the state (not just the police), and if the state is inadequate then that's the area that should be improved.

Fair enough. I disagree that victims should have no recourse when the law fails them, but fair enough.

The victim shouldn't be getting more options. It's the harasser that should be getting less options.

I agree, but if the world worked like that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And even without sharing the picture itself I don't see how Ms. Sears can't still contact relatives and describe what happened.

I'm sure she can. I think the reality of that cock in the mailbox gives it an immediacy that makes action against her harassers more likely, and if I'm honest, I have very little sympathy for the harassers here. If you don't want people to know you send pictures of your dick to women who didn't ask for it, then don't fucking do that.

 

[Hagi]

It's strange because you're arguing about it in this particular case. Should it be legal to post nudes of others on the internet without their permission? No, and there's currently a push towards shoring up the law on that issue.

Did Emily Sears make dick pictures, or the identities of those who sent them to her, public? As far as I can tell, she didn't. Being ratted out to your Mom in a private message is not public communication.

There's part of a dick pic in one of her tweets, that's certainly public. And in my opinion not in her right to share in that way, even if it's not the full picture.

Sharing the picture itself with friends and family of the harasser is more complicated though, I wouldn't make a legal argument there although I'd still I'd still consider it too far and not excused by the actions of the harasser.

Justice shouldn't be vindictive as that in my opinion.

 

[Hagi]

I do think a monopoly of conflict resolution belongs to the state (not just the police), and if the state is inadequate then that's the area that should be improved.

Fair enough. I disagree that victims should have no recourse when the law fails them, but fair enough.

The victim shouldn't be getting more options. It's the harasser that should be getting less options.

I agree, but if the world worked like that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And even without sharing the picture itself I don't see how Ms. Sears can't still contact relatives and describe what happened.

I'm sure she can. I think the reality of that cock in the mailbox gives it an immediacy that makes action against her harassers more likely, and if I'm honest, I have very little sympathy for the harassers here. If you don't want people to know you send pictures of your dick to women who didn't ask for it, then don't fucking do that.

Can't say I've any sympathy for the harassers either. Her actions are completely understandable and I wouldn't blame her for it.

I just don't think they're good. Certainly not evil, but I don't see individual actions like this as very constructive.

Likely end-result is that a minority of harassers are going to end up facing consequences far in excess of their actions when particular cases are picked up in social media or the press whilst a majority will continue on ignored because the victims aren't celebrities. You could certainly make a case that's better than all instances getting ignored and I'd probably agree with you, but I can't see any argument for it being an actually desirable result.