Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[bumbledog]

And to say "they should just post nudes themselves instead of waiting for hackers to get them" is like saying a person with an expensive house should just open it up to hoodlums as opposed to waiting for them to break in. If somebody wants to do that, good for them, but if they don't then the expectation shouldn't be there and the blame shouldn't be placed at their feet if something happens. Or to put it more dramatically, it's like saying a woman at a party should make sure she hooks up with a man consensually as soon as possible so she doesn't get raped later.

Well that escalated quickly. You can't equate Kaley Christine Cuoco willingly posting pictures she chose herself to rape and burglary for gods sake.

Jesus so much bickering. However, this was a good point:

No, but having private photographs stolen can profoundly affect a person's public image, especially when we're talking about celebrities who make their living off of their public image and, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the celebrity, their image as a sexual person.

A hacker doesn't get the right to override whether or not someone wants to be seen naked based on the fact that they really, really want to see that person naked.
[/i].

It sounds to me like a lot of the raging here comes from people not considering the place of non-sexual nudity and its presentation, eg: Keira making a point about body image, which can be empowering. For a lot of young women her statement could be a pillar of confidence. Anyone who has actually seen the photo's can see for themselves that the presentation of her nudity (which was perhaps only one of the photo's from that shoot) is not sexual or objectifying.

(Well, aside from the temporary objectification of being a model in a photoshoot. Now before anyone run's off with that: The problem with using the magical SJW buzzword "Objectified" in this context is that she, as any model, CHOSE to be the subject/object in a photoshoot only.)

Same for Chelsea Handler to some extent I guess, as her nudity was in protest against how Instagram perceives boobies to be a problem in comparison to male toplessness. Which it shouldn't be. Boobs happen. They're not a public secret, or some dark arcane thing children shouldn't be allowed to know about. NO WAIT STOP DONT EAT ME SJW'S! It's about context. Chelsea's instagram photo was a parody of a similar photo of Vladimir Putin, and its actually quite funny and, more importantly, non sexual. I encourage you to see it.

Unfortunately the more fuss people make about nudity the more sensational and scandalous it becomes. The more scandalous it becomes, the more clandestine it gets. I get that its plain simple evolutionary psychology for bums, boobies and curvy hips etc to, literally, look nice because they are all related to fertility etc. Men use their eyes. No helping that. But men don't literally seriously consider having sex with every single woman they see. That's why nudity doesnt always have to be automatically assumed to be sexual. I wish the world could get over it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But that's just it. It's sexual assault, not theft. Those are different crimes. The nude photos are much more akin to a sex crime than larsony, that's all i'm trying to get at here. Yes, they're doing it without the consent of the person in the photo, and yes that's wrong, but it's sexual harassment if anything, not theft. I never said anything was justified, only that it's not theft. In the case of the celebrities in the original OP, it's justified because it's their decision.

By comparison, we speak of theft of intellectual property, in regards to piracy and patents and so on.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

This isn't really "new" in the slightest. Remember "I'd rather be naked than wear fur"? Tons of celebrities did nude photos to protest wearing fur, it's just another way to draw attention to your cause.

 

[bumbledog]

This isn't really "new" in the slightest. Remember "I'd rather be naked than wear fur"? Tons of celebrities did nude photos to protest wearing fur, it's just another way to draw attention to your cause.

Good example. This is another example where celebrity nudity in particular is a powerful tool of influence. I'm just not sure why yet.

Keep trying to steer the discussion back on topic, maybe they'll stop bickering.

 

[JimB]

Stolen property? Really?

Yes. It did not belong to the thieves, and the thieves took it anyway.

I'm sorry, but this whole ordeal really strikes me as overly dramatic. People saw you in your natural form, holy fucking shit we have a crisis! Men might be feeling good and having orgasms because of this, holy shit the pure evil, shut it down now!

I may have missed a post, but so far I do not believe anyone has said that. It seems to be a straw man you have erected.

 

[NiPah]

Let's try and make this argument a bit more rational by taking the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" out of the equation.

"There's no way to stop really determined hackers from getting your credit card information, so it would be really great if more people just decided to take the wind out of their sails and showed they aren't ashamed of their financial information by posting their credit card number and expiration date in this thread."

I look forward to everyone demonstrating how great it is to be unashamed of our inability to get justice from cyber-criminals.

Had to look up what the hell you were on about with the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" comment, ah you're referring to the male penis, I'm guessing further referring to male sexuality.

So if I'm following you, you believe having nude photos leaked online is tantamount to having credit card information leaked only without male sexual desire?

Honestly I can't agree with this statement at all, credit information can be changed and thus eliminating any risks of misuse of lost information, the same can't be said with one's body. Also it could be argued that use of nude photos vs. use of credit card information is detrimental to the victim in a different way, contrasting the two would be extremely hard.

I'm also a bit interested in your solution to having nude photos of yourself leaked, purely a hypothetical, but do you have any ideas for ways of combating the loss of personal information besides releasing it beforehand?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Recently, Chelsea Handler and Kiera Knightley both posted topless photos to make a statement. That statement, of course, was, 'Look at me!'

No, seriously, Handler posted hers to complain that Instagram is sexist for not allowing female nudity (?), while Knightley did so because she was sick of being photoshopped all the time.

Instagram is sexist for not allowing female nudity because it allows males to be topless.

In fact, ALL laws that allow men to go around with their nips out, but not women, are sexist.

Sexist means treating the sexes differently. If one kind of nipple is illegal and the other kind is legal, that is sexist - by definition.

For that matter, beauty photoshopping is a disgusting practice an I applaud anyone who attempts who calls it out.

So yeah, basically I thoroughly support both Ms. Handler and Ms. Knightley for their efforts. Bravo to both.

 

[Daverson]

I think we're looking at this the wrong way. If we remove the taboo from stuff like just being naked, people will just find new, more daring taboos, like, say, being naked, but with a leek on your head. Then there'll just be leaked pictures of celebrities wearing leeks, and every other movie poster will the head of leek "tactfully" photoshopped in.

What we should be be doing, is making completely inane stuff, like leeks, taboo. That way, women will be free to post their naked bodies all over the internet without feeling threatened, because 4chan will be plotting to hack their fridges and get lewd pictures of their leeks to leak all over the internet.

LEEKS!

...I may have been slightly Welsh when I wrote this. I will not apologize for this.

 

[COMaestro]

Stolen property? Really?

Yes. It did not belong to the thieves, and the thieves took it anyway.

Taking it away would imply the owner doesn't have it anymore. That isn't the case. Piracy =/= theft, sexual harassment =/= theft.

I'm sorry, but this whole ordeal really strikes me as overly dramatic. People saw you in your natural form, holy fucking shit we have a crisis! Men might be feeling good and having orgasms because of this, holy shit the pure evil, shut it down now!
I may have missed a post, but so far I do not believe anyone has said that. It seems to be a straw man you have erected.

How about, instead of just saying i'm strawmannging things, you explain the argument to me.

On what grounds do celelbrity nudes being stolen upset you, because i've tried very hard to pry this information out of all of you, and you seem very reluctant to disclose it. The two points i brought up were an attempt to argue the illigitimacy of what i honestly thought the problems might be, that is, people seeing you in your natural form (people seeing nude pictures, and an appeal to privacy), or men getting off to it (sexual harassment). If these are not your qualms with the ordeal, please tell me what your qualms with it are, so we can have a discussion like normal people instead of just constantly calling my desperate attempt to figure out what the fuck you people are trying to say as "STRAWMAN" "ONLY IN UR HED".

You can start by telling me what aspect of nude photos being leaked without the consent of the person in the photos upsets you.

I'm going to try to address a few of the questions regarding people's statements that you have expressed in this thread, as far as I understand them.

Danger Must Silence says that women have a right to privacy. Everyone has a right to privacy and it is wrong when it is violated. HOWEVER, you keep assuming he is referring to Kiera and Chelsea (the women in the OP) where he is actually referring to any woman who has had nude photos of them stolen (yes, STOLEN) and posted without permission. Kiera and Chelsea DID give permission for these particular photos to be posted, thus their privacy is not being violated here. Hackers who work to steal nude photos of women for their own gratification are violating the privacy of these women, which is wrong because it goes against the wishes of the women involved. Just as much as someone stealing your credit card information (or for a better example that you may not equate with money, your identity, since you would still have your identity, right?) would be against your wishes.

There's nothing wrong with a woman being naked, or even guys getting off on seeing it, but it IS wrong when the woman did not give her permission for that photo to be available to anyone to see. Those who are comfortable enough to show off their body have every right to do so, however by the same token those who are NOT that comfortable have the right to not have their body displayed for all to see. So for some people, being shown naked by these stolen photos IS a personal crisis, as it was something that made them feel exposed, vulnerable, and objectified. Think of your deepest, darkest secret that you refuse to tell anyone. If I managed to learn that secret and posted it here and other places online for everyone to see, how would you feel about it? Would your reaction be "overly dramatic?"

As for stealing, let's look at a definition: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. Sure, this does look mostly like it refers to physical property. However, laws currently don't have a good distinction between physical and virtual property, short of intellectual property. Still, if we boil the definition down to it's basics: take something without permission or legal right then I don't see how something being digital in format prevents someone taking it without permission from being theft.

Your comparison of the nude photos to a bad review of a movie does not work. The actress CHOSE to be part of a movie, having read the script ahead of time and made an informed decision to be in the film knowing that it would be shown to the public. If the movie sucks, sure, it could affect her income in the form of less roles offered to her, but she made the choice to be in the public eye by doing the movie. Nude photos that are stolen and spread around can affect the roles the actress can get (I believe Disney has refused to hire actresses due to such things in the past), thereby affecting her income, yet it was done without her approval.

Hope this helps some, and that I am interpreting everyone's positions correctly.

 

[JimB]

Stolen property? Really?

Yes. It did not belong to the thieves, and the thieves took it anyway.

Taking it away would imply the owner doesn't have it anymore.

I did not say the thieves took it away. I said the thieves took it anyway. If you want to split hairs and claim this is piracy, then fine, but since piracy is just a subsection of thievery anyway, I don't understand what you think you gain by doing so.

How about, instead of just saying I'm strawmanning things, you explain the argument to me.

If you're asking why I haven't done so before now, that's because you never asked me and because I'm frankly not certain I can explain this in terms you will understand, given your history of reading things that aren't there; but if you want, I will try again.

On what grounds do celebrity nudes being stolen upset you, because I've tried very hard to pry this information out of all of you, and you seem very reluctant to disclose it.

It offends my sense of justice when a thief is allowed to keep his prize. Some asshole saw something that was not his, said, "I want that," and took it without its owner's permission. That grates against something very close to the core of me. Rather further away from the core of me but still pretty fucking upsetting is the offense I take when people blame victims for being stolen from rather than thieves for stealing.

The two points I brought up were an attempt to argue the illegitimacy of what I honestly thought the problems might be; that is, people seeing you in your natural form (people seeing nude pictures, and an appeal to privacy),

It should be my decision how much of myself is revealed to the world, not the decision of a thief.

or men getting off to it (sexual harassment).

At least one person in this thread has argued that the stolen images are bad because they don't meet his standards for masturbating to. He does not seem to understand that the stolen images are bad because they are stolen, or that it is supremely fucked up that he judges the impact of a crime not by how the victim is affected but by how much semen he can personally ejaculate while receiving copies of the stolen property. I further object to people trying to dismiss how fucked up this is by saying that if someone doesn't like such statements, then that person condemns male sexuality, as if male sexuality is what we're talking about rather than crimes that have been committed, minimized, and are currently being encouraged.

 

[Popido]

At what part do these naked photos become public domain's property? Once something is out there, its out there.

Tabloid sites which usually make headlines with nakes pictures have lawyers letting them keep publishing these pictures. And this combined with internet, quickly pushes these pictures into public domain status. Atleast on consense.

Can't say I understand the topless issue. If it's okay for women to walk around topless, then it should be okay to force EVERY WOMAN to be topless in certain situations. School's swimming pool could, for example, have a rule where no one can't wear anything extra, for hygiene reasons, and the school provides the swimsuits. In that situation, if being topless is allowed because complaining about it was seen sexist, every girl would be forced to show their breasts.

If it then becomes a personal issue, where the girls should be allowed to hide their breast if they want to, then it also applies to boys. But what exactly is it that boys should hide? Nipples? So then that applies to girls, where piece of tape is enough to hide nipples.

And then this slippery slope slips into personal idea how much skin showing people consider as acceptable, because nobody knows fuck about what they want.

 

[JimB]

We gain clarity. It's very popular these days to go broad-brushing. Clarity and focus never hurt anyone.

I am very suspicious of this statement when coming from someone who seems to misread everything said to him.

You must not be very fond of the internet, then.

The internet is not piracy, nor is it a pirate. It is a medium in which piracy is more prevalent than most. I feel free to disapprove of the criminal actions people take without condemning the environment for the criminals' choices.

Did you get the express consent of the artist to use that avatar?

Yes.

I'm not trying to dismiss that leaking nudes is bad mind you, only questioning the validity of your particular line of reasoning.

No, you're trying to score points by calling me a hypocrite, which is annoying when it comes from someone who was previously pretending this line of questioning is an attempt to understand me. Please stop that.

After all, a child predator watch list would violate someone's "decision how much of myself is revealed to the world, not the decision of a thief," would it not?

...Are you saying that you think the public's right to know whether their children are in the presence of a sexual predator whose proclivities cannot currently be cured by the field of medicine is equivalent to a hacker's right to steal naked pictures of celebrities? Because Jesus Christ, dude, context is a real thing.

As for the line of reasoning that it's fucked up because "how the victim is affected," then again, we refer back to the bad movie review. Which is clearly acceptable to exist, yet can affect the victim dramatically, and in similar ways.

Context, god damn it, context. A publicly released work of art being criticized under the guidelines of the First Amendment is so far from analogous to stealing another person's private images that are kept under the digital equivalent of lock and key that I have to question whether you're even being serious.

So yeah, to be fair, you kind of should stop accusing people of blatantly lying and making things up to suit them, and should probably recognize that they actually are just genuinely unable to understand the meaning you are trying to convey.

That they possess some incapacity to comprehend words does not mean they aren't still making shit up. It just means it's not deliberately malicious when they do so.

 

[Loonyyy]

lolwat.
Someone can run up your credit card and you won't loose money? Where did you learn economics?

The irony of course being, that's not what economics is. I'd ask you where you learned finance, accounting, or economics, but it's clear you've learnt none of those three.

Specifically what they seem to be referring to is that credit transactions can be reversed by banks. A great example is the new "Paywave" features on bank cards. You can pay for groceries etc with the card. You can pay for fuel. You cannot withdraw money with the wave. If I'm trying to perform a cashout transaction at the store, the only option is checking or savings, because these accounts have actual money. It's the same with paying for your pizza over the phone, or buying a game on steam.

If a charge on a credit card is illegitate, your financial institution can often reverse it, if you report it. That's usually what they do (Recently happened to my girlfriend). If someone gets your PIN, they can withdraw money from your SAVINGS. That doesn't come back nearly so easily, because the bank is at a loss.

 

[JimB]

What points? This is an internet forum, not a gameshow. If you got express consent, then you're not a hypocrite. Please calm down.

Except my hypocrisy doesn't matter. It doesn't make my observations wrong; it just means I don't act on them. A crime is still a crime whether I commit it or whether someone else does, so for you to try to deflect a discussion about how it's a crime to steal nude photos of people into being about me stealing a public domain piece of art suggests you don't actually care about the topic at all, and are just trying to win some imaginary bout. So I will ask you again to please knock it off.

I'm not saying I think they're the same; your previous line of reasoning would also apply to the public's right to know.

The public most explicitly does not have a right to know what Jennifer Lawrence's tits look like in defiance of her own wishes to keep such matters private, and shame on you for suggesting we do. Shame on you.

[My snipped quote] could apply to a child predator's right to keep information about his past private.

A criminal matter is by definition a public matter, not a private one, unless the courtroom is closed and the case is sealed by judicial order. I am unaware of any law which permits sex offenders to have their records sealed; therefore their criminal past is a public matter, not a private one.

I'm working off your lines of reasoning here, not mine.

No, you are not. There is no way on this Earth that what you are doing is a good faith attempt to understand my line of thought, because if you honestly cannot grasp the extremely simple principle I laid down earlier that stealing from people is bad, then I have to assume you are in some manner of guarded facility in which your access to the internet is both restricted and monitored by bonded officials.

If they're not being deliberately malicious, immediately putting them on the defensive by calling them out about it in a blatantly rude and abrasive way doesn't really help foster further discussion.

There comes a point, generally after the third post or so, after which I have to assume that whether deliberate or born of some mental disease or defect, the person who has repeatedly misconstrued me is incapable of doing otherwise and "further discussion" is not a goal to be pursued. The best one can hope for is that some negative feedback will inspire the other party to improve himself. Probably won't happen, but in the case of someone who thinks that arguing against hacking someone morally obligates me to camouflage convicted pedophiles from potential victims, I certainly don't think a kind pat on the head will make a bit of difference.

 

[Loonyyy]

Danger condemned male sexuality here.

Let's try and make this argument a bit more rational by taking the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" out of the equation.

"There's no way to stop really determined hackers from getting your credit card information, so it would be really great if more people just decided to take the wind out of their sails and showed they aren't ashamed of their financial information by posting their credit card number and expiration date in this thread."

I look forward to everyone demonstrating how great it is to be unashamed of our inability to get justice from cyber-criminals.

... Where?

The part where he asked to put the sexual interest in such pictures aside to approach it from the perspective of the privacy issue?

Oddly enough, the people who whinge about anti-male sentiment or god forbid "Misandry", tend to make statements that are more misandrist and offensive to men than the people they're replying to.

I'm a man. My sexuality has nothing to do with encouraging women to post naked pictures for my sexual pleasure, with the particularly lame excuse that hackers will do it anyway, might as well beat them to it, it's "Powerful". I can think with something apart from my dick, and when discussing issues regarding people being sexually exploited, I can think with my brain and not my dick, and realise how utterly innappropriate the intrusion of what I'd like to masturbate to is on people who've had their private photos stolen for people to masturbate to.

 

[Lilani]

And to say "they should just post nudes themselves instead of waiting for hackers to get them" is like saying a person with an expensive house should just open it up to hoodlums as opposed to waiting for them to break in. If somebody wants to do that, good for them, but if they don't then the expectation shouldn't be there and the blame shouldn't be placed at their feet if something happens. Or to put it more dramatically, it's like saying a woman at a party should make sure she hooks up with a man consensually as soon as possible so she doesn't get raped later.

Well that escalated quickly. You can't equate Kaley Christine Cuoco willingly posting pictures she chose herself to rape and burglary for gods sake.

I...think you may have quoted the wrong person...? Or you severely misread what I was saying.

If those women posted those pictures for that reason, then that's fine. Whatever. More power to them. But many argue that more celebrities should be encouraged or even expected to do this regardless of how they feel about it, which isn't right. There should be no expectation for anybody to do that, and it should not in any way be seen as an alternative to discouraging these things and punishing those who do it. Nobody should be encouraged or expected to do anything with their private belongings that they don't want to do. Perhaps Cuoco was fine with doing that, but Jennifer Lawrence wasn't. And both have the right to keep their nude photos in whatever level of privacy they are comfortable with.

The difference really isn't significant enough to make their claim valid.

You originally said "Credit card info will leave you without cash, because someone can take it." They countered with the fact that credit isn't cash, which is true. And I countered with the fact that debts accrued by identity theft are almost always settled with the bank. You've yet to point out any nuances about credit which counters either of these, so at this point you're the only one with a claim that isn't valid.

 

[JimB]

I'm just saying, DMS has somewhat of a history of jumping right to that point the first time someone does it.

I think as far as that goes, you and I just have different standards. I am personally willing to adjust my perception of someone's politeness upward somewhat if I think the thing he's saying is both true and fair, so when DANGER- MUST SILENCE accuses people of making shit up after they tell him he said things he neither said nor even implied, that seems perfectly polite to me; whereas letting it pass would strike me as spinelessness. If you think otherwise, then that's cool. You strike me as a reasonable fellow and I'm prepared to disagree honorably on this one if you are (which I consider distinct from "agreeing to disagree" in that I welcome you expanding on your thoughts further, if you feel the urge to do so).

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Had to look up what the hell you were on about with the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" comment, ah you're referring to the male penis, I'm guessing further referring to male sexuality.

So if I'm following you, you believe having nude photos leaked online is tantamount to having credit card information leaked only without male sexual desire?

Honestly I can't agree with this statement at all, credit information can be changed and thus eliminating any risks of misuse of lost information, the same can't be said with one's body. Also it could be argued that use of nude photos vs. use of credit card information is detrimental to the victim in a different way, contrasting the two would be extremely hard.

I'm also a bit interested in your solution to having nude photos of yourself leaked, purely a hypothetical, but do you have any ideas for ways of combating the loss of personal information besides releasing it beforehand?

Before I go on, I want to say that I don't disagree with what you're saying about the differences between the two. But...

I think there's a general lack of understanding of analogies on this site. When you make an analogy you're not claiming that the two subjects are exactly comparable in every single way. You're claiming that they're similar in a particular regard.

That being said I think the OP was trying to make a joke (poor taste or not), so I don't think anyone was seriously advocating this (I seriously hope). The manner in which it was delivered was objectionable enough though with the "Well if these women are going to keep whining at least this way we get something out of it" sentiment.

And releasing your information beforehand doesn't combat it being leaked, it just changes it from having a chance of being leaked to being leaked for sure. Literally doing nothing is a better solution, you don't need to work hard to find one. As crazy as it is, a lot of people's objections are with the world seeing them naked as opposed to just the world seeing them naked without their thumbs up.

It's great some people are comfortable with the world seeing them naked, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But those who aren't shouldn't be expected to and frankly I think that everyone who sought out their pictures or shared them is responsible for violating their privacy

EDIT:

Well that escalated quickly. You can't equate Kaley Christine Cuoco willingly posting pictures she chose herself to rape and burglary for gods sake.

I...think you may have quoted the wrong person...? Or you severely misread what I was saying.

And The Escapist strikes again!

I seriously believe that people here read analogies as "X is exactly as bad as Y" regardless of whether you flat out say that's not what you're comparing

 

[JimB]

"Stop lying! Straw man! You made that shit up!" is what I would say if I acted like you guys, but as I am a higher caliber of person than that [snip]

I do not normally give out advice on how to lie to people, as it is a skill I do not generally want people to be able to use against me, but fuck it, here's a free tip: Almost no one will ever, ever fall for it if you do something you claim you find objectionable, then try to absolve yourself of having done the ostensibly objectionable thing by pretending it was hypothetical.

 

[Loonyyy]

Could you guys please answer my "where do you draw the line between privacy and freedom of information" question again. I've been trying to get the answer for 2 days now.

Really, "Freedom of information"? That's just plain dishonest. It's not what you've been asking for either. You've made things up, made accusations of "Shaming male sexuality", and generally acted with an appalling lack of honesty or integrity, in what amounts to a bunch of excuse making for wanting to see certain women naked, and not caring overmuch about what they want.

Here's a line: A person's private photos: Private.
A person's credit card number: Private.
Whatever shit a person decides they want to scribble at home: Private.
Pretty much anything that you do on your own, that you want to be private? Private.

Freedom of Information:
In some cases, a criminal record.
It's a pretty short fucking list, because "Freedom of Information" isn't a concept which is usually applied interpersonally, it's completely seperate to that. Try filing a Freedom of Information request to see someone's naked photos and wait to see how quickly you're laughed out of the room.

There are some exceptions(Say, committing crimes), but as a general rule, you're not entitled to any information about anyone, and you're not entitled to their pictures, and you're not entitled to see them naked (And entitled is the word to use here. If you want to ask whether naked pictures are covered under FOI, you're asking whether we're entitled to see them, and if you're arguing in favour of it, you're arguing that we're entitled to them). The LINE is obvious. It's not about "freedom", or anything of the sort. And you don't get to judge how upset someone is over the invasion of their privacy (An obvious wrongdoing), or how they should be. And obviously you value your own privacy to some extent, otherwise you'd share your credit card number. So there are some things you'd rather keep private, and since that affects no-one else negatively, and breaks no laws, that's fucking dandy. And that's exactly the same right that's being extended to people with regard to pictures they take of themselves. It's entirely up to them whether they want anyone else to see them. What fucking advantage could there possibly be to not respecting women's rights to control their own naked pictures to society, bar some fucking infant of a man (Or woman) wanting to jerk off to it? This is like arguing for the right to punch people in the face. And then asking where the line between safety and freedom to be move lies.