Thread: Revenge porn

Originally Posted by baldrick

when I have taken photos of a partner naked , I frame the photo so that their face is not visible - I know who they are , but their face is not shown , so they are really not identifiable.

That is very considerate of you, and I don't think we miss the face much anyway.
But what if your partner has an identifying mark, such as a freckle on their knob.
I reckon you could still be sued for zillions in California.

Originally Posted by baldrick

when I have taken photos of a partner naked , I frame the photo so that their face is not visible

Wise decision.

Originally Posted by sabang

But what if your partner has an identifying mark, such as a freckle on their knob.

no chance of that as my partners do not have knobs

unless you have a birthmark that could be squintingly viewed as the face of jesus or goatse I doubt that your freckle is a unique enough identifier.

though our freckle specialists , butters and socal may well disagree

Originally Posted by withnallstoke

Wise decision.

saves on paper bags

I can see KW getting into trouble straight away

Originally Posted by baldrick

no chance of that as my partners do not have knobs

didn't they keep it in a bottle after the op?

Originally Posted by withnallstoke

Originally Posted by baldrick

when I have taken photos of a partner naked , I frame the photo so that their face is not visible

Wise decision.

Oi, no selfies!

Originally Posted by baldrick

should we be having laws such as this new californian laws with its direction or should we be looking to entirely change direction and not have nudity or normal consensual adult sexual activity viewed as derogatory and shameful ?

I think we should quite naturally do the complete opposite of what laws in the US/US States impose.

Personally, I don't think the stuff is needed but at the same time I probably would watch a clip of someone just because it was there if I were looking at stuff on an adult site. There are endless regular porn vids posted illegally online. I mean that the people posting them are using the videos to make money and not paying royalties to the owners. I see enforcement issues.

If it were to work, I could also see this to be the beginning of crackdowns on all the ways pictures, videos and writings are used online without giving the owners credit. Hollywood could have doubled or tripled its profits every year over the past 20 years if all the people watching pirated stuff actually paid for it instead of downloading it for free.

Originally Posted by sabang

But what if your partner has an identifying mark, such as a freckle on their knob.

some comment by a former revenge porn site owner

But this scheme has been rubbished by Hunter Moore, founder of the controversial revenge porn website Is Anyone Up, who was once described as "the most hated man on the internet" in a Rolling Stone profile.
His website was the first to allow disgruntled ex-partners to upload graphic shots of their former lovers, along with their name, city of residence, occupation and social media profile details. At its peak, the site was receiving 30 million page views a month and netting $10,000 in advertising revenue. Moore shut Is Anyone Up? down at the end of last year after drawing international criticism and even reportedly being stabbed with a pen by an angry woman whose pictures were on the site.
Many of the images uploaded to Moore's site were nude selfies, sent by young women and men to their lovers.
He told The Register: "This doesn't stop anything. If you read the bill it is just for peeping toms, not for selfies, which is all revenge porn really is.”
"Also the communications decency act still protects site owners and a site owner just needs to move his servers. And why would he give up information on the submitter [of revenge porn images]? This stops nothing. It will just make revenge porn bigger by driving traffic, because people are talking about it.”
"These stupid old white people are even more stupid to think they can stop it,” said the self-described “small town Christian boy.”
“We are animals. We are sexual. Maybe they need a class on reality: don't give your kid a phone."

so, Baldrick are you a resident of California? Its not that complicated here in LOS. You can post anything you want, with the one exception we're all aware of...other than that its a free for all here in LOS.

California has laws that no sane person would ever consider...then again they have a governor or two that nobody else wanted.