Reddit (& supporters) like to point out how Reddit supports free speech etc. However reddit doesn't allow some speech that would be legal in USA, namely publishing personal details of reddit users (doxxing). They have already drawn a line and said "This is legal, but we don't want it here".
What about Gawker's free speech?
When people post creepshots (photos of people without their knowledge), we hear that "We can't ban them, because of free speech". When people post personal details of people who take creepshots, suddenly free speech doesn't apply anymore, and it's all about potential personal harm. What about potential personal harm with creepshots?
>What about potential personal harm with creepshots?
And what might that be? An upskirt picture absent any other context (a face, a name, a location, a timestamp) might as well be anonymous. I understand that the subject of that image might be rightly scandalized were they to find out, but if they don't?
Is someone really harmed by someone else getting off to an image of their body absent their knowledge of this?
Sure they are. They know its happening. They know its supported by the hosting organization.
Imagine we institutionalized it- we'll take pictures of random people, including maybe you, in the bathroom in as embarassing a way as possible, and distribute it only to people you don't know. Ha ha! What a riot! They get a good laugh at your expense, you know its happening but cant do anything about it. Feel safe and confident now?
Its morally reprehensible to violate someones privacy in this way. We all suffer when its enabled by anyone.
It is institutionalized, when there are groups on reddit or wherever that regularly shares and encourages creation - isn't that what the conversation was about? SO what is your comment about? Simple denial is not an argument.
And I'm guessing millions now know - how many is enough by your estimate?
The harm is that people have the right to privacy and to be free of sexual harassment. They have the right to be able to go to school and not have their teachers taking sexy photos of them (as happened to one creepshot poster).
I would have thought this is a non-controversial opinion. I'm suprised that people think it's OK to take sexy photos of under 18 girls without their knowledge and consenst, and post them on the internet and people can't see what's wrong with this?!
This is a devils advocate thread (if that wasn't painfully obvious at this point), so please don't think for a minute I'm somehow okay with pictures like these being taken and distributed. Somehow I also doubt this is a controversial stance :)
But they're not all anonymous, and it doesn't matter whether or not they are. I wrote the other day here about a girl that posted about her friend finding herself on there and how humiliating the whole ordeal was. One unfortunately-placed birthmark or tattoo could completely oust the person to her peers. It's absolutely violating, and who's to say the guy that did it to her won't do it again? Can you imagine the fear of wondering if every person you encounter is going to try to take an unwanted picture of you and your body to post to a bunch of people who don't respect women? It isn't innocent and it shouldn't be treated like it is.
What about Gawker's free speech?
When people post creepshots (photos of people without their knowledge), we hear that "We can't ban them, because of free speech". When people post personal details of people who take creepshots, suddenly free speech doesn't apply anymore, and it's all about potential personal harm. What about potential personal harm with creepshots?