@sarahjeong consent
-
-
En réponse à @nathanjurgenson
That basis would disembowel the CDA and have wide-reaching effects beyond just revenge porn.
@nathanjurgenson1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong what adverse consequences are there for making spreading images without consent and with intent to harm being punishable?1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @nathanjurgenson
1) criminal liability for a Reddit upvote? 2) for Reddit? 3) for imgur? 4) abuse of law by Prenda, Perfect 10?
@nathanjurgenson1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
And the intent bit doesn't actually solve those problems. "Intent to harm" is going to depend on how harm is defined.
@nathanjurgenson1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
Harm is likely going to HAVE to be defined in terms of publicity-- e.g., intent to share publicly.
@nathanjurgenson1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
One of Perfect 10's arguments against Google was that Google was harming the women whose photos were taken.
@nathanjurgenson2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong v important details, but ones that exist outside digital images that the law has dealt w/. welcome that same debate here1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @nathanjurgenson
My point in bringing up Perfect 10 is that "harm to women" is coopted to pursue frivolous litigation for personal gain
@nathanjurgenson1 réponse 0 Retweet 3 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong i see, though doesn't seem to preclude creating a framework that punishes people who spread images non-consensually3 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
This framework can be used to squelch many things, including journalism. Embarrassing photos aren't always revenge porn. @nathanjurgenson
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.