sarah jeong

@sarahjeong what adverse consequences are there for making spreading images without consent and with intent to harm being punishable?

1) criminal liability for a Reddit upvote? 2) for Reddit? 3) for imgur? 4) abuse of law by Prenda, Perfect 10?@nathanjurgenson

And the intent bit doesn't actually solve those problems. "Intent to harm" is going to depend on how harm is defined. @nathanjurgenson

Harm is likely going to HAVE to be defined in terms of publicity-- e.g., intent to share publicly. @nathanjurgenson

One of Perfect 10's arguments against Google was that Google was harming the women whose photos were taken. @nathanjurgenson

@sarahjeong v important details, but ones that exist outside digital images that the law has dealt w/. welcome that same debate here

My point in bringing up Perfect 10 is that "harm to women" is coopted to pursue frivolous litigation for personal gain @nathanjurgenson

@sarahjeong i see, though doesn't seem to preclude creating a framework that punishes people who spread images non-consensually