Revenge porn site creator jailed for 18 years

In my view it's simply just an immoral business practice, much like manufacturing cigarettes knowing they'll cause cancer and tax payers will fit the bill


Posted from TSR Mobile

People choose to buy cigarettes, and choose separately to smoke them. The people on these sites chose to take the photographs, but didn't choose for them to be public and cause them public shame, possibly cost them jobs etc.

http://news.sky.com/story/1458469/revenge-porn-site-operator-jailed-for-18-years

What a horrible man profiting from the exploitation and humiliation of other people in the most extreme way. It's people like this who drive others to suicide. I'm glad to see the US taking a hard line on this. I wonder how he would be sentenced under UK law.

What do you guys think?

Glad that mofo got 18 years, i would have loved to stamp on his face though.

But if you're not aware that something like that is a possibility then you're an idiot, the law should not be there to protect idiots.


Posted from TSR Mobile

it shouldn't be illegal - this is a free speech principle issue which I actually care about objectively; free speech isn't always consequentially good or moral (e.g. we can use our free speech for bigotry or stupidity, but it is objectively fair. if you don't want people having naked pictures of you - NEVER send them in the first place. NEVER be so stupid and naive! but ultimately, if you decide to transfer a naked picture of yourself to someone, knowing full well that they could use it for evil, then you are just as to blame as they are!

There's always a possibility that I will get hurt in some way whatever I do. Should the laws for zebra crossings and the like not exist because I would be an idiot to just run into the road if a car was coming, but still at a reasonable distance/speed to stop in time, knowing that in some situations the driver won't stop?

Publishing private explicit images of somebody on an open access website without the permission of the subject is not a even a distant cousin of a "free speech issue" and to describe it as such is an insult to those who have genuinely suffered to defend our right to express ourselves (note "express OURSELVES", as opposed to "exploit OTHERS for financial gain").

It might be stupid to send somebody images of yourself but it's also stupid to drunkenly stumble down a dark alley with your wallet stuffed with notes- that doesn't make mugging legal all of a sudden though does it?

Lastly- free speech has necessary limits. As a society we have learned over time that allowing hate speech and incitement is unwise so we legislate against it.

In short- your argument is utter nonsense.

Well the two things are quite obviously different. It's much more likely that if you have a jilted ex boyfriend he'll try and get back at you than it is that a driver will think 'oh look a person is in my way, I'm not going to delay my journey by five seconds, I'll just go through them'. Yes of course there's risk in everything but somethings carry a substantial amount more than others.
Posted from TSR Mobile

He shouldn't have done this but **** that absurd sentence. Rapists do less time.

You don't tend to send naked photos to a person you expect to become a 'jilted ex boyfriend'. Some people who've experienced revenge porn have been in long-term relationships, engaged, married even.


And people do. People regularly go through the lights when they've just turned red and I've just stepped out at a crossing. People slam on and huff and puff at me until I amble across - particularly when I'm with my disabled mother and her walker. I've had an earful for crossing a side street that didn't have a crossing and a taxi driver sped up and didn't expect me to be there as he turned at speed. I was nearly witness to an accident in my friends car when someone went round us at a crossing because the people had left the other side of the road and were in front of her car and the other driver thought there was nothing coming in the other direction.
There's also the possibility that you're on Abbey Road and you've been waiting ages, or it could be your jilted ex who's the driver of the car.

A rape only affects one person, whilst he has potentially harmed thousands of people.

You're actually saying that this guy is worse than a rapist? You're lucky it wasn't men that were the 'victims' or you'd have a ton of **** about to be thrown at you by the femnazis


Posted from TSR Mobile

But if you seriously think in your mind there's no way I'm not going to be with this person at any point in my life then you're delusional, a large number of long term relationships end and often not very amicably. The fact is the chances of your relationship ending and your partner being pretty pissed off is significantly higher than the chances of a driver just thinking 'I'm going to potentially kill that pedestrian because they shouldn't be in the road'. I imagine it's not all that uncommon for drivers to get annoyed about someone crossing the road when they want to keep driving but there's a big difference between that and actually intentionally running someone over


Posted from TSR Mobile

it shouldn't be illegal

One revenge porn offence taken alone is less harmful than a rape, but thousands of offences are worse than a rape.

But there's also the chance that the jilted ex might want to run me down with their car, and given that we live in the same town, running into them is a possibility. At least on zebra crossings the law makes it less likely they will, and gives me the possibility for recourse if they did. But I would be an idiot to stand in front of their car, and the law shouldn't protect idiots according to you.

So you think demanding money with a threat that something bad will befall anyone who refuses to pay should be legal?

In the interests of free speech, you would be happy for your future boss to publish your personal performance review documentation to the world? Or for your teachers and lecturers to do the same with your college/school records?

You don't believe any work of art (such as a photograph) should have copyright, and would be entirely happy for me to profit by selling copies of any work you created that I could manage to get hold of?

You would be happy for me to create and publish a document that destroyed your reputation, no matter that it could be untrue, in the name of freedom of speech

One could argue that rapists also cause a lesser degree of harm.

what are you babbling about? rape is coercion/force and dressing is a voluntary form of expression. transfering your naked images is another form of voluntary expression. only a contract would legitimately give the woman the right to stop a man from doing what he wants with an allocated image towards his disposal.

Well the two things are quite obviously different. It's much more likely that if you have a jilted ex boyfriend he'll try and get back at you than it is that a driver will think 'oh look a person is in my way, I'm not going to delay my journey by five seconds, I'll just go through them'. Yes of course there's risk in everything but somethings carry a substantial amount more than others.



Freedom of expression isn't specified as the freedom to express yourself personally so don't try and alter the meaning. The ex boyfriend is the one making the expression not the website so the person making the expression isn't exploiting anyone for financial gain. Even if they were it happens all the time anyway in perfectly legal settings.



It's not stupid, it's a drunken action. The law is quite keen on protecting people from the decisions they make when they're drunk that they later regret.



Yes it does have necessary limits but protecting people from their own stupid decisions should not give rise to limiting someone else's freedom




Posted from TSR Mobile

Implicit contracts/binding promises are a thing, you know? When you buy something and hand over your cash, the seller's right to the cash is conditional on providing you with whatever it is you were buying with it. They can't just refuse to give you anything in exchange and say the cash is theirs now because you handed it over voluntarily. There was an implicit condition on that handover.

Ditto here. The implicit condition in letting the pics be taken or someone else receiving them was that they weren't to share them.

I disagree. Physical damage from rape may heal relatively quickly but the psychological damage can be seriously long lasting and difficult to treat - especially if the victim doesn't tell anyone what's happened.