Original post by zippity.doodahwhat 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. either you are mentally challenged for not understanding the nature of coercion and expression, or you are deliberately misunderstanding or misrepresenting me which is pathetic. you have done yourself a huge deal of disrespect by appealing to mis-matches, because now I am going tyo have a hard time taking you seriously or as a fair-minded adult who wants to talk or discuss this seriously.
then these women are simply naive and they should prefer to act more responsibly; I wouldn't even let my eventual wife possess naked pictures of me based on the risks involved, because the risk is far more dangerous than the "harmless fun" of it. if I can think logically like this, why can't these stupid girls?
1) ...which is still a form of free speech. and this *should* "be a matter of what" it quite clearly is. controversial speech is what freedom of speech is all about - why do you think we have free speech? to talk about the weather?
2) ...which I am arguing should *not* be illegal against the principle of free speech
3) free speech shouldn't be negated by hurt feelings. that's where I stand. that's where my rationale will always stand - free speech is the closest thing in politics to something sacred. I value it more than the coercive comfort of others, whom realise they had acted stupidly by protesting *later*, as opposed to not being so stupid in the first place.
"without consent"? if I tell someone a secret, yet they spread that secret, does that mean I have the right to sue them? nope. know why? because I never signed a binding contract, and even if it wasn't an incorporated agreement, if I never meant for it to be a binding promise/agreement, then it, by any logic, wouldn't be illegal by any kind of rationality. the law is a black spot on the slate of the logic of freedom of speech. freedom of contract, via mutual assent, ought to be the manner of self-regulation here.
distribution without consent of images you, yourself, distribute to another actor, without any legally binding agreements in place, is the distribution of digital property. if you do not set forth terms of property transfer (e.g. a contract) then, sorry, but there's no logic you can deploy which isn't illogical to the argument of freedom of expression. I am not telling you that this isn't immoral. I am telling you that, sometimes, freedom, which is the higher goal, isn't moral. I can be a racist, sexist, fat-ist, homophobic, hateful~ (etc) individual, but my right to self expression would allow me to express myself legally because my speech does not directly or physically coerce or damage other people. concepts (e.g. people memorising a naked photo in their minds) is not direct or physical damage, and even if it did damage a person "psychologically", it is their fault for electing to transfer those images as a rational individual. our government is not a nanny, and/or should not act as such - it should be a protection of individual liberties. the "hurt feelings" of (who are basically) poorly-calculating women do not bear the logic of overriding a fundamental human liberty.