back to article Emma Watson urges UN to back feminism – trolls threaten to leak her 'nude selfies'

At the weekend, actress Emma Watson gave a well-argued and reasoned speech to the UN calling for better relations between the sexes. And lo, internet trolls appear to have set up a website threatening to release nude photographs of the Harry Potter star. The site, www.emmayouarenext.com, features a 4chan logo, a badly …

"The website, www.emmayouarenext.com, features a 4chan logo, a badly rendered snap of Watson apparently crying, and a countdown clock with about three and a half days left to run."

I'm sure a few female FBI agents can be found to round up the organizers of this site before time runs out. Go get em.

8
12
Anonymous Coward

Celebrities appear to be fair game to some, put yourself out there expect adulation, demand adulation them make a stupid comment and not expect fall out from it? Liike with Balotellis comment on Twitter about the MUFC score line, it's no surprise that he was then targeted for his comment. Expect the rough with the smooth.

Now of course the comments made at him have been deemed racist, but if he had not been such an arse in the first place this would never have been issue. It's all down to actions and consequences.

Celebs expect everyone to love them and when they don't they demand press censorship.

While I don't condone what Emma Watson has been threatened with, it's downright wrong and probably a load of tosh anyway, it she did have pictures she would rather no one saw, then don't take them in the first place.

Everyone knows privacy has gone down the toilet in this day and age, go topless expect someone to take a picture, get a blow job from a prostitute and get caught then expect the press. Don't go on a censorship crusade simply because you don't like the consequences of your actions.

12
75
Silver badge

Why do they have to be female agents? I am pretty confident the majority of males in the world find this behaviour reprehensible too!

49
1
Silver badge

@ anon

So you would have no trouble about a bunch of people now tracking you down, releasing your address, pics of your kids etc etc now, since you have put a comment on the public web?

29
2

Showing nude pics of her is sleazy.

But there are plenty of missing and exploited children who need to be looked for; women forced into sex trafficking; drug dealers peddling to kids; heck even drunk drivers who are still on the road.

The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos, when somewhere a child is working forced prostitution on American streets.

14
12

False Flag

The website emmayouarenext.com was allegedly created by the viral advertising firm Rantic Marketing.

http://imgur.com/NhFVA2X

15
0

Re: False Flag

Companies like this put up press releases on their own fake news sites, and then rely on "real" news outlets, such as Sky News (and The Register) to regurgitate it, without doing any fact checking.

It's interesting to see the drop in traffic on the various gaming news sites such as Kotaku, since their behind-the-scenes collusion and contempt for their audience was exposed.

Lately, the Register seems to have been running more and more of these "Social Justice" stories. Perhaps they've been inflitrated by a SJW, too?

10
6

Re: False Flag

the site that it now forwards to...

1
0

And presumably they shouldn't be working on any other crimes either? Just that one worst one. The whole "As long as there are starving disabled baby seals being trafficked for sex in Syria by paedophile dictators your problems are trival" schtick is the laziest rebuttal ever. I tend to assume anyone trotting it out has nothing more relevant to offer.

23
2
Silver badge

>>"Celebs expect everyone to love them and when they don't they demand press censorship."

The endless stupid rationale of the troll - you're allowed to treat those who have achieved some fame as less than other people, because your callous actions are balanced by the fact that other people like them. Because as we all know, Karma isn't just a spiritual belief, it's a recognized scientific principle and you are its divinely appointed agent.

Or perhaps you're just rationalizing what you'd like to do anyway. I wonder which is most likely.

20
5
Silver badge

>>"The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos,"

I trust you'll remember that reasoning next time you want the police or courts to spare some times for crimes committed against you. They shouldn't pursue it because there are other crimes elsewhere in the world.

Btw, high profile targetting like this sets an example to the whole society. One reason it was good to pursue all those expenses claims scandals with MPs wasn't because of the sums involved (as a percentage of the annual cost of Westminster it's next to nothing), but because it's important that justice is not only done, but seen to be done. When society is seen to tolerate such behaviour, you get more of it and if Emma Watson can't hope to get justice done for sexual harassment, what chance do the rest of us have?

26
3

@Zoopy

The FBI has no business pursuing silly crap like someone exposing Emma Watson's personal photos, when somewhere a child is working forced prostitution on American streets.

Ah, the fallacy of relative privation. Sorry, doesn't wash. The mere fact of the high profile nature of this case means it is equally if not more important to deal with than the examples you mention, pour encourager les autres.

14
2
Silver badge

Re: @anon

@anon,

What about if she had no naked selfies and someone has taken the time to do a decent photoshop job with a reasonable lookie likey? Is that ok to publish then? How about if someone decided to stalk you or your missus and do the same, is that ok then?

Just because she is a celeb and has an opinion (and is willing to get off her butt and do something about it) doesn't mean you can go about threatening or extorting her. Im sure no actor/actress deserves this (even Adam Sandler).

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Rantic Marketing

Oh, that is scummy if I read that correctly.

So, they post lots of fake threats pointing at a specific website, then delete the website and redirect it to a holding page full of ads while everybody's still reading about it?

Cold corporate bloodsucking.

3
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

RE Celebrities appear to be fair game to some, put yourself out there expect adulation

Could you be anymore ignorant?

1
0

Really?

>> it she did have pictures she would rather no one saw, then don't take them in the first place.

Or

>> if she did have a phone she would rather no one stole, then she shouldn't have bought it

Or

>> if she did have a bank account she rather nobody stole from, then she shouldn't keep money in it

Or

>> If she has a vagina and she doesn't want to be raped, then she should stay behind locked doors

I've seen plenty of MRAs using the argument "well she'll pose for a sexy magazine cover to increase her fame so what's wrong with this", over and over and over, in reference to celebrity after celebrity.

Maybe people should realize this is not about privacy, that's a complete red herring.

This is about CONSENT.

This is almost only about CONSENT.

Publishing stolen nude pictures of people is a sexual act.

They have words for sexual actions that take place without consent.

"sexual assault" and "rape" are ones that come to mind.

Lecturing someone like Watson about how if she doesn't want X she shouldn't do Y is just another voice in the chorus of "well she was wearing a mini skirt was does she expect".

It's wrong. Stop it.

16
3

You're right when a crime happens to you for instance, you should go to cops, they should rate it according to criteria, tell you exactly where you are in the queue and let you know that when no other crime in the country is worse than yours they'll get right on it. Until something worse comes up and then they'll stop.

That's such a brilliant idea I wonder why nobody else has every thought of it.

3
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@Indolent Wretch

I think that may be the best comment on the topic here. Thank you.

1
1
Silver badge

@Fibbles Re: False Flag

And no correction from the Reg either despite the fact that the site is now forwarded to rantic media's own site.

Come on Reg, I always thought the redtop image was a bit of clever satire.

0
0

Re: high profile targetting like this sets an example to the whole society.

Yes it does. And for at least the last 50 years your side has used partisan reasons for ignoring certain high profile targets and but not others. You're chickens are coming home to roost.

0
2

Re: @anon

UK might be different, but here in the States, SCOTUS says that's fair game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

1
0
PCS

Looking at the site the children have moved it forward. Now sitting at 41 minutes.

Seriously, have they nothing better to do with their communal brain cell? Acting like pubescent twats doesn't do them any favours and pissing off a lot of people really isn't a Good Idea (tm)

21
0

"have they nothing better to do with their communal brain cell?"

I take it you don't have much experience with Anonymous?

This is what "for the lulz" always meant.

6
1

"Acting like pubescent twats..."

How else do you expect pubescent twats to act?

18
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

"How else do you expect pubescent twats to act?"

The worst of it is, some of them are (allegedly) adults, who still act as if they were six years old. "urrgh, girls are horrid!"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The /b/ tools cry about their right to free speech if any moderation is undertaken but when someone else exercises their right to free speech they believe that person deserves to be punished?

24
3

She wasn't moderated, got worldwide media coverage and more than a million views on Youtube. But what she said was sexist, completely ignoring men's issues whilst claiming to be for equality. People need to expect some comeback for that, but not this.

6
51

"But what she said was sexist, completely ignoring men's issues whilst claiming to be for equality."

You clearly didn't read what she wrote. It think she completely breaks the mould and wrote the fairest, most well reasoned most even handed argument on sexism I have ever read. The girl is not a fool, and as one of our more intelligent and well mannered celebrities and we can be proud of her; this girl was picked out for fame from an age when she can hardly fairly be called a publicity seeker and unlike most child stars has not gone off the rails or become a giant egotist. After the Harry Potter films, instead of pursuing nothing but acting and modelling contracts, she completed her studies. This girl has her head screwed on right and gives me more than a little hope it isn't all downhill when it comes to the next generation.

Like the next man I get annoyed by unreasonable feminist argument. On occasion very annoyed. Ironically the comment reaction to Emma Watsons piece yesterday in the Telegraph (read what she said and then read the comments) is actually leading me, reluctantly, to conclude feminists have a point about misogyny. Read what Emma Watson wrote and you will see it's hardly right to even call her a feminist. She accepts the word only insofar as it can be made a subset of being a meritocrat even handed and fair minded and non of us should have a problem with any of that - and she speaks up strongly for men's issues (being denied access to children etc). It's clear there are many men who wade in with abuse before they have read a single word someone has written. I find it all rather depressing.

48
0

Yes but what she said was well thought out, clearly meant a great deal to her, based at least in part on personal experience, it struck a chord with a lot of people, it was gentle and simple, it hurt nobody and was intended to bring attention to a part of our society that desperately needs improvement, a result for which she knew her fame would help.

Whereas what you said shows you to be a complete dickwad.

3
0

Even if what you say is true

Read what Emma Watson wrote and you will see it's hardly right to even call her a feminist. She accepts the word only insofar as it can be made a subset of being a meritocrat even handed and fair minded and non of us should have a problem with any of that - and she speaks up strongly for men's issues (being denied access to children etc)

it is undone by her use of the term "feminist/feminism". If what she seeks is a meritocracy, let her say so clearly. Confusing a meritocracy with feminism is not helpful because feminism as practiced is quite the opposite of a meritocracy. One does not try conflate the Jewish Defense league with Neo Nazis. Similar tactics should not be used elsewhere simply because the other is not Neo Nazi.

1
4

I can only imagine that these trolls are blessed with the similar good looks and intelligence as other, recently convicted, internet trolls such as John Nimmo and Isabella Sorley.

http://www.itv.com/news/topic/caroline-criado-perez/

9
0
Mushroom

Equality in action

"I can only imagine that these trolls are blessed with the similar good looks and intelligence as other, recently convicted, internet trolls such as John Nimmo and Isabella Sorley.

http://www.itv.com/news/topic/caroline-criado-perez/

"

Always nice to see equality in action with 50% of the people convicted of sending malicious communications to the feminist campaigner being women.

In fact this goes to the heart of the demands for equality when you have an equal gender distribution in the dock.

1
2
Silver badge

I fail to see how commenting derisively on these people's looks helps. Some others feel the need to label all hackers/crackers as socially-inept teenagers lurking in their parents' basements and, again, that achieves nothing.

The fact is that the people who break into systems come in all sorts. Of course, the vast majority have an IT background but there are unemployed parents, school-aged kids, college students, well-paid professionals, and everything in between.

We gain nothing from throwing around outdated stereotypes.

9
2
Silver badge

But will it make a difference?

It was a great speech, full of well-intentioned ideals, but what practical difference will it make? For example she asks men to sign a pledge that they'll be nice to girls. But let's face it, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls simply aren't going to sign it.

It's analogous to the problem of reducing CO₂ emissions: one person acting alone will make virtually no difference to the global impact; and those who are emitting the most are the least likely to change their behaviour.

9
5
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

Why do they always choose actors for this sort of campaign, their job is to stand up and tell made-up stories convincingly.

8
15

Re: But will it make a difference?

The point is that if no one makes a move, then the retards think everyone agrees with them. Once people start standing up and saying 'this is wrong' then at least some of the retards will have enough sense to either to rethink their position or shut up to stop drawing attention to themselves as being society outcasts.

36
2
h3

Re: But will it make a difference?

Saville would have probably signed it.

4
5
JDX
Gold badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

Well I for one don't think I'm sexist, but I'd never heard of HeForShe or really considered that most of the people standing up for women are... women. I don't really buy into feminism but that point, urging men to be equally invested in fighting for women, was worth hearing.

7
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: But will it make a difference?

It was a great speech, full of well-intentioned ideals, but what practical difference will it make? For example she asks men to sign a pledge that they'll be nice to girls. But let's face it, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls simply aren't going to sign it.

Part of this is leadership and commitment - someone speaking out where they could have easily stayed silent and enjoy their good life instead of setting themselves up as targets for the stupid, disenchanted and plain evil. If I were her parent I'd be seriously proud that she sees more than just her own life and is putting her profile behind something worthwhile, nerve racking as the first speech always is.

I agree with her. I personally think the spectrum of equality is wider than just gender (race is another one) but it is an excellent place to start.

18
5
Silver badge
Meh

Re: But will it make a difference?

I suggest she goes on tour to middle east countries and tries her discourse there where it may make a difference.

8
16
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

"...no difference to the global impact..."

Impact on what globally? Her speech is one thing, the apparent outing of her pictures is another.

This article is completely regressive, what the fuck happened?

I hate to state the obvious here, but what does this article do for women when it so blindly targets men? No one knows the identity of these low moral trolls, yet the article associates what Emma said to these trolls, implying they are men. These trolls, regardless of sex, are mean people. After reading this article, apparently all mean people on the internet are sexists men. Go team!!

This article...wow. What a bra burner!

6
22
Anonymous Coward

Re: But will it make a difference?

"Why do they always choose actors for this sort of campaign, their job is to stand up and tell made-up stories convincingly."

Yes, that's why they're ideal for this sort of thing.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

@MyBackDoor: Where does the article "target men", blindly or otherwise? I see nothing in it that prejudges or assumes the sex of anyone involved, except Ms Watson. It doesn't even use any gender-specific pronouns or insults.

And it in no way assumes or implies that "mean people" equates to "sexists [sic] men". It's your imagination that's interpolated that into the article. Which, I submit, says more about you than anyone else concerned.

17
1
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

veti. WTF? The article is OPENED with the sexes. Did you really not read the first sentence? Won't even paste it, just scroll up and read the opening sentence.

But veti, thank you for not reading the whole article! This helps.

Let's assume that at least the opening sentence isn't there. Can you tell me how Emma's speech for feminism and these hate monger trolls wound up in the same article? Be careful, because if it is not implied that the trolls are male to make the correlation to feminism, then one way or another you will have to directly relate feminism to..........trolls. Good luck!

Strangely enough I look forward to your answer (but read the whole article).

1
10
WTF?

Re: But will it make a difference?

Well.. I'm not Veti, but the opening sentence of the article on my browser is:

"At the weekend, actress Emma Watson gave a well-argued and reasoned speech to the UN calling for better relations between the sexes."

The gender of one person is identified - Emma Watson.

Did you see the word "sexes" and think; "Well that implies something, I guess"?

The inclusion of 4chan trolls and taking that angle is probably in order for this article to actually be suitable for ElReg - aka; Emma Watson talking about feminism isn't tech news. Emma Watson being targetted by internet trolls because of her talking about feminism is.. sorta.

There's no need for anyone here in the comments to explain why internet trolls relate to feminism, because if you read the article then it's nicely explained why it relates. Internet trolls are making a fuss over a feminist speech - tada, link established.

6
1

Re: But will it make a difference?

""It was a great speech, full of well-intentioned ideals, but what practical difference will it make?"

Reminds me of that famous Gillard speech. Widely praised, but completely false from opening sentence to close.

For example [Emma] asks men to sign a pledge that they'll be nice to girls. But let's face it, the kind of men who aren't going to be nice to girls simply aren't going to sign it."

Actually, they will sign it and be nasty to girls anyway. These people, by and large, don't see anything wrong with what they do.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

There is an unfortunate similarity of spelling between "feminist" (one who fights for women's rights, which may indeed by trampled upon) and "feminism" which is the philosophy of promoting women, presumably over non-women. The first is a practical response to a problem, the latter an ugly conflict generator, where success is often seen as making women as unpleasant as their male counterparts.

Every opportunity in the media to push the truth of Darwinism is taken, indoctrinating the young with a worldview that extends like a ladder into Nietzschean philosophy. As long as we indoctrinate our young in Darwinism (survival of the strong by out-competing the weak), the weak (physically, financially) will suffer and we will encourage solidarity between those already in power as they fend off those who threaten their dominance. Place on people the expectation that they will act like animals and they will. Crying foul because biological darwinism and social darwinism are not the same thing (cells vs thoughts) is a non-starter if you are a materialist. In any case, it doesn't have to be logical, it just needs to be pervasive in people's thinking.

Of course you don't have to go from Darwin to Nietzsche, but that is the logical progression - fight for survival -> fight for power to ensure your future survival. You don't need to read Nietzsche to make that connection. As long as people are seen as competition (as they are generally portrayed in the soaps and "reality tv" which try to saturate our living rooms) then we foster the opposite of the social good in the name of entertainment.

It is all very well to insist that people do unto others as they would like done to them, but it helps if you have some philosophical justification which fits with their worldview. Self-regulation is better than imposed law. See how much better it was well after the abolition of slavery in the Northern US as compared to the South.

0
10
JDX
Gold badge

Re: I suggest she goes ... to middle east countries ... where it may make a difference.

So you're claiming sexism no longer exists in the western world?

Regardless, if she enthuses western MEN to then go and fight for women in those countries where only men have power, that could still have a large impact in the East.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

>>"and "feminism" which is the philosophy of promoting women, presumably over non-women"

That is not what 'feminism' means. You've just made up your own definition for the sake of argument. Nor has what you just wrote ever been the popular definition of feminism. It is, however, a recurrent misrepresentation by those who have read little of the writings of popular feminists or feminist theory.

Here's the opening definition from Wikipedia: "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women"

Though I anticipate a No True Scots... ah, No True Feminist style of rebuttal that says there are some women who have this attitude and that they (despite being a small minority) are the real feminists and therefore you're correct. Presumably bolstered by some reasoning that the meaning of all words in the English language exactly adheres to your supposed etymological interpretation of them. Because as we all know, all words are exactly in line in meaning with a particular latin root of themselves.

Read some actual feminist writing before pronouncing on what "feminism" actually is.

9
2
Silver badge

Re: But will it make a difference?

Education is the first step. Then we educate our children who educate their children etc. I remember the 70s when it was fine to smoke, booze and leave the kids at the local labour club whilst bingo was on. Most adults these days cringe when they see kids in pubs after certain hours - it isn't socially acceptable any more. My dad remembers times when women at work would be secretaries or receptionists - certainly not bosses or line managers, this has changed and again is socially unacceptable to think otherwise.

The same can be said for sexism hopefully this will also become a thing of the past. In some respects even 4chan are accepting the backlash is wrong (or at least not lulworthy)

1
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017