Hopefully Ms Maroney has been arrested
For taking the selfies ?
Reddit has finally yanked a page abuzz with private celebrity nude pics that were leaked via anarchic message board 4chan late last Sunday. The subreddit, dubbed TheFappening, disappeared on Saturday - six whole days after the photos of stars including Jennifer Lawrence provocatively posing naked appeared online. But, privacy …
Simply taking a nude sexualised picture of herself is classed as creating child pornography and if she sent them to another person that would be distribution. If the recipient asked for the picture that's 5 years minimum although he would now be in possession of it anyway so that's 5 years. Each charge carries a minimum 5 year sentencing in the USA but because she is a celebrity no charges will be filed and she will be the victim instead.
Technically, I guess you would have to prove that she took pictures with that aim. Unless you can find somebody to testify she sent them the pictures for sexual purpose, she might be able to claim it was for showing her doctor or checking the evolution of her fat. Or rather, the prosecution would have to prove she did not.
As long as there is no intent of having somebody looking at the pictures with lustful thoughts, I suppose even teens can take nude pictures of themselves. And parents can take pictures of their kids in the bath, etc.
Haven't gone looking for the pics, so I can't comment on them specifically. They word there is "sexualized" or more commonly prurient intent. So for example a nude photo in and of itself would not qualify. A nude photo with a foam finger might not qualify. But a nude photo with a foam finger simulating masturbation would. Even at that if it was a nude photo with a foam finger simulating masturbation it might not qualify if it was in the context of a film about child prostitution that wasn't extolling child prostitution.
I think I'll stop now before my head start really spinning.
There are any number of other subs that have exactly the same type of stolen material in them, but because they're not celebs, they get to stay.
Let's not then go on to the subs dedicated to watching people die, including one specifically for pictures of dead kids...the Reddit admin have no problem keeping them going.
Bunch of fucking hypocrites.
Forbidden, and famous. I would say the second point is more important. It's why so many people pay for celeb rags that have grainy telephoto shots of actresses kissing their boyfriends on yachts a mile out to sea while wearing a swimsuit. I suspect viewing such photos is a way for the small-minded to diminish and degrade those who have what they want, but don't have: looks, money and fame.
Sorry* - I'm still unclear exactly which rule (other than 'Y') was violated.
I think that when you have a site that is open by design and leaves it up to users to decide then you have to be utterly clear on what the rules are and what actions are taken when they are violated.
Was it really that it was getting to be too much work for the admins? If so, that's a pretty nebulous measure - who decides exactly when it's 'too much'? And how do they make sure that any applications of the rule are consistent? They say that it was crazy because it was a weekend with lots of people off so does that mean that the subreddit would have been less likely to be axed if it was a week day with more staff on hand?
Or was it that people were re-uploading after a DMCA takedown? If so, then a single instance of that would be a violation, right?
* - Also for the title.
In the end, Reddit's rule is probably: We take it off if we want to. Like everywhere else on the web. Except they want it less often.
Definitely, getting hit constantly with high-level threats from FBI and private lawyers will make people consider very carefully their options. It can't have been a very quiet week.
And well, yeah, if you want a website that has rules exactly like you want them, you will probably have to create and maintain it yourself. And, possibly, deal with the legal troubles.
That's really the end result - they make a subjective decision on whether something gets taken down or not. The only difference between reddit and other sites then is what factors impact that decision.
That's an important difference but still leaves the mechanism open for abuse.
It's not abuse. They do whatever they want with their website. They make the rules, and can change them whenever they want. There is no way to force a website to host something it does not want. Again, the only way to have a website exactly the way you want is to do it yourself.
No one is arguing that they don't have the right to do what they want. BUT, reddit is a community that developed and now thrives based on user participation. Part of the reason for that is the hand-off approach, specifically the 'your subreddit; your rules' system.
Perhaps 'abuse' is not the right word. What I meant was that any time you have a vague rule that must be subjectively interpreted and applied, you run the risk of someone using that rule in such a way that it goes against the reasoning behind the rule.
Further, there is also the potential for backlash and criticism when the rule is invoked as there will be those who feel that there were ulterior motives. Whether that bothers the reddit team is another matter but it is a community and its success lies in that so there is a danger in ignoring disgruntled users. Hence all the explanations.
@ratfox - or have an open system of relays which do not depend on any single person/corporation to hold the data or make the rules. We used to have this in NNTP and usenet but eventually bots, spammers and dumbasses made it too hard to find anything useful and ISPs no longer offered it is a service so you had to find a public source.
DCMAs would probably be treated the same way. Once the DCMA is submitted the site is obligated not to allow it to be reposted. The fact that the site can close sub-sites means they do have editorial control, so they'd be obliged to comply.
If they were getting as many FBI and DCMAs as they claim, plus the traffic issues, I expect most of the confusion is simply on the part of the admins trying to post the messages explaining the policy, probably as a result of sleep deprivation.
I'm one of the few outlets that chose to publish the condemned images (until I too got the lawyer's letters) and part of me wanted to fight this, I'll be honest, and then i relented. Relented not because I don't stand by the free expression of ideas, content and images but because I simply didn't want to become a martyr to prove an intellectual point of free expression. To all the media outlets out there who have been expressing the high moral ground and have condemned outlets like reddit immoral, sod off it and get real- the media is full of instances of using material and invading the privacy of many. It's just stops when a lawyer and the entertainment industry comes knocking on your door. At least we ought to debate the issues and stop with the crap moral outrage....
Or, you could accept that publishing stolen photos of private and intimate moments in people's lives is, you know, morally reprehensible.
Its amazing really, people complain constantly on this site and on Reddit about government rules and regulations which infringe on privacy rights, yet supposedly the "fappening" is somehow acceptable as a part of free expression? I call bulls**t on that one. Hypocrisy of the highest level.
I'm one of the few outlets that chose to publish the condemned images (until I too got the lawyer's letters) and part of me wanted to fight this
Fight what?? Fight the fact that publicising private photos of someone's private moment is cheap, dirty, and morally reprehensible? Next I guess you'll want to support burglars' rights to my TV and laptop...??!
Snowden and freedom for stuff like that I can AGREE with, but the "right" to see celeb-wank fodder is just bollocks.
I am not sure if a DMCA notice actually obligates a site to preventing re-postings of some information. The MPAA etc. had been pushing for obligating sites to install automated systems, but as far as I know they are not.
I think John Robson got it right -- underage pics got this subreddit banned. The confusion arises I think from all the *other* reasons an ordinary website would have already closed a problematic forum, or section, or (in this case) subreddit.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020