How would the free society deal with Revenge Porn?

[MAvery]

I just watched this video from reasonTV and I was wondering how the market could protect from this. I have had trouble reasoning out a free society solution to cyber bullying, revenge porn and this kind of issue. Does anyone have any ideas?

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

 

[Wuzzums]

Same way a free society will deal with any other criminal: MORTAL COMBAT!

 

Just kidding. It would deal by pointing a finger at the culprit and then it's up to each individual person, including you, whether to choose to associate with that person or not. How many people would date a person guilty of revenge porn? And how many people will make revenge porn knowing that?

[st434u]

There's no such thing as "cyber bullying". Bullying is a nice word for beating, there's nothing of the sort online. All you have to do is press a block button, close the program or turn off your device.

 

If you make pornography of yourself and share it with someone else, then at that point that person also owns a copy, and they can do with it whatever they want. It may not be nice of them to release it without your consent, but that's a risk you chose to take in the first place. The only thing you could realistically do is preemptively get a non-disclosure agreement. But of course, that would only bind the person you're sharing the pornography with from releasing it, it wouldn't bind third parties who didn't sign your NDA.

 

There is nothing fundamentally different about this, as disclosing any other information.

 

Bottom line is, if you don't want something to be public, then don't record it in the first place. Or if you really have to, don't send it to someone who's untrustworthy.

 

Of course, it would be an entirely different matter if the images were obtained criminally (stealing them, hacking, secret surveillance, etc). Also I think it should constitute a crime if they were recorded without your consent in a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy (which is open to interpretation, yeah).

 

In either case, once something is out, there is no taking it back. The only legal action you should be able to take is against the person(s) who originally stole it from you, or those who broke the NDA they had signed with you.

[SamuelS]

Same way a free society will deal with any other criminal: MORTAL COMBAT!

 

Just kidding. It would deal by pointing a finger at the culprit and then it's up to each individual person, including you, whether to choose to associate with that person or not. How many people would date a person guilty of revenge porn? And how many people will make revenge porn knowing that?

In the DRO model this could be part of a person's rating that could be made available to potential partners...and this could even be done now...it sounds a bit cold and sci-fi ala Cherry 2000, but there's no reason we couldn't build a system w/ certain criteria and thresholds and determine at least some level of compatibility w somebody as easily as we'd share an MP3 file -- I imagine having a red-light-green-light app on your phone, you wouldn't even have to share any details w/ the person, it's all done behind the scenes, if you get a green light you just strike up a conversation and learn about one another the old fashioned way.In a DRO system, you could even choose to obligate yourself contractually to a higher standard of partners (or even associations in general) in exchange for lower premium rates.

 

Perhaps criminals would only have sub-par DRO options, perhaps having those DROs will limit your options with regard to associating with members of some premium DROs -- just like right now if you get into a bunch of auto accidents, certain insurers simply will not sell you a policy.

 

To me, the question of "how would a free society ____" is an odd one -- by it's very nature, a free society does not dictate or limit the choices available to it's constituents. Perhaps a better question is "in a free society, how might you ____?"

[jonschnee]

I don't really know, but what immediately came to my mind after reading the question was this:

you have to pick to partners wisely.

 

who on earth would do such a thing to another person? to a person they loved?i can't imagine being with such a scumbag.

 

But I think there must have been some signs. Some clues as to what the person is really like. Alarming signs along the way, as your relationship progresses.Sending sexual pictures requires a lot of trust. It's a really delicate, intimate thing. 

But if you somehow get screwed anyway, that's a terrible situation. And people should be willing to help you take down those materials from their sites.Besides, the word would probably get out, and your ex-partner would be revealed as a real scum.

[dsayers]

I just watched this video from reasonTV and I was wondering how the market could protect from this.

 

Why do you ask?

 

We cannot achieve a free society without people being raised in nurturing homes and accepting the property rights of others. Under that premise, this sort of thing would hardly ever happen. When it did, the consequences would accrue to the perpetrator and people would refuse to have anything to do with such a person until such time as they've made amends to their victim.

 

If you make pornography of yourself and share it with someone else, then at that point that person also owns a copy, and they can do with it whatever they want.

 

If you're speaking logistically, then yes, there is nothing physically obstructing somebody from doing with it whatever they want. I assume this thread is a moral consideration. Under that premise, one does not have the moral right to do with it whatever they want, especially for the purpose of harming that person. Even if your ex is a porn star, but is clothed during normal discourse with others, there's no reasonable expectation that who their unclothed body is shown to is your decision.

 

A person and their body are inseparable, so we know that any access they give you to that property of theirs is temporary. Just as a person who lends you their car is not giving you the right to share that access with others, a person who has sex with you isn't allowing you to pimp them out, and a person who gives you nude depictions of themselves isn't allowing you to share it with others.

[andkon]

Stuff likes this shows the need for self-knowledge more than the need for laws, statist or otherwise. Why would you videotape yourself having sex if you absolutely did not want such tapes to be made public? Why risk it? Why would you have sex with such a person that would be capable of this? What vengeful traits did they show before? Why do you fall for such people? etc.

[st434u]

A person and their body are inseparable, so we know that any access they give you to that property of theirs is temporary. Just as a person who lends you their car is not giving you the right to share that access with others, a person who has sex with you isn't allowing you to pimp them out, and a person who gives you nude depictions of themselves isn't allowing you to share it with others.

 

I disagree. Once you send a copy of a picture to somebody else online, they own that copy of the picture. They can do whatever they want with it, and it would not be a violation of your property rights.

 

Again, it might not be a nice thing to do, but it shouldn't be against the law.

 

This is comparable to disclosing a secret that you told them. It may show that they're untrustworthy (assuming it was unprovoked), but the act does not constitute an initiation of the use of force.

[dsayers]

Again, it might not be a nice thing to do, but it shouldn't be against the law.

 

I certainly agree with this.

 

I don't think sharing a secret and sharing your body are comparable. Also, I could offers examples of how divulging information that was shared in confidence would be the initiation of the use of force.

[SamuelS]

I disagree. Once you send a copy of a picture to somebody else online, they own that copy of the picture. They can do whatever they want with it, and it would not be a violation of your property rights.

 

Again, it might not be a nice thing to do, but it shouldn't be against the law.

 

This is comparable to disclosing a secret that you told them. It may show that they're untrustworthy (assuming it was unprovoked), but the act does not constitute an initiation of the use of force.

While I don't think intellectual property is valid, and you've highlighted some of the reasons for that, I don't think this is a property issue so much as a privacy/morality/integrity issue. Regarding it's property status, I'd think of it less like a song and more like a trade secret.

Using UPB I think it's clear that not keeping promises (secrets) which you've voluntarily made is immoral...if nobody kept their promises, there'd be no reason to banter about the concept in the first place. This isn't immoral because you've used force against somebody, it's immoral because you've breached an agreement, it's something like a fraud after the fact -- they may or may not have agreed to allow you to distribute this media if you'd given them the choice, but by making a promise that you wouldn't you've removed that choice from them.

 

I wonder if you're mistaking NAP for the end-all-be-all of morality & social conduct where I'd say it's really just the beginning.

 

Maybe this could be seen as a NAP breach as well, though...imagine, you tell your girlfriend you want to film her and share it on the internet, she says no, you tie her up and do it anyway...if she'd said yes, you wouldn't have had to tie her up...lying to her really just saves you the trouble of tying her up...it's a bit convoluted, but does that make any sense?

[Lians]

I don't think they had a huge problem with revenge porn back when women had to choose quality men. Perhaps not being able to dump the bill for your reckless behaviour in the lap of daddy State has something to do with the types of guys you pursue.

[st434u]

I don't think sharing a secret and sharing your body are comparable.

An image of your body /= your body.

Also, I could offers examples of how divulging information that was shared in confidence would be the initiation of the use of force.

Such as?

I wonder if you're mistaking NAP for the end-all-be-all of morality & social conduct where I'd say it's really just the beginning.

That's what socialists say. Sure, no initiation of force, but really you are initiating force by "exploiting" someone, therefore socialism. Once you get down this slippery slope anything is possible. If law is gonna be defined by whatever anybody wants it to be and change as often as the wind, then it really isn't any different from what we have now.There's a huge difference between what should be a crime, and what is simply not an ideal behavior. For example, snorting cocaine is not ideal for your life, but it doesn't constitute an act of aggression against someone else. Keeping your promises is a good behavior and something to be strived for and rewarded with trust. Not keeping a promise is not the same as walking up to someone you've never met and punching them in the face. 

Maybe this could be seen as a NAP breach as well, though...imagine, you tell your girlfriend you want to film her and share it on the internet, she says no, you tie her up and do it anyway...if she'd said yes, you wouldn't have had to tie her up...lying to her really just saves you the trouble of tying her up...it's a bit convoluted, but does that make any sense?

No. Here you have torture and rape, it's got nothing to do with the situation we were discussing.

I don't think they had a huge problem with revenge porn back when women had to choose quality men. Perhaps not being able to dump the bill for your reckless behaviour in the lap of daddy State has something to do with the types of guys you pursue.

++