ali baba wrote: Do you consider images of naked bodies to be qualitatively no different than images of sunsets? Why so?

I am citing allowed behaviors based on societal laws, not personal, widely variable views on "morality". There are no laws stating "Thou shalt not look at naked hoo-has or nu-nus or coochies or bums or willys or dallywhackers of adults via the internet, nor do I think there is anything wrong in looking at images of such. Nor am I even remotely responsible for someone else committing suicide because I clicked on an image showing her nipples or pubic hairs. An extremely conservative Muslim girl may commit suicide because she is deathly ashamed that I happened to look her way while the wild blew her hijab up and I saw her hair. Not my problem.

I repeat, the criminal act is the hacking and stealing of the personal data, including photos. Anyone posting those photos on a website for personal gain should be held criminally liable for possessing stolen property. However, anyone who merely looks at available photos online is not committing a crime in either the legal sense or the moral sense, in MY opinion, regardless of the sense of shame and humiliation of the rightful owner. Giblet is trying to make a moral case, and morals change from person to person. Don't try to put shame upon me or others for not living our lives by your personal value system.

It's good to know you have no consideration or concern for how your actions affect others. Many countries have laws against pornography, btw. Including Cambodia.

Soi Dog wrote:Giblet is trying to make a moral case, and morals change from person to person. Don't try to put shame upon me or others for not living our lives by your personal value system.

I don't think I was heaping shame on you or anyone, I was explaining why I feel the way I do.

giblet wrote:... It's a crappy thing to do. You can defend it all you want, but I still think it's wrong...

You can choose not to care, but that doesn't make right...

Viewing the photos ignores our laws and societal rules about consent and privacy. You can victim blame all you want by saying it's their fault for taking these photos to begin with, but that doesn't make downloading the photos "right".

Some of those previous comments of yours sure look like you were trying to shame others, saying repeatedly they were doing "wrong" or "not right". Sounds a lot like "shame on you" to me.

Anyway, I was just debating the issues raised, not going after you personally.

Soi Dog wrote:Some of those previous comments of yours sure look like you were trying to shame others, saying repeatedly they were doing "wrong" or "not right". Sounds a lot like "shame on you" to me.

I think if you're going to talk about morality, you're going to end up using words like "right" or "wrong." If I was trying to shame, I would have used words like "pathetic" and "loser"

Free advice, if you see a first stone being thrown where you are, walk away. Quickly.

General Mackevili wrote:Also, I think that these pictures should be considered stolen, thus illegal to look at, share, etc, just like other stolen intellectual property. But, I also watch movies from the pirate bay, so I will not be throwing the first stone.

Not a fair comparison since a movie that is produced for public consumption and then pirated is only harming the creators profit margin whereas having personal pictures publicised is an invasion of privacy. I'm not aware of anyone committing suicide or self harm because their movie brought in mildly less revenue than expected.

I think we should reform copyright laws so the subject of a photo owns the copyright and can serve a cease and desist order to anyone who publishes against their will and can sue or prosecute those who violate those orders.

Then I'd expect the producers to do the appropriate paperwork before, during or after filming. You can't film whatever you want then release it in the cinema. That's why shows like jackass have to blur peoples' faces on occasion.