Which is to say, trolls aren’t pro-speech; they’re anti-responsibility, anti-consequences, and anti-justice.

As the the content itself, I would tend to agree with Farfetch that one would have a pretty tricky time defending this content in court (though these days not much surprises). I think the larger concern is not that these pictures exist (as there are far darker corners of the web out there) but that it was permitted to remain on a site attempting to appear as professional a brand as Reddit. This speaks to something of the culture of the site that is in need of reform through dialogue.

It’ll be interesting to hear what you have to say on this story…

The US Legal site defines protection from voyeurism (excluding celebs on the grounds they put themselves in the public eye) on the basis that:

An otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one’s solitude or into one’s private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one’s name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.

They further note:

The criminal voyeurism statute of some states cover “a place where [one] would have a reasonable expectation of privacy”, meaning:
- A place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that his or her undressing was being photographed or filmed by another; or
- A place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.

Given the similarity to voyeurism, a jury might find that placing a hidden camera in a certain location may amount to the torts of outrage or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Now I appreciate that people with cameras and camera phones may be impossible to stop from taking pictures on nude beaches, but an individual’s who is taking up their right to legally sunbathe in the nude does not somehow waive their rights to do so safe from someone taking pictures of them without their knowledge/consent and then publishing them online.

My image belongs to me. What I show to you or public in private, at the mall, on the street, at the salon, etc are for you to see at that moment and that’s it. If you want to take a pic, ask and I’ll decide if I’ll allow you, or not, to retain that image outside of your memory. Specially since I will have no control on how you will use that image. Will it become stock photo? A creepshot? Used on a 6th grader science project?

To me this is plain and simple. The same can be applied to paparazzi et al. My image may be displayed in public but that does not imply I’m giving someone else the right to use it. To me, this is not censorship but respect of personal boundaries. If one saw does not mean others have to. If you weren’t there to see, then it’s your loss. Unless that image is pivotal in presenting newsworthy material, a proof of a crime, etc. No, you do not have the right to take pictures of me and post them online without my consent.

Not so few words, but that’s it. I hope this helps.

When you think about it, reddit is merely trying to enforce a consistent rule of “Don’t out other people. period.” and I really don’t see the issue.

As for the content of the photos, up-skirt photos were expressly banned from being posted. If you’re in public and in some sort of compromising position or level of dress, expect it to end up on the internet — you do not have a legal expectation of privacy.

In the UK, the law is actually quite clear – voyeurism is a criminal offence and a recent case where a man filed women in the shower for personal use resulted in a 9 month jail sentence (with a guilty plea). Another case, where a man filmed himself with 5 lovers, again for his personal enjoyment, resulted in 8 months jail + his name was put on the sex offenders register for 10 years.

I have no problem with people being exhibitionist, nor do I assume a topless or nude woman on the beach wants to be stared at, but I do think when people are taking photos or videos in scenarios like this, permission to use the images, especially in the public domain should always be gathered first (but then does that make the actions of the paparazzi a crime and is that a whole new can of worms if someone is making money from the shoots?)

Wha? What are you up to in Malaysia, Violet?

Censorship is bad. But taking, um, intimate photos of someone without their consent is also bad; should perhaps be considered a form of assault. Granted, if you’re showing something in public, you’re expressing a certain implied consent. But that implied consent is not explicit, and cannot reasonably be extended from “I’m ok showing x on this street, (potentially away from family, colleagues…)” to “go ahead and post my hoohah on the internet.” Please. Moreover, lots of these pictures are of unintentionally exposed subjects, without intent there can be no implied consent.

So “should we censor this crap” is a kinda tricky one…but that’s not the issue here. The issue here is “should these photographers/posters/creepers be outed?” Or, if you will, EXPOSED. Unlike their models, the creepers have expressed a very strong implication that exposure on the internet is a good thing. Hell yes we should help them out.

Censorship is a big scary stick to use against this sort of transgression…it’s got a built in slippery slope that will probably cause lots of collateral damage. I’d personally rather not bust it out. Other legal avenues might be ok, but have their own problems. Outing seems about right. Your right to speech I will unhappily defend, cretin, but your right to anonymity? Not anywhere near as important. Probably why it’s not on top of the bill of rights.

I’m extremely disappointed in Reddit for banning Gawker links. What do y’all think, are they ok with hypocrisy, or just too stupid to see hypocrisy in defending some sort of speech right with censorship?