You further agree not to use any sexually suggestive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is sexually suggestive or appeals to a prurient interest.posted by BigHeartedGuy at 12:11 PM on September 30, 2011 [7 favorites]
How does it compare to things like Top 10 Hottest and Successful Teenage Celebrities?Most of the young ladies in that article were not actually teens at the time of publication - and I don't mean "not yet teens", I mean "not teens anymore". And of those that were younger than 20, only one was under 18, and she was closer to 18 than to 17.
16 is the age of consent in many nations, if not most.Well, the age of consent for sex, including in much or perhaps even most of the USA. But the age of consent for sex is not really relevant; what's more relevant is the age of consent for participating in pornography, which in the USA is 18.
I was reading yesterday on Jezabel about how they have a whole subreddit for one 14 year old girl who got her phone hacked, but I could only find this storyWhat a strange article. The whole thing is essentially framed as "OMG can you believe the nerve of these pedophiles to say that they're not pedophiles, merely because they're not actually pedophiles!"
Reporting looting after a devastating earthquake, he sees a hurt kid and without a thought, runs to save him from gunfire and falling debris. He has personally fed children in Somalia and was attacked by mobs in Egypt and bandaged wounds and risked serious disease to help other people. You are all just mad because reddit is being poorly looked upon right now instead of focusing on the victimized children that are featured on this site. Instead of villainizing an outstanding human being and a damn good journalist like Anderson Cooper, you should be trying to get things like r/jailbait off this site. It shouldn't be on here if it's illegal.posted by Rhaomi at 7:00 PM on September 30, 2011 [1 favorite]
Dude, there's [...] exists to limit what you see. That's the value added.actually i would argue that it serves to find and aggregate rather than filter, the internet has a lot of stuff on it but finding it is problematic
There is finite space on the front page and finite time to spend and finite attention to be paid. Turns out the hivemind frequently upvotes utter shit. This is not expanding the discourse, it's straight up substituting shit for (potentially) not shit.are you ok, would you like a mug of juice
The information you receive is going to be curated by someone.curated more like curetted (that word has too much prestige for what it's being used for and makes my skin crawl)
Letting the mob rule results in increasingly narrow and facile content pitched to the lowest common denominator of whichever dominating subgroup drives off the others through its own inherent unpleasantness.yeah i used to think it was a compliment when people called me 'elitist'. the majority chooses poorly/is poorly educated, surely the answer is to take decisions our of their hands and put them in those of a few dudes (who i know and agree with me), that will improve everybody's lot, stratification what is that
" gives the majority a club they can easily turn and beat me with. And they will. They will.you're forgetting that the internet is owned privately and if you don't like it you're free to
So please accept that I know what I am talking about when I say that posting a photograph on flickr and posting it on /r/reddit are exactly the same.There is a different 'social contract' on flickr then there is on /r/jailbait, or the rest of reddit. Most of the pictures on flickr are expected to be taken by the poster. There are obviously accounts on flickr that are full of jailbait pics and those accounts are just as creepy as /r/jailbait. It's not the physical act of putting a picture on flickr vs. putting it on imgur and listing it on reddit (I actually find imgur a better host for personal photos then flickr now)
delmoi, when it comes to the question of whether I will be charged with a crime or sued for selling or publishing a photo, your "different social contract" doesn't exist. The law is the law.Localroger, is your brain turned off? Do you not understand the difference between pictures you have rights too and pictures you don't? If I post a picture of myself on flickr, who is going to sue me, myself? If I post pictures of my friends on flickr, that I take myself, am I going to get sued? It's very unlikely.
I will be charged with a crime or sued for selling or publishing a photo, your "different social contract" doesn't exist. The law is the law.If you want to be technical, it's always illegal to post pictures you don't own the copyright to. It's just that it's very unlikely that you'll have that big of a problem if you're just posting photographs of your friends. If you're posting pictures on /r/jailbait it's more likely.
The thing is, if you are going to set things up so that some big hammer will come down when pictures are republished without permission or pictures without valid model releases are published without permission, legally that is going to encompass just about every other image on the entire Internet. You do not want to go there.What are you talking about? If people want to sue, they can. They're much more likely to sue (or threaten to sue) if they are in a jailbait forum. I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say: The situation where you can sue someone for posting your picture is already how things are.
The thing is, if you are going to set things up so that some big hammer will come down when pictures are republished without permission or pictures without valid model releases are published without permission, legally that is going to encompass just about every other image on the entire Internet. You do not want to go there.You wouldn't even need any new laws to do this. Just use some facial recognition technology. Users could upload a couple pictures, then the tool could scan the web for images that contained their face and, if they wanted, automatically send DMCA requests*
Reddit has made it clear that their only concern is whether the pictures are legal.No, as I said. They did shut down the board when violentacrez added 'trolls' as moderators to the board. If they care about free speech, why would they have shut it down then. Isn't it a violation of the guy's free speech rights to prevent him from turning it into a troll board?
The images are either legal or they're not. If they're legal, Reddit has no such obligation. If they're not, then it does.Right because obviously what's legal and what's ethical are the same thing. It's totally impossible to think up any counter examples like wallstreet banks or oil companies or the revolving corporate/government door or anything like that. All totally ethical because they are totally legal.
Wait, what are you saying? That 'sexy' but clothed pictures of pre-pubecent girls is somehow 'more' illegal then 'sexy' but clothed pictures of 14-17 year old girls? Based on what? There's no legal distinction between pictures of 14 year olds and pictures of 10 year olds. If one is 'legal' then so would the other.Someone mentioned upthread that there had been another subreddit for even younger girls, which apparently got shut down,This being a good example.so where's the justification for not shutting this down.Because it's not illegal?
This is absolutely not true. If faces are recognizable, you should have permission before publishing the picture.Cite? Here's what wikipedia says on it's rule's page:
The consensus on Commons (subject to any local law to the contrary) is that the subject's consent is not usually needed for a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place, but is usually needed for such a photograph taken in a private place. When required, evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media. This may be accomplished using the {{consent}} template.But that's beside the point. You keep calling it 'legal' when in fact it's pretty obvious that most of the posters don't own copyrights to the images, which means the people who took the pictures could request to have them taken down.
I strongly agree. If the idea is the problem here -- and it very obviously is -- then what makes this idea worse than other "offensive" ideas? Many, many people find photos of anal sex to be as much or more offensive than photos of clothed 16 year olds... and guess what? The vast majority of gay porn on the internet has been posted and re-posted and posted again, with zero consent or legal permission from the photographer and/or models. That's the way the internet works. It has always worked this way, and hopefully always will work this way, because the alternative is horrifying ("facial recognition technology"?!) and would be tantamount to putting a million busybody tattletales and their personal crusades in charge of what's acceptable online.There are two separate issues here. One is stuff that's 'offensive'. Some of the pictures in /r/jailbait were apparently posted by the girls themselves. Which is creepy in it's own respect, and you could have pictures taken by creeps on the beach, or even parents posting their own children. Now, I would think that those things would be even more creepy but not an issue of copyright infringement.
The child-porn thing has been used to suppress legal expression before. It's happened with art and with album covers, it's happened on livejournal, it's happened to people with bath photos and breastfeeding photos of their own kids, and it will keep happening until there's some major pushback against the idea that suppression of anything remotely like "child porn" should be not just judicial, but extra-judicial (except selling millions of "sexy lil' vampire" Halloween costumes and onesies with BIG AND JUICY written across 'em, of course -- that would affect corporate rights!)This isn't about 'suppressing art'. It's about taking other people's content and repurposing it. The origional photos.
They have standards, they just don't have your standards. They don't want to get hauled into court like Paladin Press. They also don't want the board to descend into total chaos like kuro5hin. /r/jailbait is doing neither of those things and so it stands.Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you are a 'free speech' site, where anything goes, or you have standards. If you have standards then why not have a debate about what those standards should be? As far as 'descending into total chaos' I don't think that's as big of an issue due to the way the voting system works. They already have fucked up subreddits like /r/picsofdeadkids or whatever, neo-nazi subreddits and so on. So that's not really a valid excuse. And anyway the point still stands: Reddit does execute editorial oversight over their subreddits when they choose.
That is because laws which are selectively enforced are tools of persecution. Laws which can only be enforced selectively should not exist, full stop.Uh dude these are civil issues. They are not 'enforced' by the government, but by civil litigants deciding to sue. They are by definition selective, because someone will only sue if they have a good reason.
I didn't say that this was about "suppressing art". I said it was about suppressing legal expression, and it is. Linking to other people's photos is legal expression. Re-posting other people's photos is also legal expression. No amount of repeating the fact that one can (maybe, assuming that the photos were re-posted and the copyright owner can be found) be sued for copyright infringement will make it illegal, because copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime.Torts are as much 'illegal' as crimes are. The point is, re-posting other people's photos without permission is not, strictly speaking, legal.
That is a free speech stand. Free speech does not necessarily obligate someone to say anything and everything; it is and always has been intended to protect "what people feel like doing".Sure, but you're saying "this speech is acceptable to me", in which case you have to be willing to deal with the consequences of that. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
So the law is unreasonable, except when you arbitrarily decide it is reasonable. This is the very definition of selective enforcement and is a much greater evil than either copyright law itself or /r/jailbaitNo it's not. It's a selective opinion about where copyright is good and where it's not. I'm not doing any enforcement.
If you don't think that's right, lobby for the kind of law that you think would solve the problem and see if it's subject to abuse or just plain unconstitutional.As I said earlier, currently law is completely sufficient to handle this, you just need to put the kind of technology that already exists and is currently being used by big content producers in the hands of the average person. That's it. If that happens, the problem will go away and only people who want their pictures on /r/jailbait will have them there.
Star Wars Kid also entitled to stop people from making fun of them?You know Canadian courts ruled in his favor, right? The kids who uploaded the video had to pay damages, I think. (actually, wikipedia says there was a settlement, I do remember a statement from a judge agreeing with the plantifs though. And there's no first amendment in Canada anyway). But obviously after it got out, it would have been impossible for the kid take down all the videos once it got out there.
Are the People of Walmart entitled to class-action damages?I'm not sure, but I don't see why you think it's so clear cut. I think it depends on whether or not wallmart is a "public space". But there's also the issue of using pictures of people on a commercial website. From what I quoted on Wikipedia
The consensus on Commons (subject to any local law to the contrary) is that the subject's consent is not usually needed for a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place, but is usually needed for such a photograph taken in a private place. When required, evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media. This may be accomplished using the {{consent}} template.
Anyone who thinks that "the kind of technology that already exists and is currently being used by big content producers" will be used by "the average person" more often than "the average Moral Majority type group" is kidding themselves. Besides, it's trivially yt easy yt to overcome and/or circumvent this technology if you really want to...I'm all for p2p networking, but that's beside the point. In fact I'm not actually advocating that such a system be setup but rather I'm using it to illustrate a hypothetical point, which that posting pictures of underage girls (or anyone else) without their permission is already illegal, in a civil sense. Taking their pictures down is something that could be done without any new laws, just new technology.
1) It's legal to post pictures of sex, underage girlsThe problem is premise #1. It's only legal to post pictures of underage girls if you're the copyright holder. In other words, if you're the person who took the picture.
2) Free speech means all legal speech is morally acceptable.
3) Therefore it's morally allowable to post pictures of underage girls in /r/jailbait
1) It hurts the feelings of innocent teenage girls if you take their pictures and put them in a context like /r/jailbait without their permission. (See the Angie Verona interview for empirical evidence this is true.)Now, do you have some specific disagreement with one of my premises here?
2) It's wrong to hurt innocent people solely for your own sexual gratification.
3) Therefore, it's wrong to post pictures like those in /r/jailbait without permission
Rush had her though; like the movie distributors, ASCAP says if he pays the fee, he gets to play the song. Once it's out there you can't stop people from playing it, you can only make sure you get your royalty.Interestingly, there are actually special rules governing (actual) radio broadcasts. You don't need a license, legally you can broadcast any song (or 'selection') of a recording so long as you pay a fixed licensing fee. Fair use comes into play if he's just using a small sample, but if you had an internet radio show instead of a broadcast one then the copyright owner would be able to exert more control.
Madonna could try to buy back the nude pics she posed for when she was a starving ingenue but she couldn't stop them from being published just because they were of her.In those cases she probably signed a model release, In /r/jailbait, not so much.
« Older Boston attorney and one time sperm donor Ben Seisl... | ‘The Hangover Part II’ runs af... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by KokuRyu at 12:01 PM on September 30, 2011 [2 favorites]