Support NeoGAF

[Black Stabbath]

Did you or did you not take on the act of searching up any of these photos?

settle down dude...

 

[ishibear]

Why? The celebrities didn't give consent for those pictures. How do you reconcile that with your it's not okay to look at pictures distributed without consent view?

BTW, if all you say in reply to a post is "Yes", please don't bother making a post. Why reply at all?

The context is totally different. You know this. Honey, you know this, trust me.

I shouldn't have to go over this with you. You know they're different. How can you compare a paparazzi photo of a celeb on the street with this? You can't honey. You just can't.

Now if you're going to keep arguing semantics, I can't help you. I'm sorry, but I'm giving you all I got and you're sticking your fingers in your ears. I can't help you understand if you're not gonna listen.

 

[Two Words]

Except that isn't all what you were saying just a god damn minute ago.

>That would be a valid question for half of the photos I've seen.
>Why have you seen the photos?
>Why not?
>If you seriously have no idea why it is wrong to click on non-consensual nude photos of people:


You're clearly, clearly assuming the person here has committed some form of transgression just for having seen these photos, assuming he's clicked on them (assuming he's sought them out).

That's all kinds of messed up to me and its frankly infuriating.

How do you not see that the response "Why not" is clearly arguing there isn't anything wrong with looking?

 

[Dark Ninja]

Then you didn't actively seek them out and you are not the target of the criticism that calls out the people who think it's fair game to actively find and look at non-consensual public nude pictures.

The point is that they are everywhere you don't have to seek them out. Go to a forum, picture site, social media site, even some news sites linked to the original Reddit thread. They are there, people don't have to sign contracts to agree to have permission to look at them. The only ones who are guilty of anything are the original hacker(s). Thousands if not of people have seen even jerked off to these pictures and there's nothing anyone could do about it and to go around trying to make people feel guilty about looking at nude pictures in 2014 is ridiculous.

 

[GremlinFool]

Obviously, a non-consensual leak of a nude picture of a celebrity is equivalent to the non-consensual leak of a political statement relevant to his function as a politician and future as a president.

I seriously can't believe you're comparing the two. Just because you still fail to respect and recognize the intimate privacy of another human being.

I don't really get this point. So invasions of privacy are acceptable (and even desirable) if it's in the interest of the public good? I think by that reasoning the celebrity leaks certainly fall under this umbrella, as it's pleased a substantial subset of the population.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Putting the "legality" of the leaks aside (since I think harping on this would be somewhat pedantic and besides the point), be more explicit about the distinguishing factors between the two incidents. More carefully word your argument, because the lackadaisical treatment you gave it initially makes it sound like the only reason the Romney leak was worse than the celebrity leaks is because YOU personally thought it behooved the public more and that YOU thought Romney's leak was more warranted. I think that resolution is neither satisfying nor well-defended.

 

[Lime]

Except that isn't all what you were saying just a god damn minute ago.

>That would be a valid question for half of the photos I've seen.
>Why have you seen the photos?
>Why not?
>If you seriously have no idea why it is wrong to click on non-consensual nude photos of people:


You're clearly, clearly assuming the person here has committed some form of transgression just for having seen these photos, assuming he's clicked on them (assuming he's sought them out).

That's all kinds of messed up to me and its frankly infuriating.

Notice the word 'click' and also the subsequent posts I've made where I've employed the words "seek out" and "actively find" to distinguish between accidental and intentional acts of breach of privacy.

 

[TSM]

This is like the perfect storm of:

-America's puritanical values and general inability to deal healthily with nudity or sexuality
-the ridiculous glorification and worship of celebrity by most of society
-the internet's ability to distribute information to the entire world, be it for good or ill

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

This outpouring of sentiment, while probably appropriate, is fairly unique from what I recall from usual celebrity photo leaks. Is it because of the people involved this time, specifically JLaw? Or is it the overall size of the leak? I certainly don't remember reading any opinion pieces revolving around Olivia Munn's leak.

 

[JohnnyLovesYou]

How do you not see that the response "Why not" is clearly arguing there isn't anything wrong with looking?

How can you?
How can you not see that poster A, from the minute he or she questions why poster B has seen many photos is questioning why he has committing an act he/she perceives to be wrong?

Notice the word 'click' and also the subsequent posts I've made where I've employed the words "seek out" and "actively find" to distinguish between accidental and intentional acts of breach of privacy.

Definitely noticing the word click and your assumption that everyone who has seen these pictures is some malicious web pervert beholding the forbidden and violating the privacy of another.

 

[Piano]

Do you actually have a problem with me asking that question or did you just want to make a joke?

I don't agree with the aggressive and accusatory tone. Reminds me of the bullshit on the gaming side when people accuse one another of pirating this that or the other and some sheriff steps up and demands proof of ownership.

 

[faceless007]

Why? The celebrities didn't give consent for those pictures. How do you reconcile that with your it's not okay to look at pictures distributed without consent view?

BTW, if all you say in reply to a post is "Yes", please don't bother making a post. Why reply at all?

The large majority of things posted about celebs on magazines, newspapers, online reports etc... is done without their consent. Celebrity status is the one thing that puts your privacy in jeopardy, likely more than anything else in this world.

Some of you guys may have a point, albeit it's not as strong as if it would've happened to your average John or Jane. In your lifetime, your point of view will likely be in the minority. Not saying it's right or wrong, just saying it's the current reality.

While there's certainly an argument to be made that the celebrity tabloid press frequently oversteps all appropriate boundaries and embodies a toxic, objectifying, and misogynistic culture that really should have no place in a society of thinking adults, there is quite obviously a categorical distance between tabloid photos which are almost always taken in public places or while the subjects are in plain view of the outside world, and photos taken by someone in the privacy of their own home without the intention of being disseminated to anyone else.

Really, this should be obvious. People do not have a right to privacy in public; they do while indoors or in their own home, both legally and ethically. Ignoring or pretending not to be aware of the fundamental concept of personal privacy in one's own home so you can more easily justify to yourself perpetuating an invasion of someone else's actual privacy is disingenuous at best, and sociopathic possessiveness at worst.

But then, that pretty much has always described the relationship of our culture with female sexuality.

 

[BeforeU]

Honest question to people who are hurt over other people viewing someone's private leak pictures.

What do you guys think of leak devices and specs?
What about the articles media write about celebrities without their consent and take their pics where ever they go out in public without their consent?

Is that different in your mind than nude pictures? Do you morally feel wrong not to view and read those stuff?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I don't really get this point. So invasions of privacy are acceptable (and even desirable) if it's in the interest of the public good? I think by that reasoning the celebrity leaks certainly fall under this umbrella, as it's pleased a substantial subset of the population.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Putting the "legality" of the leaks aside (since I think harping on this would be somewhat pedantic and besides the point), be more explicit about the distinguishing factors between the two incidents. More carefully word your argument, because the lackadaisical treatment you gave it initially makes it sound like the only reason the Romney leak was worse than the celebrity leaks is because YOU personally thought it behooved the public more and that YOU thought Romney's leak was more warranted. I think that resolution is neither satisfying nor well-defended.

Despite what some may argue, this recent leak is not actually important to the public.

This outpouring of sentiment, while probably appropriate, is fairly unique from what I recall from usual celebrity photo leaks. Is it because of the people involved this time, specifically JLaw? Or is it the overall size of the leak? I certainly don't remember reading any opinion pieces revolving around Olivia Munn's leak.

I think the scope, casualness, and frequency of this sort of thing is making some people step back and think about the implications of acting as if this is normal.

 

[Lime]

I don't really get this point. So invasions of privacy are acceptable (and even desirable) if it's in the interest of the public good? I think by that reasoning the celebrity leaks certainly fall under this umbrella, as it's pleased a substantial subset of the population.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Putting the "legality" of the leaks aside (since I think harping on this would be somewhat pedantic and besides the point), be more explicit about the distinguishing factors between the two incidents. More carefully word your argument, because the lackadaisical treatment you gave it initially makes it sound like the only reason the Romney leak was worse than the celebrity leaks is because YOU personally thought it behooved the public more and that YOU thought Romney's leak was more warranted. I think that resolution is neither satisfying nor well-defended.

Where am I saying that the Romney leak was morally acceptable? You clearly are projecting.

I was saying in that post that the two examples are so incredibly different that you cannot equate them to each other to validate one qua the other.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I don't really get this point. So invasions of privacy are acceptable (and even desirable) if it's in the interest of the public good?

Yes.

I think by that reasoning the celebrity leaks certainly fall under this umbrella, as it's pleased a substantial subset of the population.

Oh God, no.

 

[GremlinFool]

Where am I saying that the Romney leak was morally acceptable? You clearly are projecting.

I was saying in that post that the two examples are so incredibly different that you cannot equate them to each other to validate one qua the other.

And I'm pushing you to explain why the two examples are so incredibly different, which you still have not done.

 

[Winterfang]

This outpouring of sentiment, while probably appropriate, is fairly unique from what I recall from usual celebrity photo leaks. Is it because of the people involved this time, specifically JLaw? Or is it the overall size of the leak? I certainly don't remember reading any opinion pieces revolving around Olivia Munn's leak.

That's a huge part of it. People love JLaw so is like it it happened the Internet's daughter.

 

[davepoobond]

This outpouring of sentiment, while probably appropriate, is fairly unique from what I recall from usual celebrity photo leaks. Is it because of the people involved this time, specifically JLaw? Or is it the overall size of the leak? I certainly don't remember reading any opinion pieces revolving around Olivia Munn's leak.

its weird, i'm not sure i can put a pinpoint on the exact cause of it either

maybe its because we still don't know the exact scope of it all yet?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

This is like the perfect storm of:

-America's puritanical values and general inability to deal healthily with nudity or sexuality

Whoa, are you suggesting people saying this isn't cool are because they're prudish? Because to "deal healthily with nudity or sexuality" means something completely different to me if we're applying that to this non-consensual leak of nudes and the resulting entitled and casual reaction to the world having them now.

 

[Mr. Desu]

It's Apple. What'd you expect?

 

[thehypocrite]

I feel like this thread is the abyss looking into us.

2deep4me Mr. Nietzsche.

 

[Lime]

And I'm pushing you to explain why the two examples are so incredibly different, which you still have not done.

If you cannot see the differences between a private nude picture and a private political statement, we are in two different universes and cannot ever communicate.

 

[JohnnyLovesYou]

Genuinely feeling lightheaded and uneasy from how worked up I'm getting right now. Honestly sorry if I've somehow upset someone here or have rocked anyone's boat with my perspective on human morality. I am legitimately sorry for the people who have been involved in the leak (even though I've been oh so aggravatingly accused of the opposite).

 

[Yrael]

A big part of the motivation for obtaining and sharing these seems to be the lack of consent and violation of privacy in itself - it's not as though there's a shortage of photos of naked women (and indeed naked celebrities who have actually consented) online.

Leaking someone's nude photos that they did not consent to make public is a severe and horrible violation of privacy. This incident needs to be framed for what it is - not a sex scandal, but a crime. This article in the Brisbane Times is on point:

The theft and publication of personal data from Jennifer Lawrence and a number of other women was widely reported on Monday as a scandal. It was not. It was a crime. The unknowable number of people who republished those stolen images were not sharing or gossiping or having a bit of fun at the expense of wealthy celebs who should have known better.

They were accessories to a crime. Not just of theft, but a form of assault.

They debased every woman whose image they shared, and they shamed themselves in doing so.

It seems strange that we have to have these Decency 101 tutorials to explain to such a large number of people why it's wrong to publish images stolen from others, but apparently we do.

So here's my contribution.

Nobody was asking for it.

It is entirely irrelevant that those women chose to record an image of themselves of a deeply private and intimate nature. To argue otherwise is posit the destruction of privacy for everybody, everywhere at all times. It is established for instance that state surveillance technologies can take hostage pretty much any internet connected computer in your house. Doesn't mean they will, of course. You're probably not that interesting. But if the NSA can do it, some code-mashing Gollum at 4Chan won't be far behind. Did you ask anybody to take pics of you on the crapper while you were playing with your phone?

Too bad.

Somebody just took one and posted it to Reddit.

Celebrities don't sign away their private rights for a movie deal or recording contract.

This is a favourite excuse of those who pay their bills by stalking and exposing the private lives of public figures. But even those whose professional lives are lived in the public realm remain, in their souls, entirely private. As human beings they are entitled to that privacy. You are not entitled to violate it. Ever.

Ah, there's nothing I can do about it.

Yes there is. You can choose not to republish the stolen, personal data, and you can unfollow, de-friend or cut off in whichever way appropriate anybody who publishes that material into your various media streams. You can tell them why you're doing it. This is the way we teach toddlers to behave themselves in the grown-up world. It seems to be the only way to get the message through to some grown-ups too.

The internet is cool. We all loves us some funny cat vids. But it is also a fraught and hazardous place where we often find ourselves drawn, unthinking into behaviour we would never contemplate in the real world. Would you walk around the Queen Street mall sharing nude photographs of Jennifer Lawrence? I doubt it. You might even recognise that sort of behaviour as a crime, not just low-class douche baggage.

This is a lesson you can apply even more widely once learned. For instance, if a bunch of death-obsessed psychopaths cut the head off a young man and posted the photos online, would you print out a thousand copies and walk around showing them to everyone you passed?

Again I doubt it.

In which case, don't do so online either. You're just making things worse.

Insert exasperated sigh here.

End of rant.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...ot-a-scandal-its-a-crime-20140901-10b089.html

 

[ishibear]

And I'm pushing you to explain why the two examples are so incredibly different, which you still have not done.

That would require a lot of work that's really unnecessary given that most of us in here are already more than aware of the reasoning.

You guys want us to tear out our hair feeding you facts so you can spit them out and act like you don't comprehend it.

It's exhausting. I wouldn't have a problem with it if I didn't feel like I'm wasting time because you really don't care.

Do you care, or are you just trying to one us up? Because I've seen and spoken with people who genuinely care and they aren't this combative.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

This outpouring of sentiment, while probably appropriate, is fairly unique from what I recall from usual celebrity photo leaks. Is it because of the people involved this time, specifically JLaw? Or is it the overall size of the leak? I certainly don't remember reading any opinion pieces revolving around Olivia Munn's leak.

I think it's because who it happened to and how big it is.

 

[DarkFlow]

People that look at these photos are basically lazy peeping Tom's the only thing holding them back from secretly viewing women naked/having sex is the effort required and the risk of getting caught. If consequence is what holds from you committing these acts, then you're no different than than the person who does it regardless of the consequences.

Are you serious with this shit? They are not even remotely the same.

 

[akira28]

the abyss, ishi, the abyss.
you can't fill it up. it will only pull you in.

 

[TSM]

Whoa, are you suggesting people saying this isn't cool are because they're prudish? Because to "deal healthily with nudity or sexuality" means something completely different to me if we're applying that to this non-consensual leak of nudes and the resulting entitled and casual reaction to the world having them now.

I'm suggesting that if this was pictures or videos of something considered equally personal and private by these individuals, but wasn't sexual in nature, there would be very little interest by most of society. Add in some boobs or penis and you get this situation.

 

[GremlinFool]

If you cannot see the differences between a private nude picture and a private political statement, we are in two different universes and cannot ever communicate.

I recognize the differences contextually, but not in terms of differences in putative morality. That's what I'm asking you to explain.

I recognize they're different in terms of moral implications and have my own perspective on it, but you've been repeatedly flippant and dismissive instead of actually addressing my posts, which I think is frankly rude and annoying. Certainly isn't doing your argument any favors either.

That would require a lot of work that's really unnecessary given that most of us in here are already more than aware of the reasoning.

You guys want us to tear out our hair feeding you facts so you can spit them out and act like you don't comprehend it.

It's exhausting. I wouldn't have a problem with it if I didn't feel like I'm wasting time because you really don't care.

Do you care, or are you just trying to one us up? Because I've seen and spoken with people who genuinely care and they aren't this combative.

I'm not exactly certain how I've come across as combative. I posted a lengthy response that I thought seemed to convey the logical end of the original argument presented, which I certainly disagreed with. I think good discourse will emerge if people don't post things acting as though they're self-evident and dismiss anyone who thinks otherwise. If anything, THAT style of posting is combative.

 

[ishibear]

the abyss, ishi, the abyss.
you can't fill it up.

I should give it some effort tho. I mean, you listened to me... I feel like I should try.

 

[Winterfang]

A big part of the motivation for obtaining and sharing these seems to be the lack of consent and violation of privacy in itself - it's not as though there's a shortage of photos of naked women (and indeed naked celebrities who have actually consented) online.

Leaking someone's nude photos that they did not consent to make public is a severe and horrible violation of privacy. This incident needs to be framed for what it is - not a sex scandal, but a crime. This article in the Brisbane Times is on point:



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...ot-a-scandal-its-a-crime-20140901-10b089.html

It is a crime, the guy that stole and posted online Scarlett Johansson's pic got a prison sentence. The current discussion is more of less, if the people are saw her pictures online as guilty as the one that put them out there.

 

[Two Words]

I don't agree with the aggressive and accusatory tone. Reminds me of the bullshit on the gaming side when people accuse one another of pirating this that or the other and some sheriff steps up and demands proof of ownership.

Aggressive? Accusatory? I asked a simple question if he did or didn't. You're assuming a lot of tone to me. Really, all I was doing is asking him to cut to the chase. Our prior conversation had him not really being explicit with what he did, so I asked.

 

[Lothar]

Really, this should be obvious. People do not have a right to privacy in public; they do while indoors or in their own home, both legally and ethically. Ignoring or pretending not to be aware of the fundamental concept of personal privacy in one's own home so you can more easily justify to yourself perpetuating an invasion of someone else's actual privacy is disingenuous at best, and sociopathic possessiveness at worst.

Teresa Palmer's leaked nudes are outdoors. Are those okay? I'm just curious.

 

[faceless007]

And I'm pushing you to explain why the two examples are so incredibly different, which you still have not done.

• The opinions and statements of politicians on policy matters are inherently in the public interest, especially when they are running for office. The public has a vested interest in knowing what a candidate believes, especially what the candidate believes about them and especially on matters they themselves have made central to their campaign. No one has a right to see someone naked if that person does not wish others to see them naked, full stop.
• Things said to large groups of people are not private. Romney gave the speech to a large crowd of supporters, none of whom had any formal relationship with him or were under any sort of agreement or obligation to keep the contents of his speech confidential. They were not family or friends and any one of them could have recounted the speech later to others, which is a risk anyone takes when giving a speech, especially if there are other people (e.g. service staff) present. Categorically different than the private, intimate relationship between people and their significant others.
• Speech isn't sexuality. People have a right to be secure and private in their bodies. Violating this right is a transgression that recording speech simply does not approach.

 

[Two Words]

Are you serious with this shit? They are not even remotely the same.

They are the same. They are just too lazy and scared to do it how peeping Tom's do it. If you look up these leaked photos knowing the nature of how they were exposed, you are no better than a person peeking into a woman's bathroom and watching her shower.

 

[riotous]

I recognize the differences contextually, but not in terms of differences in putative morality. That's what I'm asking you to explain.

It's a blatantly obvious and understood aspect of society that your naked body and fucking people is a more private thing in general than your political opinion.

As a member of society you are expected to know this. Asking someone their political opinion for instance is a far more appropriate question than asking for pictures of them fucking someone. (the former being considered impolite in some contexts but totally normal or benign in most, the latter is inappropriate bordering on harassment and might get a violent response in the majority of situations.)

Hence why we have a situation where most would concur that violating someone's privacy when it comes to nudity/fucking/sexuality is a greater moral issue than violating the privacy of a private convo about politics.

 

[DarkFlow]

This thread...

I have a feeling it's about to come to a close soon.

They are the same. They are just too lazy and scared to do it how peeping Tom's do it. If you look up these leaked photos knowing the nature of how they were exposed, you are no better than a person peeking into a woman's bathroom and watching her shower.

Who are you to make a judgement on that? People looking at porno pics, and people sneaking up to peoples windows are complete different things.

 

[Ultryx]

The internet police are here to bring the guilty to justice.

 

[Lime]

I feel like I'm about to vomit.

 

[Ryaaan14]

This thread...

I have a feeling it's about to come to a close soon.



Who are you to make a judgement on that? People looking at porno pics, and people sneaking up to peoples windows are complete different things.

This is the first time I've agreed with you. Crazy logic being thrown around on both sides here. People talking about victim blaming and painting with broad strokes and turning around and doing the same thing themselves. This whole thing is a mess.

 

[ishibear]

The internet police are here to bring the guilty to justice.

Do you have anything to offer to the thread?

 

[SteveWinwood]

two words do you believe that people who look into bathroom windows are also pedophiles

cause youre saying these are all the same things

 

[Two Words]

Who are you to make a judgement on that?

This right here is the weakest of all arguments. You know somebody has no leg to stand on when they retreat to crying "Well you're not the boss so whatever!"

I shouldn't have to say this, because I know you absolutely know this. I am making an argument. My argument is not an authoritative statement that is right because I say it is right. My argument is a set of statements that work together to build a case. You know this. Stop acting as if it is anything different.

 

[Lime]

This thread...

I have a feeling it's about to come to a close soon.



Who are you to make a judgement on that? People looking at porno pics, and people sneaking up to peoples windows are complete different things.

Porn is usually or presumably consensual. These pictures are clearly not consensual.

 

[GremlinFool]

• The opinions and statements of politicians on policy matters are inherently in the public interest, especially when they are running for office. The public has a vested interest in knowing what a candidate believes, especially what the candidate believes about them and especially on matters they themselves have made central to their campaign. No one has a right to see someone naked if that person does not wish others to see them naked, full stop.
• Things said to large groups of people are not private. Romney gave the speech to a large crowd of supporters, none of whom had any formal relationship with him or were under any sort of agreement or obligation to keep the contents of his speech confidential. They were not family or friends and any one of them could have recounted the speech later to others, which is a risk anyone takes when giving a speech, especially if there are other people (e.g. service staff) present. Categorically different than the private, intimate relationship between people and their significant others.
• Speech isn't sexuality. People have a right to be secure and private in their bodies. Violating this right is a transgression that recording speech simply does not approach.

I appreciate the response, and I agree with the bulk of your post as it echoes my thoughts on the matter.

I think pushing this topic a little bit further, do you think Clinton deserved to have his privacy violated with the intimate details of his sexual encounters with Lewinsky (presuming, of course, it was fully consensual and ignoring the power dynamics of the situation)? Harping on your last point in particular, given Clinton's prominence in the political sphere and the (at the very least) defensible notion that Clinton's indiscretion in his sexual life could inform the public on his perspectives on morality, do you think the public was entitled to know about his extramarital relations?

 

[Dragonborn]

They are the same. They are just too lazy and scared to do it how peeping Tom's do it. If you look up these leaked photos knowing the nature of how they were exposed, you are no better than a person peeking into a woman's bathroom and watching her shower.

Well, at least you're no longer comparing this to full blown child pornography. So you're improving.

 

[Sigmaah]

We all know what happend to these celebs wasn't right because it invaded their privacy obviously but let's not act like it affects our lives.

 

[DarkFlow]

This is the first time I've agreed with you. Crazy logic being thrown around on both sides here. People talking about victim blaming and painting with broad strokes and turning around and doing the same thing themselves. This whole thing is a mess.

 

[ishibear]

A big part of the motivation for obtaining and sharing these seems to be the lack of consent and violation of privacy in itself - it's not as though there's a shortage of photos of naked women (and indeed naked celebrities who have actually consented) online.

Leaking someone's nude photos that they did not consent to make public is a severe and horrible violation of privacy. This incident needs to be framed for what it is - not a sex scandal, but a crime. This article in the Brisbane Times is on point:



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/com...ot-a-scandal-its-a-crime-20140901-10b089.html

AH I almost missed this! Thanks Yrael <333