I think this post was mostly very good, with the exception of this part.
Even if these specific women had appeared nude in films, and as far as I know JLaw never has, I don't believe having given permission for people to see you nude in one instance means people have any right to under any other circumstances.
I do find it kind of funny that Kirsten Dunst was amongst the victims though, given you can just see her naked in Melancholia if you'd ever cared to do so.
This isn't the time for it, but I'd be interested to see a thread on here discussing people's view on sites that highlight and share nude appearances of celebrities.
Thank you for your reply. Yeah perhaps my wording was off. I agree that "having given permission for people for people to see you nude in one instance means people have any right to under any other cirucmstances." For a myriad of reasons -- 1. They are clearly separate instances of consent (one does not imply the other). 2. They were presumably compensated for the nude scenes but are not in this instance. 3. From what others report, these were clearly private photos not intended for public consumption. etc.
But part of me does feel that while they clearly did not have a right, the civil damages (e.g. "harm done") are somewhat mitigated compared to child pornography, which a vocal minority seem to feel are equivalent. If one of the artists had previously participated in consensual pornography (not that this is equivalent to nude scenes in movies), I would take from that evidence that they were somewhat okay with sharing images of their nude body in the past under certain conditions. This would indicate to me they are less likely to be traumatized by this event than an average child (the comparison I was trying to make).