Naked celebrities: a new social statement?

[JimB]

"Stop lying! Straw man! You made that shit up!" is what I would say if I acted like you guys, but as I am a higher caliber of person than that [snip]

I do not normally give out advice on how to lie to people, as it is a skill I do not generally want people to be able to use against me, but fuck it, here's a free tip: Almost no one will ever, ever fall for it if you do something you claim you find objectionable, then try to absolve yourself of having done the ostensibly objectionable thing by pretending it was hypothetical.

 

[Loonyyy]

Could you guys please answer my "where do you draw the line between privacy and freedom of information" question again. I've been trying to get the answer for 2 days now.

Really, "Freedom of information"? That's just plain dishonest. It's not what you've been asking for either. You've made things up, made accusations of "Shaming male sexuality", and generally acted with an appalling lack of honesty or integrity, in what amounts to a bunch of excuse making for wanting to see certain women naked, and not caring overmuch about what they want.

Here's a line: A person's private photos: Private.
A person's credit card number: Private.
Whatever shit a person decides they want to scribble at home: Private.
Pretty much anything that you do on your own, that you want to be private? Private.

Freedom of Information:
In some cases, a criminal record.
It's a pretty short fucking list, because "Freedom of Information" isn't a concept which is usually applied interpersonally, it's completely seperate to that. Try filing a Freedom of Information request to see someone's naked photos and wait to see how quickly you're laughed out of the room.

There are some exceptions(Say, committing crimes), but as a general rule, you're not entitled to any information about anyone, and you're not entitled to their pictures, and you're not entitled to see them naked (And entitled is the word to use here. If you want to ask whether naked pictures are covered under FOI, you're asking whether we're entitled to see them, and if you're arguing in favour of it, you're arguing that we're entitled to them). The LINE is obvious. It's not about "freedom", or anything of the sort. And you don't get to judge how upset someone is over the invasion of their privacy (An obvious wrongdoing), or how they should be. And obviously you value your own privacy to some extent, otherwise you'd share your credit card number. So there are some things you'd rather keep private, and since that affects no-one else negatively, and breaks no laws, that's fucking dandy. And that's exactly the same right that's being extended to people with regard to pictures they take of themselves. It's entirely up to them whether they want anyone else to see them. What fucking advantage could there possibly be to not respecting women's rights to control their own naked pictures to society, bar some fucking infant of a man (Or woman) wanting to jerk off to it? This is like arguing for the right to punch people in the face. And then asking where the line between safety and freedom to be move lies.

 

[JimB]

It was a joke. Lighten up.

I do not believe it was intended as a joke, but even if I were to give your motivations the benefit of the doubt, it is still a badly crafted joke, lacking sufficient irony to be separated from a completely serious attempt to both have your cake and eat it too (in this case, while telling us how much better you are than us cake-eating fatties). If you want people to be able to tell the difference between when you're being serious and when you're not, I do not suggest following two pages of absurdities meant literally with a non-absurdity meant figuratively.

Now, are you going to address the actual points I made or just give my advice on lying?

No, I am not going to address your "points," whatever you think they are. I do not want to explain the difference between needing and wanting, and have you respond with some mind-boggling extrapolation about how if I believe society has a right to protect its children from a convicted sexual predator in its midst, then I must also believe in China's right to strangle its female children the moment they're born for the crime of being born female, or whatever other ridiculous misrepresentation you intend to come up with.

 

[Cryselle]

Whatever, forget it.

I honestly don't have a problem with any of you. I don't even have a problem with your positions, i think, i'm not sure because nobody will clarify. I'm just trying to get a little more clarity, but if it makes you too upset, i understand.

Obviously i've failed miserably with trying to find out the answer to where everyone draws the distinction between what information should or should not be protected, and i'm sorry for that failure.

Goodnight.

Okay, I'm going to take a stab at this one just because I'm masochistic that way. The distinction between what information should or should not be protected is drawn where a judge rules that the public's need to know trumps the individual's right to privacy. There are many situations in the real world where the rights of one person clashes with the rights of another person or group of people, and there are legal frameworks specifically set up to arbitrate these situations. It's just like how your right to free speech does not extend to falsely shouting "I have a bomb!" in a crowded airport. (Don't try it, you won't like the results)

In the case of the sexual predator, the current agreement amongst judges in most of the western world is that, while the criminal DOES have a right to privacy, the safety of the community is simply more important. The critical distinction here is that our system places both the right and responsibility to make that decision squarely upon the shoulders of judges, it is NOT a decision that the general public is legally allowed to make for themselves.

In short, a person has a right to privacy unless a judge says otherwise, or the person in question consents to waive that right.

 

[Lilani]

Could you guys please answer my "where do you draw the line between privacy and freedom of information" question again. I've been trying to get the answer for 2 days now.

Photos kept on a private digital device or private cloud account are no different from photos kept in your private belongings. "Freedom of information" doesn't come into it--it was stored privately and intended to be private. Nobody has a right to photos or information stored on somebody's phone or cloud storage account, just as nobody has a right to any photos I might keep in my bedroom.

There is a conversation to have about the "freedom of information," but since photos are private I don't see what it has to do with this discussion. Photos stored privately are private property, that is the beginning and end of it.

 

[DANEgerous]

Let's try and make this argument a bit more rational by taking the "little fireman in the shiny purple helmet" out of the equation.

"There's no way to stop really determined hackers from getting your credit card information, so it would be really great if more people just decided to take the wind out of their sails and showed they aren't ashamed of their financial information by posting their credit card number and expiration date in this thread."

I look forward to everyone demonstrating how great it is to be unashamed of our inability to get justice from cyber-criminals.

That is far from even a half decent analogy. I do not care if nudes of me are online hell I know there is video of me having sex online, so far it has had absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever and I could not care less. My credit card info however would damn me to debt for my entire life.

I am with you in that the idea that it takes power away from hackers to leak nude photos is a poor excuse at best but the analogy does not work if you do not care if people see nude pictures of you and would freely share them as your credit card info is clearly something you want to be protected and nudes are not.

 

[Lilani]

hat is far from even a half decent analogy. I do not care if nudes of me are online hell I know there is video of me having sex online, so far it has had absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever and I could not care less. My credit card info however would damn me to debt for my entire life.

Celebrities stand to lose or gain a lot by their public image. Jennifer Lawrence is considered to be a role model for young girls. Nudes of her getting out can in some eyes make her seem like an unworthy role model, which could cause fans to abandon her or parents to discourage their children from consuming media that features her. So to them, nude photos getting out can be very much akin to credit card information getting out, plus the added bonus of public humiliation and harassment.

 

[Solsbury_Grille]

I liken women putting their own nudes out there as being kind of like this stupid thing we saw in this last election here in the States. Comsopolitan Magazine had some sort of voting event in which women were bussed to the polls in party buses filled with male models.

Cosmo's Intended Message: "Hey, girls! Who say voting has to be boring? Go change the world your vote and have fun doing it!"

Actual Message: "Women are so dirt-stupid about their civic responsibilities they won't vote unless escorted by the Chippendale's squad."

It was so damned dumb. And it failed. Badly. The message of these women taking these nudes and distributing is that no one is going to listen to what they have to say unless we see their boobs first.

Stupid. I don't want my daughter growing up in a world that tells girls that unless you're starkers, no one is interested in you. That's a pretty messed-up place to live.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Keira Knightly getting her nipples out seems odd to me, what does photoshop have to with nudity, I'm not complaining she can do what she likes I just don't see the connection. Unless she was also doing it in protest of that, then I get it.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

snip

What is opal ring?

The only basis I have from that phrase is, I think they were items in Elder Scroll games. I tried looking into it, but have failed to come up with any further context as applied.

EDIT: Maybe I should have PMed that, but it was brought up a few times in this thread and even brought up that it was not understood.