Should revenge porn be legal?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Yellow Avatar stereotype has arrived....

It's less that he's a yellow avatar and more that he appears to be Opebo 2.0 in the way he views the relationship between his values and what happens to be personally convenient to him:

I used to be a centrist, but my economic views swerved to the right after landing a job in property management.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Aren't you the guy who wants the age of consent to be lowered?

"If that ninth-grader didn't want her semiretired sugar daddy selling that picture of her in her training bra to Pornhub, she should have sent it to him on Docusign with an NDA attached. Live free or die! Also, your rent's due."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Yellow Avatar stereotype has arrived....

It's less that he's a yellow avatar and more that he appears to be Opebo 2.0 in the way he views the relationship between his values and what happens to be personally convenient to him:

I used to be a centrist, but my economic views swerved to the right after landing a job in property management.

A lot of people's economic views shift based on their own economic position - there's nothing morally wrong or shameful about that, unless the shift is massive or they are in political power. I mean, quite honestly, a lot of labourers back in the 1900s were liberal on labour issues because of their job - they were otherwise conservative (like on social issues) and would likely adapt their economic view if their economic position improved. The fact that LordLarry has admitted this so candidly isn't necessarily a bad reflection to his character - to the contrary. The only part I find worrying is his saying it "swerved" to the right. I'd get a rightward shift, but if it moved monumentally to the right, then yeah, that is a little unnerving.

It's the combination of the candor on this with the horrendous takes On The Issues that it evidently leads him to that's opeboesque. It's the whole package.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think it depends on how it was obtained. The major point has to do with consent. If you willingly share nude photos or videos with another person, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy or that said media won't necessarily be shared. And, once that media has been transferred, it is in the possession of another individual. I know it sounds harsh, but it is not the government's right or responsibility to protect people from their own free speech or the speech of another.

I agree completely. I believe that if the images were obtained without the person's consent, then sharing it should be illegal. I'm talking about the situation where a person willingly shares explicit photos of himself or herself, at which point there isn't an expectation of privacy.

Think about it like this. We are taught that anything that we post online, even what we believe to be private, can be made public and be held against us. Therefore, we are responsible for everything we post online. However, nudity is the one legal exception to this rule. Why?

And to be quite frank, I don't think that anyone ought to be taking nude images of himself or herself. It's very strange behavior to me.

Sending nude pictures on dating apps has been a 'thing' for over twenty years. The straights might have been later to the game but it's still not a recent phenomenon. And partners share pictures. That doesn't give make anything 'domain' and their absolutely is an expectation of privacy.

Well, I still find it strange when you can see each other nude in person anyway. If you want privacy, have your partner sign an NDA.

You're aware that generally if two people who are sleeping together need an NDA it's because there's some sort of abuse, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think it depends on how it was obtained. The major point has to do with consent. If you willingly share nude photos or videos with another person, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy or that said media won't necessarily be shared. And, once that media has been transferred, it is in the possession of another individual. I know it sounds harsh, but it is not the government's right or responsibility to protect people from their own free speech or the speech of another.

I agree completely. I believe that if the images were obtained without the person's consent, then sharing it should be illegal. I'm talking about the situation where a person willingly shares explicit photos of himself or herself, at which point there isn't an expectation of privacy.

Think about it like this. We are taught that anything that we post online, even what we believe to be private, can be made public and be held against us. Therefore, we are responsible for everything we post online. However, nudity is the one legal exception to this rule. Why?

And to be quite frank, I don't think that anyone ought to be taking nude images of himself or herself. It's very strange behavior to me.

Sending nude pictures on dating apps has been a 'thing' for over twenty years. The straights might have been later to the game but it's still not a recent phenomenon. And partners share pictures. That doesn't give make anything 'domain' and their absolutely is an expectation of privacy.

Well, I still find it strange when you can see each other nude in person anyway. If you want privacy, have your partner sign an NDA.

Expecting your partner to respect your privacy is too much, but asking them to sign an NDA like intimacy is now some bizarre business contract is not??

Leonardo DiCaprio had some of his partners sign an NDA. It's not completely unheard of.

Leonardo DiCaprio is a celebrity who, while a great artist, has been accused of inappropriate or just plain strange behavior towards women on and off throughout his career. Celebrity relationships are not a good model for relationships between normal people.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My Millennial street smarts has also told me to be careful online. Is that mindset gone now?

Yes. Regrettably.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

On top of everything else, people are aware that under current First Amendment jurisprudence obscenity is not protected speech, right? We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not it should be, but the fact is that under current precedent it is not some sort of free speech violation to not be allowed to upload your ex-girlfriend's nudes to ~The Cloud~ without her permission. I fail to see whom exactly framing it as one is supposed to benefit, other than creeps whose lives peaked at "the fappening" and who are too stupid and uncultured to just masturbate to the Venus of Urbino or Barbara Stanwyck's nudes from the late 20s.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing about politicallefty's "hookup" point is that "revenge porn", by its very nature as a phrase, implies that the relationship was at least long-lasting and emotionally intimate enough that seeking revenge on the person after it's over makes some degree of psychological sense. The reasonable expectation of privacy would be at least a little stronger there, even in non-marital relationships, than the people advancing the First Amendment absolutist position in this thread are contending, wouldn't it?