The ol' Uno Reverse
-
This post did not contain any content.
Link or it didn't happen
-
Link or it didn't happen
-
I believe in you pug Jesus.
-
Yeah, what a sad story, he was never gonna let her down but he runn around and desert her. But she really did play a power move, just gonna make him cry and gonna say goodbye
-
What’s wrong with people? He doubled down on his sex crime???
-
This post did not contain any content.
To be clear, both of these things are sex crimes, so don’t draw any major lessons from either side, aside from “don’t fuck with people.”
-
To be clear, both of these things are sex crimes, so don’t draw any major lessons from either side, aside from “don’t fuck with people.”
... publishing your own nudes is a sex crime?
-
... publishing your own nudes is a sex crime?
Every morning I human traffic myself to work.
-
... publishing your own nudes is a sex crime?
wrote last edited by [email protected]To an audience that isn’t interested in seeing them, yeah. They require consent, otherwise it’s a sex crime not dissimilar to flashing. I can’t remember the specific term. Non-consensual something or other.
Edit: I still can’t remember but the word “brandishing” keeps hopping to the forefront of my mind, and brandishing tits sounds hilarious
-
To an audience that isn’t interested in seeing them, yeah. They require consent, otherwise it’s a sex crime not dissimilar to flashing. I can’t remember the specific term. Non-consensual something or other.
Edit: I still can’t remember but the word “brandishing” keeps hopping to the forefront of my mind, and brandishing tits sounds hilarious
While violation of social media ToS is possible, I find it difficult to believe that a court would regard the sex crime angle of publishing one's own photos online seriously. Otherwise anyone linking to their OF without asking for permission to send the link first would be a sex criminal.
-
To an audience that isn’t interested in seeing them, yeah. They require consent, otherwise it’s a sex crime not dissimilar to flashing. I can’t remember the specific term. Non-consensual something or other.
Edit: I still can’t remember but the word “brandishing” keeps hopping to the forefront of my mind, and brandishing tits sounds hilarious
Tagging people to let them know they exist is not forcing them on anyone.
-
While violation of social media ToS is possible, I find it difficult to believe that a court would regard the sex crime angle of publishing one's own photos online seriously. Otherwise anyone linking to their OF without asking for permission to send the link first would be a sex criminal.
If the intent is to shock or harm, or it can be argued that way, it’s usually best to avoid. If you care to read up, you're welcome to it.
-
Tagging people to let them know they exist is not forcing them on anyone.
I really don’t care to argue the point. Read up, if you care to argue it in court
-
If the intent is to shock or harm, or it can be argued that way, it’s usually best to avoid. If you care to read up, you're welcome to it.
To win an IIED claim, you need to prove the sender’s behavior was extreme and outrageous, they acted with intent to cause you severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard for that possibility, and that you suffered severe emotional distress as a result.
Another legal ground is invasion of privacy, specifically a claim for “intrusion upon seclusion.” This recognizes that individuals have a right to be left alone in their private affairs. Your direct messages, email inbox, and text message threads are considered private spaces. When someone intentionally intrudes by sending offensive material, it can be viewed as a highly offensive invasion of your privacy.
It would seem a very difficult argument to apply in this case.
-
To win an IIED claim, you need to prove the sender’s behavior was extreme and outrageous, they acted with intent to cause you severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard for that possibility, and that you suffered severe emotional distress as a result.
Another legal ground is invasion of privacy, specifically a claim for “intrusion upon seclusion.” This recognizes that individuals have a right to be left alone in their private affairs. Your direct messages, email inbox, and text message threads are considered private spaces. When someone intentionally intrudes by sending offensive material, it can be viewed as a highly offensive invasion of your privacy.
It would seem a very difficult argument to apply in this case.
But not impossible. It’s just an unnecessary risk.
-
This post did not contain any content.
She had more balls than him
-
I really don’t care to argue the point. Read up, if you care to argue it in court
It varies by country, but in south Africa for example, you don't have to prove emotional distress, the law is clear in stating that exposing someone to genitalia, anus or female breast without consent (provided it is deliberate) is an offense.
So you're right, but in some countries, you're more right than others.
-
I really don’t care to argue the point. Read up, if you care to argue it in court
That link is talking about sending images. I am saying that tagging is not sending images.
-
That link is talking about sending images. I am saying that tagging is not sending images.
I really don’t see a meaningful distinction, but even less do I care to argue the point
-
It varies by country, but in south Africa for example, you don't have to prove emotional distress, the law is clear in stating that exposing someone to genitalia, anus or female breast without consent (provided it is deliberate) is an offense.
So you're right, but in some countries, you're more right than others.
Breasts as well? That’s surprising. How accepted are trans people in South Africa? Because there might be some confusing times ahead.
