Post: #1

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/26...ship-ends/

The author of this article makes a point to say that the law's perceived value will be persecuting, I mean prosecuting the distributors of "revenge porn" (when you leak a sex tape of you and your ex to the masses), but also mentions that there is specific language in the law whereby someone with no plans to distribute or divulge said n00dz can still be charged.

Seems legit.

http://790talknow.com/foxfeedspro/detail...ges-of-ex/

Possession of n00dz is "manipulative power" over women.

That same article says that in the UK distribution of n00dz can result in TWO YEARS of prison? Is that true?

After googling "what happens if you leak nudes in America" I came across this thought catalog masterpiece:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/arianna-jeret/...our-nudes/

Which seems to conclude that no, in America you cannot be prosecuted for n00dz possession.

Post: #2

This is literally one of the most insane rulings I've ever seen in my life. It takes institutionalized white-knighting and pandering to women to a level that is very difficult to even comprehend.

The full article:

Quote:German Court Rules Nude Images of Ex-Partners Must Be Deleted When Relationship Ends

Following a landmark case in Germany, the country’s federal court has ruled that a man must delete all nude images and videos of an ex-girlfriend, even if he had never shared them with anyone nor had plans to.

The basis of the ruling was that while the woman had given consent at the time the images were taken, that consent ended when the relationship ended.

The court was called upon to issue a ruling in a dispute between the former couple who were engaged in an argument over whether or not he had to delete the content. Their ruling stated that by keeping the photos and videos, the man had “manipulative power” over his ex-partner and would therefore have to delete each instance. It was not clear how the court would enforce or oversee the removal of this content.

Speaking on this ruling, German copyright and media lawyer Katja Weber said that it was important to establish what constituted “intimate” images in these cases. “One can imagine plenty of situations where, during a relationship, compromising photos might be taken” she said “even, for instance, photos showing one’s partner minus some clothes can be categorised as intimate shots, which should therefore be deleted.”

She also added that to avoid having to delete such images after a relationship has ended the individual in possession of them would need to prove that there was consent for them to be kept or used beyond that point.

This ruling sets a new precedent in Germany, which has some of the strictest privacy laws in Europe, and is likely to be used in conjunction with “revenge porn” cases.

Post: #3

time to break out my manual SLR 8)

Post: #4

Lo, behold the the lengths white knights will go to remove any last shadow of consequences for women.

It just dawned on me that what humans generally call "progress" is not advanced technology or justice - it's the measure of consequences for woman's misbihavior. The more sheltered the women are from consequences of their actions the more "progress" there is considered to be.

All the world is driven by that feminine imperative, it's scary.

Post: #5

So let me see if I've got this straight. Here is what the Germans are saying:

We are going to make the female a uniquely and unprecedentedly privileged creature that rules the world through the magic power of CONSENT. "Consent" is something that can be granted or withdrawn by the female at any time. The application of this power is unlimited and instantaneous, and extends all the way back into the past. "Consent" can and does operate retroactively, and any actions that were ever permitted by "consent" are invalidated at once as soon as "consent" is revoked.

Furthermore, no one shall possess any powers that would even theoretically permit them to make the life of a female unpleasant for the merest moment. These are "manipulative powers" and their existence is intolerable and proscribed by the law. Any man in possession of such a "manipulative power" that is not continuously graced by the protection of "consent" must be deprived of such a "power", because even to contemplate the idea that some man some day might cause the female some unpleasantness is something that the law and society cannot bear. In other words, don't even dream about jacking off to a pic of her ass in doggy that you once pounded because once CONSENT has been withdrawn you are no longer entitled to that creepy claim on her newly sacred body.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's bring a few odd million young and thirsty Muslim dudes into the country whose laws are being transformed in such a way, and see how it all works out.

Sounds like a great plan, LOL!!

Post: #6

Does it apply to women as well? I know men love sending women their dick picks. What if you're not in a relationship but are just cybering?

Post: #7

I just need to know if German Goo Girls will still be in production. I have some vitamin, neon pee to unleash on pretty Nazi faces.

Post: #8

If consent can be withdrawn at any time in the future for nude pics taken years earlier, couldn't any german chick that posed willingly for a porn site withdraw that consent whenever she feels like it?

And get her lawyers to sue anyone that doesnt remove the images because apparently this law is saying past consent doesn't matter.

Post: #9

Doing the opposite of all these progressive laws is what would actually create a better civilisation.

e.g. The beginning of a relationship should include a full nude spread from the female, and shall be shown publicly if the woman commits adultery.

Post: #10

Wait...
#FreeTheNipple...
#SlutWalk...
#AllBodiesAreBeachBodyReady...

Thought there was no shame in the female form, only empowerment...?

Post: #11

(12-26-2015 07:32 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Wait...
#FreeTheNipple...
#SlutWalk...
#AllBodiesAreBeachBodyReady...

Thought there was no shame in the female form, only empowerment...?

It's very simple. The one, necessary and sufficient unifying principle is this: whatever the female wishes at any given moment is sacred.

If She wishes to celebrate Her plus sized beauty by spreading images of it far and wide, then so shall it be. But if She wishes to withdraw Her consent for the possession of any such image, then too Her will shall be done. What cannot be countenanced under any circumstances is the least possibility of Her life being made unpleasant, now or ever. That is all.

Post: #12

Perhaps the most alarming implication is the following:

If consent can be withdrawn retroactively, then you remove the temporal qualifier - ie, consent was given at a specific moment of time, as a result of the information at the consentee's disposal when the consent was given. If we accept that consent can be withdrawn after the fact, as a result of emotion, or material disadvantage (perceived or real), then it must be the case that certain conditions are attached to consent itself, irregardless of circumstance. If that is the case, then it must apply to other areas of the law where consent is a material factor, say, for example, the formation of contracts. It raises the possibility of litigation on grounds of 'duress', on the whim of a contracting party, simply because they find themselves compromised.

We often pontificate on what, if anything, will cause the Western civilizations to collapse. On this evidence, it is entirely conceivable that it will be the disintegration of the rule of law, the stout heart of all great civilizations, that brings us to ruin.

Post: #13

If she received any money from him, then he bought those pics and are his to do with what he pleases.
Slap a copyright on them, and call them distributable props.
Easy argument, "I paid for the distribution rights for those pics, she can have them back if she pays the future profits expected to be gained."

Post: #14

Let's say you take plenty of home vid stuff of you and your ex and it gets leaked. You don't show your face at any time during any of that and make sure to remove or change all location, dates, and geo data markers. You always shoot it in not too identifiable looking locations.

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on them to prove that it was you who took it to begin with?

Seems like simple practical precautions for guys who are into this..

Post: #15

H1N1, of course this ruling stands in the most blatant possible contradiction to both the spirit and the letter of all Western law, and indeed of any workable legal system. That's what makes it so especially absurd; any sane man is immediately and instinctively revolted by it, without even needing to articulate exactly what it is that makes it so offensive.

It is a true Year Zero outrage, blithely contradicting both plain common sense and the entire legal tradition in favor of a new and demented theology of consent (to coin a phrase that perhaps deserves wider circulation).

Now, I don't really believe that this kind of legal Year Zero insanity will spread far enough or go deep enough to undermine the foundations of contract law and threaten the most basic norms of Western civilization. But it illustrates the absurd lengths to which Year Zero ideologues will go in their quest to make the most laughable white-knighting the officially sanctioned law of the land.

Post: #16

(12-26-2015 07:49 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  It's very simple. The one, necessary and sufficient unifying principle is this: whatever the female wishes at any given moment is sacred.

If She wishes to celebrate Her plus sized beauty by spreading images of it far and wide, then so shall it be. But if She wishes to withdraw Her consent for the possession of any such image, then too Her will shall be done. What cannot be countenanced under any circumstances is the least possibility of Her life being made unpleasant, now or ever. That is all.

I'm aware it's all circumstantial, hypocritical, contrived nonsense.
Hell, next they'll probably claim photographs steal their souls...

Post: #17

So what. It's pretty clear by now that the German state is the enemy of the German people. This shouldn't affect anyone's behavior at all. It'd be a cold day in hell that I destroyed my own valuable property because some leftist fuck asked me to. They can't put a gun in everyone's face all the time, so obey when they do, and the moment they turn their back comply 0%, and actively work to subvert them.

Same as speeding. Just treat the police as a risk, keep an eye out for them, and then drive at a safe and reasonable speed just like everyone else.

Post: #18

Quote:German Court Rules Nude Images of Ex-Partners Must Be Deleted When Relationship Ends

Following a landmark case in Germany, the country’s federal court has ruled that a man must delete all nude images and videos of an ex-girlfriend, even if he had never shared them with anyone nor had plans to.

Because as we all know, a woman would ONLY ever send nude photos to / allow nude photos of herself to be taken by a man whom she is in a clearcut "relationship" with!



Like most other rules, regulations & demands related to sexual consent which have been cooked up recently, these laws appear to have been authored by people with no understanding of how these sorts of things actually work in the real world.

Post: #19

delete (not the first dick pick joke).

Post: #20

spokepoker Wrote:If she received any money from him, then he bought those pics and are his to do with what he pleases.
Slap a copyright on them, and call them distributable props.
Easy argument, "I paid for the distribution rights for those pics, she can have them back if she pays the future profits expected to be gained

Simple yet brilliant. I remember reading the testimony of some female porn actress who became a Christian and left porn. People were asking her why she was still putting out new movies, when what actually was happening was that porn companies were recycling her old scenes in new productions. Of course she couldn't do anything about it because they owned the rights to her material.

If you're the photographer and consider your photography a form of art, then surely you own the rights to your own intellectual property?

Post: #21

So, can he make the same argument about that 5K necklace that he bought her? The "consent" for the gift was just during the relationship, when the relationship ended the consent ended as well..

Post: #22

(12-26-2015 08:30 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  H1N1, of course this ruling stands in the most blatant possible contradiction to both the spirit and the letter of all Western law, and indeed of any workable legal system. That's what makes it so especially absurd; any sane man is immediately and instinctively revolted by it, without even needing to articulate exactly what it is that makes it so offensive.

It is a true Year Zero outrage, blithely contradicting both plain common sense and the entire legal tradition in favor of a new and demented theology of consent (to coin a phrase that perhaps deserves wider circulation).

Now, I don't really believe that this kind of legal Year Zero insanity will spread far enough or go deep enough to undermine the foundations of contract law and threaten the most basic norms of Western civilization. But it illustrates the absurd lengths to which Year Zero ideologues will go in their quest to make the most laughable white-knighting the officially sanctioned law of the land.

I absolutely agree with your assessment of 'consent', and think 'theology of consent' says far more than the sum of its words.

I am slightly less optimistic, however, when it comes to Year Zero thinking and its effect on the Rule of Law. I am extremely concerned for the future of the rule of law, and feel that it is already in the hands of the Year Zero ideologues. I went to an excellent law school, and consequently, many of the people I knew from there are on the fast track to legal prominence. It is absolutely clear to me that, almost without exception, these men and women who hold the future of justice in their hands are entirely Dworkinised.

For those who are unaware, Dworkin is perhaps the most lionised legal philosopher of the last century, and the influence of his ideas is dominant in the minds of subsequent generations of lawyers and statesmen on either side of the Atlantic.

Dworkin's philosophy, to condense it to a couple of lines, is as follows: There are no a priori truths. The correct application of law is the highest good, except where a higher good prevails, such as Equality, in which case, the correct application of the law is the one which leads to the greatest advancement of the cause of equality. This is true even if it leads to a contradiction in the application of legal precedent. (So there are no a priori truths unless they are Dworkin's a priori truths - the absurd fuck-wittery of the man going entirely unchallenged because of the radical conformity he so ably demonstrates to his fellow zealots).

I will confess that I am particularly poorly disposed to this intellectual charlatan, having occasionally been under his direct tutelage, and having witnessed first hand the unquestioning reception his 'ideas' received by a young and ideological audience. These same idealogical delinquents now fill roles as special advisers to the Hague, to the UN, to the ECHR, and are well regarded barristers for the CPS, and prominent solicitors in the city. I have seen people with the ability to directly influence UN policy making make triumphant posts on social media about successful prosecutions of 'hate crimes' (such as private businesses making decisions about who they will sell goods to) and other judgments that fly in the face of equity, reason, and the consistent, unemotional application of the law.

It is my firm belief that the legal system will shortly be overrun with these high priests of equality, and that many innocent people will receive the kind of fair and impartial application of the law that was so prevalent in the Salem witch trials, all in the name of that unimpeachable Goddess Equality.

Post: #23

I wonder if this standard will apply to "asylum seekers?"

Like wouldn't it be racist if you suddenly said they couldn't look at nude white pussy because suddenly she withdrew her consent long after the fact? Isn't that reaffirming white privilege over the poor, poor third worlders just looking for justice from racism and oppression?

(12-27-2015 10:16 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  I am slightly less optimistic, however, when it comes to Year Zero thinking and its effect on the Rule of Law. I am extremely concerned for the future of the rule of law, and feel that it is already in the hands of the Year Zero ideologues.

It is, and has been progressively worse since the late 60's when the critical theorists in the tradition of the Frankfurt School ascended.

Nice post. I might want to consult you for the book.

Post: #24

Can't you just claim your phone/camera/etc. was compromised or stolen? Seems like an easy loophole to get out of any sort of legal issues with "revenge porn" - unless you're dumb enough to upload it from your home computer or phone. What a big fucking joke!

Post: #25

H1N1,

I agree with everything in your post, of course. There is no question that the thinking of today's legal elites is dominated by this kind of Year Zero ideology and that this is already having disastrous consequences -- especially, but not exclusively, when it comes to matters of "consent", the definition of "sexual assault", etc -- with very likely worse to come.

The question remains: how far will these people be allowed to go? My belief is: pretty far but not infinitely far. In particular, not so far that their evil lunacy begins to seriously undermine the most basic elements of contract law and the way society does business.

The reason for this is that there is simply no precedent for that kind of thoroughgoing YZ (my shorthand for Year Zero) change being implemented without the backing of wholesale violence. When you look at YZ movements of the past that were able to (temporarily) impose their will on society, they only accomplished this using both the threat and the reality of mass slaughter. And this is unsurprising, because while normal people will take a lot and tolerate a lot, they will not tolerate their entire life being turned upside down without some very serious incentives to go along with the program. This is especially true when it comes to people who have serious money and power, successful businessmen, industrial moguls etc. They will not simply acquiesce without a fight unless their life is threatened in a real way.

And in today's YZ ideologues of the West, I see little taste for wholesale violence, and little ability to implement it if they had such a taste. For fairly deep ideological reasons, they are committed to operating through legal, academic, and political channels. I don't see too many Stalins or Maos in the crew.

And while they have certainly had a great deal of success operating in this way, and are likely to have more, I believe that this can only go so far and they will start running up against serious resistance once there is real money involved. In fact, there is no need to speculate about this, because we have already seen it play out in the whole struggle over "climate change" and the efforts to reach an agreement that will reduce the world's "carbon footprint" by severely limiting the use of fossil fuels.

It's important to note that, although it does not get as much coverage on the forum which is (understandably) focused on other issues, the "climate change" idea is an essential and primary part of YZ ideology; in many ways, it's their single most fanatical commitment. Furthermore, YZ thinking about "climate change" is perhaps even more dominant among the legal, academic, and political elites than YZ thinking about "feminism"; it is an absolute dogma. Ask any YZ ideologue what is the single most important problem facing the world today, and 9 out of 10 will say it's "climate change".

And with all that, the YZ struggle to achieve any meaningful change in getting countries to reduce their fossil fuel consumption has been a laughable failure. The recently signed Paris agreement is a joke; it is completely non-binding and lacks even the most minimal enforcement mechanisms. It's really little more than a piece of paper that allows politicians to go home and declare victory. None of the countries that matter -- India, China, etc -- have the least intention of slowing down their development or harming their economies for the sake of this YZ fetish. There will be some self-imposed reductions in the West, but even these will fall well short of any serious YZ goals and will mostly be achieved through greater efficiency etc.

In short, the single most important YZ project -- the imposition of draconian changes in society in the name of "saving the planet from climate change" -- has been a laughable fiasco. Why? For the simple reason that implementing the kinds of lunatic changes that would result in "meaningful reductions" and alter the planet's temperature trajectory (according to the worthless predictions of their pseudoscience) would cost real money and hurt the economy in real ways and people with actual money and power simply did not let it happen. There is no Mao in charge of things who can tell every peasant to literally melt all agricultural tools at his disposal for the greater cause of producing steel; and without a Mao, such lunacies just don't get done.

Moreover, the smart YZ cadres know this; they know they lost on "climate change". In fact, they've known it since Copenhagen in 2009: that was their only chance at something like a binding accord and they failed to get it done. Indeed, part of the reason for their ferocious doubling down on feminism, "consent" and "sexual assault" laws, "rape culture" etc etc is that this is the main direction in which they are able to make real progress. You could see it a few years ago if you followed certain progressive blogs and boards -- the very same cadres that had previously devoted much of their attention to climate issues diverted their attention and resources to feminism and allied causes, in implicit recognition of their loss in the struggle that mattered most to them.

Note that there was no ideological concession; they are still as fanatically committed to climate-related YZ ideas as before, indeed, these ideas are more dominant than ever despite the laughable failure of the climate models, no warming for almost two decades etc. But on a practical level, they conceded because they ran up against the hard resistance of real money and had no willingness or ability to use overwhelming violence to overcome it.

Now, when it comes to the feminist agenda, there is still a long way they can go in making our lives worse and more unpleasant before they start coming up against serious economic impacts and the associated hard resistance. And I fully expect them to go as far as they can and to be very successful in that direction for quite a while to come. But in the absence of the backing of serious and sustained violence, I believe that there are hard limits to what this YZ movement can achieve, and sooner or later they will come up against these limits and retreat, just as they have already done in the climate fight where those limits were more immediately apparent.