Post: #1

The Feminists march forever on:

Victims of Revenge Porn Mount Class Action Suit Against GoDaddy and Texxxan.com

Quote:Hollie Toups, a 32-year-old resident of Beaumont, Texas, has publicly come forward to discuss her painful experience with revenge porn in an effort to encourage other victims to do the same. Ms. Toups is now one of at least 23 women who have signed on to a class action lawsuit that seeks to prosecute the owners of Texxxan.com and its hosting company GoDaddy for invasion of privacy and mental anguish. Texxxan.com hosts intimate photos of women living in Texas that have been submitted without their consent.

The key is here is the lawsuit against GoDaddy; if GoDaddy is forced to pay or suffer any damages how much you want to bet this is used as precedent to go after any hosting provider of existing manosphere sites because of "mental anguish" as a result of what they'll deem as hate speech, etc.?

Post: #2

I agree on your point about GoDaddy...but this website is wrong and illegal...how can you publish something without someones consent? The whole reason that face blur even exist is the illegality of publishing someones face without their consent. This shouldnt have any effect of Manosphere blogs....

side note
i have 4 porns recorded with ex-gf's and only one knew about it....but i would never release it to the public...

Post: #3

Not sure that your link is a link. In any case, I think it'll be an interesting lawsuit because it's not clear who is responsible for the content. GoDaddy will claim that it is simply hosting a site, and it disclaims the duty to police the site per its TOS. Maybe they'll shut down the site for some superficial TOS violation but if they haven't done it yet, then I wonder if they will do it at all.

The site itself will probably say that the files are user-submitted and thus it is protected under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

(01-26-2013 11:25 PM)PhilE Wrote:  porns

I don't know why but I think this is a really comical way of referring to porn in the plural.

Post: #4

(01-26-2013 11:42 PM)polymath Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 11:25 PM)PhilE Wrote:  porns

I don't know why but I think this is a really comical way of referring to porn in the plural.

Believe it or not, I spent time contemplating this when I was a little kid. The funniness applies to any word that ends in -orn.

Example:

I ate some corn.

Shelly, while you're there, be sure to pick up some corns.

That's at least a 50 percent increase in humor.

Post: #5

Now this is an interesting question. How legal is it to put up publicly a nude pic that a girl sent you?

Post: #6

Technically speaking, you can publish such things because the people gave consent when they allowed themselves to be filmed and/or photographed. Those images become the property of the photographer or cameraman.

If the law were to be changed anyone could demand ownership of images a photographer took of them. The estate of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, for example, could recall every photo ever taken of her.

Just because someone's clothes were off in a photo does not change ownership of said photo under the law. There is probably some loophole they'll nab GoDaddy with -- distribution or some such thing.

(01-26-2013 11:25 PM)PhilE Wrote:  I agree on your point about GoDaddy...but this website is wrong and illegal...how can you publish something without someones consent? The whole reason that face blur even exist is the illegality of publishing someones face without their consent. This shouldnt have any effect of Manosphere blogs....

side note
i have 4 porns recorded with ex-gf's and only one knew about it....but i would never release it to the public...

Post: #7

Asshole lawyers: they must have thought that Godaddy, wanting to avoid the negative publicity, would be interested in settling out of court. They should have done their homework and learned that Godaddy CEO is an attention whoring ass himself and loves free publicity. Also, that he has more money and probably has bigger lawyers on retainer.

Quote:i have 4 porns recorded with ex-gf's and only one knew about it....but i would never release it to the public...

The problem I see with home made "porns" is that she can have a reasonable expectation of privacy even if you recorded it with her consent. That is, she could sue even if she agreed to the videotaping of said porns, claiming that she had a reasonable belief that you where not going to release it to the public.

Post: #8

Good for them, I hope the website (not the hosting company) loses.

Way to be a bitter beta by publishing photos taken in good faith when your feelings are hurt.

And nice line of business to facilitate those degenerates.