The first option. Sending a photo does not imply consent for the recipient to screenshot it.
The moral and ethical dilemma of screenshotting nudes
- Thread starter Bread.
- Start date
Can you please elaborate on how someone can retroactively revoke their consent for you to possess pictures that were given to you?
You are basically saying anyone who’s ever had consensual sexual images sent to them is a potential RAPIST, depending on how the sender feels months/years after matter. They can convert what had previously been a consensual sexual encounter into something damaging and illegal. This is essentially time traveling back in history and removing consents, a nudes TERMINATOR if you will.
Also how does the alleged victim of this retroactive consent, know that these images were saved?
How can they go after "control" of their images to a person that screenshotted them but never published them?
You said earlier the recipient has a moral obligation to delete said images.
If the recipient has the moral obligation it seems like its recicpients choice, not the person that sends them.
You are basically saying anyone who’s ever had consensual sexual images sent to them is a potential RAPIST, depending on how the sender feels months/years after matter. They can convert what had previously been a consensual sexual encounter into something damaging and illegal. This is essentially time traveling back in history and removing consents, a nudes TERMINATOR if you will.
Also how does the alleged victim of this retroactive consent, know that these images were saved?
How can they go after "control" of their images to a person that screenshotted them but never published them?
- If you agree that these images can be saved then you will also have to agree that the consent is also given for users to save these images.
So where is the "control"?
You said earlier the recipient has a moral obligation to delete said images.
If the recipient has the moral obligation it seems like its recicpients choice, not the person that sends them.
By the same token, if you agree that a person can use another person's car with the owner's consent then you will also have to agree that the consent is also given for users to keep that car
If the driver has the moral obligation it seems like it's the driver's choice, not the owner of the car
Soundz123
Silver Member
no, the counterpoint isn’t justification for screenshotting nudes. yes, if someone shares the nude and it gets spread around for someone to screenshot, the person who sent it/them are to blame, but that doesn’t make it morally okay to take a screenshot or whatever without the persons consent. just because someone was ignorant enough to send a nude to a person who’s a degenerate and shares it with others(without the consent), that doesn’t open the door for people to take what wasn’t consented on with other people. this isn’t a legal thing, it’s a moral argument. taking from someone who didn’t consent can be likened to theft, and no one can argue moral theft.
Consent is ongoing, not retroactive. In this instance, revoking consent could be as simple as something like, "Now that we are breaking up, I'm no longer comfortable with you possessing intimate pictures of me."
That's a huge leap that you're intentionally exaggerating. Not every non-consensual interaction is rape. In @Inkandtatts example, if my vehicle is stolen (ie, I didn't consent for someone to take my vehicle), that's decidedly not rape and neither is possessing intimate images without consent. Also, ongoing consent also has nothing to do with changing the past.
Again, not retroactive consent, ongoing consent. Someone has a right to change their mind and no longer consent to what is actively taking place. That has nothing to do with changing the past.
I believe there are certain apps like Snapchat that inform the sender if their image is saved / screenshoted. Outside of that, the sender may require legal / lawful action to confirm the possession of images. This is a moral debate though, not a legal one.
No, I do not have to agree to that. Just because something can happen doesn't mean that consent was given. In your prior example, just because someone can be assaulted doesn't mean they consent to being assaulted. This is ludicrous.
Your debate is a moral and ethical one. If you're not interested in hearing arguments surrounding moral obligations, ask different questions.
this is why I keep my clothes on. js.
What a remarkable analogy by such a colorful mind.
No its clearly not the same token.
An image is an image not a 3000lb car that needs a licensed operator.
Consent to use someone's car is typically granted for a specific period or purpose, such as borrowing the car for an errand or a days long trip. The consent given by the owner of the vehicle does not imply permission to keep the car indefinitely or assume ownership of it. Ergo its a 2-way contract.
Nudes on the other hand are typically granted as a gift, not under some predefined contractual obligation. When people send nudes they dont say "here keep this until youre done beating it, then delete it. They are simply sent. The only consent that takes place here, if any is the self-consent to send these images. Ergo a personal choice.
Please read the title of the thread before you make a 5'5" ass of yourself.
For the purposes of this debate this does not involve the sharing of these explicit images. Only the screenshotting.
That is a very respectable choice.
Regardless how you try to justify it, consent is what's key here. You can say whatever back talk or doublespeak you want to try to justify whatever "practical" logic you want but the fact of the matter is that if consent was not given or revoked but the individual at any time then you are violating their privacy. Laws are finally starting to catch up with situations like this to be able to give victims the support they deserve to combat this sort of toxic ideology.
You, and everyone else on this thread, should listen to the latest episode of Darknet Diaries - Episode 140 Revenge Bytes.
You should really look up the definition and legal meaning of the word consent. It seems that your own personal and moral understanding of the word is showing your own bias towards what you're trying to justify as normal or just. There is no such thing as "implied consent", regardless of what a conversation may have been.
Do you ask your boyfriend if you can put it in everytime you have sex or is there some sort of "implied consent" because its impractical or unnecessary. Implied consent is not the absence of consent. If you are using legality as a basis then your argument is heavily flawed as legalities vary greatly by different jurisdictions.
How would I prove you kept posting nudes in front of minors if I didn’t SS it?
Then state the jurisdiction you're arguing against. Not knowing what consent is does not pardon you from perpetrating a crime.
I am not stating jurisdictions you are by imposing legalities/law. Consent is you consenting to share your body to a recipient. You are falling back on retroactive consent.
Explain to me how its possible to obtain retroactive consent for nude images you consented to sharing. Once an image is shared or sent, the sender loses control over any of the images theyve sent in the past. Retroactive consent is not regret. Consent requires a mutual agreement. If i tell you hey i dont want you to reply to my thread anymore. Does that actually prevent you from responding to my thread? no because you never agreed to anything.
Explain to me how its possible to obtain retroactive consent for nude images you consented to sharing. Once an image is shared or sent, the sender loses control over any of the images theyve sent in the past. Retroactive consent is not regret. Consent requires a mutual agreement. If i tell you hey i dont want you to reply to my thread anymore. Does that actually prevent you from responding to my thread? no because you never agreed to anything.
DarthErica
Banned
Can’t believe I’m gonna go down this rabbit hole but here goes. If you send/post pictures on the internet for all to see then it basically becomes public property. Whether that’s moral or not. Theres no legal ownership of a non professional picture. So the moral of this little story is, if you have pictures of yourself you don’t want the world to see....then don’t post them.
people consenting to spread pornography are victims now? LOL
Let me victimize myself by retroactively consenting to the cheetos i paid for earlier. I dont want to pay for them now so i am now a victim of robbery.
There's a legal difference between something that's posted in practice and being available...and legal ownership of something. If you take a picture of yourself then you are the photographer and legally own the rights to that image. Just because someone else has it doesn't remove your legal ownership of that image. What they choose to do with that image is their practical choice, however, may be a violation of legal copyright laws and as such can become a legal problem for someone who chooses to abuse that. What @Bread. is trying to justify is the choice to do something and not the legal ramifications of that. Again, I suggest you all listen to DarkNet Diaries Episode 140: Revenge Bytes.