151–160 of 464 posts
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but I wouldn't do something like this for fear of falling afoul of anti-obscenity laws. For instance, the UK has a cyberflashing law which allots a two year custodial sentence for sending a graphic image (by any means) with intent to cause distress.
Author is not the distributor of the image.
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but I wouldn't do something like this for fear of falling afoul of anti-obscenity laws. For instance, the UK has a cyberflashing law which allots a two year custodial sentence for sending a graphic image (by any means) with intent to cause distress.
Author is not the distributor of the image.
He's the one specifically replacing one thing with another under some circumstance. Not the person embedding it or the one hosting the image.
I am absolutely not a lawyer, but I wouldn't do something like this for fear of falling afoul of anti-obscenity laws. For instance, the UK has a cyberflashing law which allots a two year custodial sentence for sending a graphic image (by any means) with intent to cause distress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author is not the distributor of the image.
I want to see this argument play out in court. He's the one specifically replacing one thing with another under some circumstance. Not the person embedding it or the one hosting the image.
I would argue showing nonconsentual explicit imagery is worse than iframing someomes app. Just show a non nsfw troll meme or block it outright.
The parasitic website is displaying the image. No iframe, no image.
same for hotlinking images, too
I would argue showing nonconsentual explicit imagery is worse than iframing someomes app. Just show a non nsfw troll meme or block it outright.
How would you argue that, exactly?
OP is not emailing people, but it is the same thing: revenge using explicit imagery. Except not only might the people behind the sites see the image but their visitors which probably include minors will too.