'Revenge porn' website former owner Hunter Moore arrested

Post by Houshalter » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

allochthon wrote: post #70

sillysaurus2 wrote: post #2

Should it be illegal to operate a website that hosts user-generated content, some of which is illegal, if you take reasonable steps to remove the illegal content when informed of its existence? The answer is pretty clearly "no." But this position becomes more difficult to defend when the entire premise of the website is based on illegal content. Something like e.g. if YouTube was originally named ShareMusicIllegally.…

That may be true, but remember that if you have the right to host whatever legal content you wish, then the first step toward losing that right is to not defend it. Sometimes that requires defending scoundrels. In my opinion, this is one area where the US legal system goes south. There must be a way to maintain people's legitimate right to freedom of speech that does not involve defending clearly scandalous behavior.…

Post by drewcrawford » Fri, Jan 24, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

natdempk wrote: post #69

drewcrawford wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it a worrying trend that website operators are becoming increasingly culpable for user content? Well, let's be clear here. He didn't build a business that operated around hosting arbitrary images, that happened to be adopted by bad people for bad purposes. He was a bad person himself, who built a bad website, to assist other bad people. These are two very different things. I mean, I understand how you could imag…

This is going to sound kind of ridiculous, but I think a flaw with this viewpoint is that you're saying that a "revenge porn" site is inherently bad with bad effects and bad intent. For the sake of argument, I can imagine a scenario where an upcoming adult model submits "revenge" pictures that she took herself as a form of free publicity, or another popular revenge site that is actually run by an adult modeling compa…

Post by Nick_C » Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 3:48 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #41

chillingeffect wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great link! Only five minutes long, yet very interesting to hear the interactions between the two. I especially enjoyed hearing the interviewer begrudgingly admit that it wasn't just women but also men on the site. He (Garfield) tries desperately to paint Moore as pure evil in every way, but is repeatedly forced to admit that Moore's actions are legal and in line with values of our country's laws (er, our laws until…

Legal does not mean good or right, of course. The guy is still a complete scumbag, emotionally broken at some point in his early development I imagine.