TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

The decision to caution a man who posted revenge porn images online was correct, a police force says.

Imnotmrabut

May 14, 2016
8 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-36294050
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The decision to caution a man who posted revenge porn images online was correct, a police force says.
Author

Imnotmrabut

Upvotes 8
Comments 32
Date May 14, 2016 10:39 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4jdhh0/the_decision_to_caution_a_man_who_posted_revenge/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-decision-to-caution-a-man-who-posted-revenge.949565
https://theredarchive.com/post/949565
Top posts by Imnotmrabut

Girls if you hit, slap, belittle, kick, punch, choke, throw things at, or control your boyfriends, you are the abuser.

17752 upvotes
February 24, 2017
/r/MensRights

Telling a feminist the truth.

6698 upvotes
August 22, 2018
/r/MensRights

Irony Time - The Red Pill Wins "Women In Film Award"

5929 upvotes
May 26, 2017
/r/MensRights

Woman who tortured, killed man was featured speaker at Women's March - guilty of second degree murder and two counts of first degree kidnapping

5059 upvotes
January 24, 2017
/r/MensRights

40% of young men contemplating suicide never tell anyone how they are feeling. #NotEveryDayIsInternationalMensDay

4956 upvotes
November 15, 2016
/r/MensRights

If You Start To Humanise Your Enemy, You In Turn May Be Dehumanised By Your Community

4495 upvotes
May 15, 2017
/r/MensRights

Eliminating feminist teacher bias erases boys’ falling grades, study finds

4262 upvotes
December 28, 2017
/r/MensRights

Ladies And Gentlemen - Feminism, The Circus That Never Ends. P¬))

3849 upvotes
August 26, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]civilsaint 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I think posting revenge porn should be illegal. The decision to take nude photos and the decision to post them publicly are completely different. It should be the subject's decision to post them on the web, not some scorned ex's.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]civilsaint 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't know it was illegal in the US.

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Usually the person who takes the photos owns those photos and can do whatever they want with them.

[–]civilsaint 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Try taking a picture of someone and selling it without their authorization. Just because you take the picture doesn't mean you have full rights to the image.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

uhh. where do you think the tabloids get all of their images from celebrities? If they are in public, the photographer does have the rights to the image and they do indeed sell them.

again, not commenting on the morality of such a thing, just on your understanding of how the law works (at least in Canada/US).

[–]civilsaint 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are rules regarding when you can use a photo of someone without permission. Celebrities are considered newsworthy, so you can take pictures of them in public and sell them. Also, a person being arrested is considered newsworthy.

The other point is that paparazzi shots are not considered to be using a person's artistic capabilities. If someone poses for your picture, they automatically have IP rights to the picture unless the expressly release them or sell them.

Try selling a photo of a person on a stock image website. They will ask for a release.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Tort allows that because its "in the public interest". When you become a public person, your rights are taken away.

Shitty truth.

If you're a private person, meaning no fame, and there is no compelling public interest in your shit being displayed for all to see (um, I'm sure that there's massive public interest in seeing naked women of all ages, except grannies, those people are weird af), then its a violation of privacy.

Funny thing is that women are doing it to men and they aren't getting punished.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

As for the pic being a gift, there is clear law that if a person poses for a picture, they own a portion of the IP. That is why you can't sell an image of a person on Shutterstock without a signed release form for the subject.

If you're a private person, meaning no fame, and there is no compelling public interest in your shit being displayed for all to see (um, I'm sure that there's massive public interest in seeing naked women of all ages, except grannies, those people are weird af), then its a violation of privacy.

This is only true if the image of them that you post or sell is being used to promote a product.

https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/when-you-need-a-photo-release.rl

*Use of Likeness and Publicity Laws

Publishing or selling photos, however, has to do with publicity laws and a person’s “likeness.” All of us, famous or otherwise, have the right to protect our likeness. But our likeness simply isn’t a picture of a person. Rather, our likeness, in the legal sense, means a representation of us used to promote ideas, products, services, or things.

That distinction is pretty important. If you met a celebrity on the street and asked to take a picture with them, you could actually sell that picture to a newspaper or publication. That celebrity isn’t promoting anything (after all, you aren’t using their likeness to sell sneakers). They’re simply another person, on the street, who posed for a picture.

But were you to use that same picture in an advertisement for your website, product, or idea, you’d be violating that person’s use of likeness rights. They didn’t agree to promote your website, product, or idea, so you can’t simply use the picture in any way you see fit.*

EDIT: downvote? Really? When I can point to a legal advice site and show that you are factually incorrect you downvote? Way to own up to being wrong there buddy.

[–]hackableyou 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is exactly how it works. Unless the person had an expectation of privacy from the camera before it was taken. If the bf took the video and she knew about it, it is fine.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well, if she gave him the images, then they are a gift and he is free to do with them as he chooses (you know, like semen).

If he took them, then he has copyright since he is the creator of the images and also has the right to do with them as he pleases.

Except that we are dealing with women so the law doesn't apply.

[–]civilsaint 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So then doxxing is fine, because if a person gives their info to you, that information is yours to share widely.

[–]Arby01 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

that information is yours to share widely.

it's not illegal, is it?

I never addressed whether it is morally wrong at all. And in fact, since you missed it, I wrapped it up with "like semen" which was a reference to a court ruling where a guy got a blowjob and the woman ran to the bathroom, spit it out and pushed it up her snatch and she got pregnant. The court case was because she was taking him to court for child support. EDIT: to be clear, the court ruled the semen was a gift and hers to do with as she liked.

Since I think we all clearly agree that is pretty much a shitty and inappropriate decision I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine where my moral stand on the matter is.

[–]civilsaint 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Dude. That is a really sick story and pretty fucked up on many levels. Do you have a link for that?

I don't think doxxing is illegal, but it isn't covered under free speech and will likely become illegal at some point. I'm pretty sure you can be held liable in civil court if done maliciously.

As for the pic being a gift, there is clear law that if a person poses for a picture, they own a portion of the IP. That is why you can't sell an image of a person on Shutterstock without a signed release form for the subject.

I'm still sick about the blow job story. People are fucked up.

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

[–]civilsaint 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OMG that's really sick.

Strangely enough, there are more protections on photos than on your genetic code.

Thanks for the link.

[–]Sasha_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hmm...just thinking about this, I'm not sure. It strikes me that there might be some sort of 'agreed expectation' that the images remain private - in fact I'm absolutely sure of it. Especially if the pics were taken in your own home. Even if they weren't all you'd have to say is that you agreed they would remain private, and you'd then certainly have grounds for a civil suit.

What I don't understand is how it could be a criminal offence. Especially if he took the photo - I mean, it's a shitty think to do, but I don't see how it's criminal.

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Especially if the pics were taken in your own home. Even if they weren't all you'd have to say is that you agreed they would remain private, and you'd then certainly have grounds for a civil suit.

perhaps, but I would think that there would be an expectation for semen from a blowjob not be used to impregnate someone and apparently that isn't true either.

SO, I am arguing for no particular reason but if a woman sends a man naked pictures, aren't they a gift? Why would the expectation of privacy matter?

We all know it does. We all know it will end in criminal charges - nominally I guess some sort of bullying charge - which, probably is the right thing to do. I am just kinda thinking that it is strange that revenge porn of guys doesn't get the same protection - or for that matter, anything of guys.

[–]DrSkeezix 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What does "caution" mean? American here.

As far as uploading private images from an ex, I find it tasteless.

As far as the images being gifts and can be used as you wish (like semen). That is equally tasteless. On both sides. Laws aside.

With that being said, I never put my face and genitals into a situation that might come back and bite me. People need to think more.

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is technologies now where your bf or gf can take nude pictures of you, but you can make sure it never goes unline. So I think this will be a temparily issue once this technology diffuses and new technologies come online.

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe revenge porn is illegal in Canada now and in some states and so it should be. its a fundelmental betrayal of someone who trusted you.

I don't see this as an MRM issue as it could be done to anyone irreguardless of Gender.

[–]cymrich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

so a guy did something illegal and the police got involved... why is this here?

[–]rossraskolnikov 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Assuming this is the same story I read. It wasn't "revenge porn" at all. He took regular, clothed images of girls (which they'd put into the public domain) and photoshopped them (turning them into "porn"), and shared them on forums with other like-minded folk.

But at least one of the girls was 15. And he'd allegedly harassed and threatened them.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

One was 15? How did the article not call him a pedophile and demand his public mob execution?

maybe times are changing for the better, even if someone did a scumbag thing like the person in article.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

One was 15? How did the article not call him a pedophile and demand his public mob execution?

Because the nude body wasn't that of a 15 year old. Photoshopping a 15 year old's head onto an 18 year old's body doesn't make you a pedophile.

[–]cymrich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

even if it wasn't photoshopped, 15 years old would be 4 years too old at least for a paedophile.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True, but most people don't understand that distinction.

[–]cymrich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

maybe because even if it were really a 15 year old that doesn't make him a paedophile... since a) it wasn't about sexual attraction, and b) paedophiles are attracted to PREpubescent children...

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

People say an 18 year old dating a 40 year old is legal pedophilia these days, so you can't always be sure what people believe.

[–]cymrich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

well people don't get to change definitions just because they disagree with something...

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thats kind of how all definitions change.

[–]cymrich 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

only if you let it.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter