I have never consented to people taking my picture or videotaping me nude or in any other private situation. All of it is illegal, and it ought to be obvious how sleazy people are being who try to defend their cruelty toward me by saying that people who surreptitiously followed me around, probably for months, until they finally followed me to a park at night to get videotape of me on a date weren't doing anything illegal. There are a lot of things that aren't technically illegal that are gross and wrong. If the people who did that to me didn't think they were doing something wrong, why didn't they walk over to me and my date and say "We have cameras and are videotaping you; you don't mind, do you?" They NEVER would have gotten our consent to that. People who push the law to its limits because they don't care if they hurt or embarrass other people for no reason are disgusting.
For the people who are victimized when private pictures or video to which they did consent at the time the pictures or films were created are later shown to other people or put online, there ought to be legal protections. Nobody has a reason to do that to someone, and I don't think that "freedom of speech" is something that should be applied to that type of negligent or intentionally harmful action.
I am asking this question; isn't distributing those types of pictures and videos like distributing other private information about someone, when the distribution of that information does nothing except hurt the person's reputation? Even when the subject does consent to the pictures or films when they are taken, the subject doesn't consent to them being seen by anyone other than the person who takes them or to whom they are sent, and so showing them to other people or distributing them is taking them out of context, presenting the subject in a false light, and damaging the subject's reputation.
Copyright L. Kochman, May 1, 2016 @ 3:08 p.m.
