Posted on 10/07/2014 7:37:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As if nobody’s ex ever leaked sex pics/videos.
She made them for someone, that right there put them at risk of being leaked, even without the “hack”.
Honestly, I cannot decide if it should be treated as a sex crime.
If it was child pornography, with no actual sex, most would agree it was a sex crime.
If someone else took the photos without her knowledge, like a hidden dressing room camera, some would consider it a "sex" crime.
Most would agree, if the photos were not about forbidden nudes, they would not have been taken and sold to the tabloids.
It may be a crime, but people still do it. So I’m sure she supports Obama’s national healthcare. Wait until her medical records are hacked.
I think it was foolish and unnecessary for her to permit those pictures and irresponsible of her to store them where they were accessible to hackers. Stealing the photos was a serious invasion of privacy and completely wrong - and the thief/hacker is or ought to be guilty of a crime. However, JL and others who were hacked could have been more cautious and more prudent.
I’m more sympathetic to a woman who is attacked in her own home when the doors are locked than I am to a woman who is attacked while walking in Central Park, drunk, alone, and after midnight. Both attacks are completely wrong, but one victim could and should have done more to avoid the situation. [Note: I’m not being sexist in my standards. I lock my doors even when I am alone, and I don’t go out drunk or alone late at night either.]
Happened in the 90s with the Pamela Lee Anderson video (stolen by a contractor). The judge ruled that because of the lawsuit it was newsworthy and could be released publicly. I think that forced her hand to negotiate a deal where at least she'd see some of the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_T._Owens
A subsequent Pamela Anderson sex tax (and case) determined that the second tape was not "newsworthy".
http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/michaels.htm
One bad court decision leads to repercussions.
The best way to avoid such situations it to exercise restraint.
Thank you. Was beginning to wonder if there was any common sense on this thread.
Miss Lawrence did not give the pictures to a friend, share them, leak them or anything else that would change or compromise an expectation of privacy. She may well have had pictures of herself having undergone cancer surgery and they would have been sold for profit. The crime is the same as if the pictures were in a box under her bed. Her pictures, her home. Violated.
What she does with her body and her camera are really nobody’s business but her own. For those who still don’t get it, here’s a better analogy. It is as if she had private photos stored in a safe deposit box, only to find that all the boxes in the bank can be accessed by a master key. Those who chastise her are saying, “she should not have put her private papers in a safe deposit box if she didn’t want people to see them.”
Unlike the Kim Kardashians of the world, she not leak a sex tape or whatever to make herself more well known. Her privacy was violated. Doesn’t matter what was in the folder.
Period.
Hell, I”m still trying to FIND her pictures on line. She’s one actress I’d like to see in the buff. Since they’re not available, then what’s the fuss?
Now I see her, nekkid, every single day.
Agreed.
Not sure about that...when I saw 'Hunger Games', I assumed her Native American name was "She Who Wears Stunned Expression At All Times".
and from what I have seen she is one of the few in Hollywood who doesn’t take herself too seriously. She is about as down to earth as it gets for Hollywood
I will give you that one.
If you take digital nude photos there is a good possibility that they may in someway get hacked especially if you are a celebrity. Photos taken with a smart phone are especially vulnerable since the device is connected to the Internet or at least to a digital network. Even some newer digital cameras have an Internet connection. Best advice..don’t take nude photos.
ditto
You make wrong assumptions. You can take photos all day long and not send them to anyone...but your photo library gets backed up via iCloud regardless and are kept in a file that is supposed to be private.
You bring up a good point that I had not accounted for. If the photos were taken without her permission, then the original photography may be considered sex related, to the same extent that peeping-tom offenses are.
But if the pics were consensual, the fact that an adult woman’s nude photos were stolen is about theft, not sex.
As the Penthouse attorney in the case was quoted as saying, “This decision teaches a vital lesson to those who video themselves having sex… and take insufficient care with respect to the tapes.”
See the difference? iCloud supposedly WAS sufficient care. They are liable.
Lawrence gets hacked. Someone gets photos she previously deleted, and it’s her fault.
Had someone obtained her banking information, her home address and phone number, her SSN, then obviously you’d have no problem with Lawrence’s outrage, right?
Then it would be an internet crime of some sort, yes. Theft, violation of privacy, etc.
But it wouldn't be armed robbery or home invasion, anymore than swiping her photos is a sex crime.
I think people are objecting to the stupidity of storing graphic photos in "the cloud," or the naivete, at least.
Nothing is safe out there. Someone of her media and publicity savvy should know that.
As if she didn’t know it would get out one day. With celebs, it is all about publicity. She got the headlines and that’s all that matters. If you don’t want naked pictures out there for the world to see, then don’t take them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.