The Instigator
SkySky16
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
QueenDaisy
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Revenge porn should be criminalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
QueenDaisy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 101732
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

SkySky16

Con

Let me define what this is here:
Revenge porn
revealing or sexually explicit images or videos of a person posted on the Internet, typically by a former sexual partner, without the consent of the subject and in order to cause them distress or embarrassment.

I will be taking the stance that it should not be criminalized, and should remain completely legal.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening Statements, no refuting opposing arguments
R3&4: Rebuttals
R5: Closing Arguments

Cite sources if needed, remain respectful, have fun!
QueenDaisy

Pro

I accept.

As is customary in many debating formats, I feel a pronoun introduction is appropriate- please use "she/her" pronouns for me. I will default to using "they/them" pronouns for everyone else unless told otherwise.

I wish my opponent the best of luck, and look forward to an interesting and productive debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SkySky16

Con

Let me start that out by saying I don't support such an act as revenge porn. I will not be "slut shaming" or anything of that ilk. Let's begin by outlining my main arguments.

1. While revenge porn is bad, criminalizing it is worse.

On topics such as these people often start of with, "Free speech is important, but..." This is where I have to stop them. Although the arguments usually are "But think about the women and children!!!" and "But think about my free speech!"
The exploitation of women and children have always been used as justification to regulate the internet. Just look at the Communications Decency act of 1996 or the more recent California ballot initiative Proposition 35. These efforts, though noble, have been stopped by the "inconvenience" of the First Amendment.
First amendment issues aren't the only reason why we should negate the roar to criminalize it. The over broad and vague definition of revenge porn leaves it to be too subjective. This causes unintended consequences. To disregard this aspect of instituting a law is irresponsible. So let's look into it. Anthony Weiner has revealing pictures of his genitalia on the web. Many tabloids commented and wrote articles about them online and included the links or the pictures themselves. Under this definition of revenge porn, the tabloids as well as the person who originally posted and anyone else who shared these pictures online would be able to be held criminally responsible. Not only would this burden our already overburdened prison system, it would very clearly breach a fundamental constitutional freedom. The right of the press and also the right to free speech.
The earlier versions of the California revenge porn bill and many other like it around the country are taking this stance. Under this definition, anyone who links, shares, blogs about, hosts a site where someone linked/shared/blogged about, etc. would all be subject to both civil and criminal liabilities:[1]

"a. A victim can go after the initial vengeful discloser under a tort theory of public disclosure of private information and even the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
b. A victim who personally took the photographs holds copyright in them and can have them removed from a website through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
c. Porn websites " whether hosting voluntary or involuntary porn " are subject to more laws than just CDA 230; conceivably, the FBI could go after some revenge porn sites under 18 U.S.C. 2257 for not keeping records on the subjects of their photos.
d. Finally, websites that offer to take down photos in return for payment are clearly in the business of extortion, which, once again, is already illegal."

2. Revenge porn isn't an issue anymore.

Most of the worst offenders of revenge porn have already been taken down. These are websites that were popular but no longer exist. [1]
Furthermore, if you knowingly and willingly give pornographic pictures of yourself to another person(s) then they have ownership of those pictures. This means they can post, text, send, share, blog, or whatever they want to do and should still be within their own legal rights.

3. What does the criminalization of revenge porn actually achieve?

Will "justice" in punishing the perpetrators tangibly help the victims? The answer is no, it isn't possible. These photos will still and always exist on the internet.
Whatever deterrent effect you could claim on the criminalization of revenge porn would already have taken effect because of the civil litigation already happening.
Restraining orders cannot be enforced, domestic violence victims are impeded in initiating civil actions against abusers, and employers can fire their employees for being sexualized on the internet. Why not address these problems instead of regulating the internet? Because addressing these would actually help the victims.

4. Conclusion

This isn't a choice between the internet and women, or between free speech and feminism. Those are both false dichotomies. No, refusing to criminalize revenge porn wouldn't make us misogynists. It would make us prudent.

[1] https://www.wired.com...
QueenDaisy

Pro

In the interests of obeying the "No refutations in R2" rule, I have not read my opponent's R2 argument, and will not until I begin planning my R3 argument.

My argument is as follows:

Firstly, defamation- the definition of defamation is as follows:

"the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel."

(See source 2).

These laws are particularly applicable to defending one's so-called "sexual reputation".

"In the south of England, this litigation rose most sharply in cases of sexual slander and were notable for the increasing number of women pursuing litigation in defence of their sexual reputation."

(See source 3).

Defamation laws protect society from individuals who would otherwise destroy it with falsehoods or private information shared in confidence.

That's exactly what a sexually explicit image or video is; a private item shared in confidence. Though of course it would be acceptable for an individual to share pornographic images with the consent of the individual(s) depicted in them, and one may even attempt to justify doing so in cases where consent is ambiguous- i.e. the subject has not specified whether it is acceptable to share the images or not- there are many cases where the consent of the subject is explicitly not given- they've specified they do not wish for the images to be shared. in such cases, the autonomy of the individual in the pictures must be respected- we make rape illegal because the violation of one's sexual autonomy is outrageous. We make paedophilia illegal because children are unable to consent, and as such any sexual action with them would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. Revenge porn is a similar violation of one's sexual and bodily autonomy, and should be as illegal for this reason.

Revenge porn is always malicious- it is defined in the motion to be "in order to cause them distress or embarrassment". Wilfully malicious and harmful behaviour such as this is usually (and rightly) made illegal- with vandalism being a good example- and so revenge porn should be forbidden for the same reasons.

So, in summary, revenge porn should become/remain (depending on where you are) illegal because it:
1) Constitutes defamation.
2) Constitutes a violation of one's sexual and bodily autonomy.
3) Is malicious and harmful.

It is for these reasons that I urge voters to side with my case- revenge porn should be illegal. Thank you for your time.

Sources:
2: https://www.google.co.uk...;*
3: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SkySky16

Con

Allow me to respond to my opponent's arguments while also bolstering mine.

1. Defamation

This argument doesn't apply to my argumentation, and here is why.

a. Civil suits are already being done.
In a court of law their is civil and criminal. Defamation is civil and is already able to be prosecuted as such.

b. Pro's and Con's
I've shown how ineffective the criminal punishment of revenge porn is. No justice is achieved for the victim. The pornographic images are still out their and will always be out there. Deterrence is also not a pro. This is because the civil lawsuits and consequences would have already achieved this. It's illogical to believe that someone who starts the revenge porn trail would stop at possible jail time but would not stop at a possible HALF A MILLION dollar lawsuit and widespread public disapproval and shame. [1] These people are either very impulsive or just simply don't care.

2. Bodily Autonomy

This is not a somatic right. I'm a huge advocate for all things under this category but you can't qualify this as a violation of bodily autonomy. Revenge porn isn't a violation of your sexual autonomy in legal standards. This is because this is not a physical act done to you. You have consented to giving or having naked pictures taken of you. Those pictures are not yours to dictate who gets to see. It is now property. Giving property to someone allows that person to do with it what they please. If I give someone my lawnmower to keep but tell them not to share with others, can I have him imprisoned? No I cannot because this is a legal issue of property, not of somatic rights.
Somatic rights are a physical violation of your body's rights when they do not infringe on other's rights. This is why abortion is such a highly debated issue, is it a human being or is it not? Same with revenge porn: is it my body being violated or my TRUST I gave that person when I shared intimate pictures? It is definitely the trust being violated. This is, of course, not illegal. Pro did not explain why revenge porn is a violation to one's somatic rights, she just stated it was so.

3. Always malicious

This is a misunderstanding on pro's part. It is defined that way so that actions may be classified as revenge porn not so anything that resembles revenge porn can be classified as a deliberate attack with malicious intent. Besides, malicious intent is nearly impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in these cases. There are so many ways one could accidentally "leak" pictures online. I've seen so many different pictures of my family members just because we share the same iCloud account.

She is also incorrect in stating that willfully malicious and harmful behavior is made illegal. That would classify literally any lie, no matter the scale, as willfully malicious and therefore criminally punishable by prison or jail time. Of course this is not the case in law today and should NOT be the case. Should every kid who teases another be sentenced to juvenile facilities? Should a sale at one business that is meant to undercut and harm another business be criminally prosecuted?
Of course not. This argument doesn't stand to reason.

So in summary, revenge porn should NOT be criminalized because:

1. Defamation of revenge porn is already civilly prosecuted.
2. Is not a violation of one's somatic rights but of one's trust, which isn't grounds for imprisonment.
3. Not all things malicious and harmful are grounds for imprisonment. With this definition just about the entire population would be eligible for prison sentences.
ALSO
4. Unintended consequences of such broad brush definitions violates the freedom of speech, internet rights, and freedom of the press. I illustrated this in my first round.
5. It does not achieve anything. Imprisoning a murderer means there is less chance for murder; thief, less chance of property being stolen; revenge porn perpetrator, nothing. It accomplishes nothing.
6. Would not deter perpetrators because of the drastic punishments already in effect in civil court.

There is no reason to vote Pro in this round. Vote Con!

[1] http://www.wxyz.com...
QueenDaisy

Pro

I will begin with rebuttal of Con's R2 speech, and then proceed to respond to the statements they made in R3 that addressed my points.

Con's points in R2 appeared to be as follows:

1) Banning revenge porn would violate free speech (first amendment).
2) Discussing revenge porn would constitute perpetrating it, and thus open those who have done nothing wrong to criminal charges.
3) Revenge porn isn't commonplace anymore.
4) Sending a picture of oneself to someone else necessarily requires that the sender forfeit any ownership of that picture; the recipient now owns it.

So, to respond.

1:

The first amendment, and any other freedom of speech legislation, does not guarantee freedom of every kind of speech. For instance, the following are still illegal despite the first amendment:
1) Certain kinds of false speech, such as fraud.
2) Speech which distributes illegal information, such as the identity of undercover FBI officers.
3) Slander and libel.
4) Hate speech- calling for violence against an individual or group.
And a few others. The point is, freedom of speech does not (and should not) protect absolutely everything one can say or distribute- there are exceptions, and these exceptions are always because a particular kind of speech is unreasonable and harmful.

In any case, I'd like to draw attention to the wording of the motion- it reads:

"Revenge porn should be criminalized."

Not:

"Revenge porn is criminalized".

Hence, even if one found Con's suggestion (that the first amendment makes revenge porn legal) convincing, this still would not count against the motion- the motion is that it *should be* illegal, not that it *is*. Con is committing an is-ought fallacy. (See source 4).

2:

My understanding of the wording of the motion is that it is claiming it should be illegal to make revenge porn accessible online, rather than to point out where such material is accessible. I admit that this is ambiguous, but where a motion is ill-defined, tradition dictates the ambiguity should favour whoever did not write the motion- in this case, myself.
Current laws against revenge pornography do not open individuals up to criminal liability simply for mentioning that a given example of revenge porn exists, or even posting a link to somewhere that it is available- it is only the act of making such material available which should be (and currently is) illegal.

3:

Here, Con is committing an availability bias (see source 5) because they are fallaciously suggesting that revenge pornography should be legal simply because there aren't many cases of it nowadays- that examples of it are unavailable. It is precisely because revenge porn is illegal that it is not commonplace- this issue makes the case for banning revenge pornography- the ban works.

4:

I'm not sure where Con got the idea that once you send a photo to someone, they then own the rights to that photo, but it is ludicrous. An example of where this is not the case is in copyright law- if a film producer were to send a copy of their film to a friend and to ask them to look the film over and give feedback, that absolutely does not give the person they sent it to the right to distribute the entire film everywhere over the internet.
In short, *possession* of particular material shouldn't (and doesn't) necessitate *ownership* of that material- it still belongs to the copyright owner, which in this case, is the film producer, or the person depicted in the photograph.

So, to condense Con's R3 argument into manageable slices:
1) Slander is already illegal.
2) Revenge pornography does not violate an individual's bodily autonomy.
3) Malicious intent is difficult to prove.
4) Not all malicious behaviour is illegal.

Now, to respond:

1:

Yes, that's kind of my point- Con defined revenge pornography: "...in order to cause them distress or embarrassment." such that it always constitutes slander. Slander should remain illegal, and I've not seen Con attempt to argue otherwise. Revenge pornography should remain illegal because it constitutes slander, and slander should remain illegal.

2:

Revenge pornography *DOES* constitute a violation of bodily autonomy. Con fallaciously equates consenting to an individual viewing a photo of oneself to consenting to that photo being distributed all over the internet. Clearly, the two are not equivalent things. By analogy, would one consider consenting to having sexual relations with one person to be equivalent to having sexual relations with anyone who wanted them? Clearly, the presence of consent for one person in one context does not constitute consent for all persons regardless of context.

3:

Yes, malicious intent is difficult to prove. However, making pornographic images available without the consent of the individual(s) depicted in them should constitute revenge pornography regardless of whether the intent was malicious (which, if it's come to a lawsuit, it probably was) or not. One needn't prove malicious intent in order to prosecute an individual for revenge pornography, just as one needn't prove malicious intent in cases of slander- only that a harmful act took place.

4:

I agree. Not all malicious behaviour is (or should be) illegal, but behaviour which is unreasonably harmful as well as being malicious should be illegal. So-called "white lies" aren't illegal because they're basically harmless, though disagreeable. Fraud is illegal because it is very harmful.
Likewise, revenge pornography should remain illegal because it is harmful to the individual being targeted.

So, in summary:
1) Banning revenge pornography would not conflict with freedom of speech legislation.
2) Only the act of making revenge pornography available where otherwise it is not should be illegal- those who have done nothing wrong aren't (and shouldn't be) punished.
3) Revenge pornography is bad, and legislation banning it has proven effective.
4) Sharing a photo with someone does not constitute forfeiting copyright of that photo.
5) Revenge porn is slander, and as such should remain illegal.
6) Revenge porn violates an individual's autonomy, and as such should remain illegal.
7) Not all malicious behaviour should be illegal, but all unreasonably harmful behaviour should be. Revenge pornography is unreasonably harmful.

Sources:
[4]: http://www.txstate.edu...
[5]: http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
SkySky16

Con

I will first be responding to my opponents rebuttal then I may construct more on top of some arguments.

1. First amendment

I think my opponent misunderstood this argument. This is talking about the unintended effects on the freedom of the press and the general populous. I illustrated that, usually tabloid, news sources would report on these pictures and link them or show them on their website and that this would be criminalized with this law. Also, people who link or share simply what they saw online or those sites that unknowingly hosted this would be subject to criminal prosecution. The point is, there is no legal definition that would be able to cover revenge porn initiators and not people who simply report/view it. Clearly is a violation of the first amendment.
Furthermore, this speech isn't classified as the exception to the rule because it does not infringe on another person's rights. All the examples shown do this but revenge porn, in this context (reporters and viewers online) especially, does not. This point will be explained in point 4.

2. Ambiguous wording.

Doesn't matter what pro's understanding is when this is an area with little to no legal precedent. Literally an reasonable interpretation has the potential to fly in court. This is because of vague legal wording surrounding these laws. Pro herself even admitted this. I have no clue what she means with the "tradition dictates" argument, but I didn't write the motion either.
Yes they do, my article and reasoning show this while pro has nothing but her claim to show against it. Obviously my evidence should trump her's in this situation.
" it is only the act of making such material available which should be (and currently is) illegal." This is exactly the problem. Does this mean only the first person making it available or does it mean anyone who makes it available to anyone who didn't previously have knowledge or the ability to access it? This is the kind of ambiguity that is catastrophic in law. It messes up legal precedent, it falsely imprisons and prosecutes.

3. "Availability bias"

That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that revenge porn sites were the most horrific offenders of this and they are all largely gone at this point because of the CIVIL laws. I used this to say that civil laws were enough to deter revenge porn without needed to criminalize it. She has not responded how criminalization would deter people and 500,000 dollar lawsuits and vast public humiliation through civil court wouldn't. The pro's and con's show that criminalization is just not worth it. "It is precisely because revenge porn is illegal that it is not commonplace- this issue makes the case for banning revenge pornography- the ban works." That. Is. My. Point. CIVIL courts do enough to make it not commonplace. Thank you for proving my argument and show criminalization is not needed.

4. Somatic right or property right?

The distribution of pornography of you without your consent is illegal and very well should be, but is this what revenge porn is? In short, no. Here's the long answer. By taking and sending said photo or having it taken of you with consent, you are handing over your rights to said photo. Once you send a photo to someone, it is no longer just yours. It is now both of yours. They can do what they want with their copy and you with yours. This is in no way ludicrous and Pro doesn't really explain why it is. Copyright law is nowhere near to this. This is because copyright law registered the photo or film legally. Unless you registered your nude photos or videos to copyright it, this has literally no affect on them.
Possession doesn't indicate ownership but this isn't just that. This is the person GIVING the photo to someone. You can't reasonably say that if someone sent a document, whatever it may be, without any rights to said document beforehand, that that same person still has the right to dictate what the other does with it. That just doesn't make sense. She then refers to the false dichotomy of the copyright analogy. Copyright means you have legal ownership of the material. Nude selfies you just recorded don't legally belong to you the moment you send it to someone else. That person now has a copy that belongs to them. This is what pro does not understand and still has not refuted reasonably.

In response to R3 rebuttals:

1. Slander is already illegal.

She states that since slander is illegal revenge porn should be criminalized. This is not the same, as I've illustrated before. Slander is civil. In a civil court, revenge porn is already being prosecuted. She makes no point in this argument and I haven't negated that it should be illegal in civil court.

2. Somatic or Property rights?

She claims I fallaciously equate the two but that in of itself is a fallacy. Another false dichotomy, when did I claim that consenting to GIVING a photo of oneself to another was consenting to it being leaked? I didn't. I just stated that it shouldn't matter in law. I explained this in my previous point 4.
She then goes on to an appeal to emotion to try and paint me as having the same line of thought to justify rape. This is just another false dichotomy in an attempt to destabilize the voter's view of me. I feel like I've clearly shown why it's different and Pro has given no reason as to why it is a somatic right. She just stated it and threw out a couple of inapplicable analogies.

3. Malicious intent

Another case of her saying it's a harmful act and therefore should be criminalized. This would and should not hold up in a court of law. One does not need consent to post pictures they themselves own.

4. Not all malicious behavior is illegal.

Pro still doesn't adhere to the rights outlined in our society. Just because something is unreasonably harmful and malicious doesn't mean it is or should be illegal. This would make "Sh*tposting" illegal as well as calling someone a name online. We would not criminally prosecute either of these. Let me be clear, I am not equating the two. I am simply pointing out that Pro's definition of what should be illegal is very flawed.
White lies aren't illegal because they don't infringe on other people's rights. Fraud does. It has literally nothing to do with how harmful it is, because that term is so very subjective. It's about one person's rights against another. That is how it should be.

Response to summary:
1. I'm not talking about banning... I'm talking about criminalization. About throwing people into an already overcrowded system for sharing pictures they themselves own. Sue the person, that's fine and I support it. Don't throw them in jail!
2. Seems like we agree on this point, but Pro does not address how the status quo would potentially make innocent people guilty.
3. I agree... We aren't talking about banning. Just proves my point criminalization is not needed.
4. You do not have copyright of a photo just because you took it. You gave them a copy of a photo for them to own.
5. Slander should remain illegal. It's a civil court issue. Not criminalizing it doesn't make civil lawsuits against it any less valid.
6. Doesn't violate autonomy. Pro has literally only provided her own personal view with some bad analogies. She didn't explain why, she just stated it violated autonomy. Which it doesn't.
7. Again, horrible standard for deciding what's legal and illegal. Revenge porn shouldn't be an offense to be slammed into prison.

Conclusion:

No point of pro's stands. The only vote I can see here is me, Con.
QueenDaisy

Pro

I feel I have understood my opponent's argument relating to freedom of speech correctly- they are asserting that banning revenge porn would risk also opening individuals who have done nothing wrong- for instance, who have merely blogged about the fact that a certain item of revenge porn exists- to criminal prosecution. As I stated earlier, we would agree that these people should not be prosecuted, and they currently are not under revenge porn laws. Only the act of making an item of revenge pornography publicly available online while otherwise it is not should be illegal- but doing so *SHOULD* remain illegal, as it is a violation of the consent and bodily autonomy of the individual depicted, as well as a violation of their copyright to the picture as the individual who took it.

"there is no legal definition that would be able to cover revenge porn initiators and not people who simply report/view it."

I have already provided one: It should remain illegal to make items of revenge pornography available on the internet where such items is not yet available. It should not be illegal to mention that such material is available. This is clear and unambiguous, and would not lead to the prosecution of those who have done nothing wrong.

"Literally an reasonable interpretation has the potential to fly in court."

Even if that were true, all that would mean is that we should make the laws concerning revenge pornography more clearly defined- not remove them altogether. By analogy, imagine the laws regarding murder were ambiguous- does that mean we should legalise murder? Or does it mean we should make the legal definition of murder more clear? I think we would unanimously agree on the latter.

By "tradition dictates" I simply meant that it is simply the convention in most debating forums that any ambiguity in the motion counts against whoever wrote the motion and/or proposed that topic for debate, as in proposing a topic of debate, one incurs a responsibility to unambiguously define that topic. As such, any ambiguity in the motion should be considered to count in my favour, as Con was the one to suggest this topic, but they failed to unambiguously define it.

I'm not entirely sure what Con means by "Yes they do, my article and reasoning show this while pro has nothing but her claim to show against it. Obviously my evidence should trump her's in this situation.". Perhaps it would be useful to re-word it in R5?

"Does this mean only the first person making it available or does it mean anyone who makes it available to anyone who didn't previously have knowledge or the ability to access it? "

I felt I made it clear that it only means the individual who originally published the material to the internet, or who re-published it after it was taken down. The motion "Revenge pornography should be illegal" is ambiguous, but it certainly seems closer to "Publishing revenge pornography online should be illegal" than to "Discussing the existence of revenge pornography online should be illegal", and I think we now agree that the former should be illegal.

"they are all largely gone at this point because of the CIVIL laws."

Civil laws are still laws. That which is illegal under civil law is still illegal. We seem to agree that it is a good thing that revenge porn is illegal under civil law, and hence we agree that it is a good thing that revenge porn is illegal.

"She has not responded how criminalization would deter people and 500,000 dollar lawsuits and vast public humiliation through civil court wouldn't."

That the former would deter people from publishing revenge pornography is axiomatic. I feel no need to justify it further. I do not need- or intend- to justify the idea that civil lawsuits do not deter people from publishing revenge pornography (clearly, they do) in order to argue the motion- the mere presence of civil laws makes revenge pornography illegal. In any case, Con didn't specify when writing the topic for discussion that revenge pornography should be illegal under *criminal* law rather than under *civil* law, and once again, this ambiguity should be considered to count in my favour, as is convention.

"By taking and sending said photo or having it taken of you with consent, you are handing over your rights to said photo."

No you are not. You still own the copyright to the photo, and are therefore able to press charges against an individual who violates that. See the following statement:

"A person who commissions the making of photographs or films for private and domestic use has a right to privacy. That means that such photographs may not be issued to the public, shown in public, or communicated to the public without the permission of the person who commissioned the photograph or film. Photographs jointly commissioned entitle all the commissioners to a privacy right. The right to privacy subsists for as long as the copyright term of the work."

(See source 6).

Con clearly does not understand how copyright and privacy laws work. The claim that one forfeits the copyright of a picture after sharing it to a specific individual in a private context is ludicrous.

"Unless you registered your nude photos or videos to copyright it, this has literally no affect on them."

Once again, Con is showing an ignorance of copyright law. One does not need to register an item to own copyright of it- they simply have to be able to demonstrate that they were the one who produced it. See the following:

"Copyright arises automatically, without the need for registration"

(See source 7).

Trademarks and patents require the registering of an item. Copyrights do not.

"She then goes on to an appeal to emotion to try and paint me as having the same line of thought to justify rape"

This was not an appeal to emotion, but rather a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument (see source 8)- I pointed out that the principle Con was proposing inevitably leads to the ridiculous conclusion that consent (whether in the context of pornography or in the context of physical sexual relations) to a single instance of something (i.e. showing a picture to one person, having sex with one person) constitutes consenting to that same thing in all instances (i.e. everyone seeing the picture, having sex with anyone).

"Just because something is unreasonably harmful and malicious doesn't mean it is or should be illegal."

Note the use of the word *unreasonably*; some harm, such as so-called "shitposting" and "white lies" may be deemed slightly harmful, but not *unreasonably* so- they don't cause severe psychological or sociological consequences. Things like the violation of ones bodily autonomy through rape or revenge pornography, or the violation of one's property, such as theft, or again, revenge pornograpjhy is unreasonably harmful as it causes severe negative consequences for the victim. That is why rape is (and should be) illegal and shitposting is not (and should not be).

"Sue the person, that's fine and I support it. Don't throw them in jail!"

I would consider this to be conceding the debate; nowhere in the wording of the motion did it suggest that revenge pornography should be illegal under *criminal* law rather than civil law, and nor did it suggest that a custodial sentence, rather than a fine or other punishment, should be dealt as a result of violating this law.

So, to summarise my case:

1) Civil law is still law. That which is forbidden by civil law is, by definition, illegal. This includes slander, copyright law, and a whole host of other cases. Revenge pornography necessarily constitutes a violation of both slander and copyright laws, and as such should remain illegal.

2) Copyright law is clear; the usage of the picture belongs to the individual depicted in the picture (and the individual who took the picture if the two are different people). It does not become the property of whoever can get a hold of it, and most of Con's argument relies on this incorrect premise.

3) Revenge pornography does violate one's bodily autonomy. Con accuses me of "only provided her own personal view" but done exactly the same in response. I would like to ask the reader: do you believe that revenge pornography violates one's bodily autonomy? I'd assert that axiomatically it does, and I feel most people would agree with me.

Sources:

[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
SkySky16

Con

So we agree that these people shouldn't be prosecuted, that's good. Let's move on to other topics of her round 4.
"but doing so *SHOULD* remain illegal, as it is a violation of the consent and bodily autonomy of the individual depicted, as well as a violation of their copyright to the picture as the individual who took it."
Pro has not shown that it is a problem with bodily autonomy she has just stated it to be that way. I have used logic and legal interpretations to show that it shouldn't be a somatic rights issue but a property rights issue.
Pro has not provided evidence that shows you have a copyright and legal ownership of the picture, I have shown that you do not. Therefore, this argument is null and void.

1. Legal definition

Allow me to show you why pro's definition is flawed by assuming the position of the lawyer of an alleged victim.
Here is her definition " It should remain illegal to make items of revenge pornography available on the internet where such items is not yet available. It should not be illegal to mention that such material is available."

Now Judge, as you can see in the legal definition, the defendant has made such "revenge pornography" available on the internet where such items were not yet available. They posted links to articles that reported on my clients famous "leaks." No one on their facebook feed would have seen this if it weren't for them posting links. Therefore, they have violated the law and should be jailed immediately.

This illogical argument would be passable in court under that definition. I understand your intent behind your definition but in legal cases you cannot assume intent. They are interpreting the definition to how it best suits them.
This still doesn't address my main argument on how criminalization, which is incarceration of the perpetrators of that crime, is not reasonable and would prove to be detrimental in many ways.

2. Any reasonable interpretation

I'm not advocating to remove them, never have and never will. I'm advocating for the removal of the criminalization of these laws. Her analogy fails because my main point with this argument is there is no definition that would only apply to the source of the revenge porn. I challenge pro to bring one to me.

3. Tradition Dictates

Tradition dictates should then go to me, should it not. You are advocating for the ambiguous laws and I against. Therefore, I should be given this. Regardless, criminalization has a very clear and obvious definition that did not need clearing up. There is no ambiguity of my topic.

4. Clarification

"Yes they do, my article and reasoning show this while pro has nothing but her claim to show against it. Obviously my evidence should trump her's in this situation."
This is stating that in the argument you don't have anything but your opinion to back up your claims. I have articles and logic as well as my opinion so my interpretation should be preferred.

5. Ambiguity of the law

You felt you made it clear and most people would understand that. But in a court of law it is different. This definition is so easily manipulated to include anyone to just tweet about it's existence.

6. Civil laws are effective.

She argues that civil laws are still laws, but that isn't the point of the debate. We are arguing criminalization. This just goes to prove my point.

7. Deterrence

So she agrees with my case and this should be a won argument for me. I have made it clear that it is in a criminal court. You can't criminalize someone in civil court. I'm sorry that Pro's lack of knowledge in the court system made this topic confusing, but that is not my fault.

8. Copyright of photos given.

The definition is stating about photographs or videos that are kept by that individual, not shared with someone else. Once you give someone that photograph, you lose all rights to that copy of the photograph.
I'm pretty sure Pro is the one not understanding. Especially when she cites something that doesn't even apply to her position.
I understand that, but once you've distributed it it isn't your property. Even if it were, they can still show others, share it, etc. This is copyright law basics. You are interpreting them incorrectly.

9. Appeal to emotion

Except it's not the same thing, and I have proven this. Legally, it isn't and shouldn't be the same thing. This doesn't equal to consenting to sex once so they can screw them whenever they please. That is illogical, absurd, and absolutely an appeal to emotion. Respond to my arguments against this, all you did was reword your starting argument.

10. Harmful and malicious

This is a compilation of pro's subjective opinions and nothing else. The legal system disagrees on the basis of constitutionality and the Harms Principle, which I discussed earlier. She is completely wrong. Rape is illegal not because it is unreasonably harmful but because it violates that persons rights. The reason "unreasonably harmful" is a horrible definition to determine what should be illegal is because it is entirely subjective. The right's of a person is not subjective. This allows for a much more equal and justice oriented judicial system.

11. Conceding the debate?

Criminalization is a CRIMINAL law issue. Who would have thought... Gross misunderstanding of my arguments and not answering the vast majority of them is a better grounds for concession. Both of which Pro has done.

Summary:

1. Civil and criminal law are different. It is by definition illegal but we are discussing CRIMINALIZATION. Look at the topic.

2. The only evidence pro cited doesn't apply to her claim. I have multiple arguments and explanations of copyright law that show Pro is just simply incorrect.

3. I have not only provided my personal view. I have cited sources that explain the real detriments and possible detriments to everything I have discussed. Furthermore, why should a picture you have consentually given to someone count as your body's autonomy. That makes no sense whatsoever. Then pro appeals to popularity by stating that most people agree with her and implying that somehow wins her the argument. It doesn't and you have lost this argument.

This debate can really only go towards Con because I have credible and applicable citations whereas pro is reliant on subjective opinions.
She tries to muddy the water's on her confusion of the topic in, only what I can assume, an attempt to gain any ground in the debate whatsoever.

There is no reason to vote pro as I have shown real detriments to criminalization and why the law should not do so. Pro has provided subjective arguments. She literally defined what should and should not be legal based on what is unreasonably harmful. That is the most vague definition in law I have actually ever heard.
QueenDaisy

Pro

"Pro has not shown that it is a problem with bodily autonomy she has just stated it to be that way. I have used logic and legal interpretations to show that it shouldn't be a somatic rights issue but a property rights issue."

Whether something violates bodily autonomy or not is axiomatic- all we can do is assert that it does (or does not) or use analogies to attempt to demonstrate this. Con's argument has no more "Logic" than mine, and lacks any use of legal information.

"Pro has not provided evidence that shows you have a copyright and legal ownership of the picture, I have shown that you do not. Therefore, this argument is null and void."

I have provided plenty of evidence of the legality of the copyright system:

"A person who commissions the making of photographs or films for private and domestic use has a right to privacy. That means that such photographs may not be issued to the public, shown in public, or communicated to the public without the permission of the person who commissioned the photograph or film. Photographs jointly commissioned entitle all the commissioners to a privacy right. The right to privacy subsists for as long as the copyright term of the work."

"Copyright arises automatically, without the need for registration"

See sources 6 and 7 in the previous round.

"the defendant has made such "revenge pornography" available on the internet where such items were not yet available. "

No, if they posted a link to an article which discussed the matter; for such articles to exist, the material must already have been available online. Hence, the defendant did not make it available online where it wasn't already, and hence they have not committed any transgressions.

"criminalization, which is incarceration of the perpetrators of that crime"

Making something illegal does not necessarily mean a custodial sentence as a result of breaking that rule- for instance, one can be fined for failing to pick up their dog's faeces, but they'll never be placed under custodial sentence for it. Though I feel a perfectly valid case could be made that those who publish revenge pornography to the internet should be placed under a custodial sentence, I feel such a case needn't be made, as the motion carries provided it should be illegal in any form, which includes fines and civil law procedures.

"You are advocating for the ambiguous laws and I against."

I have clearly defined the terms of the laws I am defining. Con failed to define the terms of the debate clearly. Ambiguity is his fault, and should count against him.

"This is stating that in the argument you don't have anything but your opinion to back up your claims. I have articles and logic as well as my opinion so my interpretation should be preferred."

I have also provided external sources and logic. See my previous arguments.

"This definition is so easily manipulated to include anyone to just tweet about it's existence."

No it's not. The definition I provided is clear an unambiguous, and Con seems to be deliberately misunderstanding it because doing so helps his case.

"The definition is stating about photographs or videos that are kept by that individual, not shared with someone else. Once you give someone that photograph, you lose all rights to that copy of the photograph."

This is not- and never has been- true. See sources 6 and 7. They are referring to any media taken by an individual regardless of whether they are shared with someone or not. That person has permission to use that image for their own personal use, but they do not own copyright to it or have the right to distribute it across the internet.

"The definition is stating about photographs or videos that are kept by that individual, not shared with someone else. Once you give someone that photograph, you lose all rights to that copy of the photograph."

Revenge pornography violates a person's rights in exactly the same way- it violates their bodily autonomy, and their copyright to the picture of them.

"The right's of a person is not subjective"

Yes they are. Look at what society conventionally considers to be rights- they're all about protecting an individual from harm. "Rights" are no less subjective than "harmful", and the former is determined by the latter.

"This debate can really only go towards Con because I have credible and applicable citations whereas pro is reliant on subjective opinions."

Absolutely ludicrous- Con has provided a single external link to a blog based on one person's opinion. I have provided multiple external links to unbiased sources talking about the factual nature of various civil and criminal laws. My citations are clearly more numerous, more factual, and more reliable than Con's.

Summary:
1) Revenge pornography constitutes a violation of copyright law. Hence, it should remain illegal.
2) Revenge pornography constitutes a violation of slander laws. Hence, it should remain illegal.
3) Revenge pornography violates an individual's bodily autonomy in a similar way to rape, and both should be (and are) punished under *criminal* law.
4) Appropriate protections are made that those who are not doing anything wrong are not damaged by these laws- no one is going to jail for blogging about the existence of revenge pornography.
5) Due to such safeguards, freedom of speech is protected.

I feel the case has been sufficiently made that revenge pornography should remain criminalised; it is harmful, slanderous, a violation of bodily autonomy, and in breach of copyright law.

Sources:
[9]: http://www.inbrief.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ApatheticVV 1 year ago
ApatheticVV
Enjoyed this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 11 months ago
TUF
SkySky16QueenDaisyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gVIPDfVdvuTc-_kqtUfGSpB0siGd5X7_BTlLmcHm7xM/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
Jonbonbon
SkySky16QueenDaisyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/100839/