Quite literally not. With a photograph I can give you a photo, show you a photo without giving you rights to the photo. Rights to a photo belong to whoever took said photo. It doesn’t matter how many times the data is sent or copied, and giving a person permission to view or use a photo does not give them permission to share or exhibit said photo. In some states it is legal to enter a private residence if no sign is posted otherwise- but that doesn’t make it the norm, nor do you mention that if you are asked to leave, most of these states require you comply. So by this logic if I ask you not to post nudes, or after the fact to desist- the parceled still holds. Beyond property there are also laws on conditional gifts- those gifts given with conditions of use or possession. The law is full of themes which show us that president already exists to support that enforcing the legal status of nude photos as protected images is in line with the law- the senate and state of California agree.

I think Theres a misunderstanding of my message. Firstly- success is relative. You don’t have to be in the “1%” to be a succcess compared to someone else, most importantly in your own mind- where people are apt to point out that even those others consider similar to them are somehow lazier, less moral, “taking (more) handouts” etc. secondly you can in fact acknowledge orhers help and believe in self accountability. I’m a firm believer in self accountability. At the end of the day who owns our actions if not us? Who has the power to change our own ways more than us? But being accountable for your actions and being the sole source of your reality. Every person can be broken by something over some amount of time or at the right time. Everyone can be beaten so far down they cannot get up on their own. That point is different for different people and if yours is higher bravo. But the fact we all get help shows none of us are fully self accountable, that we don’t need a hand sometimes.

To be specific it is about people who are scared to learn to swim because they fear drowning. Illogical yes, but that is the nature of fear- it doesn’t need to follow reason, yet reason can often help dispel fear. How can something outside the mind beat something within the mind unless we know of it and accept it? If it were so easy to change the way people thought do you think history and the world would work as it does? People have been trying for millennia and can still only influence thought but not dictate it reliably- and that influence is a learned behavior that must be taught through years or decades of conditioning. So you throw them a life preserver. As many tines as it needs thrown. Some people may never learn to swim but most- eventually- will. You’ll find the community pool much more pleasant for everyone if you do, otherwise you’re swimming around with rotting corpses and flailing often dangerous people and paying to corral and clean the aftermath from the pool.

While I do agree that the law is quite clumsy and rigid- prone to abuse and absurdity- and shouldn’t be too involved in daily life, and while I agree that it’s a slippery slope to “the thought police” at the same time you are taking something. You are harming them. As an example- if I enter your home through an open window- what have I taken? Nothing. I haven’t forced my way through any locks, and arguably the open window is an open invitation to let anyone enter isn’t it? What harm does it cause- me being within your home? Yet this is illegal. If I follow you, call you, show up all the paces you go- what have I done to you? What have I taken? Yet stalking is illegal. These are intangibles. They cause harm as sure as a punch to the face or a sexual grope do. Intangibly perhaps, but measurable none the less. Is it not a crime to leak secrets or sensitive information already in many cases? Why shouldn’t this be protected as well?

*(not enough room) single person or consensual parties.

Your examples are flawed. Firstly the expected outcome of most of your examples is harmful where as the expected outcome of sending a picture to someone is not harmful. Secondly your examples all use cases where a single person directly causes the undesired result, not cases where a second party performs an action without their consent and causes the harm. There’s the key. The RISK is set up by the first party, but the HARM is caused by the second party. When I invite you to my home I risk you stealing. If you steal though, you have caused the harm- a crime. If I give you my credit card over the phone for a purchase I’ve risked you giving my information to others, but if you do it you have caused the harm- a crime. If I accept your $100 bill without checking it, I’ve taken a risk. If it is counterfeit you’ve done the harm and the crime. For society to function harmful abuse of trust is generally illegal. Even a lie constitutes fraud where one is relying on that lie causes harm.

That’s part of the issue. To an extent it is impossible to ever be “who you were.” This is true even without trauma, but good or bad and experience is an experience. We must process that, reconcile what has happened and realize this is the reality of our situation and incorporate that into who we are. We aren’t defined by trauma, nor does it need be a part of us. But the emotions and thoughts belong to us. That’s the part that is hardest. Not getting back to who you were, but finding who you are afterwards and realizing that you can be healthy and happy even if you aren’t the same.

It could be hard to grasp. There can be a lot of reasons but I believe it is about happiness, wether you are happy or not. If you ask someone if they’d permanently change genders for example: some people may say yes or no. Both binary genders have advantages and disadvantages. Someone could list all the reasons a particular gender was “better” and many complaints people have might be fixed by switching- but many people simply don’t care enough to change their identity. Despite the draw backs they are happy as they are. So if we ask: “would you choose to have autism?” You’d likely say no. But then I ask: how do you know you wouldn’t be happier with autism? How do you know how an artistic sees the world, what they feel or think? To them you behave strange and alien as they do to you. We simply think “we” whatever “we” are is what is normal, and that unlike us is not normal. If that makes any sense?

Someone actually downvotes the dude advocating compassionate education. What the holy hell? We are all born with certain genetic gifts and challenges. We are all born with certain predispositions and are influenced by our environments as we grow. We can only know the world as we have experienced it. The “sink or swim” mentality only works when the only options are: sink or swim; and on a large scale you end up with a lot of people who sank. If you watch someone drown when you could have thrown them a life preserver you are just as responsible as them. If you teach them to swim you won’t have to keep throwing them a life preserver. They will swim on their own, and should they start to drown again you throw another life preserver again and again until they swim on their own, or no one is there to help and they sink. Letting people fall through the cracks when they can be helped is not an option. No one on earth doesn’t get help from someone at some time.

Yes. As said before- “harsh truth” is individual and not universal- and stating as so is disrespectful and narrow minded. Surely an individual on earth may need to hear this, most don’t. In fact flying contrary to “victim” mentality is a prevalent mentality that people are solely responsible for their own problems and their solution. Where “self accountability” is largely a mechanism used by those who have been privileged or lucky in life to avoid guilt at why they are able to do well while others suffer, or to validate themselves as succeeding by their own “superior” innate qualities as opposed to the combination of people and events that have helped them succeed. The idea of self destiny comforts those who get scared at the thought that good people can be screwed over by random probability. A society succeeds or fails on its “lowest” or “weakest” members. Lifting people up builds a better world, no one succeeds or fails “on their own.”

Risk exists in everything we do- it’s a self evident fact. A large part of society is alleviating the burden of risk so that people can live happily and be productive, spending their time and energy on other things than constant worry or self protection. It’s always a good idea to try and mitigate personal risk, but at the same time as a society a simple thing like sending a loved one a picture shouldn’t carry such power to shatter our life or cause emotional devastation due to malicious actions of another. There are plenty of laws already in existence to protect against such things, and as a society we have decided that malicious harm to others or harm through careless negligence is criminal as it hurts society. There are several laws already that protect hide photos and hopefully more to come. So my advice isn’t to “send at your own risk” but to know the law and protect yourself through it before you act, and if you get the chance push to change the law and societies views on this.

Good man.

That’s one method. That’s usually used when one still wants the aesthetic of brick and when there is existing brick and it is either worn, and replacement would be too expensive, or when it is structural and a new installation would be too involved. It can also be a case where for various reasons it’s undesirable to allocate the construction time for re doing brick or putting a facade over aged brick- such as a space will need as little down time as possible, or a property needs turned around or open by a certain date.

Posted in the wrong place.
A British artist named Alex Chinneck created this as an art installation that took over a year to make. It is called “From the Knees of My Nose to the Belly of My Toes.”

Derp. Joseph Stalin didn’t invent murder or genocide but that doesn’t mean he isn’t on the all star team when it comes to doing the deed. I suppose some of the tongue in cheek humor would be lost in in text, but I’d at least have thought the part that says “in fairness other players were involved...” might indicate that none of those are exclusively the fault of Britain. Britain, or no single entity carries sole responsibility for most any problem in any situation, but as the last line implies: they did spend a couple hundred years screwing almost the whole world over to get ahead. The fact they were not the first or the last doesn’t absolve any guilt or erase what has been done- especially when as stated- the echoes of those actions can be directly seen to this day.

There’s truth there but not whole truth. If it were that simple we wouldnt have laws against fraud, libel, or slander- but long have they been illegal. While unnecessary to give- knowing your name shouldn’t mean someone may use it however they see fit. Similarly California had already enacted a first of its kind law making it illegal in many cases to disseminate nude photos without express permission. An active US senate bill now criminalizes such actions under many situations. Before that there was already copyright protection for any photo, and except under specific criteria you hold full copyrights to a photo taken by you regardless of wether you share that photo publicly. The basics of law tell us it should be so, even if decency does not. The question isn’t if there is risk, but if there should be risk. Short of calls anarchy there is little justification for why it should be a risk. That is changing in the law as it should.

Ah so. Yes. Lol. That we do. Here we agree, but it’s all good because you bring passion to your arguments when we do not and I respect that.

Personal problems have existed for a loooong time. Natural disasters, national troubles. World problems though are a uniquely imperialist invention. From the present situation in Africa, Turkish civil wars, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, most of the Middle East, the fall of imperial China and rise of communist China and by extension parts of the Vietnam and Korean wars, certain elements of the Cold War and creation of Stalinist Russia, a major post WW1 contributor to the conditions that led to the rise of Nazism and a failure to stop the arms build up and early Nazi advances hence a responsibility for WW2.... and let us not forget, the British are directly responsible for (with several opportunities to avoid) the creation of the United States of America, and thusly culpability in those problems stemming from the United States. But in fairness other players were involved in many of these things, and many couldn’t be known save for hindsight. But Britain did anal fist most of earth.

interesting concept. So if you supply your social security number or personal information to someone it is no longer private correct? If you let someone borrow your car or stay at your home while you are away it is now alright for them to rent it out to strangers? If you give someone your credit card number they may do with it as they please?

Her parallels are not very good, but your breakdown is flawed. You neglect intent. If you allow your family member to borrow your car, you have put it out there, so is it ok for them to let their hairstylist borrow it, or rent it out to strangers? If you put your information on Facebook, is it ok for Zuc to do whatever he wants with it, or for anyone else to use it as well? Perhaps the most basic and classic example- if you tell someone you trust a secret- is it ok they tell anyone they feel like? That’s if we even assume the nudes were sent to someone and not taken. But sticking to the idea they were sent out- does that make it ok to photograph someone through an open window with a drone naked? If they didn’t want to have it out there they should have been more careful no? And can we assume that because someone appeared naked in public or in a film once they are ok being seen naked by anyone any time? She isn’t very well spoken but the idea that it is wrong is true regardless.

@bethorian- apologies, text based mediums are hard to convey subtleties, and it’s currently a highly contentious issue @famousone- I’m not sure what points we disagree on? We both seem to be saying the same thing- that the universal denial of the right to weapons of self defense is an affront to freedom that most people wouldn’t apply to freedoms they regularly exercise that also carry responsibility and potential risk to others; and that like any right there are limits and responsibilities to their exercise. I didn’t stipulate what or how, but we both seem to agree that having no regulation on who can posses weapons or what kind they may posses is insanity. So I don’t see the disagreement?