"What is wrong with our society that proof that someone enjoys sex is reputation damaging to the point of needing severe sanctions."

The reputation issue comes largely from the phenomenon of slut shaming. It is not discussed here as a sexism issue, but it is largely women who are hurt by having their reputation damaged.

In a society where neither men nor women were shamed by public knowledge of what they consent to doing in their bedrooms, this wouldn't be an issue. But you can't legislate against such attitudes.

That said, attacking someone's reputation is already a crime (libel, defamation, etc.) Which usually involves a false statement. That said, publishing images which falsely imply a person is a porn star - and which harms their reputation - would probably be covered by current laws. Extending this, you could argue that any private video/image made public (Without consent) is falsely implying things about the person's character.

Though as it's the damage which i think should be actionable, and i'm massively against the social constructs which make this damaging, i'm not sure where to stand.

"My comparisons would be wonderful if I agreed that people whose character is assassinated by their ex'"

What character assassination? If you agreed to have sex on camera, and then someone sees you having sex on video, this is not an "assassination of your character". This **IS** your character.

Putin -- I know this is probably a difficult concept for you to figure out, seeing as how you like to keep it with the kiddies and all that...but spouses don't need to share photos with each other....I have access to the real live thing every night...better than photos, dumbass.

If your spouse is so fucking shallow that they would rather look at you on a video than be with the real thing, then when he/she says "let's film it"...then you get the fuck out of the relationship.

It is only fucking morons like you that think filming each other is some form of high intimacy....and then are shocked when the relationship falls apart and the video gets released.

But hey....all you free-love amoral kiddies out there that think sex is a game, that relationships have no meaning, and think everyone should stop talking about morals, quit bitching when your sex life ends up on the internet.

All I'm saying is that the person in the video ought to have a cause of action against the poster, krellin. If I had to guess that's probably how things are now anyway.

Invictus - cause of action all depends on the agreements before hand. Some should have a cause of action, some should not.

If you allow yourself to be filmed, and let someone else have posession of that film, in my opinion you have given up your rights to that film.

If I ask you questions and get your answers, and you know you have given me your thoughts, and then I post those thoughts, you have no cause of action against me.

I've already said that if you do not know you are being filmed then I think you should have cause to sue....probably criminal charges as well.

But if you agree to being filmed and give up rights to it, then you have no say.

Your opinion. You can have that. You can keep it.

I will - and you will keep crying for so-called justice when people in fact are reaping what they have sown...having your sex vid show up on the internet when you let your boyfriend video tape you and keep the tape is justice. The same people bitching about having their sex video show up on the internet probably spend all day posting their life on Facebook and Twitter...

You're making a moral argument, I'm making a legal one.

No - I made a legal argument as well....when you agree to be video taped having sex, and then relenquish that tape to someone else, you are pretty much giving up control of that tape.

People get their photographs and such posted on the internet all the time with and without knowledge or compensation.

If you are stupid enough to allow yourself to be taped having sex, please keep the fake moaning to a minimum, because it might hurt you on your next job interview.

Invi - I'm certain you have better reading abilities than you are demonstrating.. Yes, I have made moral arguments, and on multiple occassions this thread I have made legal arguments as well. Even if you are just skimming, skim a little better.

(Saith Invictus, "Can't <whacka whacka whacka...> too busy watching revenge pron...")

@Putin:

Busy week ahead, but I think the discussion on this happening within marriage (you said spouses) is a different one. I believe in case of a marriage, the obligations you have to one another for being married are somewhat of an insurance (I hope) against this kind of abuse. I believe that signing the "till death do us part" documents should also mean that in case of a divorce, for material taken during the marriage, it should not go public. I always held this discussion with unmarried couples in mind. Sorry for the confusion.

"What character assassination? If you agreed to have sex on camera, and then
someone sees you having sex on video, this is not an "assassination of your
character". This **IS** your character."

No, your sex tape/private life being made public without your consent is a violation of your right to privacy; and the implication about your character is that you want it in the public domain - and your pesonal objection to people enjoying being filmed/filming their private lives is rather unimportant. I still stand by the fact that sex is normal and the commercialization of porn is a problem for education (because most apes learn from seeing what other apes do and copying - so porn in the absence of public sex, is a problem for learning)

Seems like you guys are arguing different things. Krellin's saying possession of a video recording not copyright protected implies right to distribute. While I don't think others are challenging that that's the case, I think they're saying that right to distribute should be changed so as to require mutual consent for a recording (or photo) of an intimate nature, as has already happened in California and Florida. So a more productive discussion might be whether thusly changing laws might have unforeseen impact on recordings of other natures, such as recent recordings of Toronto mayor Tom Ford, where the recordings are not pornographic, but could be argued as "private" and where there is a fairly clear public interest in their disclosure.

I mean Rob Ford... Don't I? I can never keep Canadian politics straight.

Meh. Unicorns...