(August 2, 2017 at 5:44 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I agree Beccs. So the definition of an immoral act needs to also include some sort of internal self policing mechanism.?

Is it immoral for most of America to wish Trump accidentally walked in front of a bus!

What about the ultimate immorality of killing thousands of innocent people by calling it collateral damage?

AFAIAC, wishing is in the same category as prayer, so you are absolved of any guilt for thought about a bus accident. One thing to consider- as much of a schlemiel as the Chump is, if an assassin is spotted, some SS guy is going to take the bullet if he has to, to save him. Yeesh.

(August 2, 2017 at 8:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh. I know I read somewhere that her legal team was going to go through and get rid of them, so I assumed they weren't out there anymore.

Now I feel bad for having started this thread and brought attention to this....

Don't feel bad.

It is an important issue and people need to be made aware that it's not one hundred percent safe to put your pictures  up on the 'net.

Many people still do so without knowing the risks.

Ok late to the thread and its probably already long left the rails but I'll post anyway.
Question on the table:
Is it moral to seek out and look at pics of celebrities that were made public without their consent?

This is not a question that can be answered in strict black and white yes or no terms. This one is about shades of grey.

If you remove the word celebrities and replace it with 'random anonymous person' then the issue becomes a bit closer to black and white. But that's not the question. The question specifically states celebrities.

So the first order of business is to define the word celebrity. Is that term exclusive to a person who actively sought fame or does it also include those who became household names through no fault or intention of their own? Lots of people know who Jenny McCarthy is and lots of people know who Mary Jo Buttafuoco is but there is definitely a difference there.

So if we're going to limit our definition of celebrity to those who sought fame, then I'm going to lean toward the opinion that it is probably ok to google nude pics of them even if those pics were leaked against their will.

And here's why. Life isn't fair. It isn't even close to fair and no one has ever presented an even remotely plausible case that it should be. If you willingly put yourself out there in the public eye, you willingly waive your right to a completely private life. That's just how it is. And yes that doesn't automatically mean you have to just be ok with the public gaining access to every last orifice of whatever privacy you might have. But it most certainly does mean that because you actively sought out this position in society, you must also accept that you can no longer do all the same things that people who are otherwise not targets get to do.

Whether you seek fame or not, there is always a 100% bulletproof way to make sure nude pics of yourself don't end up on the internet. And that is to never allow anyone to take nude pics of yourself. It really is that simple. So the moment you choose to give up that level of bulletproof protection, you willingly put yourself at risk. No one put a gun to your head. You made that choice on your own. If you also happen to be a person who has actively sought fame, you have just willingly put yourself at significantly greater risk. And again, no one put a gun to your head, you made that choice yourself.

There are TONS of people who do not seek fame and who will therefore never be famous and yet they refuse to allow nude pics or video of themselves to exist for the simple reason that they would not like it if that material were to be made public. Every single celebrity out there has this option readily available to them.

If they willingly choose to ignore that option, they willingly put themselves at risk. So if their nude pics/video ends up posted on the net, I see no moral reason why I shouldn't google it if I'm so inclined.

(August 2, 2017 at 11:53 pm)johan Wrote: Whether you seek fame or not, there is always a 100% bulletproof way to make sure nude pics of yourself don't end up on the internet. And that is to never allow anyone to take nude pics of yourself. It really is that simple. So the moment you choose to give up that level of bulletproof protection, you willingly put yourself at risk. No one put a gun to your head. You made that choice on your own. If you also happen to be a person who has actively sought fame, you have just willingly put yourself at significantly greater risk. And again, no one put a gun to your head, you made that choice yourself.

There are TONS of people who do not seek fame and who will therefore never be famous and yet they refuse to allow nude pics or video of themselves to exist for the simple reason that they would not like it if that material were to be made public. Every single celebrity out there has this option readily available to them.

If they willingly choose to ignore that option, they willingly put themselves at risk. So if their nude pics/video ends up posted on the net, I see no moral reason why I shouldn't google it if I'm so inclined.

The problem with this line of thinking, is that you can't be 100% bulletproof.  Erin Andrews (sportscaster) went to a hotel, and had a stalker drill a hole in the wall, and take video.  We've seen a couple instances of people taking photos of non celebrities in public locker rooms of late for the purpose of shaming.  

Unless you live in a bunker fully clothed all your life, there's risk of pics or videos getting out.  "Hey, if you don't want pics of you peeing, never use a public restroom!"  "If you don't want a sex tape, never have sex, because your partner might be secretly videotaping'ing it!"  


The concept of trying to avoid negative outcomes at all cost doesn't hold up well in most places.  If you don't want to be killed by a drunk driver, you shouldn't be out on the weekends late at night.  Attacked by a shark?  That's what you get for going in the ocean.  Broke your ankle?  That's why you should never play sports.  "You guys hear Tim and his family were killed by a drunk driver?  They went to a Hockey game on a Friday night.  Not sure what they expected.  They know that's when the drunk drivers are out in force.  It's not right, but they should have known better."

The point being that there are lots of things that nobody wants to happen, but expecting them to not live their life to avoid them, as a solution, is stupid.  My guess is that most people don't put a lot of value on sending naked pictures to their significant other (or just for themselves).  But some people seem to like it.  Often a lot.  For these people who are away on movie sets for months at a time, it's probably more important to them than normal sally and joe's.

^^^^

I don't see why it matters whether they are celebrities or not. They are still people with the same inherent human dignity and bodily autonomy.

(August 3, 2017 at 11:00 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: ^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^

(August 3, 2017 at 10:31 am)wallym Wrote: The problem with this line of thinking, is that you can't be 100% bulletproof.  Erin Andrews (sportscaster) went to a hotel, and had a stalker drill a hole in the wall, and take video.  

Ok that's one event. So yes, in that particular case I would consider that its probably a bit more inappropriate to actively seek out those particular photos in that one particular case. 

Quote:[quote pid='1596561' dateline='1501770672']
We've seen a couple instances of people taking photos of non celebrities in public locker rooms of late for the purpose of shaming.  

[/quote]



I think I made it clear that everything I said applies to those who choose to seek fame. Why are you even bothering to mention this as a response to what I said? If I didn't make it clear enough in my previous post I apologize. I think it is absolutely wrong to take nude images of ANYONE without their knowledge and consent and I also think searching for and viewing those images is wrong.
As for the rest of your post, you're reading an awful lot into what I wrote and to some extent, putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. And for the record I believe most cops will tell you that there are drunks on the road 24/7. If driving on friday night increases your risk of an accident involving a drunk, I don't believe it increases that risk by any meaningfully significant amount. I'm just sayin'.

---

(August 3, 2017 at 3:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see why it matters whether they are celebrities or not. They are still people with the same inherent human dignity and bodily autonomy.

Because seeking the public eye means you give up certain other things that people who do not seek the public eye are allowed to enjoy. That's just how it is. I can understand if you don't agree with it or if you think its wrong but that doesn't change reality. There are simply certain choices in life that will force you to put up with living under a different set of standards if you choose them.

For example, I used to drive trucks for a living. I believe the drunk driving limit is a BAC of .08 pretty much everywhere. But if I'm driving a truck, the max BAC is .04. Because I'm driving a heavy commercial vehicle this stricter standard doesn't seem all that unreasonable. However even if I'm driving my own personal vehicle, I can still be charged with drunk driving simply because my license is a CDL. So something that is perfectly legal for you to do in your car (drive with a BAC of .07) is illegal for me to do in my car because I have a license that gives me privileges which you do not have (assuming of course that you don't have a CDL).

Yes that example is completely unrelated but it helps to illustrate my point. If you choose to seek out fame (and achieve it) you will be approached by strangers for autographs and pics while you're eating in a restaurant. This is no secret. Everyone knows it going in. It's something you have to accept as part of the deal when you seek fame. Likewise there is demand for nude images of celebrities. Again, this is not a secret, everyone knows it going in. So if you choose to seek fame, part of the deal going in is the knowledge that you put yourself at an increased level of risk for having private images of yourself make it into the public eye. I'm not saying that's right. I'm not endorsing it. I'm simply saying that it is the reality of the situation. 

And because its the reality of the situation, it puts the act of searching for and/or viewing those images into a different category for me. It just does. I see nothing morally wrong with it. I don't see it as being any more or less invasive or wrong than having bad paparazzi pics of yourself that you did not see or approve plastered on the cover of checkout line magazines. That happens every day and people seem to be just fine with it.

If you're going to be famous, you accept that you could end up on the cover of the Equirer looking like someone stuffed a moose into a speedo. That's the price of fame. If you're going to be famous and you're going to choose to allow private nude images of yourself to exist, you accept that those images could end up in public hands. Don't like it? Don't be famous.

Hmm no.

Well then let me ask you this. Celebrity X is dating celebrity Y and the two of them are making out near Celebrity X's pool. Someone with a massive telephoto lens gets pics of this and sells them to a tabloid. Is it immoral to look at those photos?