viewing stolen nude photos

[johan]

So it doesn't seem a bit strange to you that you're able to answer a question with absolute certainty, yet you freely admit you've got no idea regarding a fairly significant factor involved in said question.


And I believe I've already answered the question earlier in the thread. I believe morality questions are like a light switch. There are only two positions available. Something is either moral or it isn't. Therefore I believe its best not to apply the question of morality to those things which pale in comparison to subjects like murder, rape, incest etc. Saying its immoral to jaywalk certainly does add weight to the crime of jaywalking because that act is now lumped into the same category as murder. But at the same time you've just lumped murder into the same category as jaywalking. IOW in your attempt to make the lessor crime seem more important by its association, you've also made the greater crime seem much less important by the same association. I don't think that's a very responsible thing to do.

However we could simply replace immoral with wrong and we'd probably still be asking essentially the same question. So do I think its wrong to view stolen nude photos of celebrities? Not really. The crime was committed and the harm was done to the victim when the photos were stolen and made public. I had nothing to do with that. If I don't look at the photos, the victim is no less harmed. And quite frankly if I do view them, the victim is no more harmed than they already were. And honestly, as harmed as the victim is, they're going to be just fine. We're not talking rape here. No one got killed. No one lost their life savings and was cast out on the street. They're embarrassed. They'll live. They're fine.

That being said, I don't actively seek these things out. I don't collect them (or any kind of porn for that matter). But if there are leaked nudes out there of a particular celebrity and for whatever reason, I happen to hear about and also happen to curious as to what he or she has doin' under those clothes, I wouldn't think twice about googling the images for a glance. I lose no sleep what so ever over it. You can judge me for this opinion if you must and I'm sure some will. Some will probably also not be shy about letting me know how they judge me. I will no sleep over that either.

[Catholic_Lady]

Still confused. Are you saying that looking at stolen pictures of another person's naked body against their will is not immoral?

I don't think this is a question of morality.
I mean, if a celebrity has their photos leaked and they ask everyone to not look at it, I mean, do I owe it to them to follow through on their request? Unless I'm getting paid to not look at it, it's just a stranger making a request to me, if I accept the request then fine, if I don't then it's still fine because a stranger asking me a favor shouldn't feel entitled to me following through with it, they should be fine either way because at the end of the day I don't owe them anything. You know?

Every act is either moral, immoral, or morally neutral.

So, is looking at stolen pictures of another persons naked body against their will, moral, immoral, or morally neutral?

---

So it doesn't seem a bit strange to you that you're able to answer a question with absolute certainty, yet you freely admit you've got no idea regarding a fairly significant factor involved in said question.


And I believe I've already answered the question earlier in the thread. I believe morality questions are like a light switch. There are only two positions available. Something is either moral or it isn't. Therefore I believe its best not to apply the question of morality to those things which pale in comparison to subjects like murder, rape, incest etc. Saying its immoral to jaywalk certainly does add weight to the crime of jaywalking because that act is now lumped into the same category as murder. But at the same time you've just lumped murder into the same category as jaywalking. IOW in your attempt to make the lessor crime seem more important by its association, you've also made the greater crime seem much less important by the same association. I don't think that's a very responsible thing to do.

However we could simply replace immoral with wrong and we'd probably still be asking essentially the same question. So do I think its wrong to view stolen nude photos of celebrities? Not really. The crime was committed and the harm was done to the victim when the photos were stolen and made public. I had nothing to do with that. If I don't look at the photos, the victim is no less harmed. And quite frankly if I do view them, the victim is no more harmed than they already were. And honestly, as harmed as the victim is, they're going to be just fine. We're not talking rape here. No one got killed. No one lost their life savings and was cast out on the street. They're embarrassed. They'll live. They're fine.

That being said, I don't actively seek these things out. I don't collect them (or any kind of porn for that matter). But if there are leaked nudes out there of a particular celebrity and for whatever reason, I happen to hear about and also happen to curious as to what he or she has doin' under those clothes, I wouldn't think twice about googling the images for a glance. I lose no sleep what so ever over it. You can judge me for this opinion if you must and I'm sure some will. Some will probably also not be shy about letting me know how they judge me. I will no sleep over that either.

Ok, I take it you don't want to and won't answer then.

[FFaith]

However we could simply replace immoral with wrong and we'd probably still be asking essentially the same question. So do I think its wrong to view stolen nude photos of celebrities? Not really. The crime was committed and the harm was done to the victim when the photos were stolen and made public. I had nothing to do with that. If I don't look at the photos, the victim is no less harmed. And quite frankly if I do view them, the victim is no more harmed than they already were. And honestly, as harmed as the victim is, they're going to be just fine. We're not talking rape here. No one  got killed. No one lost their life savings and was cast out on the street. They're embarrassed. They'll live. They're fine.

That being said, I don't actively seek these things out. I don't collect them (or any kind of porn for that matter). But if there are leaked nudes out there of a particular celebrity and for whatever reason, I happen to hear about and also happen to curious as to what he or she has doin' under those clothes, I wouldn't think twice about googling the images for a glance. I lose no sleep what so ever over it. You can judge me for this opinion if you must and I'm sure some will. Some will probably also not be shy about letting me know how they judge me. I will no sleep over that either.

I think this answers Catholic_Lady's question about why people keep bringing up what the celebs could have done to  better protect themselves. The celebs suffered some embarrassment. They were not gang raped or didn't have all of their wealth stolen from them. If they suffered a really severe crime, people wouldn't be making such a big deal about how little the celebs protected themselves. Is Justin Bieber or Kate Upton going to hang themselves because some nudes of them were leaked? Not likely. Kids might hang themselves in that situation, but they also might hang themselves because a couple people call them a bitch or a slut. Adults are held to a different standard. If someone calls a grown woman or man a bitch or slut, grow up and get the hell over it. Now of course I wouldn't tell someone who had nudes leaked to just get over it, but it's not nearly the end of the world and this is being way overblown. Catholic_Lady saying that us viewing the pics is really no different from peeping tommery is another ridiculous point, and she still hasn't explained why one act should get you in trouble with the law while the other act should not be punished under the law. Something's not adding up here. She has exaggerated way too much here and that's why people are finding it hard to take her argument seriously. Her or someone else (I forget) calling people who view the pictures sociopathic. Really?

[johan]

Ok, I take it you don't want to and won't answer then.

I did answer. I do not think its wrong to look at pictures. That's my answer. I get that you want me to express that in moral terms but I don't see it as a moral question. Though I don't think I'd ever express it this way, using the definitions you've provided, I guess I'd have to call it morally neutral.

---

I think this answers Catholic_Lady's question about why people keep bringing up what the celebs could have done to  better protect themselves. The celebs suffered some embarrassment. They were not gang raped or didn't have all of their wealth stolen from them. If they suffered a really severe crime, people wouldn't be making such a big deal about how little the celebs protected themselves. Is Justin Bieber or Kate Upton going to hang themselves because some nudes of them were leaked? Not likely. Kids might hang themselves in that situation, but they also might hang themselves because a couple people call them a bitch or a slut. Adults are held to a different standard. If someone calls a grown woman or man a bitch or slut, grow up and get the hell over it. Now of course I wouldn't tell someone who had nudes leaked to just get over it, but it's not nearly the end of the world and this is being way overblown. Catholic_Lady saying that us viewing the pics is really no different from peeping tommery is another ridiculous point, and she still hasn't explained why one act should get you in trouble with the law while the other act should not be punished under the law. Something's not adding up here. She has exaggerated way too much here and that's why people are finding it hard to take her argument seriously. Her or someone else (I forget) calling people who view the pictures sociopathic. Really?

Good and valid points. But I think the reason I went down the path of things celebrities could do to prevent the crime is because like or not, celebrities live by an altered set of standards when it comes to expectations of privacy the moment they become celebrities.

I can dress in my normal every day clothes and walk freely through an amusement park without the slightest expectation of anyone noticing me much less approaching me. If Justin Bieber walks through an amusement park, he will be mobbed. That is something that goes with the job of being a celebrity. You don't get to walk anonymously through amusement parks anymore. And you don't get to do a bunch of other stuff non-celebrities can do.

If I were single, I could make a dinner date with someone I just met, leave the restaurant with her and go back to her place for the night and NO ONE would bat an eye lash when she leaves for work in the morning. If Justin Beiber or any other high level celebrity does that, the woman they slept with will wake to find photographers outside her home and as Chrissie Hynde said will not be able to make from the cab to curb without some little jerk on her back. Again, that goes with the territory. Is it fair? Of course not. Who said life was supposed to be fair?

But yes, if a high level celebrity tried to cheat on their spouse and was caught because they were chased by photographers, I would not feel sorry for him or her. When a high level celebrity chooses to pose for nude photos and then further chooses to use the exact same security practices as a Denny's cook in Montana and expects that to be good enough, I don't feel sorry for him or her for getting hacked. Is that victim blaming? Dunno. I consider it idiot blaming but that's just me.

[FFaith]

Ok, I take it you don't want to and won't answer then.

I did answer. I do not think its wrong to look at pictures. That's my answer. I get that you want me to express that in moral terms but I don't see it as a moral question. Though I don't think I'd ever express it this way, using the definitions you've provided, I guess I'd have to call it morally neutral.

---

I think this answers Catholic_Lady's question about why people keep bringing up what the celebs could have done to  better protect themselves. The celebs suffered some embarrassment. They were not gang raped or didn't have all of their wealth stolen from them. If they suffered a really severe crime, people wouldn't be making such a big deal about how little the celebs protected themselves. Is Justin Bieber or Kate Upton going to hang themselves because some nudes of them were leaked? Not likely. Kids might hang themselves in that situation, but they also might hang themselves because a couple people call them a bitch or a slut. Adults are held to a different standard. If someone calls a grown woman or man a bitch or slut, grow up and get the hell over it. Now of course I wouldn't tell someone who had nudes leaked to just get over it, but it's not nearly the end of the world and this is being way overblown. Catholic_Lady saying that us viewing the pics is really no different from peeping tommery is another ridiculous point, and she still hasn't explained why one act should get you in trouble with the law while the other act should not be punished under the law. Something's not adding up here. She has exaggerated way too much here and that's why people are finding it hard to take her argument seriously. Her or someone else (I forget) calling people who view the pictures sociopathic. Really?

Good and valid points. But I think the reason I went down the path of things celebrities could do to prevent the crime is because like or not, celebrities live by an altered set of standards when it comes to expectations of privacy the moment they become celebrities.

I can dress in my normal every day clothes and walk freely through an amusement park without the slightest expectation of anyone noticing me much less approaching me. If Justin Bieber walks through an amusement park, he will be mobbed. That is something that goes with the job of being a celebrity. You don't get to walk anonymously through amusement parks anymore. And you don't get to do a bunch of other stuff non-celebrities can do.

If I were single, I could make a dinner date with someone I just met, leave the restaurant with her and go back to her place for the night and NO ONE would bat an eye lash when she leaves for work in the morning. If Justin Beiber or any other high level celebrity does that, the woman they slept with will wake to find photographers outside her home and as Chrissie Hynde said will not be able to make from the cab to curb without some little jerk on her back. Again, that goes with the territory. Is it fair? Of course not. Who said life was supposed to be fair?

But yes, if a high level celebrity tried to cheat on their spouse and was caught because they were chased by photographers, I would not feel sorry for him or her. When a high level celebrity chooses to pose for nude photos and then further chooses to use the exact same security practices as a Denny's cook in Montana and expects that to be good enough, I don't feel sorry for him or her for getting hacked. Is that victim blaming? Dunno. I consider it idiot blaming but that's just me.

Yes, that's definitely a big part of it as well. Someone brought up the point that maybe people shouldn't go to a hockey game on a Friday night because they could be blamed for going on the road on a Friday where there are more likely to be drunk drivers about, but getting killed by a drunk driver is still very, very unlikely to happen to any particular person, even on a Friday. Creating nudes of yourself and then placing them on the internet (Cloud) is something quite a bit different because there's like what, a 50/50 or better chance of those pics eventually getting out? I'd say that it's unreasonable to expect someone to stop living their life and stay home every Friday to remain safer, but it's entirely reasonable to expect people to take precautions to prevent nude photos from getting out.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

CL, if I say it's moral it'll be like me actively encouraging it and if I say it's immoral it'll be like me actively discouraging it, you know? You know, you've got me in a tight place asking for a definite answer because I don't agree with either.
I think it's creepy to actively seek out and store celeb nudes, most people don't even care about it.
I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at it if someone wanted to either.
My position is somewhere between full blown it's ok and full blown it's not ok. You know? Call it indifference.
I don't know how to convert my position in terms of morality because whether it was moral or not would depend on a lot of variables and is mostly situational imo because even though I'm indifferent to the whole issue I can think of scenarios where I would consider it immoral and scenarios where I'd retain my indifference. That's the best way I think I phrase my position.

[Whitewolf]

I'm also of the opinion that you should know better that your privacy is not guaranteed online. And I have no problem with someone taking nude selfies and sending them to people..So..it's their own fault.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I still think that folks who click on stolen pics drive a demand that ensures this will continue. I'd rather not have stolen pics of my body posted online (though there ain't much market for that, lol) -- and because of that, I don't want to feed that machine.

I think it is Peeping-Tom-by-proxy, myself -- no different from upskirt pics fetched by dickweeds with cameras and mirrors.

[johan]

I still think that folks who click on stolen pics drive a demand that ensures this will continue.

Demand for nude photos existed long before money did. Me and/or you clicking or not clicking on a photo found via a google search is not going to move the needle of demand for that sort of thing one bit. I understand why you would feel that way, but don't kid yourself into thinking those actions have any sort of potential to translate into impact.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I still think that folks who click on stolen pics drive a demand that ensures this will continue.

Demand for nude photos existed long before money did. Me and/or you clicking or not clicking on a photo found via a google search is not going to move the needle of demand for that sort of thing one bit. I understand why you would feel that way, but don't kid yourself into thinking those actions have any sort of potential to translate into impact.

You don't think clicks add up? I do. I don't think that I alone can change anything with my clicking habits, but I do think that if fewer people viewed illicit photos, fewer illicit photos would be bought by these sites. One or two people changing the channel won't change much, but when enough folks do it, shows get cancelled.

I also know that no matter what I haven't contributed to another person having their privacy violated.

By the way, I'm not talking about just nude photos. Those can be had anywhere, with the consent of the subject, and I don't have a problem with that at all. The problem here is that folks are defending and/or justifying the enjoyment of nude photos taken from people who had no intention of those photos ever being made public. There's a difference and you should not gloss that over.