The Other Side of Revenge Porn

Most debate on revenge porn (when an ex posts nudes of a former significant other, usually a girlfriend) centers around the guys who do it being jerks and the women who consent to have their picture being taken and/or sending selfies being foolish and getting just desserts. But there are a couple other ways to look at the issue.

First, revenge is one of the oldest human motivational needs, and today a plethora of Hollywood movies are based on this ancient thirst. It is no surprise in a culture steeped in revenge-storytelling that many people would like to get even as well. One reason people seek revenge is they have no discourse within the framework of the legal system. If you buy a $10,000 diamond ring for a woman as an engagement promise, she doesn’t legally have to give it back if she breaks it off since it was a gift. Ethically she should return it since she’s not keeping her promise, but she is under no legal obligation to do so. When a relationship goes sour, the one leaving can oftentimes make out like a bandit with money and items milked from the victim over the years, and they do not have to be returned or remunerated. And this says nothing of cheating and adultery, which are both legal but judged as unethical (and even immoral) by most. There is simply no legal remedy for those who come out on the wronged side of an ended relationship. This is one of the primary reasons why revenge porn exists.

Second, revenge can be seen as a moral imperative. If someone wrongs you, then you must seek retribution. To do otherwise, would make you a weakling who meekly got abused and never stood up for oneself. In addition revenge serves a deterrent effect. That is, if a psychopath goes one relationship after another abusing others by cheating, lying and theiving, he/she may think twice if one of the victims gets sweet revenge. It is morally imperative to punish the transgressor since failure to do so will mean the psychopath will accrue more victims until someone stands up to him/her.

Revenge porn may seem tacky and even abhorrent, but it might also be the only way for some to get a measure of justice not available in the legal system. Pass laws against it if you like, but it won’t be going away anytime soon unless you want to make cheating and adultery punishable under criminal law again.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150207.htm

Private Figures Should Keep Their Good Reputation Until Conviction

As mentioned here at McCarthyism.com a few days ago about the theatrics of the SOTU, here’s another prime example:

Sulkowicz Let Down by Obama Speech

New York Senator Kristen Gillenbrand invited as her guest Emma Sulkowicz who has gained fame as a performance artist carrying her mattress around Columbia University in New York City to bring awareness to the issue of campus sexual violence. The article is also a good example of how being able to talk back using the comments section is an interesting way to see a newstory through other people’s eyes (whether you agree or not with their viewpoints). The premise of bringing Sulkowicz to the SOTU to raise awareness seemed to fail as most people in Congress and government did not know who she was or why she had gained a certain degree of fame. Sulkowicz was disappointed that Obama did not call attention to campus sexual assaults, but really it would be impossible for the President to speak on every serious issue facing the country/world within the short of amount of time alloted for the speech (and shorter attention spans of the public). That is not to downplay the issue of campus sexual assaults, but only to say there are probably other issues that grab the attention of everyone in the country such as jobs, war, health care and the economy.

But what is most worrisome about Sulkowicz’s case is the accompanying theatrics itself. When a woman makes a charge of being raped, her identity is shielded by the media unless she publicizes it herself, as Sulkowicz did. That’s fine. The problem is the guy she accused of raping her has had his name splashed all over the media even after he was exonerated by the police. To be accused of rape or sexual assault is one of the most harmful statements to a person’s reputation. It should be a law that people suspected of a crime should not have their reputations destroyed before receiving due process. Sulkowicz’s continuing to accuse a classmate of rape after his exoneration (which means there was not enough evidence for an indictment, but does not mean she is necessarily lying either) is libelous; but it is the media’s fault in printing his name in the first place. The law should be that printing a suspect’s name before a conviction (even under indictment) should be illegal with stiff monetary penalties for publishing the person’s name. The infamous perpetrator walks done by police for the media cameras should also be illegal; they harken back to the barbaric time of locking people in stocks for public embarrassment. If people are truly innocent until proven guilty, then grant them the dignity of privacy and reputation until they are convicted by a court of law; the current system is a sham and a shame of justice.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150125.htm

Paris Mayor Suing Fox News is a No-Go

Unlike Governor Jindal from yesterday’s article, Fox News did not double down on an obvious error. Fox actually apologized for the ‘no-go’ zone misinformation, but that is not enough for the mayor of Paris, who plans to sue Fox: Paris Mayor Plans to Sue Fox News for ‘No-Go’ Zone As the NYT article states, this lawsuit will go nowhere in the US due to the precedent of New York Times vs. Sullivan. But could the mayor sue in France? Presumably yes, thus putting Fox News parent company assets at risk within France and/or the EU. Perhaps this is why Fox News took the unusual move (for a media company) of repeatedly apologizing for the repeated errors. In any case, Fox has apologized for its errors, and it should end there. We should praise individuals, companies and organizations when they admit fault, and not sue them. Instead of suing Fox, perhaps the mayor should sue Governor Jindal? He’s liable to triple down at this point because it’s an unfortunate part of our human nature to refuse to admit when we are wrong.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150121.htm