Jennifer Lawrence NSFW

[Strontium]

Nope.

What, you're denying legal facts now?

 

Well I can't compete with that.

[lifetime fan]

Stronts you’ve gone from digging with a shovel to using a fucking JCB.

 

Stop it mate.

[Rico1304]

What, you're denying legal facts now?Well I can't compete with that.

I’ll happliy concede where the EU human rights laws show a concession.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Sorry, it's not theft at all. If it was, then hacking would be a theft offence, and it isn't. The crime isn't theft of her property, it's violation of her privacy.

No, sorry, you're wildly off base. It is Copyright infringement - which, although contentious, manyregard as tantamount to theft - and identity theft. This is exactly what the hackers of iCloud emails were charged with.

 

It absolutely is a privacy issue, also, but it's much more than that too. It is no different to saying 'HBO shouldn't complain about having Game of Thrones ripped from their server and put on the internet. After all, they are showing it later anyway'. It's really silly.

 

Oh, and of course it's like libel. In both instances, a victim is entitled to compensation.

The fuck? That makes absolutely no sense, and it's quite obtuse. So I really need to list everything you can get compensation for - including theft - to ridicule this point or shall we just gloss over it and pretend that it didn't happen.

[Strontium]

I’ll happliy concede where the EU human rights laws show a concession.

 

It's not EU law, but European Court of Human Rights

 

http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2012/02/eu-court-limits-privacy-rights-for-public-figures.php

 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] issued two rulings [press release] on Tuesday upholding the right of the media to report on celebrities and limiting celebrities' right to privacy.

 

In Axel Springer AG v. Germany [judgment], the court examined whether a German actor's right to privacy was violated when a paper published a newspaper article and photos of his arrest for illegal drug possession at a public festival.

 

The court determined that an injunction restricting publication of articles and photos of the actor was a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF], which protects freedom of expression. The court determined that the actor was sufficiently well known to qualify as a public figure, which gives the public a greater interest in being informed about his arrest and the proceedings against him. Additionally, the court determined that the actor had a decreased expectation of privacy due to the fact that his arrest occurred at a public event and because he had previously released details of his private life through the media.

 

In Van Hannover v. Germany [judgment], the court examined whether the right of privacy of members of the royal family of Monaco had been violated when two magazines published pictures of Princess Caroline of Monaco and her husband that were taken without their consent during a ski vacation.

 

The court ruled that publication of the pictures did not constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to respect for private and family life. The court held that the pictures and accompanying text added to a debate of general interest about the royal family of Monaco, and that members of that family must be treated as public figures. In both cases, the court acknowledged the need to balance the right to privacy against the right of the media to freedom of expression, but also indicated that privacy rights are diminished when individuals can be considered public figures.

 

Now, of course, none of this means that publishing someone's nude picture without their consent is okay, and of course, I never claimed that it did. But what it does mean is that it's hard for you to plaster pics of your tits all over the media, then to complain about your privacy being violated by an unauthorised leak of pictures of your tits.

[Numero Veinticinco]

The famous American actress, using American servers to store her pictures. It certainly sounds like a case for the ECHR. I also have an issue with the way you're using that case as if it's applicable in any way to UI mages taken in the privacy of the home and of nudity. There's a difference between privacy in public places like ski resorts. And breaching security using identy theft and copyright infringement to pinch private makes pictures.

 

No. Still not having it.

[Strontium]

No, sorry, you're wildly off base. It is Copyright infringement - which, although contentious, manyregard as tantamount to theft - and identity theft. This is exactly what the hackers of iCloud emails were charged with.

 

You sure about that? Because it looks like they were done for computer hacking offences.

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/03/15/man-pleads-guilty-in-celebrity-icloud-hacking-case-admits-phishing-scheme

 

Collins pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 18 months, the report said. Charged in California, his case will be transferred to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/09/28/second-man-pleads-gulity-in-celebgate-hacks-of-icloud-gmail-accounts

 

Appearing in front of the U.S. District Court in Chicago on Tuesday, Majerczyk plead guilty to a felony charge of unauthorized access to a protected computer to obtain information

[Rico1304]

It's not EU law, but European Court of Human Rights

http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2012/02/eu-court-limits-privacy-rights-for-public-figures.php

 

 

Now, of course, none of this means that publishing someone's nude picture without their consent is okay, and of course, I never claimed that it did. But what it does mean is that it's hard for you to plaster pics of your tits all over the media, then to complain about your privacy being violated by an unauthorised leak of pictures of your tits.

That has absolutely no relevance at all. Come on.

[Pidge]

I'm not a lawyer.

 

No shit. 

 

I think "public interest" is the principle you're aiming for, not a "diminished" right to privacy...  Not convinced uncensored private photos taken in a private setting, in which nothing illegal has taken place particularly serves the public to be honest.

[Strontium]

The famous American actress, using American servers to store her pictures. It certainly sounds like a case for the ECHR.

 

He asked for a European law example. American privacy laws are famously less stringent than ours, so I'm not sure the goalpost moving makes much of a difference.

 

I also have an issue with the way you're using that case as if it's applicable in any way to UI mages taken in the privacy of the home and of nudity. There's a difference between privacy in public places like ski resorts. And breaching security using identy theft and copyright infringement to pinch private makes pictures.

 

No. Still not having it.

 

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I still maintain that leaking a porn star's private sex tape, for instance, would be less of a privacy violation than leaking the Queen's private sex tape.

[Mook]

Anyone masturbating to this shit?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Yeah, I'm sure. I literally just closed a tab on the FBI archive that detailed the charges of identity theft regarding getting into accounts for bajed pictures. That was after reading several legal articles on copyright. I'm on my phone but I'll be back at the computer later. I'll link you to more.

 

But it's getting well off the point. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy when she takes pictures of herself in her own home. It's up to her, to exercise her free will, If she wants to profit from using her body in a mutually agreeable way for a role in a movie. One where she would have had control, editorially and otherwise. She, to my knowledge, to shove anything inside her snatch in the movie like she did in the privacy of her own bedroom. It's really quite a different ball game in terms of her personal freedoms. Even if it's just economic, that's her right too.

 

I'm trying to see the point you are making as you normally don't say these things for no reason. But on this I really think you are staying from your principles.

 

Whatever, I still want to make sweet love to her.

[Strontium]

No shit. 

 

I think "public interest" is the principle you're aiming for, not a "diminished" right to privacy...  Not convinced uncensored private photos taken in a private setting, in which nothing illegal has taken place particularly serves the public to be honest.

 

I never said it serves the public. All I've suggested is that it's somewhat difficult to complain about the public seeing you naked when you are getting naked for the public. Because clearly she doesn't have a problem with people seeing her nude (although I am sure someone will argue with me about that too).

[Numero Veinticinco]

I never said it serves the public. All I've suggested is that it's somewhat difficult to complain about the public seeing you naked when you are getting naked for the public. Because clearly she doesn't have a problem with people seeing her nude (although I am sure someone will argue with me about that too).

Would you accept there's a difference between showing your breasts in a film where it makes sense, and choosing to do it as you have full control over what goes out, is well lit, flattering and no more revealing than you are comfortable with, and private images in your own home with things in your vagina, where you had no control over them being shared?

 

I think it's a vast difference. I think it's different ethically, legally, and financially. It's the difference of having liberty over your body and your possessions and not. That's pretty big.

[Elite]

This thread proves that people will argue over anything.

 

Just look at her tits or imagine bending her over and giving her a good rogering.

[Strontium]

Would you accept there's a difference between showing your breasts in a film where it makes sense, and choosing to do it as you have full control over what goes out, is well lit, flattering and no more revealing than you are comfortable with, and private images in your own home with things in your vagina, where you had no control over them being shared?

 

I never said there wasn't a difference, so of course I accept it.

 

Although she looked better in her private images tbh.

[chrisbonnie]

This thread proves that people will argue over anything.

 

Just look at her tits or imagine bending her over and giving her a good rogering.

Exactly

 

I'm surprised people even read the posts on this thread.

 

It's all about the pictures baby [emoji1]

[Rico1304]

Anyone masturbating to this shit?

Red raw

[Rico1304]

The juxtaposition between this thread and the one on the MF is staggering.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I've rubbed some of my foreskin away. It's now a threeskin.

[Bjornebye]

Can we go back to who sniffs the table first?

[Bjornebye]

Anyone masturbating to this shit?

Nah paddy ashdow ruined it for me

[Bjornebye]

I never said it serves the public. All I've suggested is that it's somewhat difficult to complain about the public seeing you naked when you are getting naked for the public. Because clearly she doesn't have a problem with people seeing her nude (although I am sure someone will argue with me about that too).

If I saw you nude I would complain to the public.

 

.

[Dr Nowt]

What's her net spend?

[Guest]

What's her net spend?

Why spend money on nets? Unless they are fishnets I would see that as a waste of money.

 

Fishnets...Jennifer Lawrence...google