Cyber Rape

[TerranceL]

Oh I see so it is perfectly ok to exploit, abuse, bully, harass etc online but not offline? Is that right?

Yes, that's totally completely what he said and meant.

...

 

[RDKirk]

Oh I see so it is perfectly ok to exploit, abuse, bully, harass etc online but not offline? Is that right?

Do you really think that's what he means? Really?

 

[elephunky]

Do you really think that's what he means? Really?

Perhaps not, trying to make a point though. I would equate distributing naked photos of an ex online to a form of exploitation.

 

[RDKirk]

Perhaps not, trying to make a point though. I would equate distributing naked photos of an ex online to a form of exploitation.

Well, heck, I once got exploited by a credit company, which was very annoying but not something I'd equate to rape.

I'm rather surprised that women would equate anything short of actual rape with rape.

 

[elephunky]

Well, heck, I once got exploited by a credit company, which was very annoying but not something I'd equate to rape.

I'm rather surprised that women would equate anything short of actual rape with rape.

I do not equate it with rape either.

 

[TerranceL]

Perhaps not, trying to make a point though. I would equate distributing naked photos of an ex online to a form of exploitation.

It's not equal though.

You can disconnect from where you are getting harassed online.

 

[elephunky]

It's not equal though.

You can disconnect from where you are getting harassed online.

Well that depends on how you are being harassed. You can end up with online stalkers who harass you, hack your profiles on various websites, ridicule and bully you in a public forum etc. This is a huge issue for teens. We now live in a world where it is almost impossible not to have an online presence of some sort.

 

[Eudaimonist]

One other problem I have with blaming the victim is that it tends to encourage a zero-risk (or minimal-risk) ideal towards life.

The "proof" that one has acted imprudently is that something bad has happened. This suggests that if only one had led a more sheltered life, one would have done the right thing. But there is no limit to how sheltered one can make one's life.

For instance, should one avoid all parties that serve alcohol on the off chance that one might get raped? It isn't clear that the less risk one encounters in life, the better a person one is. Risks are a part of life. Perhaps some risks are foolish and should be avoided, but if one's only standard of failure is when something bad happens, that appears to make all risk look foolish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

And yet there are no laws that are able to be prosecuted yet in a case like this are there? Isn't that what the young woman is pushing for? So that those who offend in this manner are held accountable?

....Right. Clearly the law does not exist, I was responding to the suggestion that such a law would be unenforceable. It clearly wouldn't be given that we have similar laws already for prosecuting online content that have been used with some success.

 

[TerranceL]

Well that depends on how you are being harassed. You can end up with online stalkers who harass you, hack your profiles on various websites, ridicule and bully you in a public forum etc. This is a huge issue for teens. We now live in a world where it is almost impossible not to have an online presence of some sort.

Disconnect from "various websites" and leave those "public forums".

To say it's almost impossible to not have an online presence is very wrong.

Teach children to value their own privacy and anonymity.

 

[RDKirk]

One other problem I have with blaming the victim is that it tends to encourage a zero-risk (or minimal-risk) ideal towards life.

The "proof" that one has acted imprudently is that something bad has happened. This suggests that if only one had led a more sheltered life, one would have done the right thing. But there is no limit to how sheltered one can make one's life.

For instance, should one avoid all parties that serve alcohol on the off chance that one might get raped? It isn't clear that the less risk one encounters in life, the better a person one is. Risks are a part of life. Perhaps some risks are foolish and should be avoided, but if one's only standard of failure is when something bad happens, that appears to make all risk look foolish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark, reaching for absurdity to make a point is something you seldom do.

But you're doing it now.

 

[RDKirk]

....Right. Clearly the law does not exist, I was responding to the suggestion that such a law would be unenforceable. It clearly wouldn't be given that we have similar laws already for prosecuting online content that have been used with some success.

Actually, the laws for this situation do exist. Every state has civil laws prohibiting public humiliation, slander, and libel of one citizen by another citizen, and this woman has sued the man under those laws.

At this point, the man is claiming innocence--which is what always happens, and would happen even if there were criminal laws against it.

In fact, the woman today stands a greater chance of winning the civil suit than she would a criminal trial.

The law is there. She's using it. That's the story.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mark, reaching for absurdity to make a point is something you seldom do.

But you're doing it now.

I fail to see how what I've said is "absurd". Please explain.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CounselorForChrist]

For instance, should one avoid all parties that serve alcohol on the off chance that one might get raped? It isn't clear that the less risk one encounters in life, the better a person one is. Risks are a part of life. Perhaps some risks are foolish and should be avoided, but if one's only standard of failure is when something bad happens, that appears to make all risk look foolish.

Again your making it sound like what happens online is somehow the same to what happens offline. Rape in real life causes massive issues and is not the victims fault. Where as sharing your pictures online does not cause massive issues and even if it did then its your fault anyway.

Oh I see so it is perfectly ok to exploit, abuse, bully, harass etc online but not offline? Is that right?

I never said that. If anything I am against cyberbullying (I would know from being bullied). But we cannot compare an offline case to an online case. Especially in this case where you sent nude pictures of yourself to someone you know. Thats just bad judgement to send them.

In the end the specific topic of this being cyberrape is ridiculous. Thats all I am saying. Because if we start using that term then everyone will start claiming cyberrape. We all know how americans are with their sue happy nature. And we all know alot of people are willing to lie about things just to sue someone or cause problems.

 

[Cearbhall]

Is blaming the victim always wrong? What if the victim is suffering because of his/her poor decisions? Sometimes it is the victim's fault.

Just because the victim could have done something to prevent the situation doesn't mean that no one else is at fault.

 

[Armoured]

I fail to see how what I've said is "absurd". Please explain.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Its reductio ad absurdam. No one is saying not to go to a party with alcohol. But if you do, it makes sense to take basic precautions. Don't leave your drink unattended. Drink with friends, always let someone know where you're going, and when to expect you back, and so on.

 

[Cearbhall]

Its reductio ad absurdam. No one is saying not to go to a party with alcohol. But if you do, it makes sense to take basic precautions. Don't leave your drink unattended. Drink with friends, always let someone know where you're going, and when to expect you back, and so on.

Of course, so shouldn't we direct our disapproval at the people who make such precautions necessary? It seems rather silly to instead focus on an innocent person who failed to predict the actions of a malicious individual.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course, so shouldn't we direct our disapproval at the people who make such precautions necessary? It seems rather silly to instead focus on an innocent person who failed to predict the actions of a malicious individual.

Let's be sure to blame the bear as well, when someone gets mauled for toying with her cubs. Also blame the lightning when someone persists in playing golf in a thunderstorm.

What..no, we don't do that, do we? We acknowledge those cases when a person's own actions result in easily predicable consequences.

The fact that the other party has intelligent volition does not change the fact that a person's own actions still resulted in easily predicatable consequences.

 

[Cearbhall]

Let's be sure to blame the bear as well, when someone gets mauled for toying with her cubs. Also blame the lightning when someone persists in playing golf in a thunderstorm.

What..no, we don't do that, do we? We acknowledge those cases when a person's own actions result in easily predicable consequences.

How are those situations comparable? We're talking about criminal human beings. I don't see the relevance in the fact that a bear and a force of nature can't be expected to follow our laws.

 

[Armoured]

Of course, so shouldn't we direct our disapproval at the people who make such precautions necessary? It seems rather silly to instead focus on an innocent person who failed to predict the actions of a malicious individual.

Yes, but as I said earlier, we shouldn't insist on making this a zero sum equation. Of course a rapist bears 100% culpability for choosing to rape, I will never accept any claim of any form of sexual assault being "provoked." Ever.

BUT... that still doesn't mean that a person who knowingly engages in risky behaviour should be considered without fault, either.

For example, I'm a father of a little girl, 7 at the moment, but growin up fast. And while I will never, under any circumstances, accept that anyone has any sort of right or provocation to assault her in any way, you can bet your bottom dollar that I will be teaching her to stay in well lit areas with friends at night. See how that works? As earlier stated... you have the right to make disparaging remarks about the mother of a Hells Angel with an Oedipus complex and known anger control issues. That doesn't make it a good idea though. Having a legal right to do something doesn't necessarily make you immune to the consequences of that thing. Ask any bankrupt former stock broker.