Eric Goldman - Mis-Misogyny and Adventures in Victim-Blaming-Blaming lyrics

In Eric Goldman's piece on revenge p**n in Forbes, he argues that although the proliferation of “revenge p**n” is unsavory, it we don't need to change the law to make revenge p**n illegal. His arguments, summarized: → Adding more exceptions to 47 USC 230 will create more exploitable legal loopholes. → All content regulation policy is imperfect -- under such regulation some forms of “bad” content will be under-regulated and some will be over regulated. → Goldman doesn't trust _himself_ to be an adequate arbiter between “good” and “bad”, let alone a group of legislators. → Unsavory sites often die relatively quickly without legal intervention. → If you want to prevent the possibility of revenge p**n of you being created, then don't send nude photos to others. Goldman's argues that we don't need to carve out exceptions in the law for practices like revenge p**n because social norms are sufficient in curtailing it. Changing the law is not sustainable. There are tons of possible exceptions to 47 USC 230; if you change the law for each of these exceptions, the law will start to look like Arrow Code, an unmaintainable, buggy mess of if/else-clause spaghetti. Reddit's /r/jailbait controversy is a prime example of how social norms can curtail unsavory online acts. /r/jailbait was a community where users would share suggested pictures of minors. It wasn't child p**nography, but it was almost child p**nography. Often, pictures were taken from minors' private Facebook profiles and posted onto the subreddit. Anderson Cooper did an exposé on the subreddit, causing a spike of controversial press and a heated freedom of speech debate. For a while, Reddit touted that they supported users' freedom of speech and kept /r/jailbait live. But after weeks of incessant bad press, Reddit reversed their decision, closing /r/jailbait and changing their terms to disallow the s**ualization of minors. In this case, legal action wasn't needed or even desired. Social norms, expressed via the media, guided Reddit's actions. Mary Anne Franks refutes Goldman in a response post, albeit unsuccessfully. Her arguments, summarized: → Since revenge p**n's victims are primarily women, it limits women's freedoms. If you apply Goldman's arguments to something more gender neutral, this inequality is evident. → Revenge p**n causes harm to women's lives; it some cases it causes them to lose their jobs or commit suicide. → Goldman is “victim blaming”. His preventative suggestion of not sharing nude photos is like saying women shouldn't ever go outside because men might rape them. Or, it's like saying you should never give out your credit card since someone might steal your identity. Although Mary Anne Franks' intentions are good, her response to Eric Goldman's piece is ludicrous. It pissed me off. Here's why: Revenge p**n doesn't directly cause harm; it _can_ cause _indirect_ harm. If someone uploads a nude photo of you on the Internet without your consent, that act in and of itself makes zero impact on your life. If others discover that photo, then their _reactions_ to the photo can hurt you. Mary Franks' examples of “an*logous” situations are the opposite - they cause direct harm. Rape and identity theft hurt people, and it's obvious why they should be illegal. A more reasonable an*logy to revenge p**n is sharing secrets. Consider a gay teen who comes out to a close friend and the friend proceeds to post this information to another friend on the Internet. Word spreads and eventually everyone knows. The teen is disowned by his traditional family and hara**ed by his schoolmates, and the teen commits suicide. Should sharing secrets be illegal? Here's a case with even “better” facts. I send a love letter to a crush. The crush doesn't have reciprocal feelings. She posts the love letter online. It spreads. I feel embarra**ed. Should this be illegal? Obviously not. Following Mary Franks' arguments, these cases are gender neutral, and the acts caused harm to the victims. It also limited victims' freedoms of expression. But satisfying these constraints should not make an act worthy of legal retribution. Mary Franks throws around terms like “misogynist” and “victim-blaming” like she's tossing beads at Mardi Gras. Her flippant use of these words dilutes their meaning and dilutes the public's perception of feminism. Franks argues that gendered perspectives prevent men from seeing inequality, but when you an*lyze Franks' views from a gender-neutral lens you find the opposite: Franks' own gendered lens misdirects her outrage towards men. ENDRANT;