Or neither? The State of California recently created a new misdemeanor offense–that of posting identifiable nude photographs of another person online without his or her permission, but only when such public postings are done with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. Why not make such non-consensual postings a civil law tort, thus allowing the victim to recover compensation, including punitive damages (with the level of damages depending on the amount of humiliation suffered), and why we’re at it, why not extend civil liability to any third-party website that does not take down such postings upon the victim’s request?
Creative Commons
Blogs I Follow
prior probability 
I agree that the non-consensual posting of a nude picture of another with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation should be a civil law tort, which would allow the person to recover compensation. I think that unless the picture depicts a person who would be classified as a child, which would be distributing child pornography, the person posting the picture should be held liable for the punitive damages. If it is a child that is a whole different story and there should not only be compensation for damages but punishment in criminal court as well. But I think this would become difficult to extend to the third parties. While I agree that once contacted by the person who wished to have the picture removed they should oblige, the damage of having the picture is already done. Its on the web, if anyone anywhere copied or downloaded the picture, there is no way to get it back or to prevent the picture from surfing again. I personally think sites where you are able to upload pictures should be more accountable on the pictures they allow to post. I would rather it take 24 hours to post my pictures on facebook, which would give the site time to check the content of the picture, than to be able to upload pictures instantly and have a picture of my friend, nude, pop up on my newsfeed because her ex is mad at her that week.
Great points. While I agree that an extension of civil liability to third parties is problematic, such a move would make websites more accountable to victims. Your proposed 24-hour “safe-harbor” rule might be a good compromise
Thank you for changing the picture!
Your welcome