In regards to unsolicited and unwanted images isn't there potential for someone to claim they didn't want said images and use that as an excuse to publish them? The best policy to have would be a simple no private photos published unless consent is given by subject(s) or legal proceedings have detemined such images…

Yes, an official statement detailing the past and future policy of publishing private images (and information), sexual or not, should be made.

Almost like trying to buy an indulgence from the Pope.

Fair enough.

Don't idolise us Brits. We are no better than anyone else in general, and perhaps a little worse than most western countries.

And yet this advert was approved of:

That's because the press isn't regulated to the same degree.

Good for ASA. But how come they didn't ban the advert in which a person changing on the beach has their towel ripped off of them and the nudity photographed? Rhetorical question because I know the answer. It was because they said most people would find it funny.

Women - remember Lawrence wasn't the only woman to be hacked. And spare a thought for some of the men involved, too. Though not the targets, I doubt they're pleased either.

I agree. Some official statement about the past and future policy about leaked/stolen images, sexual or otherwise, must be made.

I'm not surprised some women are defending the leak, or even looking at the images. I don't know how it is in America, but in the UK a lot of the media aimed at women seems to be based on the idea of exposing one way or another the private lives of celebrity women. I know of one case where one female celebrity…

Also, the idea that only "manboys" are looking is absolutely fucking absurd. I'm sure they're the only ones that are curious, the rest of humanity is just looking for "educational purposes" like writing a trite and unprovoked defense from Jezebel's white knight.

They make up as the go along. Do you get the sense there are acceptable and unacceptable targets?

There was an article on the Guardian yesterday, which has since been removed for some reason. The author stated that leaks of male celebrities are only mocked and laughed at. She was right, but it struck me as casual dismissal, and the article did quickly move on.

Indeed. The only issue Jezebel can take a stance on without being hypocritical is the issue of privacy being violated. I recall Jezebel featured Upton in a zero-gee photo shoot that featured no criticism of why it was being done.

News flash: they were already doing that to movie clips and red carpet photos and everything else they could find.

I think it would be less gross but believe that people would certainly have plenty of prurient interest in nude pics of male celebrities too.

"What the feminist movement has successfully done, is really, as Ann-Marie puts it, sexualized women instead of feminizing women," Loudon said.

I can't believe this is true. When I was a kid the first thing I used to look at in biology books was the reproduction section.

Sexual activity with someone under 13 is absolutely illegal. Sexual activity with someone between 13 and 16 is illegal but only where believing them to be over 16 is considered unreasonable. In other words, if the defendant says he thought the other person was over 16 and the court thinks that was belief was…