Wow, you (or your quote) really sounds like an asshole. First of all, this #Gamergate thing doesn't even seem like a group. The article is ripe with contradictions. "Hate groups have leaders, but this group is leaderless." "They recruit by talking about gamers in general, and feelings." and in your screed "Don't like…

Death threats are a bad thing. But they aren't the "new status quo". Just because the platforms are new (email, Twitter) doesn't mean people weren't doing this for the longest. I've been reading about celebrities, journalists, politicians, and basically anyone with a certain amount of notoriety gets death threats…

Cool thanks for the info and link.

you're right. our school systems are terrible if they tell you not to begin with definitions. starting by defining our terms is very good. and especially when you're talking about laws, what a law actually is (according to the dept of govnt responsible for enforcing and litigating them) is pretty useful.

Hate crimes are a whole 'nother matter, but it's related and I could agree the concept of hate crimes is problematic, but I still think they should be a thing.

it's funny b/c wikipedia is stupid? no wait, they have citations, among them the dept of justice. so I guess what's really funny is that you took a misguided slap at wikipedia and tried to turn that into a valid point lol.

From my point of view, the issues at play are internet privacy (and the laws surrounding that) and problematic celeb worship, and then, maybe, issues of women's privacy or role in society or something. I honestly do not think the hackers are like "I hack women because I want to punish women for being women. Grrrrr…

Listen to this big city lawyer right here. "I'm sorry the evidence doesn't fit. I can't connect it to the alleged crime." "Fuck you. Make the connection." "Oh ok." LOL thanks for the laugh, and I mean that with respect.

I wonder: if I stole your suitcase, and there happened to be nude pics inside, did I commit a sex crime? Do I have to know about the pics? Does it matter if I copy and distribute or not? Keep in mind, I'm not saying this isn't or couldn't or shouldn't be a sex crime, but in matters like this it seems lots of factors…

I can see your point a bit, but that's only if "she" is identical with "her photos". And she isn't.

The slippery slope argument? First they steal and look at photos. Next thing you know woman because a slave class with no bodily autonomy who only exist for the pleasures of men (or at least, that's the world the hackers want), right?

I feel ya. I do get that "what about men" can be disingenuous, and I'm not trying to derail the discussion or anything (I think I mentioned two other women....), but a similar situation is a similar situation, man woman whatever.

hahaha thank you. And congrats on your Sarcasm Degree from Asshole University.

It was my mistake to assume she said "assault" because someone else in the comments said she said that. My bad. And here JLaw doesn't call it prostitution or rape, but there are many other articles that do that and that's what I'm responding to.
I'm not interested in refuting women's personal narratives or feelings,…

hmmm, rude, but ok I'll respond. I think legally whether it's a sex crime depends on the laws where the theft took place, and somehow knowing the mindset of the offender. I don't think getting definitions right is "minimizing it". It's still wrong whatever we call it, but just as you're concerned with minimizing it…

The hackers who stole the pics did not sell them as far as I know, nor did Reddit sell access to the pics (you might say since there're ads on the site they made money off it). Weren't the pics distributed for free?

I see. Thanks for clearing that up if she never said "assault". I'm not so sure that the fact she is nude should make this a "sex" crime as opposed to a "theft" but that's not super important. What is important is that this theft of photos is not conflated with even more serious matters like exploitation (as in forced…

oh ok, my bad. I saw in someone else's comment that she said assault, but now I can't see that word so that's fine thanks for clearing that up. However, even under the definition of "sex crime" this barely fits. At first I was thinking, this is voyeurism but it misses the aspect of the criminal shooting the pics.…

If stealing nude pics is sexual assault, then what would it be if pics of JLaw eating dinner were stolen? Regular assault? The crime committed was theft (maybe voyeurism but even that's iffy cause the thief did not take the pics, just stole them). It just irks me to have to play the hyperbole game: "it's assault, it's…

That's a good question, what is the legality? But then again, what is the legality (or morality) of Gawker media linking to those sites and profiting off the "news" of the leaks? What is the legality (or morality) of our celeb obsessed culture in general? And further, what is the legality (and morality) of looking at…