Why does someone who victimizes other people by sleeping with their spouse "deserve so much better"? Why is that person not also scum? They are actively victimizing the other spouse for selfish reasons.

"They're useless, and they only serve to really drive home just how dumb some of the lyrics in songs today are." - Exactly the reason they aren't useless.

Fully agree. I also can't understand (and can't respect anyone who uses) this cop-out "I don't want to be judgmental / I'ts not my place to dictate their morals / tell them that what they're doing is wrong" crap. If you don't point out to them that what they are doing is wrong and they need to stop, you are…

Yeah - screw that whole concept of "mutual respect" in society in general; every man/woman for themselves - as long as you didn't take vows. Great thinking.

"A judgmental friend isn't going to help her rewrite her moral code." - So, people should not point out to their friends that it is wrong to make racist / anti-gay / misogynistic comments towards / about other people if / when they do so?

I don't understand why people in this situation have a problem telling their friend (who is with a married person) that what they are doing is flat-out wrong, and they need to stop immediately. The whole not-trying-to-dictate-someone-else's-morals thing just doesn't hold up; would you take the same approach with a…

Right, but I was speaking specifically about crimes committed against a victim(s) ("..against others").

Agree on the gender issue - but aren't all criminals who commit crimes against others a threat to society?

By "get this straight", do you mean "make inaccurate assumptions about a South Park episode that I didn't bother to watch before going off on the writers about it"...? Because that's the only definition of "get it straight" that seems to fit your comment.

Using a still from a movie is protected under Fair Use if that still has been released / distributed in that form by the copyright holder for fair use purposes. This is why you typically see the same clips & stills from movies on all of the different sites that review them.

The still images / animated gifs of dicks were not consensually shared by the copyright holders as they appeared here, nor for the purposes they appeared. They were no less "stolen" than the private photos of the women.

Exactly. I am a photographer, so am quite familiar with how these things work (I deal with copyright & licensing, contracts & releases, etc., on a daily basis). It is hilarious how much this DashleyinCali person is twisting, mixing, conflating & ignoring the various issues here in order to claim that it's OK for…

This case is not analogous to hacking bank accounts and stealing money.

The perpetrator of the SJ hack was convicted of computer hacking (a violation of computer security), aggravated identity theft, and illegal wiretapping. The images of these women were obtained by use of the actual account usernames & passwords (which is different from actual computer hacking). This may mean that the…

It's both.

No, I read and listened to everything you said. It's not my fault that there was so much wrong in it to point out that it took more words than you wanted to read. If you don't want to read comments, then why are you ...reading (and responding) on a comments section...?

Because you have no argument.

UH NO.

The studios that own the films / images did not clip and release the stills to the public for free and open distribution. They were pirated off of the DVDs / captured in screenshots - which, being copyrighted material, is no less illegal than what happened to the women whose images were copied from their cloud storage…

"The images were just as stolen..." - This is an important aspect that people (jezebel) ignore; the studios that own the films / images did not clip and release the stills to the public for distribution. They were pirated off of the DVDs / captured in screenshots - which is no less illegal than what happened to the…