Than came the twist. A few days ago it emerged that an ex-boyfriend had sent some private pictures to The Sun. Rare for them they did the decent thing and refused to publish, but not before the paper reported they were "too explicit" and had been leaked onto the internet. I wonder how many trips to Google that snippet helped along?
Some call it "revenge porn". I don't. This isn't porn. Porn assumes many guises and caters for many tastes. Interminable debates about the character of pornography has turned forever on the presence or otherwise of informed consent on behalf of performers, and what constitutes exploitation in the industry. To my mind porn actors know their work will eventually be available to anyone with an internet connection. They agree to do what they do, for whatever reason. Naturally there are the grey areas. The kinky couples who video a sesh and upload it, those who webcam their expressions of onanistic creativity for the world to see, people plastering social media with the bits and the bobs. Great stuff. Happy for you. Horses for courses. But what has happened to Vaid is in a different league. I don't wish to prettify porn, but the actions of her ex amount to sexual assault. She didn't consent to having intimate snaps poured over by strangers in The Sun's office, let alone the internet. His release of the pictures were calculated to humiliate Vaid, to shame her, to destroy her political career. I therefore hope she goes to the police and her former partner is prosecuted. And the same goes for anyone who attack their ex-partners in this way. Snapping or filming someone else and making it public without their agreement is, rightly, criminal.
Unfortunately, I can't disagree with The Speccie's Lara Prendergast and Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos about this. Yiannopoulos is typical of blue-tinged commentariat-types. I get the impression he blithely goes about his yackety-yack not giving much of a fig about discrimination and violent treatment meted out to women, that is until a fellow right winger falls foul of double standards and he can score points against his lefty rivals. Yet his and Prendergast's main point stands - far fewer left voices have stuck up for Vaid than would be the case were a Labour spad, bag carrier or CiF writer caught up in the story. In fact, despite being glued to Twitter all week I only found this story out earlier today. Does the left really want to cede this sort of thing to the hypocritical right? Universal rights are just that. They don't get suspended just because someone under sexist attack has rancid politics, as is the case with Vaid.
Thing is, this will crop time and again. Vaid's experience will be the lot of a cohort of future politicians, activists and public figures who have made intimate pics and videos for their own use. Not a few private images and films will find them come back to haunt their careers. Should we be indifferent? Should we just shake our collective heads, sigh at their youthful foolishness and let women - for it will be mainly women - get sexually traduced in public? I don't think so. It's time revenge porn to be classified alongside other sexual offences, for the axis of responsibility to fall squarely on the heads of those who abuse past intimacies this way, and for the press to realise it will not be their worthwhile to acquire revenge porn from vengeful former partners.
'kippers and right wingers like Vaid need exposing politically. That's the only exposure that matters.
8 comments:
I think I agree with your argument here but will you have the balls to say that a partner who shares explicit information about a partner, to say friends, after the relationship ends in acrimony is also guilty of sexual assault?
"Will you have the balls ..." Eh?
There is a difference here. Spilling bedroom secrets, spreading gossip about what one goes on behind closed doors, yes, that can be unpleasant. That can constitute a form of sexual bullying. But it's a different order of magnitude of sticking someone's intimate pictures on the internet for the world to see *forever*.
Curiously, I lack sympathy. But then I don't understand privacy. Anyone willingly working for these people I'd happily see receive far worse, if only it would discourage them...
Perhaps the law shouldn't protect people whose opinions and politics we find disgusting?
So you do lack the balls and are really expressing technophobia rather than a moral principle. Just another authority trying to suppress internet freedom.
Incidentally I do not see the difference in order of magnitude, when you consider that the internet files will only really affect her inner circle of acquaintances. i wouldn't know her from Adam and would be very unlikely to see the images anyway and even if I did I wouldn't have a clue who it was.
Interesting that someone making an accusation of cowardice and claims others are technophobes wants to remain anonymous.
Original point is excellent leave double standards to the right. We must defend basic rights.
Mike Hogan, good point.
For the record my name is Mike Hogan, so no longer anonymous.
I personally think Phil's arugment falls down if he doesn't apply this to partners telling tales outside the relationship. Why should this humiliation be ok?
You're putting words into my mouth. Just because there's a qualitative difference between publishing photos/videos on the internet and breaking confidences doesn't mean I think the latter is okay. It's pretty shitty behaviour, all told.
It comes back to Mill. Liberty ends when it infringes on another, and that's what I believe. As it turns out in this particular case, the photographs in question were taken by an older and apparently abusive partner some nine or so years ago. Why are you keen to defend his right to carry on his pattern of abuse?
Post a Comment