distributing an intimate visual recording without consent
It's about the legal principle that people have the right to choose who/where/when to share explicit pictures of themselves with.
I think it was probably turned into a separate offence because piracy/copyright factors in profit, whereas the harms from revenge porn are usually closer to those of cyberbullying and hatemail.
Wikipedia is being slightly odd. In standard use a settler society is one in which the dominant group (usually the majority) are there as a result of settler colonialism. Places like Kenya and SA by contrast got out from under settler rule and are post-independant.
Historically, settler colonialism was the systematic resettling of large swathes of people, resulting in countries where the bulk of the population is descended from relatively recent migrants - "settler societies". Additionally, about a quarter of Australians and New Zealanders are first generation immigrants.
That's a fair point. But they didn't just "alert" them - they distributed.
I'm not even legally allowed to copy stuff off TVNZ On Demand and redistribute it, even though it was intended for a much wider audience than this person's OF.
Personally I'm happy for revenge porn laws to be fairly draconian on principle. Otherwise it starts feeling like asking assault victims "but what were you wearing".
Distributing explicit images of someone without their consent is distributing explicit images of someone without their consent at the end of the day.
I wouldn't like to see precedent where the courts start saying the context in which the image was originally produced somehow makes it fair game, because where is that line exactly?
It wasn't unreasonable for the victim to assume her own parents are never going to see her paywalled and copyrighted OF content. It was malicious and deliberately harmful use of a digital communication.
Winston has been in Parliament for 50 years and is adept at polling his constituency to see what would be popular with them.
He is borrowing Trump buzzwords and adding them to his arsenal, but his party sits in the middle of the NZ political spectrum between the two biggest parties. That's why he has so much power, sometimes neither side can govern without him.
If the Prime Minister overstepped too far, Peters can literally bring down the government. The PM's party does not have the numbers to govern alone.
Peters has been a politician for 50 years. When NZ switched to proportional representation, Peters positioned himself as a centrist and often holds the balance of power.
I think I'm just going to have to agree to disagree.
AI getting a diagnosis wrong is one thing.
AI being bulit in such a way that it hands out destructive advice human scientists already know is wrong, like vaccines cause autism, homeopathy, etc, is a malevolent and irresponsible use of tech imo.
To me, it's like watching a civilization downgrading it's own scientific progress.
liv @ liv @lemmy.nz Posts 14Comments 1,019Joined 2 yr. ago
It's about the legal principle that people have the right to choose who/where/when to share explicit pictures of themselves with.
I think it was probably turned into a separate offence because piracy/copyright factors in profit, whereas the harms from revenge porn are usually closer to those of cyberbullying and hatemail.