Revenge porn should be criminalized.

I feel I have understood my opponent's argument relating to freedom of speech correctly- they are asserting that banning revenge porn would risk also opening individuals who have done nothing wrong- for instance, who have merely blogged about the fact that a certain item of revenge porn exists- to criminal prosecution. As I stated earlier, we would agree that these people should not be prosecuted, and they currently are not under revenge porn laws. Only the act of making an item of revenge pornography publicly available online while otherwise it is not should be illegal- but doing so *SHOULD* remain illegal, as it is a violation of the consent and bodily autonomy of the individual depicted, as well as a violation of their copyright to the picture as the individual who took it. "there is no legal definition that would be able to cover revenge porn initiators and not people who simply report/view it." I have already provided one: It should remain illegal to make items of revenge pornography available on the internet where such items is not yet available. It should not be illegal to mention that such material is available. This is clear and unambiguous, and would not lead to the prosecution of those who have done nothing wrong. "Literally an reasonable interpretation has the potential to fly in court." Even if that were true, all that would mean is that we should make the laws concerning revenge pornography more clearly defined- not remove them altogether. By analogy, imagine the laws regarding murder were ambiguous- does that mean we should legalise murder? Or does it mean we should make the legal definition of murder more clear? I think we would unanimously agree on the latter. By "tradition dictates" I simply meant that it is simply the convention in most debating forums that any ambiguity in the motion counts against whoever wrote the motion and/or proposed that topic for debate, as in proposing a topic of debate, one incurs a responsibility to unambiguously define that topic. As such, any ambiguity in the motion should be considered to count in my favour, as Con was the one to suggest this topic, but they failed to unambiguously define it. I'm not entirely sure what Con means by "Yes they do, my article and reasoning show this while pro has nothing but her claim to show against it. Obviously my evidence should trump her's in this situation.". Perhaps it would be useful to re-word it in R5? "Does this mean only the first person making it available or does it mean anyone who makes it available to anyone who didn't previously have knowledge or the ability to access it? " I felt I made it clear that it only means the individual who originally published the material to the internet, or who re-published it after it was taken down. The motion "Revenge pornography should be illegal" is ambiguous, but it certainly seems closer to "Publishing revenge pornography online should be illegal" than to "Discussing the existence of revenge pornography online should be illegal", and I think we now agree that the former should be illegal. "they are all largely gone at this point because of the CIVIL laws." Civil laws are still laws. That which is illegal under civil law is still illegal. We seem to agree that it is a good thing that revenge porn is illegal under civil law, and hence we agree that it is a good thing that revenge porn is illegal. "She has not responded how criminalization would deter people and 500,000 dollar lawsuits and vast public humiliation through civil court wouldn't." That the former would deter people from publishing revenge pornography is axiomatic. I feel no need to justify it further. I do not need- or intend- to justify the idea that civil lawsuits do not deter people from publishing revenge pornography (clearly, they do) in order to argue the motion- the mere presence of civil laws makes revenge pornography illegal. In any case, Con didn't specify when writing the topic for discussion that revenge pornography should be illegal under *criminal* law rather than under *civil* law, and once again, this ambiguity should be considered to count in my favour, as is convention. "By taking and sending said photo or having it taken of you with consent, you are handing over your rights to said photo." No you are not. You still own the copyright to the photo, and are therefore able to press charges against an individual who violates that. See the following statement: "A person who commissions the making of photographs or films for private and domestic use has a right to privacy. That means that such photographs may not be issued to the public, shown in public, or communicated to the public without the permission of the person who commissioned the photograph or film. Photographs jointly commissioned entitle all the commissioners to a privacy right. The right to privacy subsists for as long as the copyright term of the work." (See source 6). Con clearly does not understand how copyright and privacy laws work. The claim that one forfeits the copyright of a picture after sharing it to a specific individual in a private context is ludicrous. "Unless you registered your nude photos or videos to copyright it, this has literally no affect on them." Once again, Con is showing an ignorance of copyright law. One does not need to register an item to own copyright of it- they simply have to be able to demonstrate that they were the one who produced it. See the following: "Copyright arises automatically, without the need for registration" (See source 7). Trademarks and patents require the registering of an item. Copyrights do not. "She then goes on to an appeal to emotion to try and paint me as having the same line of thought to justify rape" This was not an appeal to emotion, but rather a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument (see source 8)- I pointed out that the principle Con was proposing inevitably leads to the ridiculous conclusion that consent (whether in the context of pornography or in the context of physical sexual relations) to a single instance of something (i.e. showing a picture to one person, having sex with one person) constitutes consenting to that same thing in all instances (i.e. everyone seeing the picture, having sex with anyone). "Just because something is unreasonably harmful and malicious doesn't mean it is or should be illegal." Note the use of the word *unreasonably*; some harm, such as so-called "shitposting" and "white lies" may be deemed slightly harmful, but not *unreasonably* so- they don't cause severe psychological or sociological consequences. Things like the violation of ones bodily autonomy through rape or revenge pornography, or the violation of one's property, such as theft, or again, revenge pornograpjhy is unreasonably harmful as it causes severe negative consequences for the victim. That is why rape is (and should be) illegal and shitposting is not (and should not be). "Sue the person, that's fine and I support it. Don't throw them in jail!" I would consider this to be conceding the debate; nowhere in the wording of the motion did it suggest that revenge pornography should be illegal under *criminal* law rather than civil law, and nor did it suggest that a custodial sentence, rather than a fine or other punishment, should be dealt as a result of violating this law. So, to summarise my case: 1) Civil law is still law. That which is forbidden by civil law is, by definition, illegal. This includes slander, copyright law, and a whole host of other cases. Revenge pornography necessarily constitutes a violation of both slander and copyright laws, and as such should remain illegal. 2) Copyright law is clear; the usage of the picture belongs to the individual depicted in the picture (and the individual who took the picture if the two are different people). It does not become the property of whoever can get a hold of it, and most of Con's argument relies on this incorrect premise. 3) Revenge pornography does violate one's bodily autonomy. Con accuses me of "only provided her own personal view" but done exactly the same in response. I would like to ask the reader: do you believe that revenge pornography violates one's bodily autonomy? I'd assert that axiomatically it does, and I feel most people would agree with me. Sources: [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org...