Revenge porn should be criminalized.

"Pro has not shown that it is a problem with bodily autonomy she has just stated it to be that way. I have used logic and legal interpretations to show that it shouldn't be a somatic rights issue but a property rights issue." Whether something violates bodily autonomy or not is axiomatic- all we can do is assert that it does (or does not) or use analogies to attempt to demonstrate this. Con's argument has no more "Logic" than mine, and lacks any use of legal information. "Pro has not provided evidence that shows you have a copyright and legal ownership of the picture, I have shown that you do not. Therefore, this argument is null and void." I have provided plenty of evidence of the legality of the copyright system: "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." "Copyright arises automatically, without the need for registration" See sources 6 and 7 in the previous round. "the defendant has made such "revenge pornography" available on the internet where such items were not yet available. " No, if they posted a link to an article which discussed the matter; for such articles to exist, the material must already have been available online. Hence, the defendant did not make it available online where it wasn't already, and hence they have not committed any transgressions. "criminalization, which is incarceration of the perpetrators of that crime" Making something illegal does not necessarily mean a custodial sentence as a result of breaking that rule- for instance, one can be fined for failing to pick up their dog's faeces, but they'll never be placed under custodial sentence for it. Though I feel a perfectly valid case could be made that those who publish revenge pornography to the internet should be placed under a custodial sentence, I feel such a case needn't be made, as the motion carries provided it should be illegal in any form, which includes fines and civil law procedures. "You are advocating for the ambiguous laws and I against." I have clearly defined the terms of the laws I am defining. Con failed to define the terms of the debate clearly. Ambiguity is his fault, and should count against him. "This is stating that in the argument you don't have anything but your opinion to back up your claims. I have articles and logic as well as my opinion so my interpretation should be preferred." I have also provided external sources and logic. See my previous arguments. "This definition is so easily manipulated to include anyone to just tweet about it's existence." No it's not. The definition I provided is clear an unambiguous, and Con seems to be deliberately misunderstanding it because doing so helps his case. "The definition is stating about photographs or videos that are kept by that individual, not shared with someone else. Once you give someone that photograph, you lose all rights to that copy of the photograph." This is not- and never has been- true. See sources 6 and 7. They are referring to any media taken by an individual regardless of whether they are shared with someone or not. That person has permission to use that image for their own personal use, but they do not own copyright to it or have the right to distribute it across the internet. "The definition is stating about photographs or videos that are kept by that individual, not shared with someone else. Once you give someone that photograph, you lose all rights to that copy of the photograph." Revenge pornography violates a person's rights in exactly the same way- it violates their bodily autonomy, and their copyright to the picture of them. "The right's of a person is not subjective" Yes they are. Look at what society conventionally considers to be rights- they're all about protecting an individual from harm. "Rights" are no less subjective than "harmful", and the former is determined by the latter. "This debate can really only go towards Con because I have credible and applicable citations whereas pro is reliant on subjective opinions." Absolutely ludicrous- Con has provided a single external link to a blog based on one person's opinion. I have provided multiple external links to unbiased sources talking about the factual nature of various civil and criminal laws. My citations are clearly more numerous, more factual, and more reliable than Con's. Summary: 1) Revenge pornography constitutes a violation of copyright law. Hence, it should remain illegal. 2) Revenge pornography constitutes a violation of slander laws. Hence, it should remain illegal. 3) Revenge pornography violates an individual's bodily autonomy in a similar way to rape, and both should be (and are) punished under *criminal* law. 4) Appropriate protections are made that those who are not doing anything wrong are not damaged by these laws- no one is going to jail for blogging about the existence of revenge pornography. 5) Due to such safeguards, freedom of speech is protected. I feel the case has been sufficiently made that revenge pornography should remain criminalised; it is harmful, slanderous, a violation of bodily autonomy, and in breach of copyright law. Sources: [9]: http://www.inbrief.co.uk...