Revenge porn should be criminalized.

I will first be responding to my opponents rebuttal then I may construct more on top of some arguments. 1. First amendment I think my opponent misunderstood this argument. This is talking about the unintended effects on the freedom of the press and the general populous. I illustrated that, usually tabloid, news sources would report on these pictures and link them or show them on their website and that this would be criminalized with this law. Also, people who link or share simply what they saw online or those sites that unknowingly hosted this would be subject to criminal prosecution. The point is, there is no legal definition that would be able to cover revenge porn initiators and not people who simply report/view it. Clearly is a violation of the first amendment. Furthermore, this speech isn't classified as the exception to the rule because it does not infringe on another person's rights. All the examples shown do this but revenge porn, in this context (reporters and viewers online) especially, does not. This point will be explained in point 4. 2. Ambiguous wording. Doesn't matter what pro's understanding is when this is an area with little to no legal precedent. Literally an reasonable interpretation has the potential to fly in court. This is because of vague legal wording surrounding these laws. Pro herself even admitted this. I have no clue what she means with the "tradition dictates" argument, but I didn't write the motion either. 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. " it is only the act of making such material available which should be (and currently is) illegal." This is exactly the problem. 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? This is the kind of ambiguity that is catastrophic in law. It messes up legal precedent, it falsely imprisons and prosecutes. 3. "Availability bias" That's not what I'm stating. I'm stating that revenge porn sites were the most horrific offenders of this and they are all largely gone at this point because of the CIVIL laws. I used this to say that civil laws were enough to deter revenge porn without needed to criminalize it. She has not responded how criminalization would deter people and 500,000 dollar lawsuits and vast public humiliation through civil court wouldn't. The pro's and con's show that criminalization is just not worth it. "It is precisely because revenge porn is illegal that it is not commonplace- this issue makes the case for banning revenge pornography- the ban works." That. Is. My. Point. CIVIL courts do enough to make it not commonplace. Thank you for proving my argument and show criminalization is not needed. 4. Somatic right or property right? The distribution of pornography of you without your consent is illegal and very well should be, but is this what revenge porn is? In short, no. Here's the long answer. By taking and sending said photo or having it taken of you with consent, you are handing over your rights to said photo. Once you send a photo to someone, it is no longer just yours. It is now both of yours. They can do what they want with their copy and you with yours. This is in no way ludicrous and Pro doesn't really explain why it is. Copyright law is nowhere near to this. This is because copyright law registered the photo or film legally. Unless you registered your nude photos or videos to copyright it, this has literally no affect on them. Possession doesn't indicate ownership but this isn't just that. This is the person GIVING the photo to someone. You can't reasonably say that if someone sent a document, whatever it may be, without any rights to said document beforehand, that that same person still has the right to dictate what the other does with it. That just doesn't make sense. She then refers to the false dichotomy of the copyright analogy. Copyright means you have legal ownership of the material. Nude selfies you just recorded don't legally belong to you the moment you send it to someone else. That person now has a copy that belongs to them. This is what pro does not understand and still has not refuted reasonably. In response to R3 rebuttals: 1. Slander is already illegal. She states that since slander is illegal revenge porn should be criminalized. This is not the same, as I've illustrated before. Slander is civil. In a civil court, revenge porn is already being prosecuted. She makes no point in this argument and I haven't negated that it should be illegal in civil court. 2. Somatic or Property rights? She claims I fallaciously equate the two but that in of itself is a fallacy. Another false dichotomy, when did I claim that consenting to GIVING a photo of oneself to another was consenting to it being leaked? I didn't. I just stated that it shouldn't matter in law. I explained this in my previous point 4. 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 is just another false dichotomy in an attempt to destabilize the voter's view of me. I feel like I've clearly shown why it's different and Pro has given no reason as to why it is a somatic right. She just stated it and threw out a couple of inapplicable analogies. 3. Malicious intent Another case of her saying it's a harmful act and therefore should be criminalized. This would and should not hold up in a court of law. One does not need consent to post pictures they themselves own. 4. Not all malicious behavior is illegal. Pro still doesn't adhere to the rights outlined in our society. Just because something is unreasonably harmful and malicious doesn't mean it is or should be illegal. This would make "Sh*tposting" illegal as well as calling someone a name online. We would not criminally prosecute either of these. Let me be clear, I am not equating the two. I am simply pointing out that Pro's definition of what should be illegal is very flawed. White lies aren't illegal because they don't infringe on other people's rights. Fraud does. It has literally nothing to do with how harmful it is, because that term is so very subjective. It's about one person's rights against another. That is how it should be. Response to summary: 1. I'm not talking about banning... I'm talking about criminalization. About throwing people into an already overcrowded system for sharing pictures they themselves own. Sue the person, that's fine and I support it. Don't throw them in jail! 2. Seems like we agree on this point, but Pro does not address how the status quo would potentially make innocent people guilty. 3. I agree... We aren't talking about banning. Just proves my point criminalization is not needed. 4. You do not have copyright of a photo just because you took it. You gave them a copy of a photo for them to own. 5. Slander should remain illegal. It's a civil court issue. Not criminalizing it doesn't make civil lawsuits against it any less valid. 6. Doesn't violate autonomy. Pro has literally only provided her own personal view with some bad analogies. She didn't explain why, she just stated it violated autonomy. Which it doesn't. 7. Again, horrible standard for deciding what's legal and illegal. Revenge porn shouldn't be an offense to be slammed into prison. Conclusion: No point of pro's stands. The only vote I can see here is me, Con.