[ b / c / d / f / o / q / r ] [ home ]

/q/ - Site Feedback

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
:
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]

File: 1567526663299.jpg (16.63 KB, 238x228, 1181689798193.jpg) ImgOps Google iqdb

5564a No.1115

Having an unusual fetish is one thing, we all like some weird stuff. But no matter what you're into, taking photos of people without their knowledge or consent and posting them on a site like this one is wrong. So I am very politely asking the mod team to give an official word on the matter of creepshots. Just because we're kinky bastards doesn't mean we shouldn't be ethical about it.

7d2e5 No.1116

>>1115
Thanks for the input, this was an issue addressed on preggophilia. I don't think it's legal and moral to do that: taking any pics of strangers unknowingly.

6ef51 No.1117

>>1116

Also, just a reminder. The NSA has eyes, ears, and hands everywhere. And there is a gradual fetish purge going on so this could get us in serious trouble.

a304f No.1118

I don't think we should have candids on this site, but let's be clear, it's not illegal. There's a reason why paparazzi get to endlessly harass celebrities in public areas. In America at least, what you take a picture of in public is your business, no matter how fucked up it is. It's the one overreaching part of journalistic protections here.

a304f No.1119

Of course, the operating phrase there is "in public" the bathroom ones are 100% illegal

5564a No.1120

>>1118

Whether or not it's technically legal, it's still a fucked-up thing to do and we shouldn't encourage it here.

a304f No.1121

>>1120
Agreed, just trying to shut down the conspiracy theories before they take a life of their own

762dd No.1122

I'd argue that the people posting Anne Frank pics outside their containment thread/unrelated threads are worse but ok

2574f No.1123

Honestly, I'm kind of torn on this. My gut feeling is one of distastefulness, but is it really that much worse than taking photos from social media without consent?

61c30 No.1124

>>1122
This should probably take priority.

2b6aa No.1125

File: 1567539520640.jpg (50.91 KB, 931x524, 013114_hn_obesity_640.jpg) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>1118
No it is illegal to take a photo of a private citizen. The person that posts the image has to prove the subject had no expectation of privacy. As seen by every time the news talks about obesity they go to a Walmart parking lot and film customers from behind to make fun of them, you at least have to obscure their face. pic related

There's been a few cases in recent history that people might have heard of that cover this. Peter Theil vs Gawker and related Hulk Hogan vs Gawker. Also the case of the Kid that got dragged by the media for grinning at a native American when you come to find out he didn't do shit and the video was cropped to make him and his class look bad. The defendants in all these cases had to argue that the subjects lost their right to privacy. Though in Theil's case it was not photos but an expose on his sexuality. Gawker argued he's rich therefore they have to right to snoop on him.

And you cannot post images of children without parental consent, period.

The big thing is you can get away with it most of the time because the subject isn't likely to find out what you did. If they do you can get sued, which is why most sites take it seriously if they are asked to take down shit.

2b6aa No.1126

>>1125
Correction it's not illegal to take the photo since that would make vacation pics illegal, but it's illegal to share in ways that presume you're trying to profit or bring attention to the person.

a304f No.1127

>>1125
your conclusion doesn't really match the opening statement. you're correct about the peter theil and hulk hogan, but both of those cases took place on private property, which I mentioned in the post just below that one >>1119 . and yeah, kids are given a lot of credence if it ever comes up in a courtroom.

Yet it is still entirely legal to take pictures of people in a public setting in America. This is why security cameras, wide angle shots of tourist locations, parks, paparazzi, etc are legal. If the national inquirer had to get verbal consent from celebs every time they took a shot, there would be no national inquirer, because nobody in their right mind would give their consent to those urchins.

2b6aa No.1128

>>1127
It doesn't match if you ignore the fact I said Private citizen and the whole argument in the case with the kid is when someone becomes a public figure and whether the news has to take more care in making that call.

Also the second post.

a304f No.1129

>>1128
wow. we both made the exact same mistake. I need to go lie down before I get a migraine from my own stupidity.

ca66d No.1130

Its in a Public space, there is no nudity of the subject and no real invasion of privacy, no one is harmed, no one makes any profit, and no one is defamed.

4bccd No.1131

>>1130
It's still fucking creepy tho

ca66d No.1132

No more than most things on this site

5564a No.1133

>>1132

Most things on this site are either A) people that don't actually exist or B) people who have knowingly put pictures or videos of themselves out there with the intent of them being seen. There is a clear distinction.

>>1122

And if it was up to me, this shit would be banned to, but that's not what this thread is about.

b8444 No.1134

Come on. Why is the morality police on pregchan now?

The worst that would realistically come of this is someone sending a DMCA request about the pictures and then you just take them down. Why are you on a pregnancy fetishism website if you think some of this stuff is creepy?

Just get over yourself.

8b655 No.1135

>>1134
Exactly. Fair bet that 90% of the pics out there on social media would be taken down or set to friends only if the subjects knew they were being passed around here. And then there goes your content. Candid pictures isn't some massive moral distance from "unintentionally viral social media selfie".

8b655 No.1136

>>1135
Putting it another way, if I have to skip pregnant-with-a-dick threads or fucking Anne Frank threads, then if seeing candid shots makes you feel icky, skip those.

97127 No.1137

>>1135
>And then there goes your content.
It’s weird how people can make such a naked admission that what’s happening is wrong and then twist around and say “that’s why we SHOULDN’T do anything.

0dea3 No.1138

I tried going on that thread once. I felt. . . dirty. Please remove.

27c04 No.1139

>>1137

Who said anything about wrong or right? I'm saying that if every time someone posted a pregnant picture of themselves to social media they got a reminder window that says "if you leave this on public, pregchan will eventually get ahold of it", most of the actual pictures posted here wouldn't be available. So acting like it's OK to gank those pictures - where the poster might have a (naive) expectation of "friends and family only" - but somehow posting pictures of someone walking around in public is completely streng verboten, is disingenuous.

2eb4e No.1140

The underlying problem with this thread is that on this chan we have:
- Threads dedicated to pregnant under-age drawings
- Threads dedicated to gore
- Threads dedicated to abortion
- Threads dedicated to incest
- Threads dedicated to morphing celebrity images
- Threads dedicated to morphing IRL photos
- Threads dedicated to shopping an alien fetus onto a pregnant belly
- And, how can we forget, threads dedicated to Anne Frank and her sweet southern gentlemen.

If we start complaining what's creepy and what's not, then there were MANY other things on this site that you could start with.
I don't like the candid shots either, but I'm choosing to ignore it like I do with every other thread of things on this chan I'm not personally in to.


If you can ignore the gore, the lolis, the abortion, incest, morphs, and even Anne Frank, you can ignore the candid shots.

4020f No.1141

Just don’t click it

5564a No.1142

>>1140

As distasteful as I personally find many of those things (some more than others), the majority of them involve, as said before, people who either don't exist or deliberately put pictures of themselves out there. This is not a matter of "I don't like your fetish", this is a matter of "this thing you're doing is legitimately creepy and you should not do it".

I'm a huge proponent of the philosophy of "if you don't like it, click the hide button", which is what I do with alien threads and gore threads and everything like that. But this isn't just something I don't want to see, it's something that people should not be doing.

53e47 No.1144

Of course this comes up when I'm on vacation…

First and foremost, do not post any criminal content.

Do not post CP or any pictures of real minors that could be construed as such.
Do not post your manifesto and plans to shoot up an abortion clinic.
Do not post anything else that will obviously cause the site to be shut down.

As a matter of course, I won't remove controversial content as long as it's legal under US law. However, I will respect explicit requests from content creators and subjects to remove their content.

Other than that, just don't be annoying. Don't spam things that aren't relevant (Anne Frank). Don't get involved in long, stupid, pointless flame wars and bickering. Reasoned debate and discussion is encouraged. No doxing/harassment campaigns - take the drama somewhere else.

61c30 No.1145

>>1144
Thank you for clarifying things Couchy.I know you can't be monitoring the site 24/7, but I think the "doxing" is the final manifestation of people's frustration at a perceived lack of moderating. I see how it could be labeled as harassment, but is it really doxing if these people have their real names and photos on or linked to the social media account that they use to post about pregnancy?

f1431 No.1148

File: 1568166828846.jpeg (797.44 KB, 1762x2379, 0875AD29-3648-4B50-B2E3-1….jpeg) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>1140
>Anne Frank and her sweet southern gentlemen

Honestly, one of the best pairings ever. The cute, naive, innocent, free-spirited, and open-minded Jewish girl from the cultured and civilized Netherlands. A damsel-in-distress, whose life is threatened by a terrible evil preying upon the land. And the fiery, battle-hardened, devout, aristocratic, and deeply Christian Southern soldier from a mysterious, far-away land, known as Dixie. A modern day knight, fighting for hearth and home, and his love.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

caf40 No.1149

>>1148

Based Couchy enforcing the rules

a304f No.1150

It was bound to happen eventually

762dd No.1151

>>1148
Yeah, I'm thinking Couchy's based

61c30 No.1152

>>1148
Thank you Couchy! I think you should also delete the image.



[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ b / c / d / f / o / q / r ] [ home ]