Share your site.. Why? Read more.. - part 3

 You might want to check that again.

In the UK and most of EU a law was passed recently to hold the website owner accountable for content showing the sort of stuff you are talking about. You would be liable to prosecution and jail time. 

Its called profiting off sexual exploitation without consent.

Kinda like an online rape of someones sexual privacy.

Why would you want to host a site that does that anyway?

Kinda sick.

It looks as if "The Joker" has vanished. Good ! Too many sick people walking around on this planet.

 u mean like a zombie..

not surprised. 

Hosting sites like this is now illegal in most of EU, not sure about the US.

Jail sentence in the waiting... and just plain wrong!

 I figured he was the same person as Akathejoker who has several accounts and has been banned a few times.. Add another account and banning to the list..

Does anybody have a website built on Boonex with traffic more than 10.000 visitors per day?

 Yes. His name here is radefantasy.  You should send him a PM and ask him about his site.

Just saw this and in the USA such content is protected under the provision that allows Google to run YouTube with users posting the content.  Some are pushing for changes in the law for "revenge porn" and California, USA has passed a revenge porn law;  "... Los Angeles man posted a topless photo of his ex-girlfriend to her employer’s Facebook page and became the first person to be convicted under California’s revenge porn law on Monday December 31^st."  Note that it was against the man that posted the photo and not against the Facebook website.

 That's because it was a violation of Facebook's terms of service.  That's different than operating a site where such posts are intended to be the focal point of the site.

No, the man was not punished by FaceSucks, he was punished by the state of California under their law, so it would not matter if FaceSucks allowed it or not.  The problem is that the DMCA has a provision that is being used by these sites to allow them to operate; the content is from the users so the sites have immunity from prosecution as long as they follow the DMCA.  I feel that the sites need to be able to be targeted, to take them down; as well as the ones that publishes the revenge porn.

 You missed my point.... again.

The revenge porn sites need to go away, and the owners of those sites along with all the people that contribute content, need to crawl back into whatever drain they emerged from. 

I would imagine there's a few Dolphin based sites with this sort of theme, as well as various other slimy "adult" sites created by various lowlife scumbags.  When I spot one of them around here, and that happens often, I make sure I do nothing to help them.  What a pathetic way to try make money.

Well even if it wasnt illegal I'm sure the person In the pics could win a huge civil suit against a site owner who not only allowed the pics to be posted but actually encouraged it through the site theme. Its a horrible idea no matter how you look at it.

interesting this was just on the news this morning. 

There are several laws already in place that victims can use to prosecute both host sites, and the people posting. They are just not well known.

There are new laws being passed specifically for 'revenge porn' (named wrongly I think as this suggests the person in the pics / vids was the one who did wrong and not the poster!)

There was a case I read a while ago where some bloke had numerous sites set up, he got a prison sentence in the end along with hefty prosecution from lots of people. 

Then restate that point because you stated it was against FaceSucks policy which would indicate that you thought the man was prosecuted by FaceSucks when in fact he was prosecuted by the state of California.  I think you missed the point.  The DMCA does state that a revenge porn site must remove the content if a person files a takedown notice; and that the content is not copyrighted by the person that posted it.  California, and other states, have enacted laws against revenge porn.  My point was that under the DMCA revenge porn sites are legal; they operate under the law that allows YouTube to operate.  It is all about copyright actually.  Revenge porn sites often come back with "prove you own the copyright" and often ask for money to remove the content.

My point was simply that FB was not, and could not be held liable because the post was a violation of their TOS.  All FB had to do was show due diligence in removing the offending content... leaving the poster as the sole criminal.  That situation is a lot different than a site run by some scumbag that encourages the posting of such content.

You are reading way too much into the DMCA thing.  It's just a tool people try to use to get site owners to remove offending content by claiming copyright.... it rarely works.  Enforcing copyrights on artistic content is the reason the legislation was formed..... not to police scumbags postings pictures of their ex on some remote corner of the internet.