People weaponizing “non consensual porn” to attack this are going to also need to ban pencils, keyboards, and police thoughts. good luck!
and merry christmas
and merry christmas
The ease of it matters.
It’s ok to look in shop windows, therefore it’s ok to look in any window, therefore it’s ok to use ultra telephoto lenses to photograph naked people in their homes.
It’s hypocritical to ban fully automatic machine guns if you don’t also ban pillows, because both can be used to kill people.
And so on. There is a whole personality type that seems to be based on holding views that depend on ignoring all context in order to produce absurd results while claiming to be highly principled.
Can we both agree that you should be able to purchase a kitchen knife without a special license? (in parts of China, you can't). Do we both agree that allowing people to have personal nuclear weapons is probably a bad idea and shouldn't be legal?
If we can agree on those two things, we're actually on the same side of the argument. The only difference is where we draw the line. I might draw it at "you can buy a sword but not a gun" - you might draw it at "you can buy a gun but not a bazooka". But we both realise that some things can be given to people and handled responsibly (like a simple knife) but other things can't (like large amounts of explosives)
Occasionally you'll meet a person that says "no I think people should be allowed to have nukes" or "no, we should ban all sharp objects" in which case you can dismiss a whole like of reasoning, i.e. arguing where to draw the line, because the person's made it clear there is no bounded limit, and they are not open to debating that.
Other examples of scales where, if you can't establish boundaries, there is no point debating that person;
- can we forgive a child for accidentally killing a small animal? If so, can we forgive Hitler for genocide?
- can I draw a caricature of a famous person? If so, can I make deepfake porn featuring my neighbour?
- can I push a burglar out of my house when he breaks in? If so, can I execute anyone who enters my property?
I’m also reminded of the old “would you sleep with me for $1m” joke: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
Not really anybody wants to be "First Amendment auditors" or the guy in Warren v Brandenburg, but they forced the issue to establish/discover limits.
If what was legal was simply "what is average/normal/reasonable" then that likely would mean much less freedom.
You can also be influenced socially through media (etc) either direction over time to change what the definition of "reasonable" is. Remember that Barack Obama ran on the now "extreme" position (that many non-Western countries like Japan still holds) that marriage is between a man and a woman only, a little more than a decade ago. Conversely, gay marriage was "extreme"/fringe back then.
For the porn example: Is it because one is often thought to be completely accurate, causing a distorted/wrong view of the world? Is it speed of creation? Is it how easily people can learn to do it? Is it automatability? Is it fine detail and accuracy?
Using a telephoto to peer into someones window is also illegal as they typically have an expectation of privacy.
Photoshopping a movie stars face onto a nude body has been around a long time and much of the fake porn of famous people was done this way, probably mostly by individuals. Please give it a google if you doubt me, at your own risk.
In the US, in NY at least, they do not. A case about exactly this (telephoto lens photography through someone else's window, later displayed as art) didn't survive a motion to dismiss. This was upheld on appeal. Foster v Svenson (2015).
That very much depends on where you are. In US, they're not banned in most states, although they're quite expensive to get, and there's a lot more paperwork than usual.