It isn't someone's awkward use of the phrase "revenge porn". It is that there are these weird people who hate porn and they go out of their way to attack it.
I've even seen someone using "NCII" (non-consensual intimate imagery) in a tortured fashion to talk about NCII which doesn't have real people in it (which is a contradiction of what the term even means).
"By definition, pornography is consensual."
I think that what people who talk like this miss is that bad actors already like to use the word "abuse" in completely inappropriate situations where there is no abuse.
Put it simply, it doesn't matter to them if the actor consented, it is more whether the themes offend them, or maybe they just don't like porn.
https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-don-t-let-anyone-own-the-law
"Court after court has recognized that no one can own the text of the law. But the Pro Codes Act is a deceptive power grab that will help giant industry associations ration access to huge swaths of U.S. laws. Tell Congress not to fall for it."
#FreeSpeech #copyright
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1818965347342361018
"So if you click through to the press release, you'll see they did prostitution stings while Comic Con was happening and called it. “sex trafficking” operation"
"adult potential victims of sex trafficking"
Hmm... That is interesting language. I hope they're not using the terms interchangeably as that would confuse things. One seems murkier than that (although, they didn't have to do it like this to go after that one).
It's not clear it has anything to do with the event, they chose to run their operation at the same time as it, and across the city.
Since there is an inquiry in NSW about online porn which might be taking submissions, here are some porn science points (among other things) which might be worth considering. It largely debunks anti-porn talking points. #auspol
QT: https://qoto.org/@olives/112853953984247398
https://edri.org/our-work/empowering-people-to-flourish-and-thrive-a-vision-for-our-digital-future/ Unless you already understand what they're about, this is hard to follow.
I suspect a lot of it though is just low effort grifting to raise funds and the like. This sector has a tendency of doing that.
For a weirder example of the explicitly specific language, there is the straightforward language of "distribution", but they might want someone to explicitly cover "streaming". This doesn't make a practical difference. It's pure pedantry. Someone is still transporting x bytes from machine a to machine b. That sounds like distribution.
It's not surprising coming from people who clearly don't understand the Internet. They probably view one as a parcel and the other as a window.
It's honestly disturbing that a few people with strange ideas (and from one particular country) can go around trying to peddle their censorship prescriptions.
Let's suppose it wasn't the U.K., let's suppose it was the same circumstances but involved Russia, or I dunno, Ireland. It still wouldn't be good.
This sort of mentality can be troublesome though, as someone might focus on minor crimes, rather than say, improving social supports.
While ECPAT is supposedly an international group, their circle of people who I've seen engage in policy discourse tend to be overwhelmingly British, and are even said to have links to the British Conservative Party which has veered into the far right. It is said that they have a religious background.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights. Anime. Liberal.