German court rules against "revenge porn"

If you've got x-rated photos of your ex stored somewhere on your phone, and your ex is unhappy about it, you might be legally obligated to delete them.

At least if you're a German citizen.

In a verdict published on Tuesday, a German court ruled a local man should have deleted erotic photos of his now-former girlfriend as soon as she asked him to, according to The Guardian.

In explaining its decision, the court argued that the girlfriend's personal rights trumped the ownership rights of the boyfriend, according to the The Local, an English-language German newspaper.

It's a ground-breaking ruling on "revenge porn" -- a type of porn in which people publicly post intimate photos of their exes -- as it asks involved parties to delete photos before they're even public.

There was a good chance a German court would be the first to rule so strictly on this subject. The country has some of the world's most intense privacy laws, a product of rules put into place after World War II, according to The New York Times.

lovedust wrote:
(O/T) Ben, why do Americans say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less?

lovedust wrote:
(O/T) Ben, why do Americans say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:
(O/T) Ben, why do Americans say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less?

I always say "I couldn't" because that's correct; we get a lot of people using incorrect forms of phrases like that. I think it's largely the fault of people reading less and not encountering the properly-formed phrases in books and articles.

Some others that drive me up the wall:

Li-berry (library)

"Card shark" (instead of card sharp)

This one makes me crazy: "For all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" -- I've even had reporters turn in stories with the wrong version

Responding to a request with "we'll do" (the royal we?) instead of the correct "will do"

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:
(O/T) Ben, why do Americans say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less?

I always say "I couldn't" because that's correct; we get a lot of people using incorrect forms of phrases like that. I think it's largely the fault of people reading less and not encountering the properly-formed phrases in books and articles.

Some others that drive me up the wall:

Li-berry (library)

"Card shark" (instead of card sharp)

This one makes me crazy: "For all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" -- I've even had reporters turn in stories with the wrong version

Responding to a request with "we'll do" (the royal we?) instead of the correct "will do"

lovedust wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:
(O/T) Ben, why do Americans say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less?

I always say "I couldn't" because that's correct; we get a lot of people using incorrect forms of phrases like that. I think it's largely the fault of people reading less and not encountering the properly-formed phrases in books and articles.

Some others that drive me up the wall:

Li-berry (library)

"Card shark" (instead of card sharp)

This one makes me crazy: "For all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" -- I've even had reporters turn in stories with the wrong version

Responding to a request with "we'll do" (the royal we?) instead of the correct "will do"

Thankyou...

Regarding the OP: is there some downside to the ruling I can't see? It seems to be the moral thing for the court to do.

Ben_Reilly wrote:In fact, I think we should replace all the rules here with "don't be a dick."  ::D:: 

lovedust wrote:
(O/T) Ben, why do Americans say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Thankyou...

Regarding the OP: is there some downside to the ruling I can't see? It seems to be the moral thing for the court to do.

No downside as far as I'm concerned. I guess the news here is that this is one of the first legal rulings on a situation like this.

Another example of legal codification of the general moral principle, "Don't be a dick"

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

lovedust wrote:

Thankyou...

Regarding the OP: is there some downside to the ruling I can't see? It seems to be the moral thing for the court to do.

No downside as far as I'm concerned. I guess the news here is that this is one of the first legal rulings on a situation like this.

Another example of legal codification of the general moral principle, "Don't be a dick"

hmmm...in which case...since what constitutes "being a dick" is entirely subjective, no one would be able to do ANYTHING....

victorisnotamused wrote:only for yourself...

victorisnotamused wrote:Yes...but...

define...when theres no call for it....

depends entirely on your point of view....

victorisnotamused wrote:"the same" ???

this is what i mean by subjective...YOU may consider an act (or indeed ommission) a mere minor slip, but that same thing may be seen by another as a mortal insult

victorisnotamused wrote:i would argue that that isnt objective, but consensus of opinion...

for instance WE would consider killing and eating your neigbouring tribesman fairly "dickish", Others, less "blessed" with civilsation however, consider it an honourable thing to do... ::dunno:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:i would argue that that isnt objective, but consensus of opinion...

for instance WE would consider killing and eating your neigbouring tribesman fairly "dickish", Others, less "blessed" with civilsation however, consider it an honourable thing to do... ::dunno:: 

They're wrong, it is dickish to eat your neighbor. I'm seriously not afraid to go out on a limb on this issue, I'll shout it from the rooftops -- EATING PEOPLE IS WRONG, I SAY!!!!