While violation of social media ToS is possible, I find it difficult to believe that a court would regard the sex crime angle of publishing one’s own photos online seriously. Otherwise anyone linking to their OF without asking for permission to send the link first would be a sex criminal.
It’s confusing cuz you lot are arguing about something that’s not happening.
“Oh what if she was a minor then it would be inappropriate” yeah it would be incredibly inappropriate if she was a minor, but since she isn’t, it isn’t.
To win an IIED claim, you need to prove the sender’s behavior was extreme and outrageous, they acted with intent to cause you severe emotional distress or with reckless disregard for that possibility, and that you suffered severe emotional distress as a result.
Another legal ground is invasion of privacy, specifically a claim for “intrusion upon seclusion.” This recognizes that individuals have a right to be left alone in their private affairs. Your direct messages, email inbox, and text message threads are considered private spaces. When someone intentionally intrudes by sending offensive material, it can be viewed as a highly offensive invasion of your privacy.
It would seem a very difficult argument to apply in this case.
While violation of social media ToS is possible, I find it difficult to believe that a court would regard the sex crime angle of publishing one’s own photos online seriously. Otherwise anyone linking to their OF without asking for permission to send the link first would be a sex criminal.
if only laws had logic
minors have been charged with creating pedo porn from their own photos
Yeah but she’s not a minor.
This comment section is very confusing.
yes I can see how life would be very confusing for some
It’s confusing cuz you lot are arguing about something that’s not happening.
“Oh what if she was a minor then it would be inappropriate” yeah it would be incredibly inappropriate if she was a minor, but since she isn’t, it isn’t.
yes I understand that you can state the obvious and not get it
If the intent is to shock or harm, or it can be argued that way, it’s usually best to avoid. If you care to read up, you’re welcome to it.
It would seem a very difficult argument to apply in this case.
But not impossible. It’s just an unnecessary risk.
Well, enjoy never leaving the house.
Hmm