Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

anewme wrote: »

Again, another totally incorrect assumption in the rush to blame those pesky "feminists".

The bill is not hastily written - it goes back to 2017.

But FG have taken this on as a crusade now
Can't help but wonder why?

Why is it good enough for FG now?
When 3yrs ago?
It wasn't!

banie01 wrote: »

What's even more interesting is the laws aren't hastily written.
There may well be a hasty amendment or 2 added, but the bill being pursued with such urgency by FG and by minister McEntee was outright rejected 3yrs when Labour originally authored it.

This is a 3 year old bill, that was rejected by FG that is now the highest priority of the FG arm of Govt and the currently under pressure justice minister.

Seems like anyone pointing a finger and asking why is this a priority now?
Is enabling exploitation...

Rather than asking what benefit does a minister who has partaken in what amounts to chicanery regarding the appointment of a SC judge, have to gain by suddenly becoming a feminist crusader and smiter of pornography sharers (rather than producers) has to possibly gain by such action?

anewme wrote: »

Ahhhh so everyone is out of step except the people here.

I would see the people here as not understanding the issues more than the legally written legislation.

When people push back against laws implemented to protect people, youd have to question their motives.

Now, maybe it wont be passed tomorrow- what do you think?

Are you of the opinion that an adult content creator who willfully takes and sells explicit photos of themselves, receive the same or similiar legal protection to those images being shared as underage kids and people whose intention it was to keep images private/unknowingly were photographed?

That, to me, is what the leglislation and those backing it are doing.

Batrachotox wrote: »

No I'm reporting what I've been told is there, as you say

I know
Sorry if I seemed a bit hyperbolic, but that's all anyone is doing because this great cache of CP containing explicit photos doesn't exist.

Yes there are creeps sharing Onlyfans, yes there are people aggregating hot girls photos from social media and even sharing those.
But that's not sexual offending assault or any flavour of anything other than a loss of income to one party and a lesson in privacy settings to the other.

The cache that was reported as the trigger for this is moving towards the back of the reasons to be outraged, to be replaced by what was done to Dara Quigley.

One of those is a heinous act worthy of punishment.
The other a copyright issue that is being conflated with sexual abuse.
It's also a convenient bandwagon for an underfire minister.

Legislation is needed, but look at the context?
Why was it no good 3 years ago? But suitable now?
Why the sudden jump to this being a government priority, when part of the Government who were actually in power 3 years ago shot it down.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

But according to those reporting the issue, the images are already in the public domain?

But, now they aren't?
Who took them down? Those nasty digital consent denying rapists?
If such a cache exists, do you believe discord was the sole means of sharing?
It's only those 500, and they never shared further?

How can it be both public? And not public?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
There is nothing connected to this leak ,yet 3 /4 girls on twitter have found tens of thousands of images and videos relating to the only fans leak ,

Gatling wrote: »

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
,

Is that you pope Francis?

seamus wrote: »

Showing my ignorance of OF now, but if the creator creates content for a reasonably large audience of clients; say 50 or 100, then there may be an argument that the reasonable expectation of privacy has been lost.

I'd hope this would be the case. But I have little faith in the ability of our legislators when they're reacting in kneejerk fashion.

I'm fine with laws against distribution of *private* sexually explicit material. Especially where it pertains to underage people.

But the law would have to be drafted in such a way that me downloading a copy of "Debbie does Dallas" (or "Debbie Does Dingle") and then giving a copy to my buddy isn't classified as a sex crime under the new law.

And if this new law doesn't cover "Debbie Does Dingle", I can't see how it would cover content from OnlyFans.

tjhook wrote: »

I'd hope this would be the case. But I have little faith in the ability of our legislators when they're reacting in kneejerk fashion.

I'm fine with laws against distribution of *private* sexually explicit material. Especially where it pertains to underage people.

But the law would have to be drafted in such a way that me downloading a copy of "Debbie does Dallas" (or "Debbie Does Dingle") and then giving a copy to my buddy isn't classified as a sex crime under the new law.

And if this new law doesn't cover "Debbie Does Dingle", I can't see how it would cover content from OnlyFans.

It's not a kneejerk reaction anyway, the law was written ages ago.

The proposed law is here for anyone who wants to read it; https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2017/63

It's pretty clear that any material that was not intended for an exclusive audience is not covered by the act. So your bootleg copy of Debbie does Dallas that you bought well-worn off a mate in 3rd year for a fiver, is OK.

There is a grey area in relation to material that is produced for private use; where that use is by a paying customer. But outside of that it's pretty straighforward.

If you had an ongoing arrangement with a sex worker where you paid her to send you sexy photos every few days, "to keep you going", you wouldn't be permitted to send those photos to someone else, unless she had explicitly said you could. If you did, you could be prosecuted.

And that's fair.

But if she had a private website with galleries that were available to all of her clients, then the question of prosecution is way more difficult.

seamus wrote: »

Depends


It hinges on the last part - "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Personally, I would say that OnlyFans is not covered, since images are not directly send or shared to a 3rd party.
They are put online and accessed by a 3rd party, either for free or after payment, potentially weeks or months after they were created.

If you're publicly advertising that you have all this content, should you expect privacy?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Quite the connoisseur.:pac:

I doubt there's anyone here who can have the moral high ground :pac:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Discord took it down apparently. I've no idea about other copies or versions, but presumably they would be under some level of restriction, so it's not a huge surprise that you haven't seen them.

Lol the good old oh they were taken down yet zero evidence to suggest try existed at all zero

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What other option did they have?

Are you fúcking serious?

Report the matter to the police.
Serious criminal offending is alleged, it should be actually investigated and prosecuted.

On the one hand we are expected to believe that serious harm, emotional, mental and coercive is being exerted upon the women this "boy" targeted?
Yet...

When they go on a solo run and identify the alleged perpetrator?
Rather than actually let justice run its course?
They tell his mammy?

How harmful were these boys alleged crimes?
Judging by the outrage generated without evidence, pretty serious.

But rather than take appropriate action and report it?
They let it go?
Wonder how his "victims' feel about that?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Discord took it down apparently. I've no idea about other copies or versions, but presumably they would be under some level of restriction, so it's not a huge surprise that you haven't seen them.

It never happened, it doesn't exist in the form the ladies involved have claimed.

Let's take Dara Quigley's unfortunate demise as an example.
That video went from being on a private Garda only WhatsApp group.
To being viewed over a 120000 times within 3 days

The garda shared the video to a WhatsApp group that included only other gardai.[6][4] By April 7 it had spread to other internet locations and was viewed over 120,000 times.[3]

From wiki.

These caches don't stay private, 500 people have had a ban from discord for reasons as yet unknown.
Those 500 people would all share such info on far more than just discord.

It would be downloaded and reshared.
That such salacious material is in the wild and hasn't hit a tipping point of becoming viral over a week later?
That no actual discussion of such a cache being shared in those places that facilitate such things?
That no-one other than those pushing the story have claimed sight or knowledge of the file?

It's not credible that any such file exists.

Gatling wrote: »

As someone who works with vaunersble Victims she should be sacked for essentially Carrying out a vigilante operation against a child and putting the child at risk of a violent backlash from his parents

The importance of this last point cannot be over emphasized.
If her claim is true, she took quite a deliberate decision to place a child in harm's way!

All whilst running a protect the children subtext to her claim of mass sexual exploitation of thousands of Irish women.

Actually ridiculously risky behaviour.