Ebay is a very useful website, with "terms of service" and rules on selling that are often stricter than laws in the "real world." It just has some blind spots that SHOULD be fixed before it's too late.
EBAY (and PAYPAL) are risking ruin just to get 60 cents commission on items that are not only offensive but ILLEGAL. Being "just a venue" doesn't absolve you of lawsuits and jail. Imagine CEO Devin Wenig spending a few years in the slammer because he knowingly was a PIMP to pedophiles and misogynists. Why risk it?
Ebay may not be responsible if a seller offers chloroform and it's used in a sexual assault (see: Braunstein, Peter). After all, eBay has a rule now. You can't sell chloroform, and if it's reported, the item is removed. BUT...eBay CAN be held responsible if it does NOT have a clear rule against such illegal activity as....THESE TWO ITEMS:
The sellers do not say they have PERMISSION to sell the photos. There is nothing about conforming to FEDERAL LAW, or having a "signed model release of age and CONSENT."
EBAY does not say in its TOS, that sellers can ONLY offer items for which there are SIGNED MODEL RELEASES OF AGE AND CONSENT. It should. Why not? What part of CONSENT do you find objectionable, Devin Wenig? YOU, Devin Wenig:
EBAY does not say in its TOS, that sellers can ONLY offer items for which there are SIGNED MODEL RELEASES OF AGE AND CONSENT. It should. Why not? What part of CONSENT do you find objectionable, Devin Wenig? YOU, Devin Wenig:
Only a DEVIL would refuse to correct a situation that involves TAKING ADVANTAGE OF WOMEN, and OBJECTIFYING WOMEN.
Sex without CONSENT is rape. It's assault. It's jail. If you're the pimp, you can go to jail right along with the whore. Would a judge rule that DEVIN WENIG is a pimp because he is making money from illegal sales that exploit women without their CONSENT?
PAYPAL and EBAY are making money from "ex wife" and "ex girlfriend" auctions that sell BECAUSE the implication is that this is REVENGE PORN.
PAYPAL and EBAY are making money from "ex wife" and "ex girlfriend" auctions that sell BECAUSE the implication is that this is REVENGE PORN.
There have been recent precedents about CONSENT on the Internet. Here's an example.
Dani merely "shared" a naked photo, and the woman, blurry in the background, was not easy to identify. Dani claims she made a mistake. EBAY and PAYPAL can't claim it's a mistake, when dozens of actresses have complained about sellers abusing and using their images...sellers that are STILL not suspended.
On EBAY, "my ex-wife" and "my ex-girlfriend" photos are being sold blatantly, in sharp, clear color.
On EBAY famous women are routinely humiliated, degraded, and visually raped so that EBAY's Devin Wenig and his employees can make a profit.
A very angry judge just might find that EVERYONE at EBAY and PAYPAL has profited from illegal sales that could have and should have been stopped.
Why risk this, Devin? Why risk this, PAYPAL?
A judge might look to typical sellers like JOHNSWELLSTUFF12 and ALANAVERY, who had takedowns against them and were allowed to keep going, and going and going. Most every one of the "dirty dozen" sampled here, have had takedowns. Some keep right on selling on the same victims, merely altering the spelling. "Tayler" Swift anyone? Ha ha. "T-a-y-l-o-r" Swift? Ho ho. Swift's VeRO rep is supposed to spend all day checking misspelled auctions? Why doesn't EBAY suspend sellers like this?
Why risk this, Devin? Why risk this, PAYPAL?
A judge might look to typical sellers like JOHNSWELLSTUFF12 and ALANAVERY, who had takedowns against them and were allowed to keep going, and going and going. Most every one of the "dirty dozen" sampled here, have had takedowns. Some keep right on selling on the same victims, merely altering the spelling. "Tayler" Swift anyone? Ha ha. "T-a-y-l-o-r" Swift? Ho ho. Swift's VeRO rep is supposed to spend all day checking misspelled auctions? Why doesn't EBAY suspend sellers like this?
Why has EBAY yet to add to their commendable "offensive materials" rules, a line that "ex-wives" and "ex-girlfriends" and "celebrity porn" are illegal on their site? Why is it that a photo of Michelle Obama naked could be removed because it's racially offensive, or a photo of a woman in a Nazi outfit dominating a man can be removed because it depicts "hate," but THIS is OK:
As Judd Apatow might phrase it, "What is so DELICIOUS" about a "fantasy" image of Selena Gomez being raped?
What if, instead of Selena's face Photoshopped into the image, it was MARIE OH HUBER, the legal counsel of EBAY? What if an employee showed it around, saying it was his "fantasy" that Marie get raped?
You can bet that employee would be fired. Maybe even arrested. Why is it that EBAY does not protect Selena Gomez and all celebrities, and all women who are being victimized on the site with "ex-wife" and "ex-girlfriend" images?
What if, instead of Selena's face Photoshopped into the image, it was MARIE OH HUBER, the legal counsel of EBAY? What if an employee showed it around, saying it was his "fantasy" that Marie get raped?
You can bet that employee would be fired. Maybe even arrested. Why is it that EBAY does not protect Selena Gomez and all celebrities, and all women who are being victimized on the site with "ex-wife" and "ex-girlfriend" images?
You don't "Fantasize" about a woman being raped. That's prurient interest, which is a definition of obscenity. EBAY so far has refused to do anything about "celebrity porn," where famous women are treated to degradation and humiliation for profit. It hasn't banned "ex-wife" images or other images that violate FEDERAL LAW by not having a signed model release of age and CONSENT.
The seller abusing Selena Gomez has nearly ONETHOUSAND auctions on the site, NONE of them legal, NONE of them with CONSENT, ALL of them offering stolen photos of celebrities AND stolen photos of porn models grafted together. These are some of them, all of them hateful and malicious and invasions of privacy. Invasion of Privacy (like taking a photo of a woman undressing in a health club) IS a crime.
The point of the "offensive materials" depicted above is pretty obvious. The seller is a misogynist and a racist. The idea is to "fantasize" about white women being raped, gang-banged, or having gleeful sex with black men. These are all cheap $6.00 pictures and EBAY and PAYPAL need the sixty cents they make off them?
PAYPAL supposedly has "Terms of Service" and definite rules against obscenity. Yet, when put to the test, they hide behind their Scientology-like wall of stooges, and resort to form letters, and rote speeches delivered by people trained to not even give out their real names when they answer the phone.
This is the 21st Century? This is happening at a time when Congressman Paul Ryan declares that women should NOT be "objectified," and that crude remarks by Donald Trump should not be tolerated?
Trump's remarks are mild compared to the images you see on this website.
Is it possible that DEVIN WENIG and MARIE OH HUBER are being "shielded" by their underlings, and don't know what's going on at EBAY in the "adults only" section? If that's the excuse, they should know that it's NO excuse under the law. It would be very sad for eBay's employees and stock holders to have serious problems arise because of cheap, underhanded $6.00 dupe photos posted by snickering and hateful sellers, sellers who have NO right to do it, are flaunting Federal law, and have NO statement of age or CONSENT.
Lastly, another recent case: ROLLING STONE is in deep trouble because they implied that somebody was behaving improperly in dealing with sexual matters. Let's just say ROLLING STONE would never run "ex wife" or "ex girlfriend" pictures or have a website where celebrities are wrongfully depicted as engaging in sexual acts. JOHNSWELLSTUFF12 and, in fact, most of the dirtiest sellers on eBay, insist their photos are REAL. That's a REAL offense called LIBEL.
No comments:
Post a Comment