Porn Wikileaks

[moresby]

Hi everyone: today, googling 'porn wikileaks' you'll find scores of links.

Some a##hole got access to medical files somewhere in a Californian medical center and, being a sexuophobic (and homophobic too) decided to publish datas: mostly real life names, even STD positive status, presented with offensive titles (like pornographic whore, hooker, cocksucker faggot... -sorry, I'm just quoting)

Moderators, erase the quotations if you have to, but this just gives an idea of what pile of manure is inside the head of the author(s) of this thing.

There is nothing 'heroic' or cool in making public infos like these.

You may be in favour or against what Julian Assange did with Wikileaks (people have to be informed to control and judge their leaders and their governments actions, yet these informations might ruin diplomatic relations), but this is not revealing data governments -or major companies- keep secret to the public: it'is just the will to ruin the private life of people working in the porn business.

[shodan2011]

Sharon Mitchell's guaranteed to be rather angry, as the data was stolen from her clinic. She's having a bad time of it at the moment.

I don't really see what is going to be achieved by this. If people in the porn industry want to use an alias, then frankly it's nobody else's business. Whoever decided to leak this clearly has an issue with porn, for some reason. Or they have an issue with Sharon Mitchell. Either way, people's private information should be just that - private. This clown has no business releasing the info he has and not give a toss about the consequences.

[murph]

Sounds like the work of a right-wing nutjob.

[Brecht]

Revealing personal data (like health) is not the same as exposing politicians. Diplomatic relations won't be ruined for sure because it's the people who get pranked. And this "pornleaks" fool must be a Christian right-wing nutjob.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Norbert84

...And this "pornleaks" fool must be a Christian right-wing nutjob.

Doesn't have to be Christian or right-wing, Norbert

It could be an infected performer

Or it could be a father, or a brother, or a husband

Or any religious type, who disagrees with promiscuous sex

Or a "freedom of speech" libertarian

... or it could be a Christian right-wing nutjob, who is an infected ex-performer who also infected his wife, but has now found The Lord... so you could be right after all

[ubu_roi]

It's wrong, it's intrusive, and most of all, by revealing real names, it could cause tremendous problems with stalkers, self-styled "porn avengers", etc. Enough is enough.

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by palo5

Doesn't have to be Christian or right-wing, Norbert

It could be an infected performer

Or it could be a father, or a brother, or a husband

Or any religious type, who disagrees with promiscuous sex

Or a "freedom of speech" libertarian

... or it could be a Christian right-wing nutjob, who is an infected ex-performer who also infected his wife, but has now found The Lord... so you could be right after all

You could be right but revealing names and calling them whores and cocksucker faggots tells me that this person thinks he's on a "mission".

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by palo5

Or a "freedom of speech" libertarian

No, because a genuine libertarian understands that freedom of speech should not interfere with an individual's right to privacy and that things like medical information should absolutely be convered by privacy. I speak as one of those "freedom of speech libertarians."

There is no true absolute freedom of speech, not in the US, no matter what the first amendment says, not anywhere, except perhaps the chambers of the Houses of Parliament in Westminster (as granted by the Bill of Rights (1689), for those that know their UK constitutional history).

[MaxJoker]

We all have our personal valid opinions fellow members , but let`s remember to keep the debate to a reasonable level and not use terms in posts which might cause offense .

As it`ll only be removed , and if enough such posts have to be removed also this thread will be considered a time drainer and deleted.


So let`s try and behave in a way those being discussed never would , ie like gentlemen

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by penfold007

There is no true absolute freedom of speech, not in the US, no matter what the first amendment says, not anywhere, except perhaps the chambers of the Houses of Parliament in Westminster (as granted by the Bill of Rights (1689), for those that know their UK constitutional history).

Even this freedom is limited to legal immunity.If grossly misused the individual would be disciplined by the Speaker and his Party leader.It's only intended to allow members freedom to do their job.