ha taht fuckign slut will never be able to cover her shame with copyright claims

>>2
I don't think J Law has anything to be ashamed of

what's nice about these photos in particular is they do not show her personality to be any different from how it is in public

aside from the fact that they are deliberately lewd and not intended for public dissemination her gesture, poise and personality all come through intact - the only hidden parts of herself she has exposed are the obvious physical ones

so I don't think these images can really be used to 'shame' her, she's clearly not deceiving anybody about who she is, I don't think the fact that everyone knows the shape of her nipples now is anything that can be calculated to bring her down as a person

clearly she's gonna be hurt and panicked that these are out there, and for that as much as I enjoy watching car wrecks I can be empathetic and understand why there's been radio silence from everybody involved since this stuff started happening - that said I fully expect J Law will be the first to make good out of this, and could possibly influence how people think about these sorts of personal invasions in future.

we've been waiting a long time for the first serious non-fucks-giver to refuse to buy in to the shame story - one or two recent cases have gone as far as saying they don't believe themselves to be at fault, but they haven't gone far enough

the idea of being shamed by exposure should clearly be outdated by now, it's leftover victorian nonsense, none of this ought to reflect badly on her

>>3
Then why is she trying to wipe these from the internet?

>>4
There's a big difference in being shamed by your nudes being on the internet and in taking sensible steps to censor them.

Can't claim to read her mind, but here's an attempt.

I don't think she's waging a personal crusade against the people who are reposting these images in an effort to hide the fact that she is a "fuckign slut".

The people who represent her more than likely just automatically agreed to hire the companies that already exist to get rid of this kind of stuff as soon as they offered their services. Those companies are fully aware of the streissand effect and that they won't ever get rid of the images completely - they just want them away from the main conduits and for everybody to stop talking about them and to move onto the next thing. Hence no interviews, no statements, just the fast deletion of images that pop up on the most popular websites, and pressure on the owners of those sites to censor them themselves.

As for J Law's own motives in not having her images be reposted constantly I think it's fairly obvious she'd rather not be talking about it forever and would like to carry on with promoting her work properly.

And it's worth noting that she's starring in films based on YA books, so it's in everyone's best interest that nudes aren't the first thing that happen when you search for Katniss Everdeen.

>>3
>>5

Finally someone that has some sense. So many virgins and prudes giving a fuck about nudity. So many drama queens. I don't give a fuck about it but one thing it has done is raised awareness for personal information security and making some companies take it seriously like Apple and Android.

>>6

She is the one giving all the fucks about the nudes. And shes a hypocrite for trying to hide them.

And alex of course is whiteknighting.

>>6
I do think it's possible to go too far and to make the entire thing about infosec and not about privacy invasion.

The blame / shame has to be shifted away from the people whose private photos have been stolen. And I would like those people not to be represented as victims, with all the ideas associated with victimhood.

What does need to remain though is empathy and respect for personal choice about privacy. I hope that's still possible after the successful destructuring of the shame myth.

fuck off dolores

>>7
She hasn't said a word about them either way. Can only imagine she's hurt by it and would like those photos to not be plastered everywhere.

Those images were gonna get deleted anyway by whoever represents her and in the interests of the studios she works for. She's not out on some personal revenge quest by herself to delete everything. It's in everybody's interest that the heat dies down and the images aren't highly visible.

For the most part it's working and outside of the people working hard to propagate the shitstorm endlessly the rest of the world has mostly moved on. Obviously it's still highly visible to fuckos like us who've lived on reposted images for years.

>>7

Hypocrisy is when you tell people to do a thing you don't do. But objectively, "hypocrisy" is a word started on a false premise that people are equal and that you should expect yourself to do what you expect of others. Sometimes you have to look out for yourself more than others, nothing wrong with that.

>>11

I don't make a living for being sexy

>>11
I still don't see any hypocrisy by either definition.

Jennifer Lawrence hasn't made any statement condemning people who take nude photos or aren't careful about security of accounts they use to hold personal things, nor has she said anything against censorship of other people's leaked images.

You could only claim Hypocrisy if Jennifer Lawrence was famously prudish or critical of people who send naked snapchats. She never has been, as far as I'm aware.

No one without her permission can ask for her nudes to be deleted. Only she has the copyright for her personal photos.

She is direcltly responsable for damaging an already damaged neet neutrality.

And shes a hipocrite because she lives of her image as a sex object like most actresess.

>>14

net*

Please don't make neet jokes.

>>14

It's okay to be a retard, it's being a militant retard that's not. And apparently you're trying to be very militant at being retarded. That's the dumbest shit I've heard all week.

>>14
"net neutrality" isn't applicable here. I'm not sure you know what it means.

Your ISP will serve your jennifer lawrence nudes with the same priority as your advice animals, there's no threat to net neutrality here. Censorship is a different question.

She may have final copyright over her own image, but as you well know DMCA requests can be filed by anybody with the most tenuous of links and will just be honored by default. She's hardly likely to sue her representatives to stop them making takedown requests because she feels like her integrity is being damaged. She has plenty of non-hypocritical reasons to want them disappeared, as outlined above.

Your framing of her being an actress making her a sex object is a problem with your perception (and to a lesser extent the cooperation of the industry in pandering to the whole 'male gaze' thing).

This is my last response to this thread. I've exhausted all my points and I'm bored of trollfeeding.

>>6

Why is slut shaming wrong but virgin shaming is still ok?

>>19

Because different people think different things are wrong? Are you retarded or trolling?

>>20
If you apply that logic to yourself, you are retarded. Different people think different things, that doesn't mean they are trolling. Understand?

>>19
>>20
>>21

retards

trading for cracky rares

>>22
who's that?