9 years ago
5
Playboy Playmate could face jail time for body-shaming Snapchat photo
Playboy Playmate Dani Mathers is used to having her body on display. But back in July, the 29-year-old captured an unsuspecting older woman on camera changing in the locker room of an LA Fitness gym. She captioned the nude photo: “If I can’t unsee this then you can’t either,” and posted it to Snapchat. “There is no question that by her own caption that she intended to shame this woman and that’s the nub of the case,” said CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman.
Continue Reading
http://www.cbsnews.com
Join the Discussion
That's a pretty misleading title and article. She's not "facing jail time for body-shaming", she's facing jail time for violating privacy laws, most likely under 18 U.S. Code § 1801. Taking the nude photo of the lady in the locker room, without her consent, was the crime and she'd still be facing charges if she had been praising the woman's body instead of ridiculing it.
Headline involving Playboy Playmate fails to capture legal nuance, exploits lurid Zeitgeisty sex angle instead. More after the jump.
There's nothing nuanced about this. This is a blatantly deceptive title and misleading article from a major news outlet. If this were TMZ or Buzzfeed that'd be one thing, but from CBS News? Are you kidding me?
The Playboy Playmate Snapchatted a body-shaming photo, and could face jail time for it. Not seeing how this synopsis misleads, unless you’re saying that privacy violation can’t take the form of a body-shaming Snapchatted photo, which would be odd. Are you particularly concerned the reader might be given the impression that body-shaming itself is a violation of applicable federal law? Is the expression ‘body-shaming’ itself what’s grinding your gears? That someone, somewhere might because of this headline suffer a ‘chilling effect’ around their free and easy recourse to body-shaming? Maybe you’re just negging us?
To answer your question, Adelle, the problem is that this is a major media outlet editorializing to push a narrative. The narrative itself, and whether anyone agrees with it or not is irrelevant, the point is they shouldn't be doing it.
If they really felt the need to report more than just the facts, they could've at least focused on the actual issues raised by this case, like: "In a world where everyone has a camera in their pocket, with the ability to instantly broadcast anything world-wide, is there really such a thing anymore as a "reasonable expectation of privacy" outside of the home? It's still editorializing, but at least it's driving debate on an issue that's important to the public. They didn't do that. Instead, they decided to focus on the body-shaming, as if the caption on the photo mattered in the least.
So what I'm "particularly concerned" with is the fact that the media is now acting like a gossip column, trying to pass it off as journalism, and people are acting like it's no big deal.