> You can't ban content just because it offends someone,
  > there wouldn't be much content left, if any. Is religion
  > distasteful? Violent images of war? Gay marriage?

In fact, Reddit already has rules against this sort of content. From their user agreement: "You further agree not to use any sexually suggestive language or to provide to or post on or through the Website any graphics, text, photographs, images, video, audio or other material that is sexually suggestive or appeals to a prurient interest."

So what the pressure is really about is Reddit ignoring their own rules to benefit one of their personal friends, and a small horde of terrible people defending this decision by pretending that teenage upskirts are free speech.

Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait or some similar subreddit.

  > Haven't they already decided not to allow the pictures
  > of underage girls? I could be wrong, but I thought that
  > had happened a while ago with the closing of /r/jailbait
  > or some similar subreddit.

They do not ban the users who posted such content, and do not take measures to prevent them from re-creating the same subreddit under a different name.

Several clones of creepshots popped up and most of them got shut down pretty quick, so it looks like reddit has some kind of new rule but they haven't told the community what it is.

I'm pretty sure there were jailbait-clones set up that got shut down, too.

I like the rest of your argument, but this rule exists only on paper. This is lots of porn on reddit, both people posting self-shots as well as (almost assuredly pirated, but that's a separate discussion) professional porn.

Your description of "sexually-suggestive photographs of underage girls" is way off the mark.

The extent to which these photos were "sexually suggestive" was largely in control of the women concerned. If you're going to wear low-cut tops, yoga pants, etc. then a photo of yourself taken in public may be interpreted as sexually suggestive.

Contributors to the subreddit were just posting things they had seen in public. What's wrong with that?

I can sexualize whatever I like, thank you very much.

What is the long-standing issue that you would be preventing though? It's creepy and wrong to be sure, but say banning a specific subreddit with that content, what is the result of that action?

With doxxing you have documented cases of people being harassed based on people finding out their true identity. So banning doxxing helps to prevent situations where people are harassed outside of the site for the things they do on the site.

And banning posting candid sexually suggestive photos of kids helps to prevent the subjects of the photos from getting harassed at school when someone finds the photos online. I don't see why that should be any less important than trying to prevent harassment of people who take and post those photos.

At least the person who gets harassed over posting the photos is getting harassed for something he actually deliberately did, whereas the kid might be getting harassed for accidentally showing some cleavage or some underwear. Or maybe it is ultimately the kid's fault for not dressing like a Saudi woman when in public.

Or you could just answer my question.

I was specifically not litigating the enforceability of "creepiness" standards.

For what it's worth: Watching anime isn't creepy. Two males kissing isn't creepy.

I don't what sense this rule would would make. As long as nobody can google it (since no name) no one is hurt. So what?

/edit

Or why the consent of a random 17 year old girl has more value that the consent of a random 20 year old guy working at a random CoS org.

- no sexual comments

- no kids

- no candid shots (where the subject is clearly not aware of the picture)

There's plenty of lines that could be drawn there. Various people have played stupid that no combination of these rules simply couldn't work, but this isn't a brand new problem no one has wondered about before.

So again, I don't see the equivalence.

(boy it's hard to post a URL with a ' in it)

People in public spaces can be photographed without their consent. That's a very clear rule, at least in the US. See: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Because that is exactly what this is. A platform for the public humiliation of women who walk in public.

If we don't tolerate it for the guilty, why should we tolerate it for the innocent?