( And very possibly not even Hannum! )
They say we are ‘free society’ but we all know that nothing is free. Everything has a cost and I think that while it should be OK to promote and create just about anything, there should be a cost to intentionally creating something false at the expense of someone who is unaware their image or their work is being used to promote something they have not consented to. Whether it’s the “fake news” we hear about, or knowingly attributing quotes to the wrong person, these things should be permissible…………but come, like everything else, at a reasonable cost. My suggested price-tag is simple:
After all, the average person has ten fingers, so losing one is not the end of the world. And if something is really important to you, what’s one finger? Losing a finger to something you really believe is important demonstrates your commitment. Below is my proposed list of things that should definitely be permitted……..but only at the cost of a finger:
-fake news. If you create fake news just to screw with people and manipulate sentiment, the next time you manipulate anything, it should be with one less finger.
-assigning someone's clever quip to someone more famous ( the Freudian "assholes" quote that was actually created by Debihope on Twitter was what started this finger idea.) Misquoting someone accidentally, or out of ignorance should not cost a finger, however..............just ridicule.
-deleting someone’s name from their work and posting it as an anonymous piece
(I've had this happen to me)
-altering someone’s art or writing without their permission and having it appear that it is their original work (removing the original dialog from a cartoon and replacing it with words the cartoonist never penned.)
(I've had this happen to me, as well.)
-altering someone else’s work and having it appear as your own work…..(this should probably cost two fingers, but I’ll settle for one to keep the law simple)
(And yes, this too has happened to me.)
-Photo-shopping relatively innocent images to add prurient aspects that in no way are connected to the individuals being manipulated. As a spanking enthusiast, my best example would be the adding of pink patches to the behinds of people who may not be in any way connected to, or interested in spanking, like so:
(This adorable bit of exposure can be found on blogs all over the 'spankosphere'. It resonates with people because it is an acutely embarrassing public display of a usually private kink....should such a thing happen as shown. Unfortunately a quick "Search Google for this image" eventually reveals:
Ta-da! Where did the pink go? Wow, this lady heals quickly, eh? Nah, this was somebody's prurient little project and should cost a finger.
( Just LOOK at this! This poor girl (somebody's daughter) had a nice picture taken of her that made it onto the Internet and someone cheesily inserted a crapily Photoshopped switch into her hand and added dialog that is in no way connected to her gesture, pose, or expression, and is probably NOT something this little lady was thinking when this shot was taken. There are plenty of pictures of women holding spanking implements all over the Internet, so why do this?. This is the sleazy defiling of an 'innocent' and at the very least should cost a finger.)
And though it has nothing to do with the Internet, I always felt rubbernecking an accident as a driver should cost a finger as well. It's a ghoulish indulgence that delays all of the people behind you who just want to get on with their day. As such a finger seems the perfect price of admission for ogling someone else's misfortune. Perhaps when the Police and EMT arrive on the scene, this young lady should show up as well?
(Despite her car-halting good looks and outfit, I'll bet after a few digital dismemberments, traffic would be moving along at an impressive clip!)