Advertisement

Mera Internet, Meri Marzi: Alternative Imaginings of Consent in Pakistani Online Spaces

  • Nighat DadEmail author
  • Shmyla Khan
Chapter

Abstract

Consent in the digital world is often discussed in the context of politics, data protection laws and terms and conditions of social media. When we invoke these debates, the subject granting consent is conceived of as a monolith: adult, male and digitally literate. This chapter seeks to interrogate the consent-giver according to their identity and posit different models of consent to complicate current debates regarding data protection and online violence against women. This chapter seeks to construct two categories of online consent—individual and collective consent—as possible imaginings of typologies of consent in online spaces. However, through the frame of feminist theories, these very categories are deconstructed to demonstrate the complicated nature of consent and permissions that populate the internet, particularly for women.

References

  1. Beres, M. A. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ Sexual Consent: An Analysis of Sexual Consent Literature. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108, 0959–3535. London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: SAGE. Retrieved from http://fap.sagepub.com;  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072914.
  2. Burris, A. (2014). Hel Hath No Fury Like a Woman Porned: Revenge Porn and the Need for a Federal Non-consensual Pornography Statute. Florida Law Review, 66(2015), 2325–2359.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carolan, E. (2016). The Continuing Problems with Online Consent Under the EU’s Emerging Data Protection Principles. Computer Law & Security Review, 32, 462–473. Retrieved from http://daneshyari.com/article/preview/467444.pdf.
  5. Donohue, C. P. (2017). A Feminist Framing of Non-Consensual Pornography, 17 U. Md. L.J. Race Relig. Gender & Class, 247. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/rrgc/vol17/iss2/4.
  6. Finn, J., & Banach, M. (2000). Victimization Online: The Downside of Seeking Human Services for Women on the Internet. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 3(5). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.9247&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
  7. MacKinnon, C. A. (1996). Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Magnet, S. (2007). Feminist Sexualities, Race and the Internet: An Investigation of suicidegirls.com. New Media and Society, 9(4), 577–602.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807080326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Measuring the Information Society Report. (2016). International Telecommunications Union. Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2016/MISR2016-w4.pdf.
  10. O’Sullivan, L., & Allgeier, E. R. (1998). Feigning Sexual Desire: Consenting to Unwanted Sexual Activity in Heterosexual Dating Relationships. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. (2016). ACT NO. XL OF 2016, received the assent of the President on the 18th of August 2016.Google Scholar
  12. Schoemaker, E. (2015, July). Facebook Domestication TANQEED. Retrieved from http://www.tanqeed.org/2015/07/facebook-domestication/.
  13. Wittkower, D. E. (2016, October 3). Lurkers, Creepers and Virtuous Interactivity: From Property Rights to Consent and Care as a Conceptual Basis for Privacy Concerns and Information Ethics. First Monday, 21(10). Retrieved from https://ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6948/5628.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital Rights FoundationLahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations