Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
phantom [30379. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 17:48]
I`m not sure I agree with you there, Cor, that showing someone naked online is something that merely causes emotional harm.
Take Max Mosley. You can in fact pretty much ruin a person.
What would such a revelation do to, say, a school teacher?
Thus, a revelation of someone in any sexual context can thus be damaging. thus, meaning that the harm done is far from merely emotional. Albeit that I understand that it is not a physical assault, a person`s life, social standing, career can be seriously diminished.
But, as I pointed out with the whip`s office comment, I think the politicians are being quite spectacularly hypocritical on this one - given how they tend to operate.
But I do not think the phenomenon of `revenge porn` can just be just summarily dismissed as something which might temporarily upset people.
People have a right to privacy for a reason.
Odd however, how government here seems to agree with that principle, whereas in so many other cases....
phantom [30378. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 17:39]
re: crime creation
Interesting pointer to the minister for crime creation there, Dave.
But it might also be worth pointing out that this fascist, puritan scumbag (let`s call him what he is, shall we?) is an MP for the LIBERAL Democrat Party.
Obviously he`s one of those liberals who haven`t yet grasped what being liberal is supposed to mean.
Harvey [30377. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 15:02]
I`m not being sarcastic.
Yes, there is a difference between arson or an acid attack and hurt feelings. But there is also a difference between the publication of private images on your Facebook page and calling someone fat or stupid.
The latter may cause hurt feelings, the former is intended to cause harm.
You clearly don`t see a difference.
Otherwise you wouldn`t suggest that the civil courts can deal with emotional harm, while only physical harm should require criminal prosecution.
Quite apart from that, we have a basic right to privacy and a private life and while I don`t suggest that all breaches of privacy are criminal acts, those that are malicious (i.e. intend to cause harm) really should be.
How would you like to advise the parents of a teenager who killed himself when what he thought were private images of himself were posted on a social media site? Should he have saved up all the money from his Saturday job and sued? Or maybe just pulled himself together and got over it?
cor [30376. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 14:40]
"it`s only emotional harm - just feelings and no big deal then? Because it`s not the same as physical harm it shouldn`t be an offence?"
Precisely, albeit without the sarcasm. There is a `hell` of a difference between hurt feelings and acid in the face -I`m just saying our laws should reflect this difference. And a good line in the sand that generally deliminates `hurt feelings` from `burnt face` is the one between the civil courts and the criminal courts.
Harvey [30375. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 13:41]
Blackmail and manslaughter?
What about assault?
I suppose if someone throws acid in the face of an ex-lover, or sets fire to their house (both examples of actual cases) we do have laws to prosecute it. Posting a private letter, or a photo with the intention causing harm, though?
But of course it`s only emotional harm - just feelings and no big deal then? Because it`s not the same as physical harm it shouldn`t be an offence?
cor [30374. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 13:16]
"..can go way beyond simply hurting someone`s feelings."
And when such is the case, there are laws to cover these things, from blackmail to manslaughter... What we are talking about is only realy the cases that fall short of this and so are not covered by existing law (only emotional damage cases).
"One person trying to harm another[`s feelings] is EXACTLY the kind of thing which the criminal law is designed to confront...the "distress" can lead them to take their own lives"
This is a very good argument for outlawing infidelity .. it is intentional harm that can lead to suicide (and usually a great deal more harmful than publishing dirty pics)... So should we, by your argument, be calling for 2 years in jail for people caught having an affair?
As i said, this is an escalating emotional exchange between two adults. Extending into the civil court only to try and diffuse these situations is logical (if flawed). criminal court involvement (for the sake of hurt feelings) will only escalate everything further.
phantom [30373. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 13:07]
No, I don`t think you quite get the jist of it, Harvey.
You can choose to take the goat shagging photo literally, and only restrict your imagination to that precise scenario, or you can view it a little more in the round.
We know that the whips like to apply pressure.
We know that they have a filth file on anyone they can get filth on.
So the issue hardly relates exclusively to goat photos. :)
The fact is their bringing pressure to bear only works, if they follow up their threat if the backbencher doesn`t pedal the latest line.
Thus if there is anything questionable available regarding an MP (naked webcam selfie, him in action with a woman who isn`t his wife, in fact any juicy photo they can get hold of, etc, etc... and yes, a goat!) then the question arises that if they are instrumental in seeing to it that this wayward backbencher gets his comeuppance, I suspect the law will prove to be worded by our lords and masters in such a way as to not include that sort of `revenge porn`. Just in case. :)
Harvey [30372. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 11:24]
"You`ve just undermined the entire civil court system"
No. I`ve just pointed out that in the civil court the onry redress is by monetarizing "damage" and extracting payment. There are situations where it`s a suitable means of settlement, but civil litigation isn`t the solution to every kind of damage.
If it was just about hurting people`s feelings, I`d say the law should stand well aside. But "revenge porn" (or making other private things public) can go way beyond simply hurting someone`s feelings.
One person trying to harm another is EXACTLY the kind of thing which the criminal law is designed to confront. You may think that as it`s emotional rather than physical harm, creating a criminal offence is being "overzealous", but I disagree. The intention is to harm, as you have said, and for some people, the "distress" can lead them to take their own lives.
cor [30371. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 10:43]
"What if a respondent hasn`t got any money?"
You`ve just undermined the entire civil court system .. or just highlighted how it should be proportionally applied lol.
Ultimately, this is about hurting peoples feelings. We are not talking about some film star that might loose jobs because of a leaked selfie.. Its just people at the end of a relationship each feeling emotional, and each trying to emotionally harm the other.. The civil court option is an imperfect extension of that process, getting police and criminal courts involved is imo an act of overzealous pseudo-chivalric lunacy.
Harvey [30370. Posted 13-Oct-2014 Mon 07:39]
It`s not really a problem of access to civil courts. The state could (if it had enough money) provide legal aid for litigants, but what about the costs of the loser? What if a respondent hasn`t got any money? There is nothing to be gained by taking them to court, even if you win damages.
In suggesting a criminal offence, I would put the bar fairly high, only catching that which was malicious, that is; done with intent to cause harm. I wouldn`t restrict it to pornographic images, as just as much harm can be done if other personal, private images or information, such as a private diary, are published.
"So if today they have photos of some backbencher shagging a goat..." they are committing an offence. DPA
I have to ask;
1/ Why only sexual images? If the test is whether it causes distress, can`t other private images be as bad, if published?
2/ Why the need to show distress was caused? Surely if the intention was to cause distress, than the act of publishing is just as wrong?
3/ Why 2(c)? Surely if distress is caused when an image is published, further distress could caused by its re-publication. If the (re-)publisher reasonably believes that no distress would be caused by re-publication, he can rely on 2(b) and be found not guilty.
2(c) looks like it`s only there to allow the press, broadcasters, etc, to (re-)publish images from social media, etc EVEN IF they reasonably believe it will cause distress.
I would rewrite (1):
(1) It shall be an offence for a person to publish a private image of another identifiable person without their consent with the intention of causing distress to the person who is the subject of the image.
scratch the proposed 2(b) and 2(c) and replace them with:
2(b) can show an overriding public interest that the image be published.