Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
Therumbler [30383. Posted 14-Oct-2014 Tue 14:25]
Update on the revenge porn law. This amendment appeared today:
“Disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress
(1) It is an offence for a person to disclose a private sexual photograph or film
if the disclosure is made—
(a) without the consent of an individual who appears in the
photograph or film, and
(b) with the intention of causing that individual distress.
(2) But it is not an offence for the person to disclose the photograph or film to
the individual mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b).
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to
prove that he or she reasonably believed that the disclosure was necessary
for the purposes of preventing, detecting or investigating crime.
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to
(a) the disclosure was made in the course of, or with a view to, the
publication of journalistic material, and
(b) he or she reasonably believed that, in the particular circumstances,
the publication of the journalistic material was, or would be, in the
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to
(a) he or she reasonably believed that the photograph or film had
previously been disclosed for reward, whether by the individual
mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) or another person, and
(b) he or she had no reason to believe that the previous disclosure for
reward was made without the consent of the individual mentioned
in subsection (1)(a) and (b).
(6) A person is taken to have shown the matters mentioned in subsection (4) or (5) if—
a) sufficient evidence of the matters is adduced to raise an issue with
respect to it, and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (5)—
(a) “consent” to a disclosure includes general consent covering the
disclosure, as well as consent to the particular disclosure, and
(b) “publication” of journalistic material means disclosure to the public.
(8) A person charged with an offence under this section is not to be taken to
have disclosed a photograph or film with the intention of causing distress
merely because that was a natural and probable consequence of the
(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both), and
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
12 months or a fine (or both).
(10) Schedule (Disclosing private sexual photographs or films: providers of
information society services) makes special provision in connection with the
operation of this section in relation to persons providing information
(11) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (9)(b) to 12
months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(12) In relation to an offence committed before section 85 of the Legal Aid,
Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, the
reference in subsection (9)(b) to a fine is to be read as a reference to a fine
not exceeding the statutory maximum.”
“Meaning of “disclose” and “photograph or film”
(1) The following apply for the purposes of section (Disclosing private sexual
photographs and films with intent to cause distress), this section and section
(Meaning of “private” and “sexual”).
(2) A person “discloses” something to a person if, by any means, he or she
gives or shows it to the person or makes it available to the person.
(3) Something that is given, shown or made available to a person is
(a) whether or not it is given, shown or made available for reward, and
(b) whether or not it has previously been given, shown or made
available to the person.
(4) “Photograph or film” means a still or moving image in any form that—
(a) appears to consist of or include one or more photographed or
filmed images, and
(b) in fact consists of or includes one or more photographed or filmed
(5) The reference in subsection (4)(b) to photographed or filmed images
includes photographed or filmed images that have been altered in any way.
(6) “Photographed or filmed image” means a still or moving image that—
(a) was originally captured by photography or filming, or
(b) is part of an image originally captured by photography or filming.
(7) “Filming” means making a recording, on any medium, from which a
moving image may be produced by any means.
(8) References to a photograph or film include—
(a) a negative version of an image described in subsection (4), and
(b) data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into an
image described in subsection (4).”
“Meaning of “private” and “sexual”
(1) The following apply for the purposes of section (Disclosing private sexual
photographs and films with intent to cause distress).
(2) A photograph or film is “private” if it shows something that is not of a kind
ordinarily seen in public.
(3) A photograph or film is “sexual” if—
(a) it shows all or part of an individual’s exposed genitals or pubic
(b) it shows something that a reasonable person would consider to be
sexual because of its nature, or
(c) its content, taken as a whole, is such that a reasonable person would
consider it to be sexual.
(4) Subsection (5) applies in the case of —
(a) a photograph or film that consists of or includes a photographed or
filmed image that has been altered in any way,
(b) a photograph or film that combines two or more photographed or
filmed images, and
(c) a photograph or film that combines a photographed or filmed
image with something else.
(5) The photograph or film is not private and sexual if—
(a) it does not consist of or include a photographed or filmed image
that is itself private and sexual,
(b) it is only private or sexual by virtue of the alteration or combination
mentioned in subsection (4), or
(c) it is only by virtue of the alteration or combination mentioned in
subsection (4) that the person mentioned in section (Disclosing
private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress)(1)(a)
and (b) is shown as part of, or with, whatever makes the
photograph or film private and sexual.”
I believe this is the government proposed amendment.
cor [30382. Posted 14-Oct-2014 Tue 11:54]
"I`m nowhere near to suggesting that `invoking emotion` should be made a criminal offence."
But this is exactly whats happening.. if you wanted a law against driving people to suicide that would be one thing. But what is being proposed here is a disproportionate and life destroying option for many people who may exaggerate `distress` to inflict a death blow to their former partner for the crime of breaking up with them...
"The penalties range from a fine to a maximum 2 yrs"
And the cps will go after as much as they can get. You think this will be `applied fairly and proportionally`, or `only used in exceptional cases`, these are the slogans that accompanied the DPA, i don`t need to tell you how many lives that law has wrecked.
"Would the incident where your pictures were posted online be covered by the proposed offence?"
Yes, i was distressed, and she meant to distress me... I`m not sure a judge would have given her the full two years, but an emotional call to the police and that would have been taken out of my hands. And her life could have been ruined all for trying to get back at me. -See what i mean about escalation.
"Could you prove to a court that you had suffered "distress"?"
The bar is set so low you need only ask if the judge (a reasonable person) would be distressed by such a picture being posted online. Its not that you have to prove you are an average person, only that average people are generally upset at being seen naked (upset being synonymous with distressed).
Harvey [30381. Posted 14-Oct-2014 Tue 04:23]
"we shouldn`t make invoking emotion illegal just because emotion can lead some people to do stupid things."
But that`s not what`s being proposed.
I`m nowhere near to suggesting that "invoking emotion" should be made a criminal offence. I`m looking only at criminalizing an act carried out with the intention of causing harm.
"What would you tell the parents of a girl who killed herself after her boyfriend broke up with her calling her fat.... "
It would depend crucially on what the boyfriend inteded. For example, if he knew that his girlfriend was clinically depressed because she thought she was fat, then he`d be aware that the comment would actually be harmful, rather than merely insulting. If that was the case, I`d tell the parents that the boyfriend bore some of the responsibility for their daughter`s death. I`d be interested to know what the coroner said at the inquest.
The penalties range from a fine to a maximum 2 yrs and bearng in mind the offence would have to cover cases where many images were published over a period of months or years, you`d probably be looking at a fine for a single incident of posting something private on your Facebook page.
Would the incident where your pictures were posted online be covered by the proposed offence?
What was the nature of the "distress" you suffered? Could you prove to a court that you had suffered "distress"?
My suggestion is that the offence should only made out where the posting is malicious, i.e. inteded to cause harm. Was that the case when it happened to you or was the intention just to `hurt` your feelings?
cor [30380. Posted 14-Oct-2014 Tue 03:10]
"difference between the publication of private images on your Facebook page and calling someone fat or stupid"
Subjective difference at best. I know some people who would rather have nude pics posted all over the place than be called fat... Also there is no shortage of suicides from people being called fat or stupid by people they loved...
What would you tell the parents of a girl who killed herself after her boyfriend called her a fat bitch.... Or do you think that should carry a two year sentence as well?
we can`t protect people from themselves most of the time, and we shouldn`t make invoking emotion illegal just because emotion can lead some people to do stupid things.
A girl i was seeing a few years ago shared some fairly graphic pictures of me online (even txt me the link lol), of course it was after i cheated on her with one of her friends, so some would think she had reason to `hurt` me. Now, if i was particularly vindictive (and if this law was on the books) i could have gotten her locked up for up to two years, ruined her life and given her a criminal record... is that fair?
The harm you are talking about is financial, the very thing that civil court specializes in, the harm that can be inflicted by two years in the slammer is far greater, hence the term `disproportionate` (as opposed to the term summarily dismissed).