• "Revenge porn" to become criminal offense in the UK
    70 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Revenge pornography – sharing sexually explicit images of former partners without their consent – is to become a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison. The legislation is to be introduced into the criminal justice and courts bill that is currently going through parliament, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has announced. There has been mounting political pressure to outlaw the practice of humiliating former lovers by posting intimate pictures of them online. Among those pressing for a change to the law has been the former culture secretary, Maria Miller. Others have argued that the problem is already covered by existing laws against obscenity or blackmail. The new offence will cover the release of explicit images both online and in the form of printed pictures. Images shared via email, on a website or the distribution of physical copies will also be caught, the MoJ said. Those convicted will face a maximum sentence of two years in prison. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/oct/12/revenge-pornography-criminal-offence"]About time.[/URL]
I don't know why this was ever legal to be honest.
[quote=Lonelysoul]So you would lock up a person for 2 years for doing something a bit stupid?[/quote] meanwhile in the comments section [quote]Why not just outlaw revenge altogether? Why single out one revengeful activity that happens to have found resonance amongst the glitterati? Oh, I know - it disproportionately affects women, rather than men. I'll take this seriously when the analogous female behaviours are outlawed.[/quote] WTF
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;46214730]meanwhile in the comments section WTF[/QUOTE] "aw man come on, i didnt want to kill him"
Eh, two years in prison seems a little much. Still nice to see some action against it, though.
[QUOTE=Monkah;46214822]Eh, two years in prison seems a little much. Still nice to see some action against it, though.[/QUOTE] 2 years is the maximum sentence, most convictions will probably be shorter than that.
[QUOTE=Streecer;46214857]2 years is the maximum sentence, most convictions will probably be shorter than that.[/QUOTE] 1 year 11 months jk
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;46214626]I don't know why this was ever legal to be honest.[/QUOTE] It wasn't. There are any number of offences you could previously be charged with.
going to play the devil's advocate here, but how will the court tell who actually leaked the images?
That's good news. [QUOTE=Egevened;46215080]going to play the devil's advocate here, but how will the court tell who actually leaked the images?[/QUOTE] I hope it doesn't have to do with the nude leaks. No one gives a shit about that anymore, jlaw's offspring are already either flushed down the toilet or in a sock under a bed.
[QUOTE=Egevened;46215080]going to play the devil's advocate here, but how will the court tell who actually leaked the images?[/QUOTE] here's a super common scenario. a chick shares nudes with her boyfriend, breaks up with them, then sees her nudes circulating around on facebook a while later. who could have [I]possibly[/I] done that?
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;46215230]here's a super common scenario. a chick shares nudes with her boyfriend, breaks up with them, then sees her nudes circulating around on facebook a while later. who could have [I]possibly[/I] done that?[/QUOTE] Except he said in a court. In that situation how would you have proof enough to prosecute someone other than someone's word? There is no proof that the pictures were shared with one person in particular, and even if they were there is no proof that it was that person who leaked them rather than them being stolen or something. Only way they are going to be able to catch people in a concrete way is if they are stupid enough to use their real emails and/or home connections to submit/distribute revenge pictures. It's good that they are trying to do something about it, but I'm interested to see how many cases will actually result in someone being sentenced. Didn't they shut down some major UK revenge porn blogs/sites as well? [QUOTE=seano12;46215312]The supply of amateur porn is going to go down while the demand is going to go through the rough. Why does the government have to intervene in the amateur pornography market?[/QUOTE] Doesn't really have anything to do with 'amateur porn', even if someone didn't have permission to release a video or pics, the person they are of will likely never be any wiser in 99% of cases. This is targeting revenge porn which has become a fad, posting names/Facebook/contact details alongside nude pics so that the person gets harassed/blackmailed by creeps and likely loses their job and gets a really damaged reputation.
The supply of amateur porn is going to go down while the demand is going to go through the roof. Why does the government have to intervene in the amateur pornography market? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Cannot function on this forum." - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;46215230]here's a super common scenario. a chick shares nudes with her boyfriend, breaks up with them, then sees her nudes circulating around on facebook a while later. who could have [I]possibly[/I] done that?[/QUOTE] Circumstantial at best. [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] This is gonna become an issue because they'll have to start treating those cases with assumptions and stereotypes.
[QUOTE=seano12;46215312]The supply of amateur porn is going to go down while the demand is going to go through the rough. Why does the government have to intervene in the amateur pornography market?[/QUOTE] can't we perma this guy already
[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;46215149]That's good news. I hope it doesn't have to do with the nude leaks. No one gives a shit about that anymore, jlaw's offspring are already either flushed down the toilet or in a sock under a bed.[/QUOTE] I don't care what triggered this law being put into place. Why the fuck should you, either? It's a good law, and just because it might've came from the celebrity nude leak business doesn't mean it's any worse then if it hadn't.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46215349]can't we perma this guy already[/QUOTE] Can't make a silly economic/political joke without everyone getting pissy now can I?
whether it's easy to catch the people who do it or not, hopefully making it straight up illegal will make a difference in itself [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=seano12;46215382]Can't make a silly economic/political joke without everyone getting pissy now can I?[/QUOTE] stop
[QUOTE=seano12;46215382]Can't make a silly economic/political joke without everyone getting pissy now can I?[/QUOTE] jokes on you guys I was merely pretending to be a sociopath
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;46215349]can't we perma this guy already[/QUOTE] Being weird isn't a ban reason. He creeps me right the fuck out, but that doesn't mean we have to ban him for it.
Lets not make the thread about seano please, he is just an attention-whore troll and you guys are giving him exactly what he wants. [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;46215414]Being weird isn't a ban reason. He creeps me right the fuck out, but that doesn't mean we have to ban him for it.[/QUOTE] People have been banned for creep before.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;46215414]Being weird isn't a ban reason. He creeps me right the fuck out, but that doesn't mean we have to ban him for it.[/QUOTE] A couple people have been banned for being fucking creepy before. Pretty sure Aspen was before.
Glad this is being made illegal, but I don't think it'll do much to stop it. Most revenge porn is done in blind rage, I'm not sure its really a calculated thing in most cases.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;46215426]People have been banned for creep before.[/QUOTE] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1425927&p=46041636&viewfull=1#post46041636]He was banned for being a creep before.[/url]
I can understand banning people for shitposting, but being just generally [i]strange[/i] shouldn't necessarily be a ban reason IMO. As bizarre as some of his posts can be, I honestly don't know what banning him would do. Spare my pure, virgin eyes I guess? :v: [editline]12th October 2014[/editline] Man this has gotten off-topic. Personally I agree with this ruling, not much else for me to say. I thought they were already illegal from anti-blackmailing laws, but apparently not.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;46214626]I don't know why this was ever legal to be honest.[/QUOTE] Laws take time to catch up with technology.
This is all fine and dandy but how do you prove the person maliciously distributed any images or videos? What if the person got hacked and the contents of their intimate video folders got leaked onto the web? These rulings suggest the mere existence of graphic depictions of some random bitches tits could land your ass in the slammer for up to 2 years..?
[QUOTE=Egevened;46215080]going to play the devil's advocate here, but how will the court tell who actually leaked the images?[/QUOTE] Why is this being rated dumb? I am not advocating revenge porn, but it would be incredibly difficult to police something based on a context you have no knowledge of.
[QUOTE=Thlis;46215661]Why is this being rated dumb? I am not advocating revenge porn, but it would be incredibly difficult to police something based on a context you have no knowledge of.[/QUOTE] not that difficult tbh, not only is the list of suspects pretty short for this sort of crime, but with the technology the police can use to track IP addresses etc. It can't be too difficult. Even if the perp can't be tried, they at least now have the legal leverage to get images forcefully removed - if they didn't already.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;46215763]not that difficult tbh, not only is the list of suspects pretty short for this sort of crime, but with the technology the police can use to track IP addresses etc. It can't be too difficult. Even if the perp can't be tried, they at least now have the legal leverage to get images forcefully removed - if they didn't already.[/QUOTE] And if that site has no servers/presence in the UK? I don't think a country wide law has international capacity, unless it is made into a treaty and then it only affects those countries it is in effect. Also, I don't know about the UK, but here in the US we ruled that an IP address is not adequate means of Identification.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.