lolno
wait wat? they have laws from before 2003? from 1997? wtaf?
Blighty peers have said that the country doesn’t need new laws to cover criminal offences committed on social media, but said public prosecutors need to clarify when revenge porn qualifies for prosecution. The Lords Communication Committee said in a report that the Communications Act from 2003 and the Harassment Act from 1997 …
Talking sense? It seems that some of the law makers do actually have a clue.
It is the what that is important, not the how. If the what is sufficiently well described and penalised, then the how doesn't matter. To whit, if you kill somebody, it doesn't matter how you do it, the fact that you have done it is enough - good, you then have the discussion of whether it is murder, manslaughter etc. The same for so-called cyber offences, they generally existed before the internet, just they couldn't reach as many people and it was harder to do accomplish - instead of whipping out your smartphone, grabbing a bit of video and uploading it onto some video portal, you would have had to have set up your Super8 on a tripod, set the focus, etc. and then afterwards develop it and get copies made and post it around the neighbourhood...
Yup and do we really want a whole load of money being spent on making up new laws for this? That would probably requires a small flotilla of lawyers, a gaggle of 'social media analysts' on consultancy fees, and a squadron of civil servants to co-ordinate them.
If the existing laws can cover the scenario I'd rather the money was spent on nurses / the police / filling potholes or generally anything more urgent.
It's good that things like this still do come out of the House of Lords. When it was hereditary and appointed lords sitting (which I do not approve of), the ones that attended did so because they were interested in the topics and did (usually) give short shrift to political crap that comes up from the lower house, because although they were notionally arranged in to parties, they often did not toe the party line.
The new system gives us mainly politicians in the upper house, and mainly appointed Lords (which I definitely do not approve of). Because they are political, they owe their allegiance to the party, and you end up with them rubber stamping things if they think it will make their party more electable.
I can understand why this might seem strange to someone born in the last 20 years who is used to hearing about politician hastily proposing and passing new legislation just to give the impression that some perceived problem is being tackled, sometimes to the extent that the same offence is unnecessarily and wastefully covered by two separate Acts. Case in point being unauthorised use of WiFi connections being illegal under both the Computer Misuse Act and the Communications Act.
Another classic example is Alex Salmond's 'Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act' - a testament to idiotic, ignorant political posturing that actually had the opposite effect to that intended, resulting in fewer prosecutions for Sectarian behaviour than previously were achieved under the Common Law Breach of the Peace.
Here's a thought, don't blame the victim. The person sharing the video without consent is the one in the wrong, not the person who gives in to the "Go on, it's only for me, you look amazing when you do that!" line....
Bullshit. We don't need any more laws (or any more filthy rich lawyers, for that matter) protecting people from their own idiocy. In this day and age with the ease in which digital media can be disseminated, both legally and illegally, I'm afraid you have to assume that any image or video can at some stage become public. If you're not willing to take that risk then don't play the game. Simple as that.
Bullshit! If you're stupid enough to feel bullied or harrased by something then it's your fault. The last thing we need is laws protecting the vulnerable, or idiotic as I like to call them.
Yeah, basically I'm pissed because no one wants to video me naked....
The existing Act of Parliament that could be used to penalise revenge porn is the Communications Act 2003, Section 127. This states that:
A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
This legislation has been used successfully against several thousand people who have posted, tweeted etc messages that have been deemed to be "grossly offensive" or "menacing".
Using this legislation to prosecute sending of "indecent" messages or other matter (images), while theoretically possible, would criminalise vitually all internet porn, adult chat-lines etc. This is probably not what Parliament intended, so it would be left to a Judge to sort out the mess. So far, some Judges have shown some reasonable common sense in this - as the Lord Cheif Justice did in the famous "Robin Hood Airport b***" joke tweet, although some judges have made a dog's dinner of it.
A further problem is that the offence relates to the use of a "public electronic communications network" the definition of which is a complete mess. (E.g. Twitter itself is not a PUBLIC electronic communications network, but sending a grossly offensive tweet via, say, Talk-Talk, would be an offence, because, like most ISPs, Talk-Talk is a PUBLIC electronic communications network.)
last thing we need are new laws written by people who have little understanding this subject. leave things be - the problem of trolling, revenge porn et al is mostly all media-hype anyway. in the grand scheme of things, and with the state of the world today, worrying about trivial matters (relatively speaking) and bringing in yet more legislation to appease the likes of mumsnet would be a huge mistake IMO.