Feeds

back to article Swedish teen's sex video fine slashed: Unwilling co-star girlfriend furious

A Swedish court has reduced the fine of a teenage boy to just £2,400 after he uploaded a pornographic video of his ex-girlfriend without her permission. In a controversial ruling, the Göta Court of of Appeal found that the younger generation was "so open" about its sexual behaviour that a larger fine was unwarranted. The boy …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Mixed signals regarding privacy

So after all this talk about protecting the children from viewing porn on the net or meeting old men that want to abuse them, the legal system more or less says "we dont care about protecting our children"?

The girl would have gotten more money if she had sued the boy for not paying her for her role in the movie...

15
29
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

What children are we talking about here? Had the girl been underage there would have been separate criminal charges.

This is a privacy case. However, full marks for being the first twonk to "think of the children".

42
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

An article like this will just make people look for the video..................

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

But wouldn't that be child pr0nz?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Technically he was under 18 when he uploaded teh vid, no idea of the girls age. If they're under 18, then that, by law (at least over here and the USA, not sure on the sweeds) means that he's distributed child pornography thanks to our crazy legal system.

8
6
Bronze badge
Alert

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

"The girl would have gotten more money if she had sued the boy for not paying her for her role in the movie..."

...or copyright infringement!

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

I haven't seen anything to say that the video was taken with a hidden camera, so presumably she was happy to have her exploits committed to film? Not saying she shouldn't be upset by having it published without her permission - but it does suggest a degree of liberalism regarding sexual relations on her part.

13
4
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

In Sweden the age of consent is 15. It's not strictly the same as threshold for whether pron is 'adult' or 'child' but I would presume that if a person is of an age where the law considers you a 'consenting adult' with respect to sex, then pron with a person of that age would be adult pron rather than child pron. Given that it didn't seem to be at all mentioned in the case I guess that it was treated as an adult uploading adult pron with a consenting adult, just without her knowledge.

8
1

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

I don't know, Sir Runcible. Are you an old friend of Judge Pickles? :)

2
2
xyz
Bronze badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

The key word missing here is trust. She trusted him and he trusted her, so they shot a video for their own fun. We've all done it. Then Master Bates here gets the hump and uploads it, so it'll be on the internet way after they are both dead and buried for her next boyfriend, husband, children, grandchildren etc to see. So when you're bleating on about this always remember...would you like to see your granny from 40 years ago taking one on the chin (or whatever they were doing)?

9
6
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

" Are you an old friend of Judge Pickles"

Some may say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Yup - although if he'd beheaded her instead then Facebook would be happy to show it.

Writing of which - if "every image is a crime scene" (one of the main arguments put forward for prosecuting possessors of indecent images of under 18s) why aren't the beheading videos illegal to possess?

11
0
Anonymous Coward

@ James Micallef

You would think so, but unfortunately no...

In the UK age of consent is 16, but it is illegal to take erotic pictures/video of an under 18 year old...

Meaning a 16 year old could theoretically be prosecuted for having a picture of themselves in an erotic pose.. Even the police themselves thought that was a stupid law when it came in.. How can having a photo/video of a LEGAL act be illegal???

There are plenty of other laws that could be introduced to protect youngsters from exploitation & abuse (which is after all what we should be doing) but nope, ban it, make it illegal, like that EVER works...

And really this kind of thing IS a kind of abuse, I don't care what age the girl was, she could be 15 or 50, if she made a sex tape willingly but under the assumption it would be private, then uploading it was a heinous crime and a fine is pathetic, at the very least it should be a criminal offence meriting a few weeks locked in a cell somewhere...

26
1
Bronze badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

"This is a privacy case."

This is, however, a privacy case where the woman (as you say, not underage so why call her a girl?) seems to have willingly let someone film her perform sexual acts. Yes, the man should be punished to show it's wrong to upload without permission, but I think it's also appropriate to limit that punishment to show it's wrong to ignore your own privacy. If she wants to not have pictures or videos of herself spread about then the only way to ensure that is not to allow them to be taken.

5
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

If she wants to not have pictures or videos of herself spread about then the only way to ensure that is not to allow them to be taken.

That goes in the direction of "if she didn't wanted to be raped she shouldn't have worn a short skirt". What she does in private settings is entitled to privacy protection, irrespective of purpose or intent.

20
12

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Banged up for 20 years for that!

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

No, in the UK the age of consent is 16, however photos or videos of the activity are child porn if the people involved are under 18.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy (xyz)

> We've all done it.

Actually no, we haven't. If you don't want naked pictures or videos of yourself to become public then don't take them. You can have a perfectly happy relationship and sex life without them.

I have never taken a selfie (naked or otherwise) or shot an amateur porn film and have no desire to do so. You might think that makes me a prude or sexually unadventurous but I disagree.

12
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Yeah anyone got a link ?

5
0

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

The age of consent in the UK is 16 but you'll still get done for child porn if you (as a 17 yr old husband) take a photo of your 17 yr old wife in her birthday suit as the law says you are a "child" until 18.

2
0

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

The Age of Consent is 15 in Sweden.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Perhaps someone should introduce a two-password encryption for naughty videos of themselves and their partners - each participant having part of the key - so it can only be watched by both parties in conjunction?

1
1

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Assume all you like it is not the case in the uk.

The age of consent here is 16, yet child pron is images of those who are or under 18. Go figure.

3
0

Re: @ James Micallef

I don't think that is quite right. If the video/images is taken by and of persons in a relationship and is not shared with others I think it is legal. What happens when the relationship ends I am not sure. A bleeding stupid law IMHO the age of consent and the age limit for child pron should be the same IMHO.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

The age of consent in the UK is 16 but you'll still get done for child porn if you (as a 17 yr old husband) take a photo of your 17 yr old wife in her birthday suit as the law says you are a "child" until 18.

I thought they'd spotted that anomaly and added a special case exemption that someone between 16 and 18 is allowed to take and posses nude photos of their spouse .... so long as no-one else was involved in their production and they don't show them to anyone else.

The anomaly that I think hasn't been covered is what happens to people with back issues of the Sun and/or early SamFox calendars etc which while legal when produced would now be deemed as pictures of a child that probably are caught in the wide definition of pornography used in child porn laws

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Perhaps someone should introduce a two-password encryption"

Fine in clean mathematical principle, unsatisfactory in dirty systems programming practice if you want any realistic rather than "best effort" guarantees. Also, given the probability of some link in the chain being broken many years later, you've still got the unwelcome issue of what grandma was up to in her youth.

0
0
PJI
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Yes, and if you do not want your pocket picked, you should not have pockets or at least put nothing in them. Never tell a friend anything personal, in confidence, nor a sibling nor a parent. Who knows what your best friend or your mother will blurt out one day. Never cross a road; it's the only way to be sure you will never be struck by a car.

Really: find a philosophy course somewhere, a proper, rigorous one and study how to think.

5
1
PJI
Bronze badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Pictures, pornography, indecency:

I find it fascinating that the implicit assumption, in all these comments, is that any picture of a naked human being is, per se, pornographic; not even just indecent - pornographic. It is such attitudes that create the problem. They lead to proud parents being reported for pictures of their young children playing with bubbles in the bath. They stop toddlers from being allowed to run naked at the seaside.

Please do distinguish nakedness in the context of sexual activity or lasciviousness from pictures, whether artistic or for the family album.

Surely, the correct term here is not pornography: these two were making an intimate, personal record for their own pleasure. I would class it as pornography only if it was intended for a wider distribution to titillate, make money or similar. The real thing here is that the unpleasant "boyfriend" betrayed the trust and intimacy he had enjoyed and caused harm to the girl by using their private record as pornography, without her agreement, to gain warped revenge. This, to my mind, should be very heavily punished as she is hurt and society, in its dependence on mutual trust, is hurt. His protestations about the unexpectedly wide audience are worthless: apart from their stupidity, an audience of a single third person would be bad enough. As for "openness": that still implies consent and mutuality. One sided openness is betrayal.

Lastly, I suspect it is a very small minority of people who whip out their smart phone to film themselves in the act. If that is the first thing on the mind of one of them, the other should find a real human being as soon as possible.

9
0
Bronze badge
Gimp

Re: Mixed signals regarding currency

The boy was originally told to pay his former lover 130,000 kronor in damages, which is just under...

15,000 quatloos.

0
0

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

It was "smygfilmat" - i.e. a hidden camera.

http://mobil.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/osannolikt-att-hd-tar-upp-sexfilmsdomen/

So anyone blaming the girl can fry.

3
1

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Yes, and if you do not want your pocket picked, you should not have pockets or at least put nothing in them.

Yes. As several posters already said, this is for life, this is for your grandchildren. If getting my pocket picked would mean that my grandchildren would be teased about it 40 years from now, I wouldn't carry anything in my pockets.

I'm not defending the clown that uploaded the video - just as I don't defend pickpocketing - but it's not illegal to use your head.

1
5
Bronze badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

"Never tell a friend anything personal, in confidence, nor a sibling nor a parent. Who knows what your best friend or your mother will blurt out one day."

Yes that's the generally accepted wisdom. If you genuinely want to keep something secret, don't tell ANYONE. Human nature is to trust and to diminish the importance of these things over time. You tell someone a secret and at that moment they think they will keep it. A year later they might not. At the time the man took this video he may have thought the relationship would last and that he'd never share it but then it ended and he was lonely and decided to share it.

If it was a hidden camera then of course that's a different matter altogether but once you share something you can no longer consider it private and under your control.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

> So after all this talk about protecting the children from viewing porn [....]

Viewing, yes. Nobody said anything about starring in it.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @ James Micallef

Slightly tangentially related - but is it only me that is thinking the Gloria de Piero (Labour MP) hoo-ha is all focussing on the wrong point? She was apparently photographed topless when she was 15 and a major newspaper is allegedly offering big bucks for anyone who can now supply those photos. Everyone is up in arms about the privacy issue and how she shouldn't have to be embarrased by events from when she was younger, but isn't it a larger issue that a newspaper is effectively openly bidding for what the law defines as category 1 child porn images and no one is batting an eyelid?

4
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: Re: @ James Micallef

No newspaper is bidding for them. It's a perfect example of a political strawman in action, getting positive headlines for the poor put-upon woman struggling against her youthful, indiscreet past as misogynists pile into her.

Consider this - if there really was a paper or agency bidding for child porn images, they'd have been named long before now. That they haven't tells you all you need to know.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

> I suspect it is a very small minority of people who whip out their smart phone to film themselves in the act

That's what I thought too, but from talking to younger people, I'm starting to question that assumption.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

so they shot a video for their own fun. We've all done it."

No we haven't.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @ James Micallef

if she made a sex tape willingly but under the assumption it would be private, then uploading it was a heinous crime

It was a pretty nasty breach of trust, but it wasn't "a heinous crime". It's not hard to think of quite a few other ways in which sexual partners can betray each other.

I doubt that you would be recommending a gaol term if he'd treated his friends to graphic descriptions, or even a private video show, though both would be a betrayal of trust. The distinction seems to lie in the scale of the exposure, which isn't really the moral issue.

1
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Think you will find that under an EU Directive (which comes into effect shortly) - the age for CP involves sexual images of people under the age of 18. So this age should apply accross Europe. Not sure what Sweden's current laws are on this. I can see the sense in that age when it comes to images because the images are easily shared widely and the young person can be exploited/blackmailed/severely embarassed by the deliberate actions of another. Whether it should be called CP or not is maybe a different issue but I think the age limit here is right, irrespective of the age of consent.

0
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

@ChrisW you say "What children are we talking about here? "

Do you think a 17 year old is an adult?

It is mixed messages, you can't buy alochol but you can post sex vids?

@17 you are no where near being an adult, you are very much still an adolescent (@17 I had raised myself and THOUGHT I was an adult)

Privacy case or not, he should not have post the vid and deserved a larger fine, and the courts are irresponsible with the stance they have taken.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

"but it does suggest a degree of liberalism regarding sexual relations on her part."

Of well I suppose that OKs this then???

WTF are you on about man?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

"The key word missing here is trust. She trusted him and he trusted her, so they shot a video for their own fun. We've all done it."

Speak for yourself!

0
0

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy (xyz)

You are not the yardstick here, Irongut... in a population, you are expected to have a good distribution...

0
0

Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

Sorry, but that's not even faintly comparable. What a ridiculous statement. Privacy is one thing, but at no time was she made to do anything unwillingly, nor was force used. The boy concerned is an idiot, not a rapist.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @AC 16:14

But remember, a topless photo is not indecent, its only indecent if it is erotic and/or taken with that purpose in mind (seriously a clothed picture of someone under 18 can be deemed indecent, even pictures of kids at a play ground if they were taken by a dirty old man in a trench coat...)

Just think, how many parents have naked photos of their kids when they were little?

Also films, I think it was The Hole? (great film that) had a topless Keira Knightly at 16? there are plenty of other examples of under 18 nudity out there that is NOT indecent... Nudity itself is not indecent or sexual....

(although having nude pictures of kids on your PC when you don't have any reason to have them might be weird... actually make that having any pictured of kids on your pc without a reason is weird...)

0
0
Bronze badge

age discrimination?

Did the appeal court think that it was no big deal because of the girl's age?

Or perhaps the judges would also regard it as no big deal if videos of their sexual performances were distributed among their social circle?

9
3

Re: age discrimination?

"Or perhaps the judges would also regard it as no big deal if videos of their sexual performances were distributed among their social circle?"

Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps?

1
3
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

Classic victim blaming. "She should never have trusted her boyfriend in the first place so it's her fault."

No. It isn't.

38
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.