Yet another feel-good law that will end up being a tool to re-elect prosecutors (or re-elect whoever appoints prosecutors). People who think that 12 year olds emailing dickshots is child pornography will have a field day with yet another repressive law. Mark my words, they'll be prosecuting people for photographing fat drunken chicks who strip down to their underthings and parade around. If you have the right to see something, you have the right to ridicule it on the Internet.
Australian opposition wants laws to protect private smut
Australia's opposition, the Australian Labor Party (ALP), is hoping to bring the country into line with the UK and other jurisdictions with a ban on revenge porn. Opposition members of parliament Tim Watts and Terri Butler have drafted a bill to bring the ban into effect and posted it for comment here. The bill (full text …
-
-
Monday 14th September 2015 01:09 GMT Allan George Dyer
Rights!
Yeah, they really knew what they were doing when they wrote the Australian Constitution:
"1. You have a right to trial by a jury by your peers
2. You have a right to see fat drunken chicks who strip down to their underthings and parade around"
BTW, if you haven't seen enough fat drunken chicks, remember the Department of Seeing Fat Drunken Chicks is there to help you.
-
-
Monday 14th September 2015 09:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Rights!
"1. You have a right to trial by a jury by your peers"
When that right was first created the word "peers" literally meant those of your own rank and thinking.
Modern juries are effectively random selections. Several jurors' experiences and prejudices are likely to differ drastically from those of the defendant. In some jurisdictions the prosecution may also be allowed to eliminate people who are likely to sympathise or empathise with the defendant.
In England it has recently been suggested that pensioners should be preferred for jury service. They have the spare time and their attendance expenses are much lower as they do not include compensating for loss of earnings.
-
-
-
Monday 14th September 2015 02:56 GMT Mark 85
This bill includes extortion?
Does Australia not already have extortion laws on the books? Or is this a "one-stop shopping" bit for the plod and prosecutors? Then again, we have places here in the States pulling the same thing... create another law when one is already in place and then everyone thinks the lawmakers did a spiffy job.
-
Monday 14th September 2015 11:25 GMT P. Lee
Re: This bill includes extortion?
>Does Australia not already have extortion laws on the books?
There may be no attempt at extortion, it may just be spiteful.
That said, it's a pretty dumb idea. Stop trying to insulate people from the consequences of dumb behaviour. Why am I feeling so callous? Because it's security theatre. If you are worried or embarrassed by the release of such material, don't make it to start with. The law is not going to be able to save your reputation.
If the person you're with has not stood up in public to state that they will love, cherish and adore you for as long as you both shall live and signed a legal contract confirming it, what makes you think they'll do that? What's the likelihood home-made pron is made with a phone? What is security like on a phone or a phone with attached cloud?
It's a pointless law for which evidence will be very thin regarding an action where the rightness or wrongness is not intrinsic to the action, but based on events, context and private discussions which may or may not have happened. Legislatives need to stop trying to interfere in the domain of morality, where the legal system cannot see or where remedy cannot be applied.
-
Monday 14th September 2015 12:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: This bill includes extortion?
It is the almost inevitable condemnation of the victim by a hypocritical society that gives the blackmailer, extortioner, etc their weapon. If society just said "so what" to the picture's content - then the victim would not be shamed and the situation would be a non-event.
-
-
-
-
Monday 14th September 2015 12:03 GMT Graham Marsden
Educate, don't legislate!
Whilst Revenge Porn is a contemptible thing, as usual we see the default reaction of the politicians "Something Must Be Done!" so they pass a stupid law which will end up criminalising innocent people or being used for "Revenge Revenge Porn" charges when someone agrees to let their partner post pics of them, but when it comes to a divorce or custody battle, somehow they didn't consent after all.
Far better to teach people (and especially kids, given the new habit of sexting) that once a picture is out there is cannot be withdrawn, so make *really* sure that you actually want to have that picture taken in the first place and if someone tries to coerce you to do it, tell them to get lost until they grow up a bit.
PS I saw a lovely pic a little while ago that went:
1980s: Here's a mix tape of your favourite music I made for you
2000s: Here's a mix CD of your favourite music I made for you
2015: Here's a picture of my dick!
-
Monday 14th September 2015 12:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Educate, don't legislate!
It would also help if the general public were educated that nudity, even obviously sexual, is a fact of life. It is the fear of public condemnation, often hypocritical, that weighs on the victim.
When living in Sweden in the 1970s I sent some sunbathing naked pictures to be processed - having been assured it was perfectly legal in that liberal time. When the prints came back one had a big "X" on the back. I was horrified that this was a sign of intense disapproval. My Finnish girlfriend then pointed out that an "X" was used to mean "OK". She interpreted it to mean someone probably liked that particular picture of me.
That explained another mystery. The written archive logs in the customer's computer room had "X" against every dated entry - and we had been getting concerned that back-ups were failing. Not sure what the locals made of our use of an up-tick to indicate something was ok
-
Monday 14th September 2015 12:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Educate, don't legislate!
"2015: Here's a picture of my dick!"
If there is no face, or unique distinguishing feature, then the picture is not going to be ammunition in the wrong hands. It could be the sender is being careful about what might happen if the picture is propagated further - and not that they are unduly emphasising the sexual element.
-
-
Monday 14th September 2015 18:43 GMT Old Handle
I've always had mixed feelings on this issue. On the one hand, yes it's really crappy and also one of the few ways to really hurt someone over the internet (especially in a blackmail scenario) so I'd very much like for it to happen less often. On the other hand I see an extreme risk of this kind of law being misused to criminalize innocent people (or harshly punish not quite innocent but non-terrible people).
I think intent to cause harm or distress, or at minimum a reckless disregard for it, should be a required element of any crime like this. The "risk of" standard in this law for example strikes me as dangerously broad. If the quoted language is the actual text of the law, it doesn't appear to require either intent to harm, nor that any harm actually take place.
-
Monday 14th September 2015 22:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
" If the quoted language is the actual text of the law, it doesn't appear to require either intent to harm, nor that any harm actually take place."
When the Sexual Offences Bill (England & Wales) was put out for public consultation there was a particular protest about the wording of the clause that became known as Rec 54. The new criteria for a naked exposure offence had a very low threshold of evidence. Namely likely "to cause alarm and distress" to a hypothetically "most vulnerable" person. That hypothetical person did not actually have to be present, nor indeed did anyone else.
What was especially significant was that there was no longer a need to prove "intent to cause alarm and distress". The Police said that proving intent was often quite difficult - so they wanted an easier way to get convictions. After many protests the requirement for "intent" was put back for the passing of the Sexual Offences Act in 2003.
A minister also gave assurances that the Police would not circumvent that higher threshold by using the Public Order Act to target naturists You can guess what happened subsequently to some naturists....
-
-
Tuesday 15th September 2015 02:22 GMT rtb61
Revenge porn laws are already covered by copyright laws and content creation laws. The argument is over who created the content and who owns the content and who has the right to sell it or give it away and who has the right to broadcast it.
Not happy about your misadventures and true behavioural patterns being exposed, than sue them in civil court for damages, your problem and not the rest of the countries problem.
The state should not have to pay the cost to remediate bad outcomes form voluntary sexual escapades amongst adults. You got yourself into a problem than you pay to fix it and recover the money from the other parties involved, do not come to us because of your straying genitals and desire for personal porn.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
