Encourage the Advertising Standards Authority to tighten regulations around the use of pseudo-scientific language and terminology for the promotion of cosmetic, toiletry, food or other products, without sufficient evidence.
[^1]: Can we have our freedom to joke now please? - Open Rights Group
The sharing, duplication or distribution of naked or sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of participants, even when consent may have originally been granted at the point of filming, should be a criminal offence.
@doismellburning - over 9 years ago
s/sharing, duplication// or do I miss a subtlety there? I ask specifically re duplication, c.f. the "I forgot it was on my iPhone, and I copied all my photos to my laptop" scenario ("duplication")
Also, is "even when consent may have originally been granted at the point of filming" necessary? What does it add?
(To be clear: I agree in principle)
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
I think the "Even when consent may have originally been granted" is important because it makes clear to people that you cannot rely upon the fact that someone consented 12 years ago when you last saw them. You must seek consent once again prior to publication or distribution.
Flexible on the "duplication" point. Keen to know others thoughts as to whether this should be removed from my proposal.
@doismellburning - over 9 years ago
You appear to be talking about consent for different things there then: consent to taking/having vs consent to distribute
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
@doismellburning quite open to alternative wording. What would you like to see put forward instead?
There are many things that cover this already, but it does need a little more. Informative (though non-technical): http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/nude-photos-7-laws-protect-4146809
This is an area where it's very important to avoid an over-broad reaction. This version effectively kills en passant not only the professional pornography industry, but also lot of art and journalism.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/revenge-porn-legal-remedies/5042142.article is a slightly (but not much!) more technical survey of existing UK laws. http://www.wired.com/2013/10/why-criminalizing-revenge-porn-is-a-bad-idea/ is also an interesting counterpoint.
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
Your link @Floppy suggests that there are sufficient laws, but they aren't being enforced. Given that anecdotal evidence/stories in the press suggest the crime is increasing, I still think that a revision in the law is necessary. Happy for others to improve my wording.
@doismellburning - over 9 years ago
@PaulJRobinson Exactly as I proposed originally, that is: The distribution of naked or sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of participants should be a criminal offence.
Shouldn't impact the porn industry / art / journalism; as for overlap with existing laws, pass (anyone got an Archbold handy? :P)
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
@doismellburning in other words keep it simple. Good suggestion. I shall amend.
Encourage the Advertising Standards Authority to tighten regulations around the use of pseudo-scientific language and terminology for the promotion of cosmetic, toiletry, food or other products, without sufficient evidence.
[^1]: Can we have our freedom to joke now please? - Open Rights Group
The distribution of naked or sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of participants should be a criminal offence.
A sudden thought occurs. Should this be generalised further to a proper right to privacy, with penalties for breaking it? That can be separate, but it seemed to me that this change is a step in that direction.
If there are already sufficient laws, but the issue is that they're not being enforced, then surely the solution is to address the enforcement issues, rather than introducing a new law — especially one that might have unintended side-effects?
(I'd also hope that this was based on actual data, rather than volume of press stories, but that's a more general point)
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
@floppy raises a good point, and I'm pretty sure we've already addressed a general right to privacy law in the Manifesto? @tmtmtmtm you're correct I haven't seen any data on this, and I am responding to news stories, but sometimes they can be a useful prompt/call to arms. After all what else is journalism for if not to prompt action from readers? But I do think an additional law is required, but a more general one about privacy may well be more appropriate.
@philipjohn - over 9 years ago
The distribution of naked or sexually explicit images or videos without the consent of participants should be a criminal offence.
My reading of the links posted is that the above is already true. The under-enforcement is possibly indicative of a wider issue of law enforcement's ability to deal with cyber crime, so it's perhaps worth dealing with that - the aim being that all cyber offences including 'revenge porn' will be targeted with better resources than at present.
@francisdavey - over 9 years ago
You do need to say whether consent may be withdrawn and/or whether the consent has to be at the time of distribution. It is far from unknown for pornographic actors to change their mind and wish that their images were no longer distributed. I can imagine a law that permits them to do so and criminalises the pornography industry's conduct, but it would be a very serious restriction on the industry.
Second concern is on "distributes". I don't think you can mean that. I suspect you mean something more like "communicates to the public" in copyright law perhaps with some additional criminalisation of knowingly allowing it to be communicated.
Example: I take a photograph of my baby in the bath and show it to its mother/grandparents. I claim that in a free society that should be permissible. At the moment your proposed crime criminalises it.
Third, you have no mens rea. Surely you need a "knowingly" or is recklessness enough.
Fourth, what about photographs taken in a public place? What about incidental inclusion. The "real expectation of privacy" qualification in privacy law is helpful. As a journalist I should be able to photograph (say) a protest involving large numbers of protestors standing naked outside Parliament (this sort of thing happens). They would also want me to do so. But if I go to jail for not having obtained express consent from the lot of them, then I won't do it.
@philipjohn - over 9 years ago
Great to see you chipping in @francisdavey !
@PaulJRobinson What do you think? Are you happy to make some amendments to take those points into account?
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago
yep will do
*Paul *
about.me/pauljrobinson http://about.me/pauljrobinson
On 11 October 2014 10:49, philipjohn [email protected] wrote:
Great to see you chipping in @francisdavey https://github.com/francisdavey !
@PaulJRobinson https://github.com/PaulJRobinson What do you think? Are you happy to make some amendments to take those points into account?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/openpolitics/manifesto/pull/207#issuecomment-58744367 .
@francisdavey has added a link to some relevant government proposals in #243, which may be of interest.
@philipjohn - over 9 years ago
@PaulJRobinson I know you're busy but wanted to remind you this is here, if you have a moment :)
@PaulJRobinson this is in the "dead" pile, but a lot of thought went into it. Reckon you will do the rephrasing you mentioned above, or is this one for the bin?
The OpenPolitics Manifesto
@PaulJRobinson - over 9 years ago