'Revenge porn' bully told not to post people's nude pics online. That's it. That's his punishment

Re: as it's his first offence

Perhaps the US should be so lenient on first time murderers too?

Pity the victims don't see it as a suitable punishment

Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

> Personally, I wish this person's right to privacy was simply suspended.

What right to privacy?

Anyone can post photos of him and state where and when taken if taken in public.

It will be interesting to have a follow up in a few year's time of whatever happened to so and so. Perhaps we can look forward to more regular updates?

Anyone got a link?

Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

I like the idea of using a paper bag, but those serve a purpose as they're recyclable. Why not use a non recyclable plastic bag instead? It's virtually the same as reusing it.

Re: @dan1980 ..... it's sad when the default position has to be "don't trust anyone"."

He who sticks his nose into a beehive can expect more than a nostril full of honey...

Re: @dan1980 ..... it's sad when the default position has to be "don't trust anyone"."

> One may indeed be foolish if one wanders down a dark alley late at night but one still does not "deserve" to wake up in intensive care.

Isn't that better than the alternative?

And in all fairness is has to be admitted that it only happens occasionally. So, statistically, that's all right then.

Germany

So German newspapers contain almost no pictures of people then?

Come to think of it, I remember how whenever a German newspaper had an article about skinheads/neo-nazis/whatever they always printed one of a small set of familiar pictures, presumably of an actor or model.

"but here in Germany it would be an offence to publish a photo, let alone a nude photo of somebody without their express permission."

Are you sure?

It would be impossible to publish a picture of say a public protest, a football match or a concert.

Can you explain how permission was sought for everyone in this picture?

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-birth-of-a-movement-fotostrecke-122785.html

@Big_D

And that's another question - are these things covered by existing laws?

If the behaviour is really that bad (and I believe it is) then surely there should be laws covering it. And if there are, then why make new, special laws?

I don't mean that to say that new laws aren't needed - I mean it as a genuine question: if this behaviour is already illegal under existing laws then what is the purpose of new laws covering the same situation?

To answer your question, in Australia, you only have the right to prevent the publishing of photos of you (whether online or otherwise) where you did not agree to the photo and can reasonably be said to have some expectation of privacy. If someone takes a photo of you walking down the street, they can publish that online without requiring any consent because there is no expectation of privacy in a public space.

Likewise, if you are at private location - say a bar or nightclub - and there is a photographer going around and you agree to have your photo taken (obvious posing is implicit consent) then, again, they can publish that.

I am not entirely sure what happens if someone publishes a photo of you that they shouldn't - I'm pretty sure that all that entails is the right to ask for the photo to be taken down. I don't think it's a crime to publish the photos - you would just get sued if, as the photographer, you refuse to take it down when asked to.

Which is all fine. The question is what happens if someone takes a naked photo of someone else - with their consent - and later publishes it? Let's assume that the subject has the right to ask for it to be taken down but beyond that, what? Let's say the photographer duly takes the photo down and does so promptly. Should here be a penalty or criminal conviction on top?

If so, on what grounds?

If you answer that the publishing of the photo was malicious and designed to cause harm and embarrassment, would the same apply if you took a photo of a friend who was exceptionally drunk and making a fool of himself and then you posted that online? It can be easily argued that this is cause for embarrassment and could be seen by (say) parents or in-laws or employers and thus may cause harm to the subject in that way.

Is that just as bad and just as deserving of punishment and/or criminal conviction?

If not then what criteria do you use to separate the one from the other? Is nudity inherently in some different class? If so, why? For some people, nudity is no problem at all - nothing to be ashamed of. For some people, being photographed or filmed heavily intoxicated would be far more embarrassing to them, personally and, depending on their circle, perhaps even far more detrimental. After all, pretty much all parents want their children to have sex because most want grand kids! Most, however, disapprove of their children getting riotously, uncontrollably, sickeningly, drunk and making idiots of themselves.

So how do you determine what gets treated as especially embarrassing or harmful such that the publishing of it is deemed malicious enough to warrant particular punishment where a less embarrassing photo would simple be taken down and that's it?

Given people are all different, how do we set down that which is especially embarrassing? It might be said that if it causes particular embarrassment and harm then it qualifies, but that leaves interpretation of the law as "I don't like it".

To take a very rough parallel, there are laws around saying offensive things to people, but exactly WHAT is offensive is difficult enough to pin down that no case that has ever gone before a judge in NSW (and I believe Australia) has ever been held up. That is because "I was offended" is not sufficient justification of actual offense.

One option is to say that any photo, taken in private, requires explicit permission to publish a photo online, as you say the law is in Germany. But what does that mean for popular sites like Facebook? Presumably, even in Germany, family members post photos of their get-togethers and adults post photos of their children. Is it the law (were we in Germany) that before my sister posts a photo of our last family Christmas, she must obtain the permission of everyone in that photo? What if she doesn't and, some time shortly thereafter my brother divorces his wife in particularly acrimonious circumstances and she, in her anger and bitterness (and having never got along with us) decides to target my sister by complaining about the photos from Christmas, saying she never consented to having the photos posted online?

It's a bit extreme but my point is simply that any law must be crafted very carefully to avoid it being misused.

And, again, you could restrict this to just nudity but the only reason to single out nudity is that it can cause embarrassment but there are many, MANY things that can cause embarrassment that are personal and so can't be blanket legislated against.

That's all a massively long detour but it's a complicated question and I don't believe it's a straight-forward situation with a straight-forward solution.

To repeat, I find this all reprehensible but there are many reprehensible images and texts and speeches and lyrics and actions that I find reprehensible but are legal and rightly so. Many things that a majority of people would prefer to not exist are essentially negative side-effects to protecting important freedoms.

Take something like Fred Phelps and his followers. Their actions are disgusting to me but I understand why they are allowed to do what they do - the freedom of expression that they are protected by is far, far too precious to weaken, even for those expressions the majority finds unpalatable.

So you go to the park, play football with your kids, post pictures online. And have to track down the dog-walkers who walked through the frame.

It may have good intentions, but for practical reasons, this law is just silly. Sadly, UK is heading in the same direction.

big_D, I can hardly believe that it is an offence to publish a person's photograph without that person's permission in Germany. How do German news media get everyone's permission before publishing a crowd scene (e.g. the stadium at a football match)? It would also mean that the photograph in this article (and indeed the image of any alleged criminal) would be banned from publication by German media unless the criminal gave permission.

"Does it matter if something is legal? Is that really the criterium to use? What about something being right or not?"

In short, yes, the legality matters.

The reason is that it matters is that right and wrong is not as clear cut as it sometimes seems and thus depends on the person making the decision. This is no way to build a fair and fixed system of justice that provides security and legislative fixity.

This is important because because the larger a society, the harder it is to work is when you base laws on imprecise terms like 'right' and 'wrong'. In a small village, this might be workable but not in a city or state of millions or a country of tens or hundreds of millions.

But equally one cannot judge humans justly by reading impersonal laws. Only humans, with human experiences and human emotions can adequately judge other humans.

So you have a problem - you need something solid and fixed that people can look to as a guide but also a human element to temper that. And so the law - in most modern countries - is an interesting amalgam of the two factors. This is the beauty of the 'lady justice' image - justice should be impartial so far as (say) wealth or race or colour or gender or political connection is concerned but it also must be human.

But that is me getting a bit off-topic; apologies.

To your point, you say that most people have developed an idea of what is wrong and what is right but and what is decent and what is indecent but history has shown us that this changes and so we must endeavour to always make our laws about the important principles and not ephemeral notions of what is 'acceptable' or not. Not to be too predictable, but it was at a time 'acceptable' to own slaves but not at all 'decent' (or legal) to be homosexual. Today, that is entirely opposite.

There is no segue there - just an very simple yet important example of why relying on a majoriy opinion of what is 'right' and 'wrong' is not the best wat forward. We tried that and it didn't work and we are still shaking off the remnants of the attitude. We must learn from that failed experiment, however, and make sure that the laws we enact from now on are not rooted in what the majority think (can you say "get to the back of the bus"?) but what rational and reasoned logic can create when tempered by human compassion.

Still, there are no perfect solutions and we will always be trying to balance between freedoms and protection. The important thing is to understand that balance is something that we have to work at and may never achieve. Instead, we must decide which is more important and when and where. We must think consequentially as well - do we are risk weakening our freedom of expression to stop this issue? Or must we view such cases as an undesirable but perhaps unavoidable consequence of being serious about our freedoms?

This is why I say that any specific laws that are or might be enacted to 'combat' (pollies loves that word) this must be very, very specific because we just can't (or at least shouldn't) risk losing those freedoms we have worked so hard for - even if we do so for a good cause.

With somethink like freedom of expression, it is exceptionally delicate because where there is one exception, that exception will be used as a precedent and people will say: "if X is enough to curtail this freedom, why isn'y Y enough too?"

This was part of my (long) point above - if nudity is to be an exception, why only that? What if I am embarrassed and harmed (professionally or emotionally) whn a picture of me rolling drunk is published? The point is that by making exceptions for things which the current law-makers consider "bad enough", you set a precedent so that any subsequent "bad enough" is good enough for a similar exception.

In the UK the "buzzword" laws are often actually just amendments to existing law, some of it is naturally marketing, we have after all, elected a marketing man as PM.

Regarding photos and permission I wouldn't like to see the day when a photo of an MP in his jim-jams with his nob out would be barred from publication, at the same time it's clearly extortion to demand money from him under threat of doing so.

I guess another vote for doing this creep under extortion laws from me then.

@Jim 59

Exactly - 'buzzword' laws are there largely to answer the media who will print stories like: "Let's get rid of these vile trolls" or similar.

That are enacted to be seen to be doing something. And, because of that. they tend to be overly broad and vague - no real consultation between multiple parties - just a hasty law pushed through the parliament to make the next news cycle.

Vigilantism

@cornz 1

When the courts fail, in some cases, there is a moral case to be made for vigilantism..

Have a care, sir! This is a slippery slope you put us on.

And a valid point of discussion that demands much more serious attention and discussion than it receives.

The poles of the discussion are well represented by two statements attributed to John Adams, both of which I accept as adding value to the discussion: The first, from the 1780 Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts. That statement, since removed, read: "The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber or kill a flea."

This sentiment echoes the milder language in the US Declaration of Independence's statements that governments exist for the purpose of securing the rights of the people, and declaring the People's inalienable right to act when governments fail in that purpose.

It is hard to envision a more avid defender of the People as the sole legitimate basis for government authority than Adams. Yet he is also quoted as saying, "The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body." This echoes Plato's equation of true Democracy and mob rule as the worst possible form of government.

These statements capture the inherent conflict between the need for institutionalized government to protect the rights of the individual from mob rule and the rights of the People to protect those same rights when governments fail.

I firmly believe that the principles articulated by the founders of the US Republic are eternal and as valid as ever. There is a strong argument to be made that those who now govern in the US do so for the benefit of special interests, and that government has ceased to be effective--some believe has already failed, or is on the verge of imminent failure--in its primary role as protector of the individual rights of the People. (Never forget Miriam Carey.)

At the same time, those of us with a natural bent toward vigilantism need to temper our inclinations. People arguably have the moral right to act to preserve freedom. But the means must also be morally appropriate.

The same IT that has proven to be such a threat to privacy has given the citizens unprecedented abilities to organize and change the government through the electoral process. At this juncture the people still have both the means and the opportunity to change the government, if they have the will.

The process of changing the government and unwinding the damage done on behalf of special interests will take, I believe, at least two generations. I also have a mild concern that those who govern, having established the legal framework and acquired the requisite number of armored combat vehicles for domestic use, will resort to forceful repression.

I also believe that although that possibility exists, the probability of its occurring is small. That is a bridge can be safely left for burning if and when necessity demands.

In the meantime, compliments to @cornz 1 for having had the courage to broach this subject.

Re: has anyone read his side

Cliff recommended popehat in an earlier post, worth a look at, it also links to a few other law blogs and such about the case.

Interesting read.