4 ms·
First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
- bloopernova 3y agoHooray. I hope all those guilty of sending unsolicited genital pictures will be punished similarly. One step forward, thankfully.
- throwaway74432 3y ago>Hawkes admitted at an earlier hearing that he sent a photograph or film of genitals with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. Does this extend to sending any image with intent to cause alarm, distress, or humiliation? Or does it stop with images of genitals?
- mikeyouse 3y agoThat specific statute only relates to genitals; > The change means that anyone who sends a photo or film of a person’s genitals, for the purpose of their own sexual gratification or to cause the victim humiliation, alarm or distress may face up to two years in prison.
- epiccoleman 3y agoDoes this mean someone could, in theory, go to prison for linking meatspin? Only half joking, when read literally it certainly seems that's a possible interpretation.
- d1str0 3y agoIf your intent was to cause distress, then probably. If you’re sending it to a pal that might be hard to prove but to a stranger would be easier to prove I imagine.
- darreninthenet 3y agoOnline Safety Act that's being cited here is "any sexual image"... as usual with UK laws a "sexual image" is not defined in statute and is a matter of fact for a court to rule on whether or not any given image is "sexual" The Malicious Communications Act covers sending anything else with the intent of causing "distress or anxiety". As an aside, "intent" in UK law usually means "knows or should have known" ie you can't just say "I didn't mean to" if the average person would agree that such a communication would cause distress etc (again this is a matter for a court).
- kybernetyk 3y ago>The Malicious Communications Act covers sending anything else with the intent of causing "distress or anxiety". So sending a photo of a steak to a vegan would get you 5 years in prison? I'm glad I don't live in the UK and I'm glad they left the EU so their idiotic laws won't poison EU laws.
- krisoft 3y ago> sending a photo of a steak to a vegan would get you 5 years in prison? Two issues. The question is what was your intent. Proving that it was sent with the intent of causing distress or anxiety is much harder in that case. For example I don’t know a single vegan who would react with distress or anxiety to the image of a steak. That is just nonsense. They would just say “yuck”. But if from the circumstances it is clear that that is the intent, perhaps because the vegan in question repeatedly expresses distress and the accused in question still keeps sending them then why would we not punish that? As in do you want that kind of behaviour in your society? That was issue one. Issue two is about the 5 years. You say that as if that is the standard length of punishment a first time vegan abuser should expect. In reality this person has previously been convicted of a sexual crime and then commited infractions against multiple people. Surely these factors played a role in the lenght of prison sentence he received?
- throwaway74432 3y agoWhy do you want the option to have someone arrested for offending you?
- DuskHorizon 3y ago[flagged]
- allears 3y agoThis guy is achieving internet fame for all the wrong reasons. What he did was pretty dumb and definitely over-the-line transgressive, but now he's gonna be a poster child for Perverts Anonymous. Is it true what they say that there is no such thing as bad publicity? Maybe he can parlay this thing into some kind gig as influencer, or content creator, or something.
- equalsione 3y agoI think you’re seriously downplaying the seriousness of these acts and the kind of person who does something like this: “Hawkes was already a registered sex offender after he was given a community order last year for exposure and sexual activity with a child under 16. That registration ran until November 2033.” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-68543605 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-68543605
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kurthr 3y agoI guess we'll see if anyone on social media has a 5 year attention span.
- jimjimjim 3y agoWhat he did was terrible. It's good that he was convicted.
- brynhughes 3y ago[flagged]
- WheatMillington 3y agoThis spam account needs to be banned.
- brynhughes 3y agomy bad, wasn't trying to spam
- pksebben 3y agoI realize this is possibly the least salient part of the article, but who on earth uses the term "banter" for unsolicited dick pics?
- yosito 3y agoYou can argue that the cyberflashing law is a bit too broad and the punishment a bit too harsh. I might agree if we're talking about one adult sending sexy photos to another adult without asking first. In that case it might just be bad manners worthy of a slap on the wrist. But here's what this guy did, and in his case the punishment totally fits the crime: > Hawkes borrowed his father’s phone, saying he needed to call the probation office, went in another room and sent photos by WhatsApp to a woman and by iMessage to a 15-year-old girl, who began crying.
- Dylan16807 3y agoHer being 15 doesn't stop me from thinking over five years is too much. What a weird argument to act like those are mutually exclusive. That a pretty big fraction of what you'd get for murder.
- alphabettsy 3y agoNot his first time. He was already a registered sex offender. Seems he didn’t learn his lesson.
- Dylan16807 3y agoI don't think the first time or not distinction should change your sentence by more than... let's say a year.
- boomboomsubban 3y agoHe plead guilty to violating the terms of his probation, meaning he committed the crime knowing what the penalties would be.
- Dylan16807 3y agoHow is this relevant to how long sentences should be? I'm glad he didn't waste the court's time very much, I guess.
- userbinator 3y agoIn some cultures, recipients of such pictures would probably just laugh and be at most confused. In others, the population is conditioned to be offended to the point of making it highly illegal. It doesn't even sound like this case is about mutilated or otherwise abnormally disturbing imagery; merely normal human anatomy.
- dgacmu 3y agoUm. To a fifteen year old. Who distinctly did not want to receive such. Notably, the guy was already a registered sex offender. Sure this is the hill for you?
- zht 3y agohow many pictures of genitals did you receive when you were 15?
- DontchaKnowit 3y agoI can't tell which direction you are going with on this because the honest answer is a lot, and all my friends too. I remember a girl friend of mine in high school (we were 15) showing me a video of a grown man jerking off and she said he was married but they'd been cheating together. Sadly, not terribly uncommon
- acdha 3y ago“Normal human anatomy” is what you say if someone’s swimsuit slips in the surf, not when a sex offender sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually. The difference is intent: he knew it was unwelcome, and he didn’t care about that lack of consent. Now might be a really good time to think about why your first instinct is to defend the guy committing mid-level sexual assault rather than the child he targeted.
- userbinator 3y agosends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually That's entirely the result of a cultural construct. about why your first instinct is to defend the guy Trying to turn this into an "us vs. them" situation? I was just pointing out the huge cultural differences that exist in the world beyond Western puritanism.