4 ms·

>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 s

>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 ago
That 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 ago
  Does 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 ago
    If 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 ago
Online 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 ago
      Why do you want the option to have someone arrested for offending you?
      - krisoft 3y ago
        Offending someone and intentionaly causing anxiety and distress is not the same thing. I don’t know why you are mixing the two together. I hope it is not because you are not arguing from good faith. Telling a chess player that chess is a silly game with a hodge-podge of rules crudely kludged together can be described as offending. It is a bit crass but to each their own. The kind of communication I want people to be arrested for is way beyond that level which I would describe as “offending”. But assuming you are asking in good faith: Why do I want people arrested for intentionally sending distressing pictures? Same reason I want anyone arrested for punching someone in the face. Because I think that behaviour should not be tolerated in civilised society and I want it to happen less often.

mikeyouse 3y ago

That 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 ago
Does 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 ago
  If 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 ago

Online 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 ago
    Why do you want the option to have someone arrested for offending you?
    - krisoft 3y ago
      Offending someone and intentionaly causing anxiety and distress is not the same thing. I don’t know why you are mixing the two together. I hope it is not because you are not arguing from good faith. Telling a chess player that chess is a silly game with a hodge-podge of rules crudely kludged together can be described as offending. It is a bit crass but to each their own. The kind of communication I want people to be arrested for is way beyond that level which I would describe as “offending”. But assuming you are asking in good faith: Why do I want people arrested for intentionally sending distressing pictures? Same reason I want anyone arrested for punching someone in the face. Because I think that behaviour should not be tolerated in civilised society and I want it to happen less often.