Comments criticising women online to be made illegal in the UK
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Did you get this screenshot from Twitter or some other place? I looked up the article, and I see why the original poster did not include a link. You're a good guy, so I don't suspect you of dishonesty.
Current government plans are as follows:
The term cyber-stalking is rather concerning, and I guess it depends on how it is defined, but banning revenge porn is a no-brianer.
The problem is with the retard Tory peers.
Yeah, this doesn’t exactly match the headline, I must admit…
Nonetheless, “cyber stalking” is dubious AF, though…
It’s as nebulous as current definitions of “sexual harassment” (staring, a fucking wolf whistle, etc.) or “informed and active consent” (which changes at the whim of the accuser, and has been completely weaponized)…
A can of worms that I absolutely think would be best not to see opened…
Yeah, that could potentially cover creating a new account in order to say something to someone who has you blocked. I think people are mature enough to distinguish between direct contact and stuff that happens online, but these are not people, these are politicians.
Whenever I see that, I wonder how in the world you are supposed to prove otherwise.
I don't like "it wasn't rape because she never said no", but this creates a bigger problem than it solves.
And if you did, you could join Chickens for KFC.
I got it from twitter. Even bloomberg is saying misogyny is going to be criminalised now (repeating the telegraph’s claims though):
https://twitter.com/business/status/1621875329160646656?s=21
https://archive.ph/YQgyD
Having read just the title, it seems to me that they may talk about the crazy amendment that the Tory peers are pushing. After all, it says that it "May Also" Tackle Misogyny.
Now let's hope sanity prevails.
Explain why. If someone recorded a video with permission then it belongs to them and they should be able to do what they want with it. In the case of sex videos you might say the video belongs to both parties. Couldn't violations of that be handled under existing contract laws? A magistrate can even rule that there was an implicit contract that it was not to be shared unless otherwise stated. If there was already an attempt to claim damages against someone with that argument and they failed, I could maybe see the need for new laws but I'd have to read the specific judgement.
No, that's absurd - which is why release forms exist.
You could, but contract law is very cumbersome and difficult to enforce for individuals. You'd have to pay for an expensive lawyer. Moreover, you would only be able to sue for damages, against someone who let's be fair is probably a broke loser, rather than jail time.
Why not clear up this by codifying this?
Some more info -
https://twitter.com/ukpapers/status/1621788901852446720?s=21
These are all valid concerns. Obviously, the law should be objective. And I'm not saying that this law is good or whatever (though I obviously do support bans on revenge porn).
Not having read the law, but having read this article, it is my understanding that this law does not talk about 'misogyny' - and that this is how the media is framing it.
That is certainly what the Tory tards who want to amend it want.