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.
The Tory peers believe the Government’s current plans for new criminal offences such as cyber-stalking and sharing intimate images such as revenge porn do not go far enough and will fail to curb online misogynistic abuse that, while legal, harms women and girls.
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.
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…
Nonetheless, “cyber stalking” is dubious AF, though…
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.
or “informed and active consent” (which changes at the whim of the accuser, and has been completely weaponized)…
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.
A can of worms that I absolutely think would be best not to see opened…
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.
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.
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.
No, that's absurd - which is why release forms exist.
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?
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.
A magistrate can even rule that there was an implicit contract that it was not to be shared unless otherwise stated.
If you read other articles, they say that the current culture secretary, who is in charge of online laws, is pushing for a blanket ban on all "misogyny".
Revenge porn can be classified as sending an OnlyThot's content to her family, or reposting it to cut her revenues. They're protecting trash again.
The problem is, the media likes to narrow the definition of misogyny down to just cyber-stalking, revenge porn and their two particular favourites for offline behaviour, cat-calling and wolf-whistling. One thing missed that was explicitly mentioned and will be covered by the proposal (by design) is unsolicited pictures being sent online via private messaging. However, whether you are guilty of an offence won't be narrowly defined like that, it will be more of a case of whether your behaviour causes offence, distress, harm, harassment, hate or is unwanted by the victim on the basis that they are a woman. That goes way beyond the few behaviours mentioned, the concept of misogyny is vaguely defined (purposely) and threatens to criminalise a lot of behaviour, from what you would deem deserving of being made illegal all the way to merely being clumsy or unattractive. It also has wide reaching consequences for everyone who runs a website accessible to UK users as I posted elsewhere. And as I also posted in the same comment, there is another bill which will cover offline behaviour too.
This proposal is supposed to keep women "safe", not just from revenge porn and cyber-stalking, but from all unwanted and harmful (even if legal) behaviour and communication.
However, whether you are guilty of an offence won't be narrowly defined like that, it will be more of a case of whether your behaviour causes offence, distress, harm, harassment, hate or is unwanted by the victim on the basis that they are a woman.
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).
That goes way beyond the few behaviours mentioned, the concept of misogyny is vaguely defined (purposely)
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.
This proposal is supposed to keep women "safe", not just from revenge porn and cyber-stalking, but from all unwanted and harmful (even if legal) behaviour and communication.
That is certainly what the Tory tards who want to amend it want.
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?
If you read other articles, they say that the current culture secretary, who is in charge of online laws, is pushing for a blanket ban on all "misogyny".
Revenge porn can be classified as sending an OnlyThot's content to her family, or reposting it to cut her revenues. They're protecting trash again.
What mysterious other articles?
Oh? Is that actually the case anywhere, or did you pull that out of your ass?
That is copyright violation.
Some more info -
https://twitter.com/ukpapers/status/1621788901852446720?s=21
The problem is, the media likes to narrow the definition of misogyny down to just cyber-stalking, revenge porn and their two particular favourites for offline behaviour, cat-calling and wolf-whistling. One thing missed that was explicitly mentioned and will be covered by the proposal (by design) is unsolicited pictures being sent online via private messaging. However, whether you are guilty of an offence won't be narrowly defined like that, it will be more of a case of whether your behaviour causes offence, distress, harm, harassment, hate or is unwanted by the victim on the basis that they are a woman. That goes way beyond the few behaviours mentioned, the concept of misogyny is vaguely defined (purposely) and threatens to criminalise a lot of behaviour, from what you would deem deserving of being made illegal all the way to merely being clumsy or unattractive. It also has wide reaching consequences for everyone who runs a website accessible to UK users as I posted elsewhere. And as I also posted in the same comment, there is another bill which will cover offline behaviour too.
This proposal is supposed to keep women "safe", not just from revenge porn and cyber-stalking, but from all unwanted and harmful (even if legal) behaviour and communication.
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.