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.
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.