Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 56 posts

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#11

Post by equalsione »

allears wrote: post #8

This 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.

I 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

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#12

Post by [deleted] »

allears wrote: post #8

This 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.

[deleted]

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#13

Post by kurthr »

allears wrote: post #8

This 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.

I guess we'll see if anyone on social media has a 5 year attention span.

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#14

Post by kybernetyk »

darreninthenet wrote: post #6
throwaway74432 wrote: post #3

>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?

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'…

>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.

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#15

Post by I_am_uncreative »

darreninthenet wrote: post #6
throwaway74432 wrote: post #3

>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?

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'…

Interesting that UK statutes don't define "sexual image". Most statutes here in the US do, just for clarity.

Our definition of intent is the same, though. "Knows or reasonably should have known".

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#17

Post by yosito »

You 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.

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#18

Post by krisoft »

I_am_uncreative wrote: post #15
darreninthenet wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Interesting that UK statutes don't define "sexual image". Most statutes here in the US do, just for clarity. Our definition of intent is the same, though. "Knows or reasonably should have known".

> Most statutes here in the US do, just for clarity.

Not a lawyer, so i can’t say if you are right or not but there is a very famous US Supreme Court ruling which basically said “I know it when I see it” about obscenity. That suggest to me that perhaps the definition is not as clear cut in all cases as one would imagine (or were not as clear cut back in 1964).

Quiting from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. In explaining why the material at issue in the case was not obscene under the Roth test, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored, Stewart wrote:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#19

Post by userbinator »

In 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.

Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison

#20

Post by dgacmu »

userbinator wrote: post #19

In 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.

Um. 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?

Post reply on HN