First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
1–10 of 56 posts
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#2Hooray. I hope all those guilty of sending unsolicited genital pictures will be punished similarly.
One step forward, thankfully.
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#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?
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#4>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?
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.
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#5[flagged]
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#6>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'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).
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#7>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?
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.
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.
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#8This 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.
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#10[flagged]