21–30 of 56 posts
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.
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.
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'…
>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.
Two issues. The question is what was your intent. Proving that it was sent with the intent of causing distress or anxiety is much harder in that case. For example I don’t know a single vegan who would react with distress or anxiety to the image of a steak. That is just nonsense. They would just say “yuck”.
But if from the circumstances it is clear that that is the intent, perhaps because the vegan in question repeatedly expresses distress and the accused in question still keeps sending them then why would we not punish that? As in do you want that kind of behaviour in your society?
That was issue one. Issue two is about the 5 years. You say that as if that is the standard length of punishment a first time vegan abuser should expect. In reality this person has previously been convicted of a sexual crime and then commited infractions against multiple people. Surely these factors played a role in the lenght of prison sentence he received?
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.
The difference is intent: he knew it was unwelcome, and he didn’t care about that lack of consent. Now might be a really good time to think about why your first instinct is to defend the guy committing mid-level sexual assault rather than the child he targeted.
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.
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 ca…
That a pretty big fraction of what you'd get for murder.
[flagged]
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 ca…
Her being 15 doesn't stop me from thinking over five years is too much. What a weird argument to act like those are mutually exclusive. That a pretty big fraction of what you'd get for murder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Her being 15 doesn't stop me from thinking over five years is too much. What a weird argument to act like those are mutually exclusive. That a pretty big fraction of what you'd get for murder.
Not his first time. He was already a registered sex offender. Seems he didn’t learn his lesson.
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.
“Normal human anatomy” is what you say if someone’s swimsuit slips in the surf, not when a sex offender sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually. The difference is intent: he knew it was unwelcome, and he didn’t care about that lack of consent. Now might be a really good time to think about why your first instinct is to defend the guy committing mid-level sexual assault rathe…
That's entirely the result of a cultural construct.
about why your first instinct is to defend the guy
Trying to turn this into an "us vs. them" situation? I was just pointing out the huge cultural differences that exist in the world beyond Western puritanism.