LibriumArcana.Games

CBC

Nova Scotia wants the federal government to make distributing intimate images against someone's wishes a crime under the Criminal Code.

It's the government's latest response to the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, 17, who was taken off life support on April 7 after trying to take her own life a few days earlier.

Nova Scotia Justice Minister Ross Landry will be in Ottawa next week to meet with federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to discuss the issue.

Landry has asked the federal government to criminalize emailing, texting or posting images for a “malicious or sexual purpose."

According to Rehtaeh's mother, four boys sexually assaulted her daughter when she was 15 years old. Rehtaeh was then said to have been mocked by classmates, enduring relentless harassment and humiliation after a photo of the attack was circulated at her school and on social media.

Police investigated, but no charges were laid.

"It has become apparent that our laws have not kept pace with the world we live in," Landry said in a release.

Dan MacRury, a Crown prosecutor who is Nova Scotia's representative on a national cybercrime working group, said he believes an enforceable law could be put in place, despite the challenges presented by technology.

"From a technology point of view, it's like any investigation. [Police] would have to prove who sent the item."

He said what constitutes an intimate image would have to be worked out as the law is drafted, but the intent would be to crack down on the distribution of harmful images depicting genitalia.

"Obviously we wouldn't be looking at just kissing," said MacRury.

"We’re not talking about pictures of lakes, we’re talking about intimate pictures that can be harmful to somebody. The reality is you have to prove that there’s a malicious purpose and I mean that’s one of the things — or for a sexual purpose — and I think that those are the targets that you have to look at.”

MacRury said while there are provisions in the Criminal Code that outlaw child pornography, there are no protections in place to prevent the malicious dissemination of sexual images for adults. He said the province would also push to address that gap.

Landry said he has reached out to his provincial counterpart to build support. The premier's office said Saskatchewan Justice Minister Gordon Wyant has already responded saying his province supports Nova Scotia's efforts.

You know... I can agree with the intent behind this, given the horrible impact this has had on young women (there's another young lady who killed herself in California when boys who had raped her when she was passed out spread pictures of the event all over the place and of course the event in Ohio) some kind of rule saying if you post a picture of someone in a compromising position without their permission we're gonna smack you is a good one.

I'm sure the Paparazzi will disagree.

I know somebody who very nearly lost a job over revenge porn, so long as the law is carefully crafted I'm all for it.

Canada's policies vis-a-vis this sort of thing are their own to decide. Insofar as the US is concerned though, I'm afraid my position remains quite absolutist on such matters. I suppose I would say differently if it was me in those pictures, but there we are.

Well thanks for coming off the mountain to dispense your morally inconsistent opinion, gov. Then again, the market for your naughty bits is probably fairly miniscule, so there's only the smallest chance of you being so discomfited.

Josh wrote:Well thanks for coming off the mountain to dispense your morally inconsistent opinion, gov. Then again, the market for your naughty bits is probably fairly miniscule, so there's only the smallest chance of you being so discomfited.

Will someone get this guy a bottle of baby formula or something? I think he's teething again.

And while we're at it, maybe someone ought to explain the definitions of certain words to him.

So no clarification, then?

frigidmagi wrote: I'm sure the Paparazzi will disagree.

The Paparazzi can go to hell (would already have in a just world but then ours not being one shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody).
Like frigid, I'm fully behind the intent of the law, if anything I'm worried about the eventual wording (lawmakers the world over have a history of making laws the next best thing to useless and/or effectively unenforceable even when they're not catering to special interest groups).
And sorry Havoc, yes, you feeling different if it was you in those pictures but if it's anybody else who cares is morally inconsistent.
Not necessarily, Master Bruce. If Master Havoc's stance is always that 'as long as it's anybody else, who cares, but if it's me that's naturally different' that would be morally consistent. Well immorally consistent if you ask me, but definitely consistent.
Good point.

My point was that most people's positions on subjects like this change when they're the ones being directly affected, sort of like how someone who opposes the death penalty may change their mind if their loved ones are the victims of violent crimes. I have an absolute view on freedom of speech, but I was acknowledging that I have never been the victim of this sort of behavior and don't know what my reaction would be if I was. I did this because I have sufficient human empathy to recognize that there are people out there with experiences other than mine.

If you can't do the same, then I'm not the one with the problem.

Josh wrote:So no clarification, then?

I don't tend to clarify in response to dick jokes, no.

The problem is absolutely yours. Why would it be wrong to do it to you if it is perfectly OK to do it to everybody else? What makes you so special? Why should a law apply to everybody else but not you?
You can't have it both ways. Either this law is warranted or it is not. If you think it is covered by Free Speech in the US, why does it suddenly STOP being covered by Free Speech if you're the person in the video?
If your stance on Free Speech is absolute and you think this is covered by it, so would be pictures/videos of you in that kind of situations. Make up your mind.

Batman wrote:The problem is absolutely yours. Why would it be wrong to do it to you if it is perfectly OK to do it to everybody else? What makes you so special? Why should a law apply to everybody else but not you?
You can't have it both ways. Either this law is warranted or it is not. If you think it is covered by Free Speech in the US, why does it suddenly STOP being covered by Free Speech if you're the person in the video?
If your stance on Free Speech is absolute and you think this [/i]is[/i] covered by it, so would be pictures/videos of you in that kind of situations. Make up your mind.

Please re-read what I said, and not what you just imagined I said.

To clarify for whatever it's worth.

I believe in the absolute right of free speech. Period. That covers everything from pornography to obscenity to hate speech to deceit to insults to everything else. We can quibble about the boundaries regarding fire in the crowded theater and libel and all the rest, but my position tends to come down on the side of "protected unless there's a titanic reason not to". I do not feel this qualifies, grotesque as it is. The case is Canadian and my knowledge of the particular laws that apply is miniscule, so they will do whatever they do, but insofar as I have an opinion, it tends to be that all speech/expression, even hurtful speech, is protected.

BUT, I acknowledge I have never been in the position that this claimant is. I do not know what it feels like to be in that position. I would wager that the majority of you don't either. Being as I don't know what it's like, I'm open to the possibility that my opinions would change in response to being subjected to such awful torment, you know, like the entire rest of the human species. I believe the speech should be protected, even when directed at me, but I felt it necessary to point out, in perfect fairness, that such things have never actually been directed at me, and therefore I don't know what I would do if they were. Unless I miss my mark, neither do any of you.

So if you think merely admitting the possibility that I might react differently in different circumstances is hypocrisy, then you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know what the word means. I am simply acknowledging the limits of my own personal experience. Look at the sources of your own opinions before you throw mud at the sources of mine.

I have an absolute view on freedom of speech, but I was acknowledging that I have never been the victim of this sort of behavior and don't know what my reaction would be if I was. I did this because I have sufficient human empathy to recognize that there are people out there with experiences other than mine.

I am not sure this sort of thing qualifies as freedom of speech. There are exceptions to freedom of speech. Like yelling "fire!" in a crowed theater, false advertising, fraud, or directly inciting violence (to wit, telling who follow you as their leader to go out and beat up black people). These are all forms of speech which have no purpose but to cause harm, and do in fact demonstrably cause harm. The Supreme Court has long upheld these exceptions.

This sort of thing is no different. It is the posting of an image with a criminal purpose. Namely, to cause direct harm to a person, often as an element to another crime, such as rape. When porn producers make...well... porn... they must obtain consent from the person appearing in the film in order to use that image in a public venue. Similar things apply here.

So, if you would be so kind as to explain how freedom of speech even applies here--for example, if you disagree with the existence of the above mentioned exceptions--that would be beneficial.

OK. Havoc edited the original post and covered at least in part much of what I brought up. So I will address it in a separate post, as the edited post is in effect entirely separate and I wish to avoid an edit war.

As for Batman and Josh, I would like to address the both of you. Changing one's beliefs in response to events that happen in your life is not hypocrisy, or intellectual dishonesty. It is in fact the opposite. What Havoc is saying is that, for him, the requirements for restricting freedom of expression are very very high. The harm done must be very large. He does not have any perspective on how much harm is done in this case--because it has not happened to him. Therefore, he is open to the possibility that his position may change, but for now, he is forced by consistency with his beliefs regarding freedom of speech to err on the side of individual liberty.

This is not difficult to understand.

Now, back to Havoc's argument.

I believe in the absolute right of free speech. Period. That covers everything from pornography to obscenity to hate speech to deceit to insults to everything else. We can quibble about the boundaries regarding fire in the crowded theater and libel and all the rest, but my position tends to come down on the side of "protected unless there's a titanic reason not to". I do not feel this qualifies, grotesque as it is.

Here is the problem, as I see it. There are good reasons to protect hate speech, porn, obscenity etc.

Hate Speech laws are subject to a certain amount of legislative creep that could very readily impose on legitimate political speech. That is why the legal exception specifies the imminent excitation to violence. It is not sufficient to say that the United States of America is a corrupt system that must be purged from the earth. It is sufficient to be prosecuted if you tell your followers that they must now begin assassinating librarians. Right Now.

One person's obscenity is another persons art. These are things that, once again, may encroach on actual art due to the precedent set by such laws.

By contrast, there is no legitimate purpose in sending images of the girl you (I am using the impersonal you. Not accusing.) just raped to all her classmates other than to increase the amount of shame, and control you have over her. It is an extension of the original crime, but one that is now not possible to charge as a crime. If you want to justify this sort of thing on free speech grounds, you also have to justify the legalization of threats directed toward rape victims by rapists, stalking by way of text or images (such as sending pictures of the rape victim's routine to her so she always knows you can harm her at any time etc), and any number of other things. This is no different. These things are currently criminal offenses.

In cases where rape is not involved, but say, revenge by a scorned lover or something like that, it is still nothing but victimization. It has no redeeming value, and no purpose but to harm someone else. There is no possibility of legislative creep from laws prohibiting such actions.

The only difference between this, and a physical assault or other form of physical attack is the medium used. Text or images vs a punch to the face. The harm is still very real. A person continually subjected to physical assault is likely to commit suicide eventually. The same is true here.

So, why should THIS expression of anger by way of consentless distribution of sexual images be any different from a physical expression of anger by way of continual beating?

To begin with, we're not talking about rape here. Rape is a crime of assault and passion tied into far more than just free speech or expression. All the things you cited above such as stalking and intimidating rape victims into being silent, these are all crimes because they are associated with rape and other such violent acts. They're not criminal in their own right, they're criminal as accessory actions to rape.

The problems arise when we're not talking about rape. When we're talking about the publication of material that is not in any way related to a crime or other assault, and while you're correct that such actions are a form of victimization, that alone in my mind is not enough to render it illegal. If I call you an asshole, or publicize statements you made in private which paint you in a bad light (Romney's 47% for instance), those things are also victimization, and yet are protected speech. If a homophobic congressman is caught in bed with a rent boy and the pictures splashed all over the front page of the Tabloids, that act is also protected speech (or should be). Obviously in this case, that was not the intention of spreading these pictures around, but you cannot legislate out intentions (despite all we try to do so). As such, I cannot accept this behavior, repellant as it is, as anything but protected speech. The mere fact that you and I cannot find value in it in this case is not sufficient to decide that no value will ever be found in any such act regardless of circumstance, which is approximately the standard I would need in order to remove its protected status.

At risk of sounding tautological, the difference between this and a physical assault is that this is not a physical assault. There is no enshrined right to assault people in the Constitution (yes, this case is Canadian, but I'm not, and thus my opinions are not), because we recognize that offense and attack are inherently different things, regardless of the anger they provoke. I do not doubt that the harm is very real, nor that the end result of such bullying can well be suicide. But so can be the end-result of blasphemy, hate speech, or obscenity. All of these things are protected.

You asked me why this expression of anger should be treated differently than a physical assault. But the burden of proof, as I see it, is on those who would prohibit speech, not protect it. Thus I ask you in return why this expression of anger by way of distribution of sexual images should be treated differently from other expressions of anger, such as insult, obscenity, or lies? After all, I could make photoshopped images of George Bush felating someone that would be protected speech, yet actual photos of George Bush felating someone would not?

As such, I cannot accept this behavior, repellant as it is, as anything but protected speech. The mere fact that you and I cannot find value in it in this case is not sufficient to decide that no value will ever be found in any such act regardless of circumstance, which is approximately the standard I would need in order to remove its protected status.

That's an impossible standard. You have demonstrable harm from this sort of business, including people losing their career. Furthermore you can't assume consent in this situation, because it's damned easy to take compromising pictures of somebody without their having any knowledge. For example, if somebody is a BDSM practitioner, that can be used against them in any number of careers.

I hate the 'fire in the theater' example because it's actually a quote from a much nastier piece of judicial fuckery, but you can make the demonstrable argument that yelling 'fire' in a theater when there is no fire could be a beneficial act and save lives, if you want to stretch out to all possible hypothetical situations.

After all, I could make photoshopped images of George Bush felating someone that would be protected speech, yet actual photos of George Bush felating someone would not?

It gets sticky here, but yes, I would protect people's right to consent for distribution of materials depicting them in sexual activities or with exposed genitalia.

I don't tend to clarify in response to dick jokes, no.

Well I guess I'll apologize for that around the time you apologize for all the various times you swooped in and blindsided me because I reminded you of your coworkers.