Instruction manuals

Letter to the Crown Prosecution Service on Dealing with porn revenge by Porn E-Vengers

Description
This letter to the Crown Prosecution Service sets out how the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in relation to voyeurism can be used to prosecute porn revenge by Porn E-Vengers. It also highlights how the Protection of Children Act 1978, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 can be used as they can for any other form of trolling.
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
    The Crocels Trolling Academy Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems  Ty Morgannwg, PO Box 674, Swansea, SA1 9NN, Wales, GB Telephone:   01792 345105    –   Web:   www.trollingacademy.org   23 June 2014 Strategy and Policy Directorate Crown Prosecution Service Rose Court 2 Southwark Bridge London SE1 9HS Dear Sirs, Re: Offences for prosecuting “ Porn E-Vengers ”   I was actively involved in the drawing up of the CPS ’  s guidance on offences involving social media, arguing that the law is sufficient to solve the problem, despite opportunist members of Parliament claiming otherwise. I now understand that politicians are trying to do the same with what they called  “ Revenge Pornography, ”   which to experts like myself is known to be carried out by a type of person called a  “ Porn E-Venger ”   often part of a concerted  “ cyberhickery ”   campaign against their target. The type of trolling done by Porn E-Vengers is called  “ mobiling ”   because they often rely on mobile devices to conduct their acts. I need not say that many provisions like the Protection of Children Act 1978, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 can be used in most cases. Politicians say this does not include those instances where a person posts pornographic images online of their partner after a break up. They say this justifies more law, but I disagree and think the CPS should look to conduct test cases using the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on  ‘ voyeurism ’   in the first instance as follows:    Section 67(1) could be used to prosecute someone (C) who has received a pornographic images of a person ’  s (A) ex-partner (B) taken for the private enjoyment of A and B and that C knows was intended to be private.    Section 67(2) could be used to prosecute someone (A) who distributes pornographic image of their ex-partner (B) via a public communications network (i.e. equipment) for the enjoyment of a third party (C) where A knows the image was intended to be private. In this provision  “ sexual gratification ”   could mean gratification as a result of the image being sexual exploitative, even if the gratification is not based on sexual feelings but enjoyment of causing harm to others (i.e.  “ trolling for the lulz ”  ).    Section 67(3) could be used where someone (A) makes a pornographic video or image of another (B) for the purpose of posting it on a website for others to watch without the consent of B. In the same as the previous provision, sexual gratification may be seen as gratification from the distribution of a sexual image to B ’  s detriment (i.e.  “ for the lulz ”  ).   I hope you will be able to take my comments on board so that victims of  “ Porn E-Vengers ”   can get justice now, rather than waiting for it to fit in with the agenda of politicians, as had been tried in the case of the abusive forms of Internet trolling. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Bishop LLM FRAI FBCS CITP
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks