Lawrence Fox is a total loser

[motorbiking]

The purpose of sharing the photo must be:
to show the genitals AND
cause alarm or distress or humiliation to the person it's being sent to. (NOTE not the person who owns the genitals, but in this case that could be one and the same).
OR for sexual gratification, being reckless to the above.

So given the last part seems unlikely, we are left with intention to show genitals for the purpose of causing alarm or distress.

 

[IT Minion]

The purpose of sharing the photo must be:
to show the genitals AND
cause alarm or distress or humiliation to the person it's being sent to. (NOTE not the person who owns the genitals, but in this case that could be one and the same).
OR for sexual gratification, being reckless to the above.

So given the last part seems unlikely, we are left with intention to show genitals for the purpose of causing alarm or distress.

That seems like an odd statue to use. I had assumed that there was a law that would be to protect the victim of the photo rather than one used to protect people from sexual harassment.

 

[blup]

If I fire point blank at someone how can anyone prove it was intentional without objectively reviewing all the evidence. A jury can’t step into the mind of another human but it can decide what it believes. Will be interesting to see if J D defends free speech on this one. That’s if he can be ars ed to show any interest in us free loaders

 

[motorbiking]

That seems like an odd statue to use. I had assumed that there was a law that would be to protect the victim of the photo rather than one used to protect people from sexual harassment.

funny you say that.. there is the Upskirting offence. sec 67a. But since Fox doesn't appear to be the person who took the photo and its origin pre-dates the offence. It doesn't fit.

 

[Odds]

If I fire point blank at someone how can anyone prove it was intentional without objectively reviewing all the evidence. A jury can’t step into the mind of another human but it can decide what it believes. Will be interesting to see if J D defends free speech on this one. That’s if he can be ars ed to show any interest in us free loaders

A question Alec Baldwin has to answer v. carefully....not quite the same as taking a snap of a naked body. The intent is pretty clear either way you look at it.

 

[motorbiking]

If I fire point blank at someone how can anyone prove it was intentional without objectively reviewing all the evidence. A jury can’t step into the mind of another human but it can decide what it believes. Will be interesting to see if J D defends free speech on this one. That’s if he can be ars ed to show any interest in us free loaders

J D ?

 

[blup]

J D ?

VP

 

[blup]

A question Alec Baldwin has to answer v. carefully....not quite the same as taking a snap of a naked body. The intent is pretty clear either way you look at it.

I should have added live and loaded

 

[IT Minion]

funny you say that.. there is the Upskirting offence. sec 67a. But since Fox doesn't appear to be the person who took the photo and its origin pre-dates the offence. It doesn't fit.

if I'm reading it right it doesn't exclude the original victim in 66A as person B

 

[motorbiking]

if I'm reading it right it doesn't exclude the original victim in 66A as person B

Correct. Its widely known as the Dick Pic' law.

It's about the person seeing the image, not the person who's genitals it is.

 

[IT Minion]

Correct. Its widely known as the Dick Pic' law.

It's about the person seeing the image, not the person who's genitals it is.

it's a sexual image sent to offend (etc.). I expect that's even more pronounced if it happens to be your own genitals that are being sent, and sent in a way that's visible to millions.

 

[motorbiking]

it's a sexual image sent to offend (etc.). I expect that's even more pronounced if it happens to be your own genitals that are being sent, and sent in a way that's visible to millions.

There is no concept of the owner being a victim, in this particularly statute.

If he goes not guilty, his defence may run an argument that you cannot be offended by someone taking a picture of you out in public with your genitals on display.

 

[IT Minion]

There is no concept of the owner being a victim, in this particularly statute.

The owner could sue under copyright. That's irrelevant I agree

 

[motorbiking]

The owner could sue under copyright. That's irrelevant I agree

The owner of the genitals? or the person who took the photo?

 

[IT Minion]

The law doesn't care whose genitals are being sent. It cares about the intent of the sender (A) and the effect on the recipient (B).

It doesn't matter who the subject of the image is to qualify as an offense.