header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 July 2014 / Tim Lawson-Cruttenden
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Policing the internet

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
speakers_corner_lawsoncruttenden

Tim Lawson-Cruttenden examines the legal framework available to protect the victims of revenge pornography

Former culture secretary Maria Miller recently declared that the “existing legal framework does not provide” protection against the posting of revenge pornography on the internet. Ms Miller is not a practising lawyer. This is another example of a senior politician making a forceful statement tainted by inaccuracy.

Revenge pornography is generally posted on the internet by a former and vengeful lover. Difficulties arise when these are transferred, by anonymous individuals onto numerous web sites. This makes actions to remove the material and obtain redress in damages a complex and difficult exercise.

Any person seeking redress for revenge pornography, involving complete removal of intimate material, must consider the respective legal positions of:

  1. Information society service providers (ISSPs) (a defined term) on whose websites this material is published.
  2. Offenders who post tortious or unlawful material on the internet.
  3. Victims who seek redress for, and the removal of, such material.

ISSPs

ISSPs are conditionally exempt from liability for material posted on sites

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll