header-logo header-logo

Policing the internet

17 July 2014 / Tim Lawson-Cruttenden
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail
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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll