Tag

Reasonable Doubt: Emerging civil remedies for revenge porn

I’ve grown up with the Internet for most of my life. I’m old enough to remember when the it was only a few websites and there was almost no real content. The possibilities, however, were endless. There was this feeling that we all knew that we were participating in something revolutionary that would change the world and how we would view it.

With time, and with more and more people accessing it, the Internet began to change. This most recent fundamental change, dubbed Web 2.0, was heralded as the “Great Equalizer” that would bring peoples of all walks of life together.

The Internet, as it turns out, is only as good as the people who use it. For most, the Internet is simply a tool for communication and to absorb media. People use it to find the best restaurant in town, to post their favourite photo on Instagram, or to share cat memes. Depending on your view of cats and people who post photos of food, this is generally benign.

The Internet’s dark side

There is, however, a darker side to the Internet. It’s a place where people can betray your trust. They use the Internet as a weapon to bully, shame, and victimize people who have shared intimate moments with those who were not deserving of their trust. Given how vast and integrated the Internet now is in our lives, the damage can rarely be undone.

Both the courts and governments across the country have worked to find a way to mete out justice, in one form or another, against those who have publicly disclosed intimate and private videos and photos without the consent of those depicted. Manitoba, for example, introduced The Intimate Image Protection Act, which was designed to deal with sharing such images without consent. Nova Scotia brought in the Cyber-safety Act, but this was struck down by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

British Columbia, however, has the Privacy Act, which provides that it is a tort for a person willfully and without a claim of right to violate the privacy of another. The circumstances and expectations of one’s privacy is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the court would need to consider the “nature, incidence, and occasion of the actor conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties”.

First civil case in Ontario

The first reported case in Canada to deal with revenge porn in a civil context was in Ontario, Jane Doe 464533 v. N.D., which was released in 2016. The plaintiff in that case brought a lawsuit after her ex-boyfriend posted an intimate video of her online to a pornographic website and also shared it with her friends, despite having promised to never share it with anyone. Justice Stinson found that the defendant had breached the plaintiff’s confidence by sharing a video which had “the necessary quality of confidence about it”.

Stinson also found that the defendant had committed the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress and invaded the plaintiff’s privacy by publicizing or publishing the private life of another where it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate concern to the public. The judge awarded the plaintiff $100,000 plus costs, which included $25,000 in punitive damages.

B.C. case involved videotaping

T.K.L. v. T.M.P. was a case where the plaintiff sued her stepfather for secretly observing and video-recording the plaintiff while she was undressed in the bathroom and bedroom. Part of her lawsuit was that her stepfather had violated the B.C. Privacy Act and a fiduciary duty he owed her. Justice Thompson found that the plaintiff’s stepfather’s spying and videotaping violated the Privacy Act and breached his fiduciary duty.

The videotaping occurred on four occasions in 2011 while the plaintiff was between the ages of 20 and 21. He took video of her while she was in the shower and while she was in her bedroom, changing. The defendant admitted he took these videos, in part to humiliate her and get revenge.

Thompson found that the stepfather violated Subsection 1(1) of the Privacy Act when a person willfully and without a claim of right violates the privacy of another. The plaintiff was able to show in this case that her stepfather’s actions caused her psychological harm. She had become quiet, withdrawn, and fearful after the video-recording incidents, and only by the time of trial had she slowly started to become who she was again. The plaintiff had physical symptoms as well—including losing 20 percent of her body weight and scratching her arms with pins—and was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and depression.

The judge awarded the plaintiff $85,000 in general damages, which included $25,000 in aggravated damages.

Precedents set in both cases

Both of these cases are notable because of their rarity and the amount that was awarded in damages. These cases are not typical. The reality is that most cases are unlikely to ever net such a large award from the court. Each case is also fact-specific, and the court will assess each case on its merits.

There can also be procedural issues that may get in the way. In Jane Doe 464533, a recent decision by the Ontario courts has overturned the summary-judgment decision and is allowing the defendant to mount a defence in that case. As such, it will be important to watch and see how that case develops in the future.

What is important about both of these decisions, however, is the precedent they set. The court has laid the framework for future cases to build on. T.K.L. is particularly important to British Columbians because it shows that the language of the Privacy Act can be used toward video recordings even when they are not shared with the public.

A word of caution: you should not act or rely on the information provided in this column. It is not legal advice. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek advice from a lawyer.

Read the rest

Victims of revenge porn deserve real protection

A lot of people know my story. Nobody has to ask me how I got where I am, because my business is posted all over the internet.

My ex-boyfriend was the first one to put me out there, exposing me in my most intimate moments. He did it for control. He did it for revenge. He did it for whatever reasons perpetrators normally have for stalking, harassing, and violating others.

At no point was I allowed to escape and move on. The internet made it possible for my ex and strangers to reach into my life, no matter where I was, and destroy everything I was trying to build. And nobody was willing to stop him.

I was the second person to put myself out there. When I couldn’t stand hiding anymore, having changed my name and lived in fear for years, I took back control of my life. I took it back by saying:

Yes that’s me in those pictures, in that video, and I am not ashamed. I have a right to live my life and not be afraid.

That was the birth of End Revenge Porn, which turned into the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). Every step in building CCRI has been a learning experience, both in the logistics of starting an organization and in how a movement takes on a life of its own.

We have barely begun, but we find ourselves buoyed by overwhelming support, even as we receive a stream of hateful messages from strangers. This is a culture war, but it is one I have faith we will win, perhaps more quickly than our opposition expects.

California’s SB255 “revenge porn law”, signed into effect by Governor Jerry Brown late last week, was a bittersweet victory for us. Finally, lawmakers and the public acknowledged revenge porn as a problem to be solved.

But that acknowledgement was tainted by the attitude that no matter how reprehensible the actions of perpetrators, the victims somehow deserved what they got. To be told that victims like me were too “stupid” to be provided the protection of the law, and to have that attitude written into the law was crushing. People who have taken pictures of themselves in their most private moments, and shared them as part of an intimate relationship with one person, will find no protection in California. For the moment.

CCRI has been successful so far because I don’t just see the gaping holes in our legal system; I experience them firsthand. On Thursday, I received word that the criminal case against my ex is being dismissed. The police told me that they were able to link the IP address from his house to the postings. However, without a warrant to prove he was the one sitting behind the computer committing the crime, which could only be obtained if his crime was a felony, they have nothing.

Not only do we need strong, comprehensive laws on the books, we need them to be felonies so that law enforcement will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perpetrator is the one behind the postings. Other states will pass laws, and California will strengthen its law because this issue will only grow.

As victims continue to suffer the physical and psychological fallout of this violation, the public will demand action. The purpose of CCRI and the End Revenge Porn campaign, beyond supporting victims, is to speed the public to that conclusion by making people acknowledge the suffering of those victims.

Victims of revenge porn deserve real protection – The Guardian
https://news.google.com/news/feeds?hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&q=revenge+porn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&output=rss
revenge porn – Google News… Read the rest