anewme wrote: » I’m not sure if you recall a crash on the M50 last year where a woman was decapitated in an accident. Some rubber neck videoed her head at the scene and it went viral. This compounded the families distress and they came out and spoke about it. So I disagree about it but not causing considerable distress.
seamus wrote: » Sharing an embarrasing car crash, while it would be an abuse of power and obviously a breach discipline to be sharing CCTV feeds, it not likely to result in considerable harm or distress to anyone, and thus would not be as serious an offence.
Gatling wrote: » I believe she made up the claim .
seamus wrote: » Perhaps the same offence, but the gravity of it would be different, given that it is foreseeable that the sharing of such a video would cause considerable harm and distress to the person identified in the video. Whatever about Joe Public being an asshole, a Garda sharing such a video undermines public confidence in the force that is assumed/required to have their best interests at heart. Sharing an embarrasing car crash, while it would be an abuse of power and obviously a breach discipline to be sharing CCTV feeds, it not likely to result in considerable harm or distress to anyone, and thus would not be as serious an offence.
Gatling wrote: » Exactly. Yes she stated she traced this young to new Zealand and managed to some how trace his parents and contacted them directly and had an awkward conversation , Hello is that morals police I'd like to report a non crime and can you can I have a phone number to contact someone's parents about looking at photos on line .
Akrasia wrote: » Do you think she just found a random 16 year old New Zealander and emailed his parents about a made up charge?
Gatling wrote: » No she came across a little mary Whitehouse , I'm tracing people and telling their mammies about something that there is Zero evidence has happened like nothing , New buzz word emergency survival sex work ,
silverharp wrote: » If a member of the public had filmed it they would have been free to upload it unless there is some peculiar Irish law. I could see that the garda should have been disciplined but is there a specific law relating to gardai? if the footage had been of an embarrassing car crash that went viral, would it be the same offense?
banie01 wrote: » Linda Hayden? From the Victims Alliance? She has been the driving voice behind news of the leak, has been on quite a bit of media about it. Yet still no actual evidence, and rather than hand evidence of this offender to Law enforcement? They told his mammy?
seamus wrote: » There has unfortunately been several distinct issues thrown into one here, and the narrative around it is dangerously close to, "We need laws to protect women from men" as opposed to "we need laws to protect people". An unrelated case that's been throw into the mix is that of Dara Quigley. She had a mental break, was arrested walking down a Dublin street naked. A Garda later filmed the CCTV footage and shared it on WhatsApp. Clearly, this Garda should be prosecuted.
anewme wrote: » The opinion on here is not unexpected, But does not reflect the real world.
anewme wrote: » The opinion on here is not unexpected, But does not reflect the real world. But you know that.
Gatling wrote: » There was a lady on the radio a few minutes ago giving it socks about the assaults on the victims of these supposed leaks ,
Invidious wrote: » Under what circumstances, though? To my mind, when a woman posts nude images to an OnlyFans account, she is knowingly sharing them with potentially thousands of strangers in return for money. If one of those subscribers then shares those images with someone else ... what is he guilty of? Copyright violation, possibly, but not abuse. If a woman sends a nude picture to her boyfriend under the assumption that it's a non-commercial, private, intimate image for his eyes only, and he then shares it with others without her consent ... then yes, that's abusive. The first case isn't, though.
Gatling wrote: » According to you the majority want it odd the opinion on here seems to suggest otherwise , Amazing how a few wackos on twitter have much power to have emergency legislation rammed through government when there is already legislation to cover it
seamus wrote: » My worry is that my conflating all of these unrelated issues into one - revenge porn, child porn, exploitation, copyright - there's a risk that it will get dismissed as man-hating women wanting to make it illegal to look at a naked woman, and the very real problem of sharing private sexual material will be lost in the noise.
anewme wrote: » The presenters clearly said that the everyone would welcome the legislation. The legislation is coming whether you want it or not. Many do.
Gatling wrote: » Yes to me ,and you cannot speak for the presenters they have to be impartial But so we fake claims leading to emergency legislation that would see people face 7+ years in prison for supposedly Sharing a porn photo or videos they have paid for in the first place , Yes you could get the ****e knocked out of you on the street and your attacker get a suspended sentence , Doesn't add up at all , If there is blackmail involved there is already legislation , There is no crime here that's led to this emergency legislation being rammed through government . Are we going to see more emergency legislations rammed through for crimes that didn't happen
Invidious wrote: » To my mind, when a woman posts nude images to an OnlyFans account, she is knowingly sharing them with potentially thousands of strangers in return for money. If one of those subscribers then shares those images with someone else ... what is he guilty of? Copyright violation, possibly, but not abuse.
anewme wrote: » She came across like that to you - The people who should be concerned about the legislation are those currently involved in poor conduct.
anewme wrote: » What you are failing to mention she pointed out that people have been abused and blackmailed and in many cases, images have been sent to family and friends.
anewme wrote: » She was Marie Hayden of the Victims Alliance Unit. It was on today FM. I was listening to it. You are being very selective in your reporting here. What you are not saying is that she came across very well, was very well supported by the presenters and the legislation was viewed as very welcome. It was also on the News. What you are failing to mention she pointed out that people have been abused and blackmailed and in many cases, images have been sent to family and friends. It was viewed as an abuse crime (power and control) rather than a pornography one. What it is doing is pushing the responsibility back on the perpetrator as opposed to the victim. Its stopping victim blaming. You can tell people not to put images online, but you now also tell people if you share them, you are responsible and you are in trouble and there will be reprecussions.
Gatling wrote: » No she came across a little mary Whitehouse , I'm tracing people and telling their mammies about something that there is Zero evidence has happened like nothing ,
anewme wrote: » She was Marie Hayden of the Victims Alliance Unit. It was on today FM. I was listening to it. You are being very selective in your reporting here. What you are not saying is that she came across very well
Gatling wrote: » There was a lady on the radio a few minutes ago giving it socks about the assaults on the victims of these supposed leaks ,from some alliance group who went on to say they were tracking people who share images on line including tracing and contacting the parents of a 16 year old lad in new Zealand . WTF is actually going on here , what authority do they have to do such a thing
Yurt! wrote: » Internet safety courses delivered to schools emphasize that once you put a picture or a video online, you have no way of controlling where it goes, so just don't put something online that may come back to haunt you. That grown adults are putting content of themselves naked or in various sexual scenarios are getting surprised that it has been scraped and shared elsewhere is a bit silly. If there are underage images that's a separate matter and should be cracked down upon, but the above principle still applies.
