Re: [Gendergap] American woman files revenge-porn lawsuit in England

The Data Protection Act 1998 tends to be for things like banking records, medical records. He could argue that the film is a piece of "art", which was made by mutual agreement, and therefore qualifies under the "freedom of expression" exemption http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/32 She would then have to prove that he knew that he did not have her consent either for the filming or for the resulting film to be put in the public domain. As a malicious e-communication, all she needs to demonstrate is that her ex-boyfriend knowingly communicated - "to another person a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27 It might only be necessary to prove that he knowingly posted the video to a number of porn websites, adding titles that "convey a message which is indecent or grossly offensive". I'm less sure about the civil case though, as the article states: The Daily Mail has reported http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110150/Revenge-porn-victim-seek-la… "The exact terms of her civil case are not clear, but she claims the explicit videos have caused her to lose subscribers and damaged her earnings from advertising. Again, I'm guessing her lawyer is going to try and argue something along the lines of which particular websites they were uploaded to and what titles he added to show some form of defamation, unless the civil case has nothing to do with defamation and Olivarius has something really clever in mind. Marie From: werespielchequers(a)gmail.com Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 10:14:17 +0100 To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] American woman files revenge-porn lawsuit in England I understand that the new law on revenge porn can't be applied retrospectively to something posted before that law was passed. But I'm surprised they haven't used the 1998 Data Protection Act, surely this is personal information about an identifiable individual, and it doesn't seem likely it is being used in accordance with the purposes that the individual consented to? To bring things back to this list, are people comfortable with Wikipedia policies re revenge porn? Regards Jonathan On 3 Jun 2015, at 19:23, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ironically, the name of the woman is public, but the man's name is not. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/us-woman-pursues-ex-boyfrien… _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap