Post: #1

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/ont...spartandhp

In a Canadian first, a judge has likened the posting of an intimate video over the Internet to a sexual assault, and ordered an Ontario man to pay $100,000, plus $41,708 in court costs and interest, to his former girlfriend.

The ruling fills a gap in the law by allowing individuals whose intimate images have been published without their consent to sue for breach of confidence. It comes as social-media websites such as Instagram and Snapchat grow in popularity, the sharing of explicit messages known as “sexting” becomes more common and some people set out to inflict harm on others by publishing “revenge porn.” Until now, there has been no way for victims of this sexualized form of cyberbullying to sue for damages – except in Manitoba, which passed an intimate-images law last year.

“It is appropriate to regard this as tantamount to multiple assaults on [the woman’s] dignity,” Justice David Stinson of the Ontario Superior Court wrote in his ruling late last week, saying it is impossible to know how many times the video was downloaded or copied, or whether it is still in circulation. (The man, known as N.D., told the woman he took down the video after three weeks.) “In many ways, it is analogous to a sexual assault,” the judge said. He examined several lawsuits involving sexual assaults to determine the amount of damages the man should pay.

The ruling is broad enough that it could give celebrities targeted by paparazzi a legal foundation for lawsuits, legal experts say. And it might even mean that authors of memoirs or biographies need to be careful about what intimate details they disclose.

The woman, known as Jane Doe464533, agreed under pressure from her ex-boyfriend to send him a sexually explicit video, after he promised he wouldn’t show it to anyone. That very day, in the fall of 2011, he posted the video on an Internet pornography website, titling it “college girl pleasures herself for ex boyfriends delight,” and showed it to his friends. Eighteen at the time, the woman was “devastasted, humiliated and distraught,” Justice Stinson said, citing the fact that her mother took her to a crisis centre for her distress, that she cried for days and that, even four years later, is still emotionally fragile and worried the video may resurface and harm her career or future relationships.

N.D., who was a university student at the time, did not defend the lawsuit. His position was therefore not represented in the court case. The judge said he knows of no other case in Canada in which someone who has had intimate images posted on the Internet has sued for damages.

Wayne MacKay, a Dalhousie law professor who chaired a cyberbullying task force for Nova Scotia, said the ruling breaks new ground for victims. “It’s really important,” he said. “I’m quite excited by it because there isn’t a whole lot out there. This is a really important precedent potentially across the country.”

David Fraser, a privacy lawyer in Halifax, said the case shows “that the law works, that the common law in Canada evolves to keep up with changing circumstances.”

Justice Stinson based his ruling in common-law notions of breach of confidence and privacy. He formulated the legal test for a breach of confidence in an intimate-images lawsuit this way: “One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of the other’s privacy, if the matter publicized or the act of publication (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.”

Peter Jacobsen, a lawyer who represents media organizations, including The Globe and Mail, said the test could be used to apply to paparazzi or the disclosure of the personal details of others in memoirs. “The only concern I have is that there should be a very expansive view of ‘legitimate concern to the public,’” he said.

N.D., reached by phone, said he has read the ruling. “I have nothing to say.“

Toronto lawyer Donna Wilson, who represented the woman in the case, said her client had gone to police, but there was no law making it a crime to publish intimate images without consent – Parliament passed such a law in 2014 – and because she was 18 she was not covered by the child-pornography criminal law. So police had no way to hold N.D. to account. “For her it was mainly about having some sort of vindication that she was wronged,” Ms. Wilson said.

She said she expects her client will be able to collect on the judgment – in instalments. “His name is subject to a publication ban but not an anonymity order,” she said of N.D. “We are entitled to serve the judgment on his employers. We told him that we will hold off on that so long as he sends us $1,000 a month. He agreed.”

Ms. Wilson added: “I think that a lot of the harm that’s been caused in these cases – like in the Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons cases – is that people would blame them and didn’t take them seriously and treat them like the victims they were. The court’s message in this case, that this is wrong, it’s a big deal and it’s not the victim’s fault, I think that’s huge.” Ms. Parsons, 17, of Nova Scotia, and Ms. Todd, 15, of British Columbia, took their own lives after cyberbullying involving intimate images.

Post: #2

• $141000 is excessive.
• The girl was an idiot for sending the video.
• The guy is an arsehole for posting the video online.
  

Seriously, you keep that shit for yourself and maybe a few friends to see. Even after the breakup, what does he stand to benefit by posting the video online? Does it excite him to think of other guys jerking off to his ex?

Post: #3

The amount might or might not be excessive, I dunno, but to be honest? 0 sympathy for the guy. No matter how you slice it:

1) it's very very obviously illegal
2) he should've expected it to come out
3) he should've expected to get sued
4) he was beta for doing it and having a heavy case of butthurt to post the video

Old trophy pics and videos are something you maybe show some friends (SHOW, don't GIVE) and review years later just for fun. Or maybe, just maybe, you could be able to post some face-cut-out pics on 4chan where they'll quickly be deleted, no a full on video on a public porn website where it will be seen and downloaded by millions

Post: #4

Three points only:

(1) Let's see if a guy can sue a woman for $141,000 for posting nude pictures of him online.

(2) Dipshit did not defend the case. This makes him pathetic as well as stupid. If he'd represented himself the judge would have to have bent over backwards to help him make his case or be seen as taking advantage of someone with no lawyer.

(3) If dipshit is smart and has any real balls he'll take advice to say "Fuck you, tell my employer. After they fire me I'll file for bankruptcy and you won't see fuck all of the damages."

Having said that, this part of the story is interesting:

Quote:Peter Jacobsen, a lawyer who represents media organizations, including The Globe and Mail, said the test could be used to apply to paparazzi or the disclosure of the personal details of others in memoirs. “The only concern I have is that there should be a very expansive view of ‘legitimate concern to the public,’” he said.

Lena Dunham should be a bit more fucking careful what she writes in her paedophile autobiographies in future (like Barack Obama, I doubt we've seen the last of her memoirs).

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #5

Thread worthless without video. Links?

Post: #6

The guy posted it on a public website. He didn't just show it to his buddies.

I don't really have much sympathy for the guy. It's to set a precedent. If they awarded $5,000 that would hardly be a deterrence.

Post: #7

Yep. The guy was a dick and he got what he deserved. All debate about how things would have turned out if we were to play 'flip the genders,' I have zero sympathy for him.

I'd rather focus my attention on the atrocity that is false rape accusation.

Post: #8

C,mon guys. This isn't about how he was a jerk but instead about the government passing laws to ptotect women's "dignity" or to be honest their slutty past.

I just got a degree in cyber security and the fact is that is you don't want the pics to get out then don't taken or send them in the first place.


Unless you are old as fuck or functionally retarded, everyone in our age group knows this.


The last thing we need are more laws protecting idiots, especially slutty western women, from the consequences of their actions.


Why was She sexting with an ex to begin with, especially one that is such an asshole?

Even more, how long until some innocent guy gets fucked over with these laws due to getting hacked or something similar like a current gf finding the images and posting them as revenge?

Post: #9

I'd say the guy was an idiot, on the flip side I think these ridiculous settlements are out of line. I agree that if a woman had uploaded nude videos of a guy to a gay porn site he likely wouldn't have been awarded so much money.

Ideally I think putative damages shouldn't go to the victim, the court should instead allow the victim to donate them to a charity of their choosing (ex. a rape crisis center or something along those lines in a case like this) - this would help end ambulance chasing and people filing frivolous lawsuits just in an attempt to strike it rich

Post: #10

So where's the video?

Post: #11

(01-27-2016 09:21 AM)I DIDNT KILL MY WIFE Wrote:  The amount might or might not be excessive, I dunno, but to be honest? 0 sympathy for the guy. No matter how you slice it:

1) it's very very obviously illegal
2) he should've expected it to come out
3) he should've expected to get sued
4) he was beta for doing it and having a heavy case of butthurt to post the video

Old trophy pics and videos are something you maybe show some friends (SHOW, don't GIVE) and review years later just for fun. Or maybe, just maybe, you could be able to post some face-cut-out pics on 4chan where they'll quickly be deleted, no a full on video on a public porn website where it will be seen and downloaded by millions

(01-27-2016 09:34 AM)Suits Wrote:  Yep. The guy was a dick and he got what he deserved. All debate about how things would have turned out if we were to play 'flip the genders,' I have zero sympathy for him.

I'd rather focus my attention on the atrocity that is false rape accusation.

(01-27-2016 11:17 AM)EDantes Wrote:  I'd say the guy was an idiot, on the flip side I think these ridiculous settlements are out of line. I agree that if a woman had uploaded nude videos of a guy to a gay porn site he likely wouldn't have been awarded so much money.

Ideally I think putative damages shouldn't go to the victim, the court should instead allow the victim to donate them to a charity of their choosing (ex. a rape crisis center or something along those lines in a case like this) - this would help end ambulance chasing and people filing frivolous lawsuits just in an attempt to strike it rich

You're way off if you think a $100.000 fine is ok.

How much is the fine with false rape charges?

Don't be the frog in boiling water.