As of this week Facebook have introduced new measures to tackle revenge porn, where users share intimate images or videos of another without consent, from being posted and shared on their website.
The new feature that was made available on the social media site last Wednesday allows users to report intimate images that they believe have been shared without the permission of the other party.
Once the image has been reported it is then forwarded onto specifically trained members of the social network’s Community Operations team who then review the image and remove it, should it violate any of the community platform’s standards. The account which also shared the image may be disabled if it is deemed that they knowingly shared an intimate image of another person without their consent.
The network said they will also use photo matching technologies to help prevent further attempts to share the image across Facebook, Messenger or Instagram and they are hoping to introduce this measure across the WhatsApp messaging app also.
While this is a definite step in the right direction in regards to tackling this issue, it is interesting to note, however, that while this is set to be implemented across all countries that Facebook operates in, there are currently no laws in Ireland to prevent or punish anyone for posting revenge porn online. In a sense this Facebook policing, is the only policing that Ireland has to deter trolls and scorned lovers from posting intimate and sexually explicit content of another person without their permission.
Intentional victim shaming or the sharing of intimate content or images has tended to occur following the break-up of a relationship, and it is an offence in England, Wales and the US, but is not specifically classified as a crime in Ireland. The laws at present that cover revenge porn and victim shaming in Ireland are not fully formed and have a gaping loophole which can be exploited in the law breaker’s favour.
For example, Section 10 of the non-fatal offences against the person act 1997 states: “Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.”
The main point here is that the harassment must be persistent and must continue over a period of time for it to be classified as an offence.
And this is where revenge porn slips out of the grasp of the long arm of the law.
Because the action doesn’t fall under the legal definition of “persistent” harassment; this is true in other cases also, where a single act of uploading an image or video of a person doesn’t legally constitute harassment as it is just a once off rather than continuous harassment. While an image or video posted on the internet could be spread and copied thousands of times, the person who originally uploads it only needs to do so once – and this single act does not fall under the heading of “persistent harassment” and may not be technically illegal in this sense.
There was a report made by the Law Reform Commission last year which said that new “non-fatal offences” were to be introduced to tackle such topics as stalking, cyber-bullying and revenge porn, and it would carry an unlimited fine and a possible jail sentence of up to seven years imprisonment if found guilty.
Less serious forms of those offences, tried in the District Court, would carry a maximum fine of €5,000 and/or up to 12 months in prison.
Another problem that the Tánaiste has not addressed is how rigidly she will be expected to keep to the suggested jail terms suggested by the Law Reform Commission given the likelihood that the offenders could be young adults or even minors.
This recommendation was made in September of 2016 and was said to be reformed sometime in 2017. The reformation of the current law which deals with revenge porn, cyber-bullying and stalking needs to be brought to the forefront of the government’s agenda immediately. If it is not changed soon, many more offenders may get off scot-free, as the law, when changed, may not be able to reprimand the offenders for crimes retrospective of when the changed law comes into effect and this will lead to more people falling victim to this disgusting crime.
Paul Dwyer