First person charged under Western Australia's new revenge porn laws

Perth man accused of creating fake Instagram pages under his ex-girlfriend’s name and sharing intimate photographs

The 24-year-old, from Spearwood, is alleged to have taken the images of his 24-year-old girlfriend, with her knowledge and consent, during their relationship.

“It will be alleged when the relationship broke down, the man created a false Instagram page in the victim’s name and posted seven intimate images of her without her consent,” WA police said in a statement on Monday.

“It will be further alleged when the Instagram page was removed, four other Instagram pages were created in the victim’s name and a total of 10 intimate images were posted.”

The man has been charged with distributing an intimate image of another person without their consent, under the Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2018 which came into force on 15 April.

He is due to appear before then family violence court at Fremantle magistrates court on 20 May.

The new laws make it illegal for someone to share or threaten to share an intimate image of a person without their consent. They also empower courts to issue order take-down orders.

The law covers images or videos of people who are wholly or partly naked; in their underwear; performing a “private act”; or have had their face digitally manipulated to appear onto another body.

The offence is punishable by up to 18 months’ jail when tried in the magistrates court.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/06/first-person-charged-under-western-australias-new-revenge-porn-laws

Good. I think people like this are abhorrent. I hope it serves to scare more people off doing this kind of crap to others.

I agree.
It could ruin someones  life. Ithink there was a similar case here not long ago and the woman was so devastated she tried to kill herself.

These are usually revenge-motivated acts. Would it be the same if a jilted girlfriend posted pics of him in 'compromising' poses?

Original Quill wrote:These are usually revenge-motivated acts.  Would it be the same if a jilted girlfriend posted pics of him in 'compromising' poses?

Yes?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:These are usually revenge-motivated acts.  Would it be the same if a jilted girlfriend posted pics of him in 'compromising' poses?

Yes?

I take by your question mark that you share my doubts. There is a double-standard afoot here, as there is with stalking, the Lafave syndrome, spousal abuse, and other similar crimes. One hopes that when it comes to apply the law in the opposite direction, that society won't shrug and say, well, boys will be boys!

Good. It’s dangerous in these days and one of the huge downsides to social media. But when you have people becoming famous for releasing sex tapes you can see why we have gotten to this point.

A cousin of Mr. C’s and his soon to be ex-wife are going at it hammer and tongs on all social media. It’s almost gotten to the point where I’m going to block them both. At first it was slightly amusing but apparently police and social services have been called in and false accounts set up on some deeply dodgy dating apps. And while there are no children from this marriage, they have 11 (yes you read right) from previous relationships (many) and it’s harmful to them. It’s tacky beyond words. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see them show up on Jeremy Kyle.

Thank god my son and his ex have not sunk to such stupidity and are acting like adults.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:These are usually revenge-motivated acts.  Would it be the same if a jilted girlfriend posted pics of him in 'compromising' poses?

Yes?

I take by your question mark that you share my doubts.  There is a double-standard afoot here, as there is with stalking, the Lafave syndrome, spousal abuse, and other similar crimes.  One hopes that when it comes to apply the law in the opposite direction, that society won't shrug and say, well, boys will be boys!

Yeah that sucks big time. An offence is an offence, no matter the sex of the person involved.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:These are usually revenge-motivated acts.  Would it be the same if a jilted girlfriend posted pics of him in 'compromising' poses?

Yes?

I take by your question mark that you share my doubts.  There is a double-standard afoot here, as there is with stalking, the Lafave syndrome, spousal abuse, and other similar crimes.  One hopes that when it comes to apply the law in the opposite direction, that society won't shrug and say, well, boys will be boys!

Yeah that sucks big time. An offence is an offence, no matter the sex of the person involved.

BUT...given that society (via govt and especially the courts) is unwilling to act when males are the victim of female wrong doings, and also when action IS (rarely) taken the punishments are derogatory and pathetic.....surely it would be better if the law under scrutiny was simpkle repealed....in order of course to further equality and "equity" in the law?

I cannot disagree Vic.

Cass wrote:Good. It’s dangerous in these days and one of the huge downsides to social media. But when you have people becoming famous for releasing sex tapes you can see why we have gotten to this point.

A cousin of Mr. C’s and his soon to be ex-wife are going at it hammer and tongs on all social media. It’s almost gotten to the point where I’m going to block them both. At first it was slightly amusing but apparently police and social services have been called in and false accounts set up on some deeply dodgy dating apps. And while there are no children from this marriage, they have 11 (yes you read right) from previous relationships (many) and it’s harmful to them. It’s tacky beyond words. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see them show up on Jeremy Kyle.

Thank god my son and his ex have not sunk to such stupidity and are acting like adults.

We used to call it washing your dirty linen in public. With the onset of social media that has taken on a whole new audience.

Victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah that sucks big time. An offence is an offence, no matter the sex of the person involved.

BUT...given that society (via govt and especially the courts) is unwilling to act when males are the victim of female wrong doings, and also when action IS (rarely) taken the punishments are derogatory and pathetic.....surely it would be better if the law under scrutiny was simpkle repealed....in order of course to further equality and "equity" in
the law?

I would disagree with that. Both male and female victims of this horrible crime have had a fight to be taken seriously. The stronger the laws, the greater their protection, and the greater the opportunity to raise general awareness. When Davey Wavey had intimate photos of himself leaked online by another man it was a female friend (who'd also suffered revenge porn) who counselled him to help him to heal.

@lex wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yeah that sucks big time. An offence is an offence, no matter the sex of the person involved.

BUT...given that society (via govt and especially the courts) is unwilling to act when males are the victim of female wrong doings, and also when action IS (rarely) taken the punishments are derogatory and pathetic.....surely it would be better if the law under scrutiny was simpkle repealed....in order of course to further equality and "equity" in
the law?

I would disagree with that. Both male and female victims of this horrible crime have had a fight to be taken seriously. The stronger the laws, the greater their protection, and the greater the opportunity to raise general awareness. When Davey Wavey had intimate photos of himself leaked online by another man it was a female friend (who'd also suffered revenge porn) who counselled him to help him to heal.

However, both you and i know that that is bullshit, take two identical crimes, in front of the same judge, one committed by a man and one by a woman...guess who's going to jail, and who's going to get off with sympathetic words cos she's got "female" issues?

Victorismyhero wrote:

@lex wrote:

I would disagree with that. Both male and female victims of this horrible crime have had a fight to be taken seriously. The stronger the laws, the greater their protection, and the greater the opportunity to raise general awareness. When Davey Wavey had intimate photos of himself leaked online by another man it was a female friend (who'd also suffered revenge porn) who counselled him to help him to heal.

However, both you and i know that that is bullshit, take two identical crimes, in front of the same judge, one committed by a man and one by a woman...guess who's going to jail, and who's going to get off with sympathetic words cos she's got "female" issues?

It might be more conducive to debate if you substantiate the claims you've made with actual facts, rather than just trying to smear other people's viewpoints as "bullshit".

read the news papers, my point applies to almost any crime....

Victorismyhero wrote:read the news papers, my point applies to almost any crime....

Ok. That's not really backing up your point.

the evidence is overwhelming...what do you want a peer reviewed study?

Victorismyhero wrote:the evidence is overwhelming...what do you want a peer reviewed study?

It's *your* point to back up or not. At the moment all you're doing is reiterating that you're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Which seems meagre justification for the removing of laws protecting against revenge porn - removal you indicated you were in favor of earlier in the thread.

its rather deeper than merely a law to protect against revenge porn...it goes to the heart of justice...

if a law is so flawed that it is in fact unjust (because it is applied "unjustly" depending on some "status" of the perp) the surely that law is in itself against justice and as such we are better off without it...
hint...being a "woman" is not a mitigation for ANY crime

[quote="Victorismyhero"]its rather deeper than merely a law to protect against revenge porn...it goes to the heart of justice...

if a law is so flawed that it is in fact unjust (because it is applied "unjustly" depending on some "status" of the perp) the surely that law is in itself against justice and as such we are better off without it...
hint...being a "woman" is not a mitigation for ANY crime[/quote
]

You haven't really given the Australian legal system a chance to see whether this law will be applied equitably or not. One person - one - has been charged under it - and you're already determined it's unfair against men.

yup. because its "western" law, I.e runs on the same principles as the rest of law across most of the "western countries"
look at the UK, in europe and in America....a woman is far far less harshly punished on average than a man for the same crimes....
A woman generally has the better of any man in divorce courts
and a man has poor to little chance in any custody battle....

the law is biased and is condoned as such by society....

Victorismyhero wrote:read the news papers, my point applies to almost any crime....

If you think all laws unjustly applied should be scrapped, and you also think all laws are unjustly applied in women's favor, the only logical conclusion is that *all* laws ought be scrapped.

well....a bit of anarchy never hurt anyone did it?

in fact it has helped "progress" often enough....

@lex wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:
However, both you and i know that that is bullshit, take two identical crimes, in front of the same judge, one committed by a man and one by a woman...guess who's going to jail, and who's going to get off with sympathetic words cos she's got "female" issues?

It might be more conducive to debate if you substantiate the claims you've made with actual facts, rather than just trying to smear other people's viewpoints as "bullshit".

Debora Lafave, a stunningly beautiful teacher in a Florida middle school...



...was arrested for having sex with a 13-year old student.  She crossed the border with him into Georgia (a violation of the Mann Act), and had sex over there as well.  Georgia refused to prosecute, openly stating she was so beautiful that a jury would never convict.   The state of Florida did prosecute, and she was sentenced to house arrest, with reasonable visits to the mall.

Around the same time, a male teacher in North Carolina was sentenced to 22-years for having sex with a female student, 17-years old.

Syl wrote:

Cass wrote:Good. It’s dangerous in these days and one of the huge downsides to social media. But when you have people becoming famous for releasing sex tapes you can see why we have gotten to this point.

A cousin of Mr. C’s and his soon to be ex-wife are going at it hammer and tongs on all social media. It’s almost gotten to the point where I’m going to block them both. At first it was slightly amusing but apparently police and social services have been called in and false accounts set up on some deeply dodgy dating apps. And while there are no children from this marriage, they have 11 (yes you read right) from previous relationships (many) and it’s harmful to them. It’s tacky beyond words. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see them show up on Jeremy Kyle.

Thank god my son and his ex have not sunk to such stupidity and are acting like adults.

We used to call it washing your dirty linen in public. With the onset of social media that has taken on a whole new audience.

Sigh...it truly has.

Original Quill wrote: ....The state of Florida did prosecute, and she was sentenced to house arrest, with reasonable visits to the mall.

You can't generalise from specifics. Her sentence seems shockingly lenient though.

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote: ....The state of Florida did prosecute, and she was sentenced to house arrest, with reasonable visits to the mall.

You can't generalise from specifics. Her sentence seems shockingly lenient though.

But I don't need to generalize. If I can find one case, it's a case where the law doesn't work.

Nevertheless, here are 50 Teachers Caught Doing Extracurricular Activities With Their Students: http://www.thebrofessional.net/bad-teachers/13

(For those with prurient interests, no they're not naked.)

I'm not sure I see your point. If it's that she received a very lenient sentence solely because she was female, that appears to be belied by several cases of male sex offenders also receiving sentences deemed by general consensus to be unfathomably light.

eddie wrote:Perth man accused of creating fake Instagram pages under his ex-girlfriend’s name and sharing intimate photographs

The 24-year-old, from Spearwood, is alleged to have taken the images of his 24-year-old girlfriend, with her knowledge and consent, during their relationship.

“It will be alleged when the relationship broke down, the man created a false Instagram page in the victim’s name and posted seven intimate images of her without her consent,” WA police said in a statement on Monday.

“It will be further alleged when the Instagram page was removed, four other Instagram pages were created in the victim’s name and a total of 10 intimate images were posted.”

The man has been charged with distributing an intimate image of another person without their consent, under the Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act 2018 which came into force on 15 April.

He is due to appear before then family violence court at Fremantle magistrates court on 20 May.

The new laws make it illegal for someone to share or threaten to share an intimate image of a person without their consent. They also empower courts to issue order take-down orders.

The law covers images or videos of people who are wholly or partly naked; in their underwear; performing a “private act”; or have had their face digitally manipulated to appear onto another body.

The offence is punishable by up to 18 months’ jail when tried in the magistrates court.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/06/first-person-charged-under-western-australias-new-revenge-porn-laws

Good. I think people like this are abhorrent. I hope it serves to scare more people off doing this kind of crap to others.  

Man alive is this law a can of worms

Sorry, but she allowed these pictures to be taken

Conscent was thus given

No matter how abhorant how then this person wishes to then shares these pictures, is actually his right. Are we now to ask people whether to share pictures taken with each other?

So tell me, in what other aspect, is there a view, where pictures have been taken with conscent to then deny them being shown?

No matter how wrong people think his actions here, where does this actually lead?

That now, anyone can sue, based off the view of non-conscent to sharing pictures?

If you dont want people to see you naked, then dont allow someone to photo you naked. The moment you have is conscent

This view of revenge porn and to actually criminalize this, because someone was dumb enough to allow someone to take pictures of them naked. Is utterly ridiulous and is going down the view of a nanny state law. Its time people took responsibility for their own actions and not because they regret something. Use this to create an imaginary offense

I mean what they fuck. Are people going to sue, now because they regret having their picture with an ex?

Just because your relationship fucks up, does not mean you own rights or the ability to change your mind later to pictures being taken

Its as bad as claiming that someone regreted having sex and now claims it was rape

If you made bad decisions, then you live by them. To make a law to claim, that now you should be protected based off really poor decisions. Is utterly ridiculous

You dont want your nude pictures spread on the internet, then dont allow someone to take them of you

This law is protecting people being stupid, plain and simple when they fuck up

As they clearly never minded at the time exposing themselves to be captured on camera

If the view is to now say who can or cannot see pictures. This opens the door to the most innocuous pictures taken and being construed as criminal

Sorry, but I have no sympathy here. You get naked and pose being nude. That is your own mistake

To allign this as something next to sexual assualt is ridiculous

As now based on this anyone could be charged based on posting photo's on facebook, without their consent, wearing a revealing bikini and they have fallen out.

What a ridiculous law

The moment someone allowed themselves to be pictured naked, they have fore gone the view to privacy


This is not a universal law.

@lex wrote:
I'm not sure I see your point. If it's that she received a very lenient sentence solely because she was female, that appears to be belied by several cases of male sex offenders also receiving sentences deemed by general consensus to be unfathomably light.

There is a public bias in the souls of people, which trickles into the jury system, and thence into the minds of lawyers and judges, that women are made for the bedroom, not for the courtroom.  This is an off-shoot of the women as property ethos.

That's as blunt as I can put it.  It explains not only what, but why.  Women are rarely considered to be criminals, nor even instigators.  This duplicity is expressed in statutory rape law as: boys, if they get laid, are lucky; girls, if they get laid, are victims.  That explains why there is a bias in the law of teacher/student relationships.

When it comes to posting risque pics, taken in intimate and private moments, this comes down to: boys, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, get xlnt advertisement; girls, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, are exploited, and victims.

Judges and juries are much more prone to see women as victims, and men as instigators. Women are not seen to be primary agents of the act, but as property used in the act.  This interprets as: men are avarice (greedy), women are the property they go after.  That is the duplicity of law, a reflection of society.

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:
I'm not sure I see your point. If it's that she received a very lenient sentence solely because she was female, that appears to be belied by several cases of male sex offenders also receiving sentences deemed by general consensus to be unfathomably light.

There is a public bias in the souls of people, which trickles into the jury system, and thence into the minds of lawyers and judges, that women are made for the bedroom, not for the courtroom.  This is an off-shoot of the women as property ethos.

That's as blunt as I can put it.  It explains not only what, but why.  Women are rarely considered to be criminals, nor even instigators.  This duplicity is expressed in statutory rape law as: boys, if they get laid, are lucky; girls, if they get laid, are victims.  That explains why there is a bias in the law of teacher/student relationships.

When it comes to posting risque pics, taken in intimate and private moments, this comes down to: boys, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, get xlnt advertisement; girls, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, are exploited, and victims.

Judges and juries are much more prone to see women as victims, and men as instigators. Women are not seen to be primary agents of the act, but as property used in the act.  This interprets as: men are avarice (greedy), women are the property they go after.  That is the duplicity of law, a reflection of society.

Good answer mate +1

A Woman is a gadget you screw on the Bed and then does the Housework,---------------I'll get my coat !

nicko wrote:A Woman is a gadget you screw on the Bed and then does the Housework,---------------I'll get my coat !

You know nicko, you are one of the few men that can get away with such comments

It always has me in stitches me up with laughter, as its light hearted from you

I would be crucified if I said that, but with you its always funny

Take credit in that  

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:
I'm not sure I see your point. If it's that she received a very lenient sentence solely because she was female, that appears to be belied by several cases of male sex offenders also receiving sentences deemed by general consensus to be unfathomably light.

There is a public bias in the souls of people, which trickles into the jury system, and thence into the minds of lawyers and judges, that women are made for the bedroom, not for the courtroom.  This is an off-shoot of the women as property ethos.

That's as blunt as I can put it.  It explains not only what, but why.  Women are rarely considered to be criminals, nor even instigators.  This duplicity is expressed in statutory rape law as: boys, if they get laid, are lucky; girls, if they get laid, are victims.  That explains why there is a bias in the law of teacher/student relationships.

When it comes to posting risque pics, taken in intimate and private moments, this comes down to: boys, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, get xlnt advertisement; girls, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, are exploited, and victims.

Judges and juries are much more prone to see women as victims, and men as instigators. Women are not seen to be primary agents of the act, but as property used in the act.  This interprets as: men are avarice (greedy), women are the property they go after.  That is the duplicity of law, a reflection of society.

In your 4-paragraph reply you didn't comment on the male offenders who've received lenient sentences after committing violent sexual attacks.

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is a public bias in the souls of people, which trickles into the jury system, and thence into the minds of lawyers and judges, that women are made for the bedroom, not for the courtroom.  This is an off-shoot of the women as property ethos.

That's as blunt as I can put it.  It explains not only what, but why.  Women are rarely considered to be criminals, nor even instigators.  This duplicity is expressed in statutory rape law as: boys, if they get laid, are lucky; girls, if they get laid, are victims.  That explains why there is a bias in the law of teacher/student relationships.

When it comes to posting risque pics, taken in intimate and private moments, this comes down to: boys, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, get xlnt advertisement; girls, if they have their nudity exhibited on the Internet, are exploited, and victims.

Judges and juries are much more prone to see women as victims, and men as instigators. Women are not seen to be primary agents of the act, but as property used in the act.  This interprets as: men are avarice (greedy), women are the property they go after.  That is the duplicity of law, a reflection of society.

In your 4-paragraph reply you didn't comment on the male offenders who've received lenient sentences after committing violent sexual attacks.

That's not my responsibility.  Perhaps you are referring to the trend for judges to be lenient in sentencing, generally.  My point is to isolate that unique strain of law that favors female offenders.  The point is, the law is comparatively more lenient toward women than men...particularly involving sex crimes.

Unfortunately there aren't statistics kept, since the nature of the relationships are involving a minor, and they are not public.  The associated press published an article estimating that 1 out of every 5 students in the US has had a sexual relationship with a teacher..but they included everything from mere conversation to intercourse.  However, I should imagine female teacher/male student is more common, as people don't show too much concern over it. If a male teacher gets involved with a female student, the public and press start screaming for him to be hung, drawn and quartered.

Original Quill wrote:


That's not my responsibility.  Perhaps you are referring to the trend for judges to be lenient in sentencing, generally.  My point is to isolate that unique strain of law that favors female offenders.  The point is, the law is comparatively more lenient toward women than men.... particularly in sex crimes.

No. I'm saying it's simplistic to conclude the law favors female offenders when there exist several examples of male sex offenders being granted very lenient sentences too.

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


That's not my responsibility.  Perhaps you are referring to the trend for judges to be lenient in sentencing, generally.  My point is to isolate that unique strain of law that favors female offenders.  The point is, the law is comparatively more lenient toward women than men.... particularly in sex crimes.

No. I'm saying it's simplistic to conclude the law favors female offenders when there exist several examples of male sex offenders being granted very lenient sentences too.

But the overwhelming numbers of them receiving lighter sentences are female. I understand it, from a prosecutor's perspective. The State of Georgia said it best: we couldn't find a jury that would convict a female...particularly if shes good looking.

This plays right into the women as property thesis. A woman cannot do wrong because she's not an agent, she's property. The male student is lucky to fall into that situation. A man, on the other hand, is an agent, who can do wrong because he is stealing property--the under-aged female student.

Don't worry about the whole system favoring the female. That's a statistical fact, if difficult in this situation.

A "statistical fact" with no statistics?

Original Quill wrote:Unfortunately, there aren't statistics kept

Did the judiciary "go tough" on Michael Wysolovski when he walked free with no prison time after keeping a 16 yr old girl in a dog cage for a year?

@lex wrote:A "statistical fact" with no statistics?

Unfortunately, there is only anecdotal evidence, as most stories would reveal the identity of the minor.  There are exceptions, especially when the boy's parents are outraged enough to speak out.

lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Unfortunately, there aren't statistics kept

Did the judiciary "go tough" on Michael Wysolovski when he walked free with no prison time after keeping a 16 yr old girl in a dog cage for a year?

Wysolovski was sentenced to 10 years with eight months of jail time. He received credit for the eight months he spent in detention before his trial and will serve the remaining sentence on probation. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender.  

Prosecutors agreed to the Wysolovski Plea Deal to spare the victim more trauma. In fact, Wysolovski helped the victim escape from an allegedly abusive father, and that story would also come out.  This is often the case: a complaining witness will not cooperate if a surrounding negative story will be revealed, or the victim might be unwilling to go through the ordeal again.  The press (Journal-Constitution) reported that police felt the victim’s relationship with Wysolovski was in the “gray area” of consent and prosecutors were unsure a jury would convict him.  This is very much like the State in the Georgia/Lafave case.

He kept the poor child in a dog cage for a year, starved her, subjected her to vile physical acts, leaving her with ringworm, malnourishment and difficulty standing up straight.

That won't have helped her.

That's what the judge said to defendant Wysolovski:

Judge Hamil wrote:“I can’t see even the most twisted definition of what you did as help … I don’t see any emotion from you. I don’t see any remorse from you,” Superior Court Judge Timothy Hamil told him. “I am not moved to give you first offender status … In my time on the bench I can count on both hands the time I’ve refused to give someone first offender status – but there’s something inside me that says this is one of those times.”

Could be that the father did as much, or far worse, and they didn't want those facts to come out in testimony...I don't know. I've seen such cases.