Man arrested over fatal crash Facebook photos (UK)

a reply to: Kandinsky

Dam thats a good post!

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I think the law they've arrested him under is a fair one in this case. If you read the link you'll see it applies. Invasion of privacy isn't really a thing in the UK and I checked because flyposting gory images of someone's deceased daughter seems profoundly invasive. Body still warm. Her family could have still been sitting in their living room with a counselling officer whilst this asshole was posting the pics on FB.

He's not a journalist. Her death wasn't political. Her family deserve more rights to privacy and grieving than he ever did to exploit the death for negative attention. Guys like that are the reason why the 'Malicious Communications Act' had to be created. 1988 too!! They had NO IDEA what was coming, did they? Revenge porn, happy slapping and beheading videos.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thanks!

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

If there's a law in the UK against doing so, then he broke the law.

I don't hold automatic respect for law because it is the law. I question all laws and consider encroachment of freedoms.
It was legal to rape your wife in 90's Britain. I wonder how many people supported that for all those years because 'it was the law'.

I repeat the guys actions were awful, but if he held up a printed sign showing the pics in public it would not have been a crime.
I question the distinction between digital and face to face communication or expression.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I think the law they've arrested him under is a fair one in this case. If you read the link you'll see it applies. Invasion of privacy isn't really a thing in the UK and I checked because flyposting gory images of someone's deceased daughter seems profoundly invasive. Body still warm. Her family could have still been sitting in their living room with a counselling officer whilst this asshole was posting the pics on FB.

He's not a journalist. Her death wasn't political. Her family deserve more rights to privacy and grieving than he ever did to exploit the death for negative attention. Guys like that are the reason why the 'Malicious Communications Act' had to be created. 1988 too!! They had NO IDEA what was coming, did they? Revenge porn, happy slapping and beheading videos.

I agree the guy's actions even taking the pics for a start were outrageous, but the fact remains he could have legally stood outside the family's house with a printed sign showing the pics and would not be breaking the law.
It is that specific technical detail I am arguing about, the right to publish something digitally the same as it is legal to hand out printed copies.
Why do you define a difference in the law because of the medium of communication.

I'm being specific with my argument here, the emotions are not included, just the law and my questions about the inconsistency.
(I repeat for anyone who might be driven by emotion, I condemn the guy for what he did but if it is illegal to do it in an electronic format then it should be illegal to do it face to face...or all legal)

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm fairly sure it's already an illegal act covered under public decency laws. If someone was parading around with gory banners it'd be an offence against public decency.

a reply to: Kandinsky
You got a link to that? You are making a claim after all.
I know you are outraged, I am as well, but my interest goes into the separate distiction between offence caused by digital means or face to face. Bringing different laws into the discussion is a sidetrack.
Fact is that you can offend and insult someone in ways face to face that are prohibited in electronic format.
Think Islamists protesting soldiers "Burn in hell" or "Butchers" when they march the freedom of their city.
(EDIT, think anti-abortionists legally holding pictures of aborted babies)
Who decides public decency and why? I don't think your argument is strong in that regard.

Why do you support a specific difference in 'offence' laws between digital and face to face communication?
On that I am factually and unemotionally correct.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

www.inbrief.co.uk...

He should have just posted a meme

.......oh wait.

a reply to: Kandinsky
Pictures of dead babies are shown all the time by abortion protestors and they circumnavigate the decency laws, sorry man, you may be an expert on ATS rules but the law we'll have to disagree unless you have a test case of someone being prosecuted for showing a dead person on a printed sign.

You are sidetracking with a separate law as well, this electronic communications act is specific with offence where 'offence' was removed from the face to face public order laws a year or so ago.
Stick to the law in the OP, even if you disagree, the fact is that the law prosecutes 'offence' for digital communication but NOT for face to face.
That is a blatant inconsistency which you have no argument to support in my opinion.

***Again, they guy was a sick bastard taking the pics, I'm arguing a specific contradiction in law, without the emotion***

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I posted the law and the link in response to your OP.

You switched the argument away from that and asked about someone parading a sign. I showed the law about outraging public decency because it would apply in the case of your guy waving a sign with his photos on.

What you're doing now is called sandbagging. You've decided that the law isn't fair regarding the guy in the OP. That's totally cool and no harm done if I duck out and leave you to it. A difference of opinion isn't the end of the world.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
You switched the argument away from that and asked about someone parading a sign. I showed the law about outraging public decency because it would apply in the case of your guy waving a sign with his photos on.

No, you switched the argument to the law relating to outraging public decency and I disagreed saying my argument was solely about the contradiction of offence being taken from electronic communication compared to no offensive element in law for face to face communication.
Leave the conversation if you cannot debate it without emotion and impartially, but don't try to argue there is no distinction in UK law regarding 'gross offence' in electronic communication and face to face. You are wrong mate, it is clearly legislated.

...and again I condemn the guy on moral grounds, I'm just arguing the distinction in law so if you wanna stay on topic without emotion we can discuss it maybe?

EDIT
I've been banging on about the distinction between digital and face to face since my second post in this thread.
You seem to support that distinction and agree that it is somehow more offensive electronically than face to face.
The law is clear, and the face to face 'offensive' crime was removed a year or so from law...why not electronically then?
It is that I disagree with.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
hmmm.... bit of a difficult one that.

On the one had what he has done is vile yet on the other one has to say that taking a picture in a public space and publishing it is not in itself illegal. I personally think that the terms and conditions of the service he was using should be adequate to deal with this, Facebook should receive a complaint report and from that the pictures deleted and this idiot removed for their platform.

As to weather or not this was a crime, I am not too sure, I am no lawyer I would doubt that there is a specific law that prohibits a individual from publishing a picture of a dead person. Then again to arrest him for a offence means that the police must have some kind of grounds for it, interestingly it does not say if he has yet been charged which suggest the CPS haven't been involved so far. He could potentially then just get off with some kind of caution not to be a so stupid in future.

It is a crime under that act to publish material that is grossly offensive or words to that effect and I think sending around a picture of a dead girl would qualify for that so if you face a jury who also interpret that as being grossly offensive then yeah, I think its fair to say one could argue a crime was committed in breaching the malicious communications act.

You can't take a photograph of someone and publish it online unless you get their consent. This is rather difficult to do with a dead or unconscious person.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I think the word we are missing here is "PURSUANT" to the section malicious communications act.


Yes the polce arrested the suspect but the Crown prosecution (UK) is pursusing the prosecution of the aledged perpitrater.


In my opinion this is a legal Reboot of the Act,


Definitly somthing that should make you warie of the motives of UK Goverment/Law society (UK).


Fox.

a reply to: foxhound2459


What has the Law Society got to do with it?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
BBC News

A man has been arrested after "distressing" photos of the aftermath of a fatal crash were posted on Facebook.
Lizzy Keenan, 30, was killed in the crash on Derby Road in Chellaston, Derbyshire, on Monday. Photos appeared online later that day.
Police said a 44-year-old man had been arrested under the malicious communications act.

Just seen this news report, and I'm assuming the guy posted pictures of the dead woman in the car crash.
Now if I was a relative of the deceased I would probably take matters into my own hands in a state of grief focused as rage against the guy, a human reaction I imagine most people would understand.
But I am a supporter of free speech and publication so I disagree with the arrest in this case.
Yes taking and posting those pics was repugnant to any decent person, but a crime because it caused distress to people who viewed them? I disagree.

MSM shows us many images of dead or dying people and I often find scenes a little distressing to see, but a crime to be punished by government? No, I just can't get behind that concept.

At what point does an image become so distressing it is a crime to publish it, and who decides that? The people who perceive distress or the state?
Thoughts welcome, and again, the guy would get a beating if he published pics of a dead family member of mine, but I don't think the state should decide that for me.

One of the things that annoys me is that people are so quick to film and photograph tragedies. In some ways I think it desensitizes us. Back in the day, you had to look really hard or rent "Faces of Death" to really see any snuff like video or really see gory images of people.

Along comes the internet, facebook, social media, and cell phone cameras and now you can literally find that stuff with a few clicks and often times minutes after it happened. Go to liveleak or bestgore. All kinds of videos, photos, etc of people being killed, dismembered, etc. It is almost like the first thing people do when they see a car accident or something is whip out their cell phones to film.

I can't imagine the anguish that family members may feel seeing a loved one's final moment(s) in public media. However, something that is a public act like a car crash, parents may not have any recourse at least here in the US.

The problem with any laws restricting this stuff is who decides what is malicious communication?

I agree that it is really cruel. disrespectful and selfish to post something like that accident online. Do people do that so that they can get more "followers", do they hope to sell it to the local news or are they just heartless voyeurs? Maybe all three factors come into play.

originally posted by: stormcellYou can't take a photograph of someone and publish it online unless you get their consent. This is rather difficult to do with a dead or unconscious person.

That is a myth I'm afraid. In a public space where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy you can take pictures of people (including children) without needing any consent. These pictures can also be legally published, commercially or otherwise.
Here's what my local police say:

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people's children.

They also confirm this:

The taking of photographs of an individual without their consent is a civil matter.

Devon/Cornwall Police
So, not only can you take pictures, if the person doesn't like it they cannot pursue a criminal complaint, merely go through the civil courts, but if the picture was taken in a public place then they will be # out of luck.

a reply to: oldcarpy

The goose that keeps on giving ?

IMO, The Law society is the enactors of legislation/policy writers of the British judicial system.

It is not for senior civil servants/members of parliment to legislate UK laws.


The 10% rule the 30% that poop on the 60% if you follow my drift.


Fox.

a reply to: foxhound2459
Parliament draft/enact laws, the judiciary interpret them.

In this case the police have interpreted the law to have been broken. They refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service who will decide if there is a case to be considered.
If the Crown decides there is then they prosecute. Assuming it goes to Crown court and not magistrates a judge will interpret the law as the charges stand, then a jury will decide.

In my experience the most frequent mistakes made considering if a crime will be prosecuted are made by police officers on the front line. I've been arrested many times and released with no further action after laughing in the police interview that the Crown will never take the case on due to lack of evidence or inability to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

I have more faith in the Crown prosecution than I do actual cops on the beat. Police understanding of specific laws is often lacking woefully. Unbelievably you still have some cops who think they can tell you to stop filming them.

Whatever happened to social shaming?
Would that not be enough in cases like this?
That is, if they generally disapproved.