[PASSED] Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings

[Tinhampton]

On the 1st of September 2023, Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings became GA#684!

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Moral Decency Board.
NOTE: at 1518 BST on the 14th of August 2023, this proposal reached quorum with Astoreus' approval, the 55th all told.

---

Character count: 1,292
Word count: 200

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: According to the Tinhamptonian calendar, I will submit this on the 3rd 10th 13th of August 2023.

OOC: There is now greater awareness of sexual offences based in recordings (as against physical offences), at least in the United Kingdom. In 2015, Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act outlawed the distribution of revenge porn. Four years later, Section 67A was added to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, banning upskirting.
Recent developments have instituted further clampdowns. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 moved on threatening to distribute revenge porn. There has been a push to add downblousing to the law, too, but so far we have only gotten photographs of breastfeeding mothers made with sensual intent outlawed.
The most famous revenge porn story in recent times is Stephen Bear's two-year imprisonment, just handed down for posting revenge porn of reality TV star Georgia Harrison on OnlyFans.

Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency

Effect: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Believing that everybody has a right to feel safe in their person, whether in public or in private,

Recognising, however, that tactics such as distributing revenge porn (the distribution of humilating and sexually explicit recordings of a person without their consent), upskirting and downblousing (two distinct acts in which sensitive parts of a person's body are similarly recorded for the sexual pleasure of strangers) are becoming more prominent in daily life, and

Convinced that these tactics violate the safety of persons and should therefore be curtailed...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines "sexually exploitative recordings" as recordings of any person which exhibit that person in a sexual manner, are made or otherwise distributed without that person's consent, and are made with the intention that any other person should view them for their own sexual pleasure or to humiliate that person, and
2. requires all members to outlaw the making of, wilful distribution of, and threats to distribute sexually exploitative recordings to the fullest extent permitted under prior and standing international law, except where their distribution occurs in a judicial or policing context and is necessary to help convict a person of an offence defined in this Article.

[Tinhampton]

Hiya

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The one problem that I can see with this is that there is no exception for distribution for evidential purposes, namely in a judicial setting. At first, I thought the definition might exclude that, but the condition of “the intention that any other person should view them for their own sexual pleasure or to humiliate P” applies to the making of the material, rather than to the distribution. Other than that, this has my full support.)

[Simone Republic]

There's a lot of issues regarding consent, GA#300, etc., etc.

Quite a tricky one to get right.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“All this does is simply prohibit such recordings, it never makes any effort to detail punishments, method of enforcement, etc. This proposal needs to be fortified against rule bypassing at all costs!”

Lady Charlotte Schafer

[Kenmoria]

“All this does is simply prohibit such recordings, it never makes any effort to detail punishments, method of enforcement, etc. This proposal needs to be fortified against rule bypassing at all costs!”

Lady Charlotte Schafer

(OOC: Detailing punishments is not a good idea in a resolution. Member-nations have different currencies, so fixed fines don’t work. Member-nations also have species with different lifespans, so fixed terms of imprisonment don’t work. Furthermore, speaking generally, minimal sentencing is not a good policy, because it removes judicial discretion, which is necessary to account for nuances: offenders have lives beyond their offences. There is a good reason that no extant resolution specifies sentencing. For broadly similar reasons, specifying methods of enforcement would also be a poor idea.)

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“All this does is simply prohibit such recordings, it never makes any effort to detail punishments, method of enforcement, etc. This proposal needs to be fortified against rule bypassing at all costs!”

Lady Charlotte Schafer

(OOC: Detailing punishments is not a good idea in a resolution. Member-nations have different currencies, so fixed fines don’t work. Member-nations also have species with different lifespans, so fixed terms of imprisonment don’t work. Furthermore, speaking generally, minimal sentencing is not a good policy, because it removes judicial discretion, which is necessary to account for nuances: offenders have lives beyond their offences. There is a good reason that no extant resolution specifies sentencing. For broadly similar reasons, specifying methods of enforcement would also be a poor idea.)

OOC: Valid point, but please refer to the number of operative clauses. There seems to only be one definition and one action listed under the operative clauses section. One definition and one action definitely cannot be the bare minimum for a GA proposal, so that was the main point I was trying to get across in my previous message.

[Tinhampton]

I remain intent on submitting this as scheduled.

[Barfleur]

"We support this proposal, with the caveat that an exception should be made for genuine law-enforcement or evidentiary purposes. It would be ironic indeed if the WA banned sexually exploitative recordings internationally, only to be unable to enforce such ban as the distribution of such recordings as evidence would itself be an offense under this same law. We also suggest that clause b be limited to knowing transactions involving the prohibited recordings, as we would consider it to be fundamentally unjust for a person who did not make the recording themself and had no way of knowing it to be nonconsensual to be prosecuted for sending it to a friend under the belief that it is perfectly legitimate."

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

What happens to the asexual blob from Uranus?

(OOC)

I support the principle of this resolution, but you'll need to tighten the standards of "exhibit P in a sexual manner" quite a bit. That phrase is wholly inadequate to define what you're trying to make illegal. For example, technically it's not illegal (to use Magecastle's country again as an example) to be nude in New Zealand as long as it is innocent and without indecent intentions. However, in some other countries, any nudity would be considered shameful. You're talking about massive cultural differences here.

[Tinhampton]

Submission pushed back a week to August 10th for scheduling reasons.

Kenmoria and Barfleur's ambassadors: Law enforcement exception added.

Simone, the player: In addition to being of a sexual nature, a sexually exploitative recording must also be "made without P's consent" and "with the intention that any other person should view them for their own sexual pleasure or to humiliate P." Simply making a video of P happening to be nude is not an SER according to Article a.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “Even if it were possible to distribute a sexually-exploitative recording in such a way so as to ensure the safety of the exploited person, there would still be merit in the prohibition of such a recording. For that reason, I recommend a substitution of ‘dignity’ or ‘autonomy’ in place of ‘safety’ in the ‘convinced’ clause. Other than that, following recent changes, I support this draft.”

[Mesogiria]

The resolution brings up revenge porn as distribution of sexually explicit recordings without a person's consent, but then only prohibits the distribution of recordings that are made without a person's consent. Is this a deliberate disconnect? Recordings could well be made with a person's consent, but then later distributed or threatened to be distributed without their consent, yes?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: What do you mean by 'in a sexual manner'? And why should the intent of public distribution matter for the definition?

[Wallenburg]

(P) is so bizarre a convention to this Assembly that I would recommend axing it entirely. I also recommend that the proposal give clarifying mandates regarding recordings made with the consent of all parties but published or distributed in a manner without the consent of all parties.

[Tinhampton]

All comments are IC and by Anderson.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “Even if it were possible to distribute a sexually-exploitative recording in such a way so as to ensure the safety of the exploited person, there would still be merit in the prohibition of such a recording. For that reason, I recommend a substitution of ‘dignity’ or ‘autonomy’ in place of ‘safety’ in the ‘convinced’ clause. Other than that, following recent changes, I support this draft.”

This change, subtle it may be, has been made.

The resolution brings up revenge porn as distribution of sexually explicit recordings without a person's consent, but then only prohibits the distribution of recordings that are made without a person's consent. Is this a deliberate disconnect? Recordings could well be made with a person's consent, but then later distributed or threatened to be distributed without their consent, yes?

(P) is so bizarre a convention to this Assembly that I would recommend axing it entirely. I also recommend that the proposal give clarifying mandates regarding recordings made with the consent of all parties but published or distributed in a manner without the consent of all parties.

On further review, these changes have been adopted.

Neville: What do you mean by 'in a sexual manner'? And why should the intent of public distribution matter for the definition?

The video is not in a sexual manner. The intended target of the video is to be depicted in a sexual manner. As for distribution, this is a statute against revenge porn and should be treated accordingly.

[Resilentia]

Hiya Tinhampton, great idea of proposal, here are some ideas to improve:

Victim support: The proposal could be strengthened by including provisions for support services for victims of sexually exploitative recordings. This might include legal assistance, psychological support, and assistance in removing such materials from public platforms.

Accountability for platforms: Consider including provisions holding digital platforms accountable for swiftly removing reported sexually exploitative material and cooperating with law enforcement in these cases.

Preventative measures: To avoid the issue, it would be beneficial to include a requirement for member states to implement educational programs and awareness campaigns about the serious repercussions of creating and distributing sexually exploitative recordings.

[Tinhampton]

This is a basic legal framework. GA#442 requires widespread distribution of and encourages education on WA laws, including this one (when it passes). A social network that keeps a sexually exploitative recording up on its platform is violating the Article b obligation not to distribute it already.

[The Ice States]

"We would suggest changing 'porn' to 'pornography' in the preamble for formality. Otherwise, we support."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Civil Rights? Feels more Moral Decency to me.

[Tinhampton]

I wait all my life for a sighting of Hack and then all of a sudden he's to be found here, of all places. Being as you were an old-time GA mod, I will take your word for it.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Heh. I'm only speaking as a player, I hung up my mod hat years ago. I'll freely admit that my interpretations may be old, out of date, or no longer accurate. I mean, I didn't even remember the category for Moral Decency; I had to look it up.

But, to me, this certainly feels more MD than CR. It's certainly a right, but this bill would restrict a citizen's activities and not a government's, if that makes sense.

[Sea Dome]

We find this to be straightforwardly a civil rights matter; it is not decency, but violation of consent and social boundaries, that concern Matrian courts in such cases. Having said that, we find that tacit support by other or previous governments can be a factor in the choice to commit these offenses; for those who hold that individual citizens choose to commit indecent acts as pure individuals, it may be understood as a personal matter of moral conviction. Regardless, we support, although we also agree with those who would like to see action on other fronts as well, i.e. victim support, global education, or suchlike. Legislation on this matter is overdue by some years.

[Wallenburg]

(P) is so bizarre a convention to this Assembly that I would recommend axing it entirely. I also recommend that the proposal give clarifying mandates regarding recordings made with the consent of all parties but published or distributed in a manner without the consent of all parties.

I still consider the current draft insufficient to address the issue of recordings made with the informed consent of all parties but then at a later date distributed for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The language currently in use leaves room for recordings originally made for private use to later be distributed without the consent of all parties recorded.

[Cessarea]

(P) is so bizarre a convention to this Assembly that I would recommend axing it entirely. I also recommend that the proposal give clarifying mandates regarding recordings made with the consent of all parties but published or distributed in a manner without the consent of all parties.

I still consider the current draft insufficient to address the issue of recordings made with the informed consent of all parties but then at a later date distributed for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The language currently in use leaves room for recordings originally made for private use to later be distributed without the consent of all parties recorded.

Councillor Feathers-of-Burgundy raises a finger, takes out a written copy of the draft in question, and stands to speak in response:

"Paragraph "a" would seem to sufficiently address this potential issue. It includes within the definition of 'sexually exploitative recordings' those that are 'distributed without that person's consent'. This would seem to imply, then, that even if one has recorded a person - with their consent - in a sexual situation, they cannot distribute it without their consent. If you think this is insufficient and still fear that the courts of member nations may not interpret this correctly, I suggest altering this excerpt to 'distributed with that person's continued consent'. That way, it makes it clear that the distribution of content depicting a person sexually is only legal if they continuously consent to it. As soon as they stop consenting to said distribution, it becomes illicit and therefore punishable by member nations."