Cessarea wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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 The language currently in use leaves room for recordings originally made for private use to later be distributed without the consent of all parties recorded.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 with out 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 my member nations."
"It only includes recordings distributed non-consensually where they are made with an intent to distribute. The language you cite is where the issue arises.
"A separate issue arises in the second mandate, where the language creates a grey area as to whether it retroactively becomes illegal to create these recordings if they are then later distributed non-consensually. If someone's partner sends them explicit recordings of themselves and those recordings are then distributed non-consensually, is the partner in legal peril for having created the now-illegal material?"
