[GA, passed] - Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

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 [sic] 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 dignity 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.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
4801
 
Last edited:
Overview
The resolution purports to prohibit so-called "revenge pornography", "upskirting" and "downblousing", which it defines collectively as "sexually exploitative recordings", and prohibits the said 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".

Recommendation
We support the concept behind the resolution but not its implementation. There were significant concerns raised during the drafting process (which started back in March 2023) about the exact definition of what constitutes "sexually exploitative recordings" which we quoted word for word above, and which were never addressed properly, such as over whether fully clothed individuals portraying suggestive positions constitute "sexual" and proving intent over "sexual pleasure or to humiliate" someone. For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings".
 
Last edited:
Present. I assume RNT means this should be in place, but....

By the way, what the hell is "humilating"?
 
Last edited:
Against. Whilst revenge porn is obviously terrible, these restrictions could spread to legal porn, i.e ‘made for sexual pleasure’ is one of the main reasons porn is made in the first place.

It also doesn't reference what happens to the people in the SERs. Does anyone get social protection for being the victim, or does anyone get criminally charged for being in the revenge porn video being the one humiliating the victim?
 
For.

AraFuttio:
Against. Whilst revenge porn is obviously terrible, these restrictions could spread to legal porn, i.e ‘made for sexual pleasure’ is one of the main reasons porn is made in the first place.
Click to expand...
Due to the use of "and", not only would it have to be made for sexual pleasure, but it would have to be "made or otherwise distributed without that person's consent". That alone should certainly merit it being banned.
AraFuttio:
It also doesn't reference what happens to the people in the SERs. Does anyone get social protection for being the victim, or does anyone get criminally charged for being in the revenge porn video being the one humiliating the victim?
Click to expand...
I think this is a fair point, but could ultimately go in a second resolution, as it is outside of the scope of this one, which is banning them.
 
Magecastle:
I think this is a fair point, but could ultimately go in a second resolution, as it is outside of the scope of this one, which is banning them.
Click to expand...
Well yes, but Article 2 talks about outlawing the ‘making of, wilful distribution of, or threat to make…’ without mentioning participation.
 
For

I presume the spelling mistake can be addressed in final draft (and we've had worse); I don't quite track the other issues raised.
 
Last edited:
nvxl:
For

I presume the spelling mistake can be addressed in final draft (and we've had worse); I don't quite track the other issues raised.
Click to expand...

It can't be fixed unless the resolution does not pass or is re-submitted. As you said, there's definitely been worse typos in the World Assembly, like "Assitance Givers Protection" (GA#106) which was there for two years. Yours truly is also well known for grammatical errors in resolutions.
 
Last edited:
Against until the version is amended.

The definition under 1. is either too broad or problematic:
a. "any person which exhibit that person in a sexual manner" - the definition is ambigious, what if the individual concerned was fully clothed but was portraying acts, would that be covered by the resolution?
b. "and are made with the intention that any other person should view them for their own sexual pleasure or to humiliate that person" - what if the intention was said to be for artistic or academic purposes, but were still distributed without the subject's consent, would that still be covered?

Further, the exemption for the allowable distributions under 2. are limited and infringe upon the ability of the Mission's legislature (The Special Board of Administration) to provide later exemptions such as in legislative inquiries, or administrative proceedings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top