[GA, Passed] - ban on revenge porn

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Ban on revenge porn
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, and

Reaffirming that revenge porn - the distribution of humiliating and sexually explicit recordings of a person without their consent - and similar activities violate the safety of persons and should therefore be curtailed...

The General Assembly hereby:

  1. defines "sexually exploitative recordings" as images, recordings or other media (hereinafter "recordings") of any person which exhibit that person in a sexual manner, and which are made or otherwise distributed without that person's ongoing consent and with the intention that any other person should view them for their own sexual pleasure or to humiliate the recorded person at any point, 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 an arbitral, judicial or policing context and is necessary to help show that a person has committed an act which can be punished by the relevant dispute resolution venue.
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
11801
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This resolution is a replacement for the now-repealed GA #684, Challenging Sexually Exploitative Recordings. It seeks to prohibit, inter alia, the practice of "revenge porn", ie non-consensual pornography. It achieves this by requiring every member nation to proscribe the "making of, wilful distribution of, and threats to distribute" non-consensual pornography, with an exception for use of such recordings for certain limited law enforcement purposes.

Recommendation
We believe that this replacement adequately addresses the issues which resulted in the repeal of GA #684. While there have been objections raised against the resolution's utilisation of the term "revenge porn", we nonetheless believe that this is a practice which no member nation should permit.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote GA resolution, "Ban on Revenge Porn".
 
Last edited:
Against. I told Tin at least half a dozen times on DM and in the forum that I hate hate hate hate hate the title as it implies that someone is guilty of something, hence the need for some kind of "revenge". It gives legitimacy to acts that are hidedous.

Tin:
I still hate that title.
 
Last edited:
For

I'm somewhat ambivalent in regards to issues raised with the title, though the contents seem to have addressed the issues necessitating repeal prior.
 
Against. I agree with Simone on the title and I don’t like the ‘and’ being in bold. Overall, it still isn’t detailed enough.
 
Is the mass opposition due to Simone's title-related concerns or some other reason I have made the conscious decision to not fathom?
 
Being entirely honest, while I sympathise with wanting a different title, I don't think that's sufficient to vote against. The term "revenge porn" is widely accepted in real life (the Wikipedia article, for example, is titled "Revenge porn") and the resolution is specifically written to prohibit the acts it is asserted that it legitimises.
 
I personally find the title fairly acceptable, though I understand the concerns towards the title.

For.
 
Tinhampton:
Is the mass opposition due to Simone's title-related concerns or some other reason I have made the conscious decision to not fathom?
Click to expand...

Also the concern raised on WALL that because you use the word "punished", it means that civil litigation in jurisdictions where no punishment is metered out (ie no punitive damages made) cannot use the recordings, so there's still issues over victims suing the perpetrator in civil court. (You fixed the criminal part). In the US, I guess somewhat OK because of the possibility of punitive damages.

Outside US in an arbitration unless the arbitrator can award punitive damages, would be difficult. I would have preferred "adjudicate".
 
Last edited:
For (currently non-WA but I'm gonna vote on my WA puppet anyway).

Moderator edit: you have an NPA badge anyway. (Simone)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Changing vote to for. I’ve realised I was being overly picky with my original feedback and really it is quite a good proposal. I’d like to see this issue put to rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top