I saw a report on TV today. A number of women in a town have had nude photographs of themselves uploaded to some web sites. Those interviewed had said they had originally uploaded them to a private web page.
The words of Judge Judy came to me – never upload something to the web that you don’t want everybody to see. I have to admit I have never taken a nude photograph of myself, let alone uploaded one to the internet.
The reporter commented on the relevant law – one of the conditions for having being on an offence is that there needs to be an evil intention on behalf of the person uploading. I remember commenting on the law at the time – all the person uploading the image needs to show is that it might have been a joke and they cannot be prosecuted effectively.
BBC had some interesting comments on the possibility of laws to outlaw conversion therapy. Strapping people to a chair and shocking them to change their views, locking them in a room until they give in – all of these things are wrong. But they are not wrong because of the intended outcome, it is because of the activity. No matter what the intended outcome these activities are wrong.
The risk of being making bad law exists here. For a start the term conversion therapy can extend to counselling and discussion. Where does the boundary sit? Do we need to argue in court the intention of the person carrying out the activity.
Proving the intention of people is something that can be difficult, particularly at the edges of what is considered acceptable. Can anybody really say they can prove what another persons intention is? And is it then acceptable to use shock therapy for other reasons, maybe politics or religion?
In some parts of the world it is illegal to encourage people to change religion (not sure if that applies to encouraging people to change to the state religion). In some places it is illegal to speak out against the national politics (think of the new laws in Hong Kong).
But, some people will say, gender issues are not a choice. My response is that if you truly believe that then you need to accept that some people are living lives that are out of step with who they are (think people “in the closet”). To ban discussion of sexual preference means you ban discussion with them.
One of my colleagues was at the point of suicide because of gender issues. Some people are suffering because of where they are in life and we need to make sure we don’t lock them in misery. We need to focus on the activities that are wrong, irrespective of the intent.