People who have had intimate images of themselves shared without consent in Saskatchewan now have more legal options.
A “revenge porn” law, introduced by the provincial government last October, is now in place.
“This legislation provides victims with a clear path for pursuing legal action against those who have victimized them by sharing their intimate images without consent,” Justice Minister and Attorney General Don Morgan said in a statement Monday.
People can now go to small claims court — where a lawyer isn’t needed — to seek compensation up to $30,000, as well as get an order to have the images removed. If they want to hire a lawyer and seek more than $30,000 in damages, the matter can be taken to provincial court.
In a Canadian first, the new law requires that the person who posted the image proves they had consent before posting it. Morgan said last year this creates a “reverse onus” for the poster, and that alone can deter people from posting intimate images. [This is an extremely problematic provision. — ed.]
Under the law, an intimate image is a visual image, including photos or videos, in which a person is nude, partially nude, or engaged in explicit sexual activity, made in circumstances that implied a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Read more at the Saskatoon Star Phoenix
4 Responses
Why is proof of prior consent problematic?
Could see an issue if the website/ publisher of user generated content were required to maintain consent records of every image posted or if a ‘formal contract’ were specified by the regulation, otherwise it comes across as a check/balance to thwart non-consensual posting of private images.
In this day and age when a she said – he said game of spin the bottle can derail a career perhaps it is in poster’s best interest to have prior proof of consent. Websites already use affirmative TOS agreements aka ‘prior consent’
It’s problematic because a statement attesting prior consent is not the same as proof of prior consent. The “proof of prior consent” standard (analogous to the crazy “enthusiastic consent” standard in interpersonal contact) is an intentionally cumbersome open door to restricting liberty. It chills speech. See the EU Copyright Directive, FOSTA/SESTA, 2257, and every censorious law that has been sought by lunatic feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and her proteges to regulate the internet.
I get it and agree re language ambiguity ‘proof of prior consent.
Playing devil’s advocate couldn’t it also be said lack of recourse chills expression? ig refusing pics out of concern they could later be posted without recourse.
It could be said, yes, but I personally don’t buy it. More to the point, I’m not arguing against recourse, just against cumbersome impositions against free expression. I argue instead for high levels of freedom and high penalties for abuse.