back to article Swedish teen's sex video fine slashed: Unwilling co-star girlfriend furious

A Swedish court has reduced the fine of a teenage boy to just £2,400 after he uploaded a pornographic video of his ex-girlfriend without her permission. In a controversial ruling, the Göta Court of of Appeal found that the younger generation was "so open" about its sexual behaviour that a larger fine was unwarranted. The boy …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. MainframeBob

    Mixed signals regarding privacy

    So after all this talk about protecting the children from viewing porn on the net or meeting old men that want to abuse them, the legal system more or less says "we dont care about protecting our children"?

    The girl would have gotten more money if she had sued the boy for not paying her for her role in the movie...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

      What children are we talking about here? Had the girl been underage there would have been separate criminal charges.

      This is a privacy case. However, full marks for being the first twonk to "think of the children".

      1. Lusty

        Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

        "This is a privacy case."

        This is, however, a privacy case where the woman (as you say, not underage so why call her a girl?) seems to have willingly let someone film her perform sexual acts. Yes, the man should be punished to show it's wrong to upload without permission, but I think it's also appropriate to limit that punishment to show it's wrong to ignore your own privacy. If she wants to not have pictures or videos of herself spread about then the only way to ensure that is not to allow them to be taken.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

          If she wants to not have pictures or videos of herself spread about then the only way to ensure that is not to allow them to be taken.

          That goes in the direction of "if she didn't wanted to be raped she shouldn't have worn a short skirt". What she does in private settings is entitled to privacy protection, irrespective of purpose or intent.

          1. PJI
            FAIL

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            Yes, and if you do not want your pocket picked, you should not have pockets or at least put nothing in them. Never tell a friend anything personal, in confidence, nor a sibling nor a parent. Who knows what your best friend or your mother will blurt out one day. Never cross a road; it's the only way to be sure you will never be struck by a car.

            Really: find a philosophy course somewhere, a proper, rigorous one and study how to think.

            1. Felix Krull

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

              Yes, and if you do not want your pocket picked, you should not have pockets or at least put nothing in them.

              Yes. As several posters already said, this is for life, this is for your grandchildren. If getting my pocket picked would mean that my grandchildren would be teased about it 40 years from now, I wouldn't carry anything in my pockets.

              I'm not defending the clown that uploaded the video - just as I don't defend pickpocketing - but it's not illegal to use your head.

            2. Lusty

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

              "Never tell a friend anything personal, in confidence, nor a sibling nor a parent. Who knows what your best friend or your mother will blurt out one day."

              Yes that's the generally accepted wisdom. If you genuinely want to keep something secret, don't tell ANYONE. Human nature is to trust and to diminish the importance of these things over time. You tell someone a secret and at that moment they think they will keep it. A year later they might not. At the time the man took this video he may have thought the relationship would last and that he'd never share it but then it ended and he was lonely and decided to share it.

              If it was a hidden camera then of course that's a different matter altogether but once you share something you can no longer consider it private and under your control.

          2. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            Sorry, but that's not even faintly comparable. What a ridiculous statement. Privacy is one thing, but at no time was she made to do anything unwillingly, nor was force used. The boy concerned is an idiot, not a rapist.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

        @ChrisW you say "What children are we talking about here? "

        Do you think a 17 year old is an adult?

        It is mixed messages, you can't buy alochol but you can post sex vids?

        @17 you are no where near being an adult, you are very much still an adolescent (@17 I had raised myself and THOUGHT I was an adult)

        Privacy case or not, he should not have post the vid and deserved a larger fine, and the courts are irresponsible with the stance they have taken.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

      An article like this will just make people look for the video..................

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

        But wouldn't that be child pr0nz?

        1. wowfood

          Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

          Technically he was under 18 when he uploaded teh vid, no idea of the girls age. If they're under 18, then that, by law (at least over here and the USA, not sure on the sweeds) means that he's distributed child pornography thanks to our crazy legal system.

          1. James Micallef Silver badge

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            In Sweden the age of consent is 15. It's not strictly the same as threshold for whether pron is 'adult' or 'child' but I would presume that if a person is of an age where the law considers you a 'consenting adult' with respect to sex, then pron with a person of that age would be adult pron rather than child pron. Given that it didn't seem to be at all mentioned in the case I guess that it was treated as an adult uploading adult pron with a consenting adult, just without her knowledge.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @ James Micallef

              You would think so, but unfortunately no...

              In the UK age of consent is 16, but it is illegal to take erotic pictures/video of an under 18 year old...

              Meaning a 16 year old could theoretically be prosecuted for having a picture of themselves in an erotic pose.. Even the police themselves thought that was a stupid law when it came in.. How can having a photo/video of a LEGAL act be illegal???

              There are plenty of other laws that could be introduced to protect youngsters from exploitation & abuse (which is after all what we should be doing) but nope, ban it, make it illegal, like that EVER works...

              And really this kind of thing IS a kind of abuse, I don't care what age the girl was, she could be 15 or 50, if she made a sex tape willingly but under the assumption it would be private, then uploading it was a heinous crime and a fine is pathetic, at the very least it should be a criminal offence meriting a few weeks locked in a cell somewhere...

              1. ridley

                Re: @ James Micallef

                I don't think that is quite right. If the video/images is taken by and of persons in a relationship and is not shared with others I think it is legal. What happens when the relationship ends I am not sure. A bleeding stupid law IMHO the age of consent and the age limit for child pron should be the same IMHO.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @ James Micallef

                Slightly tangentially related - but is it only me that is thinking the Gloria de Piero (Labour MP) hoo-ha is all focussing on the wrong point? She was apparently photographed topless when she was 15 and a major newspaper is allegedly offering big bucks for anyone who can now supply those photos. Everyone is up in arms about the privacy issue and how she shouldn't have to be embarrased by events from when she was younger, but isn't it a larger issue that a newspaper is effectively openly bidding for what the law defines as category 1 child porn images and no one is batting an eyelid?

                1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

                  Re: Re: @ James Micallef

                  No newspaper is bidding for them. It's a perfect example of a political strawman in action, getting positive headlines for the poor put-upon woman struggling against her youthful, indiscreet past as misogynists pile into her.

                  Consider this - if there really was a paper or agency bidding for child porn images, they'd have been named long before now. That they haven't tells you all you need to know.

                2. This post has been deleted by its author

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @AC 16:14

                  But remember, a topless photo is not indecent, its only indecent if it is erotic and/or taken with that purpose in mind (seriously a clothed picture of someone under 18 can be deemed indecent, even pictures of kids at a play ground if they were taken by a dirty old man in a trench coat...)

                  Just think, how many parents have naked photos of their kids when they were little?

                  Also films, I think it was The Hole? (great film that) had a topless Keira Knightly at 16? there are plenty of other examples of under 18 nudity out there that is NOT indecent... Nudity itself is not indecent or sexual....

                  (although having nude pictures of kids on your PC when you don't have any reason to have them might be weird... actually make that having any pictured of kids on your pc without a reason is weird...)

              3. Kubla Cant Silver badge

                Re: @ James Micallef

                if she made a sex tape willingly but under the assumption it would be private, then uploading it was a heinous crime

                It was a pretty nasty breach of trust, but it wasn't "a heinous crime". It's not hard to think of quite a few other ways in which sexual partners can betray each other.

                I doubt that you would be recommending a gaol term if he'd treated his friends to graphic descriptions, or even a private video show, though both would be a betrayal of trust. The distinction seems to lie in the scale of the exposure, which isn't really the moral issue.

            2. jonathanb Silver badge

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

              No, in the UK the age of consent is 16, however photos or videos of the activity are child porn if the people involved are under 18.

            3. BoldMan

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

              The age of consent in the UK is 16 but you'll still get done for child porn if you (as a 17 yr old husband) take a photo of your 17 yr old wife in her birthday suit as the law says you are a "child" until 18.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

                The age of consent in the UK is 16 but you'll still get done for child porn if you (as a 17 yr old husband) take a photo of your 17 yr old wife in her birthday suit as the law says you are a "child" until 18.

                I thought they'd spotted that anomaly and added a special case exemption that someone between 16 and 18 is allowed to take and posses nude photos of their spouse .... so long as no-one else was involved in their production and they don't show them to anyone else.

                The anomaly that I think hasn't been covered is what happens to people with back issues of the Sun and/or early SamFox calendars etc which while legal when produced would now be deemed as pictures of a child that probably are caught in the wide definition of pornography used in child porn laws

                1. PJI

                  Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

                  Pictures, pornography, indecency:

                  I find it fascinating that the implicit assumption, in all these comments, is that any picture of a naked human being is, per se, pornographic; not even just indecent - pornographic. It is such attitudes that create the problem. They lead to proud parents being reported for pictures of their young children playing with bubbles in the bath. They stop toddlers from being allowed to run naked at the seaside.

                  Please do distinguish nakedness in the context of sexual activity or lasciviousness from pictures, whether artistic or for the family album.

                  Surely, the correct term here is not pornography: these two were making an intimate, personal record for their own pleasure. I would class it as pornography only if it was intended for a wider distribution to titillate, make money or similar. The real thing here is that the unpleasant "boyfriend" betrayed the trust and intimacy he had enjoyed and caused harm to the girl by using their private record as pornography, without her agreement, to gain warped revenge. This, to my mind, should be very heavily punished as she is hurt and society, in its dependence on mutual trust, is hurt. His protestations about the unexpectedly wide audience are worthless: apart from their stupidity, an audience of a single third person would be bad enough. As for "openness": that still implies consent and mutuality. One sided openness is betrayal.

                  Lastly, I suspect it is a very small minority of people who whip out their smart phone to film themselves in the act. If that is the first thing on the mind of one of them, the other should find a real human being as soon as possible.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

                    > I suspect it is a very small minority of people who whip out their smart phone to film themselves in the act

                    That's what I thought too, but from talking to younger people, I'm starting to question that assumption.

            4. ridley

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

              Assume all you like it is not the case in the uk.

              The age of consent here is 16, yet child pron is images of those who are or under 18. Go figure.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            Yup - although if he'd beheaded her instead then Facebook would be happy to show it.

            Writing of which - if "every image is a crime scene" (one of the main arguments put forward for prosecuting possessors of indecent images of under 18s) why aren't the beheading videos illegal to possess?

          3. Andrew Moore

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            The Age of Consent is 15 in Sweden.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

              Perhaps someone should introduce a two-password encryption for naughty videos of themselves and their partners - each participant having part of the key - so it can only be watched by both parties in conjunction?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

                Perhaps someone should introduce a two-password encryption"

                Fine in clean mathematical principle, unsatisfactory in dirty systems programming practice if you want any realistic rather than "best effort" guarantees. Also, given the probability of some link in the chain being broken many years later, you've still got the unwelcome issue of what grandma was up to in her youth.

          4. Rors

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            Think you will find that under an EU Directive (which comes into effect shortly) - the age for CP involves sexual images of people under the age of 18. So this age should apply accross Europe. Not sure what Sweden's current laws are on this. I can see the sense in that age when it comes to images because the images are easily shared widely and the young person can be exploited/blackmailed/severely embarassed by the deliberate actions of another. Whether it should be called CP or not is maybe a different issue but I think the age limit here is right, irrespective of the age of consent.

          5. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

        Yeah anyone got a link ?

      3. BillG
        Gimp

        Re: Mixed signals regarding currency

        The boy was originally told to pay his former lover 130,000 kronor in damages, which is just under...

        15,000 quatloos.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

        Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

        I haven't seen anything to say that the video was taken with a hidden camera, so presumably she was happy to have her exploits committed to film? Not saying she shouldn't be upset by having it published without her permission - but it does suggest a degree of liberalism regarding sexual relations on her part.

        1. BorkedAgain

          Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

          I don't know, Sir Runcible. Are you an old friend of Judge Pickles? :)

          1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            " Are you an old friend of Judge Pickles"

            Some may say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

        2. xyz

          Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

          The key word missing here is trust. She trusted him and he trusted her, so they shot a video for their own fun. We've all done it. Then Master Bates here gets the hump and uploads it, so it'll be on the internet way after they are both dead and buried for her next boyfriend, husband, children, grandchildren etc to see. So when you're bleating on about this always remember...would you like to see your granny from 40 years ago taking one on the chin (or whatever they were doing)?

          1. Irongut Silver badge

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy (xyz)

            > We've all done it.

            Actually no, we haven't. If you don't want naked pictures or videos of yourself to become public then don't take them. You can have a perfectly happy relationship and sex life without them.

            I have never taken a selfie (naked or otherwise) or shot an amateur porn film and have no desire to do so. You might think that makes me a prude or sexually unadventurous but I disagree.

            1. LyingMan

              Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy (xyz)

              You are not the yardstick here, Irongut... in a population, you are expected to have a good distribution...

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            so they shot a video for their own fun. We've all done it."

            No we haven't.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

            "The key word missing here is trust. She trusted him and he trusted her, so they shot a video for their own fun. We've all done it."

            Speak for yourself!

        3. Windrose

          Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

          It was "smygfilmat" - i.e. a hidden camera.

          http://mobil.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/osannolikt-att-hd-tar-upp-sexfilmsdomen/

          So anyone blaming the girl can fry.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

          "but it does suggest a degree of liberalism regarding sexual relations on her part."

          Of well I suppose that OKs this then???

          WTF are you on about man?

      2. OhDearHimAgain

        Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

        Banged up for 20 years for that!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mixed signals regarding privacy

      > So after all this talk about protecting the children from viewing porn [....]

      Viewing, yes. Nobody said anything about starring in it.

  2. vagabondo

    age discrimination?

    Did the appeal court think that it was no big deal because of the girl's age?

    Or perhaps the judges would also regard it as no big deal if videos of their sexual performances were distributed among their social circle?

    1. WhoaWhoa

      Re: age discrimination?

      "Or perhaps the judges would also regard it as no big deal if videos of their sexual performances were distributed among their social circle?"

      Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps?

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

        Classic victim blaming. "She should never have trusted her boyfriend in the first place so it's her fault."

        No. It isn't.

        1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

          Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

          I don't see a victim here, actually - sounds like this turned into a trade dispute arbitration:

          R - "Your honour, I thought I paid enough, in kind, to do what I want with the video..."

          C - "No, your honour, that was not nearly enough, he is flattering himself - it's a premium product and the price is 12k"

          J - "Well, having done my own market research I conclude that this belongs to "affordable" category and I assess 2.4k to be a fair price - Respondent, you can pay with a credit card... Case closed."

        2. Michael H.F. Wilkinson

          Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

          I also have difficulty with the argument given by the court. Arguing that modern youth in Sweden is quite relaxed about these matters is largely irrelevant, as the video is posted world-wide, and not just to her own age group. If she wants to seek employment in Sweden, she will typically be interviewed by older people, who do not necessarily hold the same views.

          This gets worse if she wants to seek employment abroad (this apparently does happen, although certain judges might not be aware of it). I cannot imagine employers from the US (to pick a country totally at random) having the same tolerant attitude to this kind of thing as they might have in Sweden.

          1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

            Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

            "If she wants to seek employment in Sweden, she will typically be interviewed by older people, who do not necessarily hold the same views."

            These older people may not necessarily hold the same views but don't you think they will kind of have to have an *extremely intimate* knowledge of certain internet resources if they were to recognise her as the one from the video in question? ;-)

            1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson

              Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

              Possibly, but some of us old fogies also know the interwebs, plus we might have paid someone to do a background check on the web (quite common these days). If her name comes up in the newspapers (not sure about that) even stuffy old gits who still read only broadsheet newspaper (i.e. newspapers as the Lord intended them ;-) ) might catch on.

              1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

                Re: Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps

                Well, I don't know. In our company we would never include porn video trawl in the background check on our employees. It's the matter of "not our bloody business"...

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. TitterYeNot
        Joke

        Re: age discrimination?

        Or perhaps the judges are a little more discerning about videoing their sexual romps?

        Of course. Judges have special "clubs" for that sort of thing....

    2. MrXavia

      Re: age discrimination?

      Actually I think that is the one thing the judge did right, not consider her age as an issue, she is young but was willing in the video recording.

      I think the sharing of the video online was a terrible thing to do, and real punishment should me dealt, such as being put in the stocks or caned/whipped.

  3. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    More detail

    One significant detail that the story doesn't give is whether the girl agreed to be filmed, or if the filming was secret. If she agreed to the film being made, but assumed that it would remain private, then I'm inclined to agree with the court's position. If it was a hidden camera then it would be a lot more serious, the boyfriend should be looking at jail time.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      To a point

      I agree, but even if she knew it was being filmed, unless she signed a waiver to allow him to publish it, then it is simply wrong.

      If it was a hidden camera... Well hanging him by the goolies is too light a punishment.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: To a point

        I agree, but even if she knew it was being filmed, unless she signed a waiver to allow him to publish it, then it is simply wrong.

        No argument from me, and the courts did agree. The debate is around how much the damages paid to her should take into account "modern youth"'s tendency towards openness/exhibitionism (selfies etc.), especially in a society like Sweden where people seem much less hung up about sex in general.

  4. Sil

    Monstruous decision

    What will we have to do to get privacy respected? Have a binding contract signed by the girl/boyfriend before each and every sexual encounter? If that's how it will be there will be a backlash against technology at some point.

    Dear MP, you were condemned to 10 years in prison & £50,000 fine for bribery and abuse of public office power. However we must see that it has become socially acceptable & every politician is corrupt nowadays. That is why your sentence is lowered to a £1 fine and a mandatory 1-week coaching in the 5-star resort of your choice. Regarding your son that cheated on his MBA exam, everyone is stuffing his iPad with cheating material so it's perfectly ok. I will have the troublesome examiner fired. Please send your financial contribution to my Ngo "Judges for a better tomorrow"

    1. WhoaWhoa

      Re: Monstruous decision

      "What will we have to do to get privacy respected?"

      Presumably stop paying the people who violate privacy.

      And that includes tabloid newspapers and "reality" TV through to NSA, etc.

      But I guess we're happy to pay at the moment.

  5. tkioz

    Look, if you don't want a sex tape of yourself on the 'net... don't make one in the first bloody place.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Really?

      Why shouldn't people be free to make private tapes? Why should you assume that when someone says "it's just for me" they mean "it's for the whole world?"

      The internet is no excuse for behaving like a dick....

      1. bigtimehustler

        Re: Really?

        You should assume this because the vast amount of humanity are complete liars and will take revenge if ever scorned, this isnt rocket science, every knows relationships break down and it can end badly.

      2. tkioz

        Re: Really?

        Why shouldn't people be free to make private tapes?

        I'll tell you a secret that I've discovered after many years of life... people are vindictive jerks. There are enough horror stories about 'revenge porn', leaked nudes, etc. out and about for people to maybe exercise some restraint and think "hmm maybe I shouldn't make a video of myself engaging in a sexual act with this person I've known for a few months".

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Re: people are vindictive jerks

          Yeah, see that's not my experience, at least not of the people I consider friends. Maybe, just maybe, you're a vindictive jerk and people just reflect that shit back at you? As an experiment why not try being a bit nicer to people and see if they start to behave that way too.....

        2. Stevie Silver badge

          Re: 'revenge porn'

          And here we have the answer.

          Before allowing anyone to film you, you need to get them to agree to pose for footage doing something more outrageous and degrading than the act to be filmed as part of this proposed project.

          FULL DISCLOSURE: I borrowed this idea the US and USSR behavior post-WWII with respect to atom bombs.

          Example contractual discussion:

          Gazza: G'wan Janice, lerrus fillm yer in the nuddie doin' that thing with the candlestick. It's deddot!

          Janice: Okay. Get yer coat. We're off to me uncle's pettin' zoo so's I can film you with some sheep first.

          ======================================================================

          I see no downside.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ... and how would you feel if the girl had posted the video, not the boy?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      oooh, clever.

      I'd feel exactly the same obviously, it's a massive violation of privacy who ever leaked it.

      Why do you ask?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: oooh, clever.

        The main difference being the boy would probably be proud of it and send the links round to all his mates... you know most young men today are idiots after all

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Trollface

    Link to the Torrent - or it never happened.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes please :-D

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Did you just ask for a link to underage porn?

      Just checking you really wanted to do that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Re: Did you just ask for a link to underage porn?

        Is the "Troll" icon too subtle for you???

        1. oolor
          Facepalm

          Re: Did you just ask for a link to underage porn?

          Considering the nature of the subject matter and that this was posted 6 hours before your reply:

          http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1999156

          I definitely agree that at least your response was a fail. I was not the AC, but you should definitely reconsider your response. There have been a lot of stupid half-informed, fully ignorant comments made on this article in the hours prior to this post above^ that make your bad, but somewhat funny joke and quick defense of it perhaps not be in the seen in same way as you see it.

          By bad, I mean taste, though I will not vote one way or another, I must say that you get full marks for dark, edgy humour, and it is somewhat refreshing amongst the dribble. Perhaps, considering the above, if it be true, you were asking for links to hidden camera child porn? I'd be willing to give you a pass on the nearly adult age and likely long able to procreate "youths" as its not really pedophilia - and oft portrayed in porn by 30+ year olds, I realize that is neither here nor there - but that hidden camera bit makes it a bit creepy in retrospect.

          Note, I make no representations as to whether just under 18 should or shouldn't be CP, that is none of my business nor my fetish. Quite frankly, I believe the rights should be defined by the parties involved and it is kind of creepy that people are obsessed about something over +/- a year as opposed to abuses of power in relationships. But I digress, surely this is more apt, n'est pas? ---->

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Did you just ask for a link to underage porn?

            OK, I understand your concern, but the Reg DOESNT put up posts in real time*, I have no idea how long after I made my post it appeared, but it was BEFORE the hidden camera update was added.

            * I have made comments when no other comment is on-line (such as this story), - but found myself on page 3 of the comments list more than once.

            As for the speed on my reply - coincidence. I finally got home after being out all day, read through my usual list of news sites - saw your reply and made my own, then went back to work for another few hours.

            1. oolor

              Re: Did you just ask for a link to underage porn?

              >but the Reg DOESNT put up posts in real time*, I have no idea how long after I made my post it appeared, but it was BEFORE the hidden camera update was added.

              My comments often are live right away, unless it is an Orlowski piece, nonetheless, I never made any claims of your original post regarding timing, simply of the reply. I fully assumed that you were not malicious, else you would have received a much different reply. I simply sought to inform you on the optics and what had transpired between your initial post and the reply post.

              >saw your reply...

              The first one was NOT my reply, I have never posted as AC (that I recall). There is no need to explain yourself as you did not do anything other than tell the wrong joke at the right time or vice versa, I'm not really sure which. Others, who like you did not know the full story, have posted some very stupid things, positions for which there will be no excuses going forward.

              As I already wrote, you don't need to excuse yourself, it only makes you look worse. My intention was to give you a heads up. Myself, I made a scathing reply closer to the top, only afterwards realizing that the times of the moronic posts were prior to the new info. Sometimes with this internet thing we get caught up focusing on the wrong truths, not seeing the bigger picture.

              The facepalm icon was not an attack against you, but rather on human reason - mine, yours, the mouthbreathers on this topic. The intended irony wasn't clear enough and in your case too close to home, my sincere apologies. I am sure if you reread my earlier post with this in mind, you will parse it slightly different and see it was not an indictment of your character.

  8. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    "If feels like a slap in the face"

    Slap on the arse, more like?

  9. deadlockvictim Silver badge

    today

    Could there be a connection between all of those almost-naked selfies that are posted online, tell-all-entries on facebook, sexted files between youths and this?

    For a generation that is supposed to understand the internet, it does seem to be particularly blind to the consequences of their actions. Or does Youth today have no respect for one another?

    I'm getting old.

    I wonder if this is the latter day equivalent of writing 'xxx is a slut' inside a toilet-cubicle?

    1. Tzael

      Re: today

      There has been a general decline in overall awareness of consequences for one's actions over the last two decades, most notably brought about by further 'nannyfication' of states around the world. Think about it, what's the worst punishment that'll be imposed on a teenager for misbehaving these days given all the laws that are supposedly meant to protect them? Then think back to 20+ years ago and consider the punishments that were handed out for misbehaviour back then. If people grow up thinking they're untouchable then they develop the notion that they can do what they like without repercussions.

  10. oddie

    I don't know the current attitudes to sex and pornography in sweden, and nor do I know the full details of the case.. I also don't reside in the swedish culture, so I don't really know how to feel about what happened :/

    I guess the other comments of other people highlight that this would not be viewed in the same context in the UK, should the incident have happened here, and then commented on by Register readers?

    I wonder what the general swedish opinion on the matter is :/

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Cant wait for future "glass" cases similar to this.

    "But your honor, i didn't know it automatically uploaded the video to google and using advanced algorithms* selected various popular amateur porn sites to distribute it to".

    *because google's search can obviously figure this out.

    1. Splodger

      Re: Cant wait for future "glass" cases similar to this.

      Can't happen - Google Glass wearers will automatically be condemned to an eternity without any chance of sex whatsoever.

      Well, at least with other people.

    2. 33rpm

      Re: Cant wait for future "glass" cases similar to this.

      Brings a whole new meaning to WYSIWYG.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Cant wait for future "glass" cases similar to this. (TOO LATE!)

        I guess you haven't seen "POV" (Point of View) porno, taken with "Spy Glasses".

        More like what you see is what she did!

  12. Sooty

    He's very lucky

    as a 17year old, in the Uk he'd likely be in prison, and on the sex offenders register for life, for the creation and distribution of child pornography, even if it is himself.

    1. bigtimehustler

      Re: He's very lucky

      Yea, and in the UK's infinite wisdom, even if they both agreed to film it and it gets out by accident. The law in the UK on the subject is crazy seeing as you can end up in prison if your gf sends you a naked photo, something which is out of your control, and she will most likely end up there too.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He's very lucky

        Even possessing the tape would be enough to get them charged (well assuming the police officers were real dick heads, which does happen) it is fortunate that police do have some discretion in most crimes and can choose to caution or not charge if they believe that is the right action to take, really we need to extend the law to allow people to hold images/videos of themselves and/or their partners, since married couples under 18 are protected, it is a slap in the face for couples who choose NOT to marry or are not ready to marry at that age...

        Fortunately though a nude photo/video of someone under 18 itself is not considered an indecent image, otherwise there would be half of the UK's parents in jail, along side film makers and everyone who brought those films...

      2. Mooseman Silver badge

        Re: He's very lucky

        "Yea, and in the UK's infinite wisdom, even if they both agreed to film it and it gets out by accident. The law in the UK on the subject is crazy seeing as you can end up in prison if your gf sends you a naked photo, something which is out of your control, and she will most likely end up there too."

        No, she won't.

        1. bigtimehustler

          Re: He's very lucky

          And you base this on what? If she is under age, she actually will. She will be charged with distributing child pornography.

  13. Captain Hogwash Silver badge

    "without her permission"

    That's the only bit that matters. The damn prosecutor ought to be up before the beak on something if they can't respect that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "without her permission"

      The prosecutor clearly did respect it, he upheld her complaint, obviously agreeing that what the boy did was wrong. He just reduced the damages the boy had to pay to the girl, on the basis that modern youth attitudes meant that she was likely less "damaged" by the ordeal than she might have been in the past.

      1. Captain Hogwash Silver badge

        Re: "clearly did respect"

        OK, you're correct. My post had the 'fuming' icon in spirit if not actually in fact and so was more reactive than considered. However, the prosecutor is not in a position to know how widespread these "modern youth attitudes" really are. Nor are the attitudes of the rest of society to be ignored in determining how the girl will be affected. Something posted to a web site can't be guaranteed only to be seen by one's peers. That's the point of the 'Daily Mail Test'.

  14. Robert Grant Silver badge

    "It feels like a slap in the face"

    Holding it wrong?

    1. Crisp
      Paris Hilton

      Re: "It feels like a slap in the face"

      Was she copying the Tulisa Contostavlos sex vid?

      1. JimmyPage
        Coat

        Tulisa Contostavlos

        I heard the video was like one of her concerts in that nobody came.

  15. Rabbers

    so what happens now that privacy is violated

    The small size of the fine, or lack of jail time, are probably secondary to the issue that the video is now out there. Perhaps the judges feel that huge fines in these types of scenario actually indicate some form of wrong doing on the girls point of view.

    Downgrading the existence of such videos to a "well shit happens" point of view is likely to be necessary in the coming years rather than stringent enforcement.

    Now that this has happened, stringent and strong enforcement will need to come into force if e.g. a potential employer judges the girls (or boys) worth because of the existence of a video on the internet. That would be very bad indeed.

    Neither participant in the video should feel any social stigma or shame for their part in the video, nor should our future society punish them for their participation in any way. It's only sex, we all do it!

    The lad does sound like a bit of a bastard though!!!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Science Fiction

    Her privacy has been invaded which is what the boy has to try and recompense her for but the judge has a point that amongst youth the attitude towards sex is different to older generations which is a good thing.

    Scifi always has this gradual lean towards sex and nakedness being ok, at the moment we have all the porn in the world but the same way of fetishising sex as unnatural and hidden.

    The worst part is that is how this video will have ended up, as a teenage porn video being streamed to random men around the world instead of something private.

  17. Mephistro

    2400 £? That's a mockery!

    In the same way that wilfully transmitting AIDS or Hepatitis C to someone is considered as intended murder in many jurisdictions, distributing one of these porn flicks without the participants approval deserves a bigger punishment. In the future, the girl could be blackmailed, bullied at her workplace, become the target for sexual predators, ...

    2400 £ doesn't cover those risks, not by far. The fine is a pittance, and will be considered by many as a cheap price to pay for -potentially at least- ruining other people's lives. The judges should have trebled the original fine, instead of lowering it. Heavily punishing his wallet would send a strong message to other mofos planning to do the same trick.

    Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting that this POS of a boyfriend should be jailed or included in any sexual offenders registry, as both participants were of consenting age. On the other hand, a registry for 'privacy offenders' could be nice. Can't see that happening, as most offences against privacy are perpetrated by governments. :0)

    1. Chairo

      Re: 2400 £? That's a mockery!

      In the future, the girl could be blackmailed, bullied at her workplace, become the target for sexual predators, ...

      Don't get me wrong. I also think the guy is a POS for uploading the video. Fortunately for the girl, people in Sweden are quite open regarding sex. Just walk through any public park in Sweden during a warm summer night, and you will understand what I mean. So it is very unlikely the girl will suffer blackmail, workplace bullying or sexual predation in the future. At least as long as she stays in Sweden.

      1. Mephistro

        Re: 2400 £? That's a mockery! (@ Chairo)

        "Fortunately for the girl, people in Sweden are quite open regarding sex."

        That's only part of the equation. We should also ask whether future potential employers would be so open, or whether bullies and sexual predators could use this against her. From what I know about human nature, the answer to both questions doesn't bode well for the girl. :-(

  18. Potemkine Silver badge
    IT Angle

    El Reg's Page 3

    Sometimes I wonder if El Reg wasn't bought by The Sun or the Daily Mail...

  19. Michael 28
    Facepalm

    Is it appropriate for the UK to comment?

    Remember the uk has NO privacy tort per se. Although there is a European directive saying there should, and the lawlords .. to use their own language are "pen-poised" to implement one, what has happened to date has been the shoe-horning of case law to allow stretching existing legislation to cover it.

    In THIS particular case, there was the implied CONFIDENTIALITY of the material. In the uk, a release form at least would have to be provided before mass publication could take place. Otherwise no implied consent could be proven to have been granted.

    I see a successful appeal against this result, and the judge having his port gradually watered down.

  20. Curly4
    Black Helicopters

    so much for privicy

    And this in an area of the world where Google cannot inadvertently show a person face or address or car tag number in their street view without the threat of a huge fine if they don't remove or obliterate it. I would say it should be much more serious to put online a porn video than to show someone's face in a street view.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anyone got a link to the uncut version?

  22. TeaLeaf

    In a related vein...

    The linked article discusses the attitudes that create the problem - both with the guy and with the court.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/10/19/rape_culture_what_do_steubenville_rehtaeh_parsons_and_frosh_chants_have_in_common.html

    1. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: In a related vein...

      A good article, but one thing near the end went too far. Young men are indeed "taught to dominate, compete, and repress emotional empathy", but for the most part that's not only normal, but appropriate in order to fit them to function in their expected role in life.

  23. John Savard Silver badge

    Appropriate

    Never mind a hefty fine; this sort of thing calls for jail time. The fact that the uploader was a party to the video, instead of someone who hacked into the girl's computer, should be irrelevant.

  24. M7S
    Gimp

    Judge: "Automatic video recorder?"

    Counsel: "Yes, I'm sorry m'lud. It's a machine that records television programmes on special tape."

    Judge: "Oh, how fascinating. What will they think of next? Proceed."

    The discerning reader will recognise the source of this, and perhaps observe some similarity between the judges in each case.

    1. unitron

      Re: Judge: "Automatic video recorder?"

      Is the icon supposed to suggest a subtle tie-in to "she who must be obeyed"?

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Privacy and respect

    Whatever happened, how did it happened, EVERYONE has the right to their privacy and been respected. Period. All the people that cross my life can be confident that I'm a trustworthy person. I expect from other people to respect boundaries to. What's up with people to not understand this??

    As a father of a lovely girl, if one day a prick do something like this to her, the pig can be assured that I would record him being sodomized by a horse.

    P.S. Girls must start making videos too, maybe after some jerks watch online that they can be exposed as well, this trend would stop...

  26. Mad Mike

    Real World v Perfection

    I think there's a large amount of real world realism against perfect world here.

    In a perfect world, they could have made the video in the perfect knowledge that neither would release it to anyone without the prior permission of the other and that if one never wanted it released anywhere, only the two of them would have it. Great.

    Now, to the real world. Whilst I totally agree that he should be dealt with, in a lot of matters there's a lot of real world 'sense' to not putting yourself in compromising positions, where someone could take advantage. So, for instance, it would be inadvisable for a politician to pay a visit to a brothel for research purposes unless he very openly said he was doing it in advance and was very careful about what happen. People would assume no smoke without fire etc. So, whilst the politician may be acting quite innocently and may genuinely be doing research, they would have rather put themselves in a compromising position and would probably feel the impact of that in publicity etc.

    The same would apply in lots of other areas. If someone went and stood in the middle of a road, there could be an argument that anyone coming should be able to stop and avoid them, i.e. never drive faster than your clear breaking distance etc. However, if someone did this and was hit, there might be a lack of sympathy in general and people might think he put himself in a silly position.

    So, the same really applies here. Yes, she should have been able to expect total privacy, but this is the real world and she did the equivalent of standing in the middle of a road. If you have a sex video, it might be used against you. If you don't, it can't. So, you take your view of the real world and either accept the risk and make one, or you don't take the risk and decline the opportunity. That's no different than not walking alone at night in some areas of some cities. They're known dodgy areas where people get mugged etc., so don't put yourself in that position unless you're prepared for the consequences.

    So, I'm in two minds. Yes, the boy should be punished; no question of that. He has breached trust for the worst possible reason.....revenge. However, the girl did also put herself in a position that many would consider unwise. Yes, that's no reason or justification for his actions. Not in the slightest. But, she has put herself in a vulnerable position, partly because of societies views and prejudices.

    And before someone asks.....no, a woman wearing a short skirt (or whatever) is not asking to be raped and should not expect that and anyone who does should be dealt with severely. However, whilst wearing certain clothing in some areas is no justification for being attacked, a lot of women would consider it putting yourself at risk. The fact you SHOULD be able to do it and the fact it is legal does not make it sensible to do it.

    At the end of the day, you do have to take care of yourself to some extent in this world and not rely on everyone else following all the 'rules'. Assuming everyone else will behave in the same morally upright way you would, has long been called something. The world is 'naive'. Being 'naive' isn't a crime and never should be, but it can lead to issues. I would suggest the girl here was being just this. No justification for his actions and he should be punished, but naive all the same.

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Real World v Perfection

      just to be clear here. My previous comments were based on the filming being consensual and the girl agreeing. There is now some doubt as to whether it was or not. I did a check on Swedish news sources and one says she didn't know (i.e. covert camera), whilst all the others don't say one way or the other. Given the importance of this piece of information, I find it odd that all the reports wouldn't say it was covert if it was. It's also possible that he says she knew and she denies this. I don't know. The reporting is, in some ways, rather lax and fails to mention a lot of pertinent information.

      If the boy did record the video without permission, then obviously the situation is far more serious, as should be the penalty he faces. Not sure if there's any easy way to really get to the full facts of the case.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Double Standards?

    Funny how when there is an Australian involved who might not be entirely popular with a certain "allied" country, liberalism goes out the window.

    Just saying.

  28. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    "One cannot ignore the circumstances that in not all too small circles of the population, it has with time become increasingly socially acceptable to be very open and outgoing in regard to one's sexual habits," said the court ruling.

    Yes, we have trailer parks on this side of the pond as well.

  29. Johan Bastiaansen

    In Afghanistan

    a women is a whore if she's not wearing a burka.

    In Sweden, she's a whore if her boyfriend has a smartphone.

    "but claimed he did not expect it to be so widely viewed."

    Ah yes, the old, "don't punish me, I'm a fool" argument.

  30. Inquisitive
    Facepalm

    "The boy was 17 when he decided to upload video of the pair romping to several porn sites, but claimed he did not expect it to be so widely viewed."

    I thought the young were a techno savvy generation?

  31. SleepyJohn

    "It was "smygfilmat" - i.e. a hidden camera"

    Am I the only one who read this in an earlier post?

    http://mobil.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/osannolikt-att-hd-tar-upp-sexfilmsdomen/

    Can't read Swedish so cannot check the link. However, as others have said, if it is true then it deserves a lot more than a slap on the wrist and a fatuous judge's comment to the effect that "teens will be teens".

  32. Richard 8

    Oisín Cantwell, a columnist in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet columnist Oisín Cantwell, accused the court of "trivializing" the girl's pain.

    Proof-read, Proof-read, Proof-read...

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "We've all done it."

    Yeah, right. Some of us don't even have a chance of getting close to a woman. You take on it would probably be that most of us have filmed ourselves masturbating. I take you are from this "younger generation." Well, I am too, but I don't agree with the way my peers behave. They can sex themselves to boredom for all I care. I actually do care. Though there is not much I can do about it.

  34. Schultz Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    "This is for life, this is for your grandchildren"

    It was a definite eye-opener for me, when my grandma told me about 'how it really was' back in the times; your grandparents were no chaste angels 80 years ago, neither were your parents (exceptions do exist). Gives a somewhat relaxed point of view that cannot be obtained by any quantity of sex-education.

    Not that this can - in any way - excuse the horribly actions of the boy.

  35. This post has been deleted by its author

  36. Craig 28

    Given the obvious impact to her social standing and potentially future job prospects I'd have leaned towards the larger fine, just because a certain subset of youth culture practices excessive openness regarding their sex lives doesn't mean all young people should be expected to hold the same values. While not knowing the situation I can't possibly say for certain if he was trustworthy at the time the video was taken I do suspect there was a certain naivety on her part if it was taken voluntarily though this shouldn't diminish the damages awarded, if we let people off the hook just because their victims were stupid it'd make a real mess of the legal system. On the other hand if this video hadn't been taken voluntarily then the damages are woefully inadequate and I'd have supported at least a short prison sentence for taking the video in the first place.

    In either case the lad in question's a dick, if Swedish girls have any sense he'll probably not get another girlfriend for some years.

    1. bigtimehustler

      Her future job prospects? Come on get real, you view a porn film now there is no way your going to remember the 'stars' of that film in a years time, let alone a few years time. I doubt most people would remember the next day. This won't have any effect on her future job prospects at all. In most places the video appears i highly doubt its listed with the names of the people involved, so a search isnt going to produce the film either in a couple of years time.

  37. Nick Pettefar

    Grauniad?

    "The boy then admitted to sharing the sex video during at Skaraborg District Court, where he was ordered to pay damages."

    "In light of the reigning ethical and social values should serve as the starting point for the assessment of the size of of infringement damages, these circumstances should not have an insignificant impact on the appeals court's review."

    "Oisín Cantwell, a columnist in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet columnist Oisín Cantwell, accused the court of "trivializing" the girl's pain."

    What about this article's readers' pain? Will no-one think of the readers?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021