“Cyberflashing” – the unsolicited sending of photos or videos of genitals – may soon be acrimein England and Wales.
Surveys have foundthatnearly halfof young adult women have been sent unwanted, graphic images by men. Receiving so-calleddick picsis especially common among women who use dating apps. In some high-profile cases, people have even beenAirDropped imagesby thehundredswhile traveling on public transport. In 2019,British Transport Police foundthat 88% of those targeted were women.
Cyberflashing has clear parallels withindecent exposure, which is already a sexual offense carrying a maximum two-year custodial sentence. But it is not clear whether this law applies to digital forms of exposure.
Campaigners,MPsand the dating appBumbleare all calling for the law to change to close this loophole. Politicians are now discussing how cyberflashing may be included in the forthcoming Online Safety bill.
Calling all Scaleup founders! Join the Soonicorn Summit on November 28 in Amsterdam.
Meet with the leaders of Picnic, Miro, Carbon Equity and more during this exclusive event dedicated to Scaleup Founders!
Criminalizing cyberflashing specifically as a sexual offense would bring a host oflegal benefitsto victims and could help police identify perpetrators at risk of causing further sexual harm. Hopefully, it may also deter would-be cyberflashing offenders from hitting “send”.
Redressing harm
Legal recognition would provide those who suffer harm as a result of cyberflashing a means of redress. While some women try to “laugh off” an unwanted photo of a penis, for others it can be frightening, distressing, or humiliating.
At its core, the non-consensual nature of this conduct makes it violating and intrusive, as women’stestimoniesstress. Likewise, aKinsey Institute studyfound 70% of women who responded to a survey reported negative reactions to unwanted penis images, most commonly feeling “grossed out” and “violated”.
Cyberflashing may also be experienced as harassment. For example, consider how a woman may feel when a man who has been messaging persistently – despite her ignoring him – sends an image of an erect penis. This could be seen as confusing or even threatening.
This scenario happened to a woman I spoke to in a research interview. She described the incident as “shocking” and that she became “scared by him”. Women mayfeara man’s intrusive behavior will escalate to violence. This brings us to another argument for criminalizing cyberflashing.
After it was revealed former Met Police officer Wayne Couzens had repeatedly exposed himself in person before he raped and murdered Sarah Everard, fears that indecent exposure acts as agatewayto other sex crimes have been heightened.
In Scotland, where cyberflashing has beenclassed as a sexual offensefor over a decade, police have seen cases of offenders brought to justice for serious sexual crimes after coming onto their radar through acyberflashing report.
One of the much-hoped-for effects of a new cyberflashing law is that it will deter would-be perpetrators by clearly signaling the behavior as criminal. As Whitney Wolfe Herd, Bumble’s founder and chief executiveputs it: “If flashing won’t fly on the street … it shouldn’t be tolerated in your inbox.”
The existence of legal sanctions will help signal that cyberflashing is morally wrong and should not be accepted by society as just another unsavory online behavior.
The proposal
In a welcome step, the Law Commission hasrecommendedamending Section 66 under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to ensure cyberflashing is clearly included in the indecent exposure law. This recognizes the nature of the behavior and its effects.
Their proposal also retains the mental or “fault” element of the original offense: that in sending “an image or video of any person’s genitals” the defendantintendsto cause alarm, distress, or humiliation. It is here there are some concerns about proving intent. The extent to which a law against cyberflashing acts as an effective deterrent will depend on how enforceable it is.
Some expertsconsultedin the drafting of this proposed reform argued a focus on malicious motives would put anunreasonably highburden of proof on prosecutors. With cyberflashing, it could be difficult or impossible to demonstrate such intent, given how often this behavior is normalized and trivialized, for example, as “misguided flirting”.
Fortunately, the Law Commission hasaddedanother possible element that could allow for a wider range of cases to be tried and convicted. A defendant may be found guilty if it’s proved they sent a genital image (or video) “for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification” and were “reckless” as to whether it would cause alarm, distress, or humiliation. Proving a sexual motive should be an easier task for prosecutors. The addition of recklessness also sends a clear message: if you cyberflash and cause someone harm, it is not good enough to simply claim you didn’t mean to.
As the government turns its attention to theOnline Safety Bill, it is now vital that legislation be passed to criminalize cyberflashing. We can no longer give carte blanche to those so inclined to expose themselves online. It is criminally wrong, and women have had enough.
Article byLaura Thompson, Lecturer in Criminology,University of Hertfordshire
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
