# English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Interesting stance that the English courts seem set to take, as described in this article:

Judge bars affair revenge naked pictures - Telegraph

So basically it seems that sex texts and intimate photos that APs exchange will be deemed to be "private" and no-one has any right to forward these on or publish them - including the BS. That probably means that doing a bit of investigation in order to find them is illegal as well. 

So the WS and OM/OW can carry on and do what they like and the BS is the criminal for trying to do something about it. 

The law is an ass sometimes. But this is exactly why I have been so cautious about exposure.


----------



## FlyingThePhoenix (Apr 11, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Voltaire said:


> Interesting stance that the English courts seem set to take, as described in this article:
> 
> Judge bars affair revenge naked pictures - Telegraph
> 
> ...


Hi Voltaire, So TRUE! The wheels of justice in this country (England) are geared towards those who commit the crimes and use it to protect themselves when it blows up in their faces. While hard working, law abiding citizens get nailed every time. I am very proud to be British, but then there are days when two fingers to the establishment say it all! FTP


----------



## Calibre12 (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Don't know much about the mixed economy of England, but you the people should stand up, picket, get BS petitions signed. Don't lay down and take it! If that's the case I would stop paying taxes and get all the other BSs to tell the govt., that's the plan.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Now, t*his* is why sensible advice offered on TAM might not work in the UK. Why?

Because British law is often illogical, clunky, stupid and unjust.


----------



## walkonmars (Aug 21, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Well the foxes want to protect their own ability to hunt hens at will with limited repercussions.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

*English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Still wouldn't stop me.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

*English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



MattMatt said:


> Now, t*his* is why sensible advice offered on TAM might not work in the UK. Why?
> 
> Because British law is often illogical, clunky, stupid and unjust.


What's scary is that US Law is based on British law. But as I said, this still wouldn't stop me.


----------



## TRy (Sep 14, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Voltaire said:


> So basically it seems that sex texts and intimate photos that APs exchange will be deemed to be "private" and no-one has any right to forward these on or publish them - including the BS. That probably means that doing a bit of investigation in order to find them is illegal as well.


 The last sentence here requires a leap of logic, as a ban against forwarding or publishing them, is not the same as a ban on investigation for a spouse's own use in detecting an affair. Stupid ruling none the less.


----------



## Calibre12 (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Why the hecks would I pay taxes for UNEQUAL representation? If this is the direction they are going in then they need to place a BAN on marriage and sterilize everyone. Then they can declare themselves a "free to f***" country. If the govt. wants to parent the children then they should institute reproduction factories.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Affaircare (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

As is very often the case, I think posters here are confusing "exposure" and "revenge" and the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. 

Revenge--in this court case and in an affair--would be to take an action purely for the reason of hurting the Disloyal and/or the AP "as much as they hurt you" (the Loyal). The motive is to HURT and HARM (neither of which will save a marriage), and quite often in revenge, the affair is already over so there is absolutely NO BENEFIT to revenge. The poison of it harms the Loyal and eats away at their soul, and the damage it does to the marriage is irreparable. 

Exposure--on the other hand--is acting in a way that no longer keeps an active affair "a secret." As long as the affair is active, and as long as a Loyal silently goes along with it and doesn't call it what it is or ask for help--they are helping the affair, which is the exact opposite of helping the marriage. So exposure is not from a place of "I'm going to hurt you" but rather from a place of "I refuse to cooperate with adultery by denying that it's happening and pretending I don't see you committing it." Exposure means telling those who will likely be affected by it, such as your parents, your spouse's parents, your siblings, your spouse's siblings, maybe lifelong friends if they are people who will help the Loyal cope and tell the Disloyal to end the affair, maybe the pastor or someone you consider your mentor or wise council (because trust me, any Loyal is going to need wise advice), the Loyal's employer because productivity and concentration are going to be affected, and IF IT IS A WORK AFFAIR, the Disloyal's employer just so they can cover themselves legally and put an end to use of company resources to support adultery. 

It goal of exposure is not publicity or embarrassment. In fact, it's to provide *the truth* with as little proof as necessary so they are aware of what's really going on, so they can help you, help the Disloyal, help the kids and even prepare themselves for the sh!tstorm that is about to hit. Exposure is to shine a light on the thing that has been taking place in the dark, so that when they hear, "S/He and I are getting a divorce...it's a mutual decision" they'll know it's not! Or when your Disloyal tries to say you're abusive so they HAVE TO leave, they'll know it's really to live with the AP!! 

Now, look at this court case. The first thing that jumps out to me is that we have the MarriedWoman (MW), we have the SingleMan (SM) with whom she had the affair, and we the GirlFriend (GF) to whom he is not married. That means that from a legal standpoint GF has no legal claim on him whatsoever. So the GF, who is not legally connected to SM, sent out photos and the graphic texts, along with a THREAT. In addition, the SM was physically violent and threatening with the MW. After getting the equivalent of a restraining order, SM persisted in harassing her at work!

See? That is REVENGE...not exposure. Equating the two does am major disservice to exposure!

Now, had GF sent the compromising photos only to the MW's husband WHILE THEY WERE STILL ACTIVE IN THE AFFAIR, and said "I have some sad news for you. I have discovered the my boyfriend, SM, and your wife, MW, have been having an affair. I was shocked to find out myself and thought possibly you may think I was just lying, so here is a pic she sent to him. There are tons of emails and chats going back as far as <DATE> but I just wanted you to know the truth because I thought you deserved to know so you could make an informed decision about yourself and your life and your health"...and then never bothered them again, can you see how that is shining the light on the truth and being respectful and honest? There are no threats. There's no harassment. The goal is to inform and act in a way that may end an active affair. 

After the affair is already over, or once there is already a divorce--there's no point in exposing. That chance has passed! Okay, maybe it would be telling the truth, and the truth isn't bad, but the effectiveness of using it as a tool to end the affair is passed. 

Anyway, hope this helps to clear up the difference between REVENGE and EXPOSURE.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Affaircare said:


> Anyway, hope this helps to clear up the difference between REVENGE and EXPOSURE.


I see this confusion here often... such as when a posters tells a BS to expose to embarrass the WS or to get revenge on them.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Voltaire said:


> So basically it seems that sex texts and intimate photos that APs exchange will be deemed to be "private" and no-one has any right to forward these on or publish them - including the BS.


No, Voltaire I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Sounds to me that the judge's ruling was to stop harassment of the OW by the GF (and I agree with him). As much you may want to, you can't use intimate pictures sent to the WS and stick them up one a website or distribute them. The pictures were never meant for 'public consumption'. The OW has a right to privacy.



> That probably means that doing a bit of investigation in order to find them is illegal as well.


No indication of this at all. Rest easy. 



> The law is an ass sometimes. But this is exactly why I have been so cautious about exposure.


Exposure could still proceed on these lines:

_Dear All,
I have recently found conclusive proof my H has beeen conducting an illicit affair with OW. The affair started in June 20112.

They met in hotels and our house, exchanged texts of a sexual nature outlining various sexual acts they had and wished to perform on each other. Pictures of themselves 'in the act' were also taken and revelled in.

As you can imagine I find this incredibly traumatic and would appreciate your help and support in convincing H to stop the affair recommit to our marriage and family. (etc)_

-----------------------------------------

Basically, you could describe the content; you just can't attach the original jpegs or reproduce their sexts word for word. You could still go to the OW Facebook page and use an image from there and stick it on Cheaterville as that image is in the public domain. 

*Simple rule:* Avoid using 'private' content in an exposure.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Affaircare said:


> Anyway, hope this helps to clear up the difference between REVENGE and EXPOSURE.


I disagree, I don't see it the way you do.
Exposure is what you do.
Revenge is a motive.

Exposure can occur because of these motives:
protect interests
save a marriage
love
break the fog
reconcile
file for divorce 
maintain NC
inform people of why my marriage ended
Revenge
Spite
embarrassment
payback
intimidation
coercion
Vindictiveness
blackmail

So on and so forth. Exposure isn't always done for good reasons.


----------



## Calibre12 (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Oh? Excuse me, I thought revenge was a double barrel shotgun and exposure was shame. I guess the murder rate is going to skyrocket in England now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Yessongs72 (Dec 6, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Calibre12 - this has NOTHING to do with the elected government (and I hate to defend the bunch of arrogant public schoolboys), it is an UNELECTED judge deciding how a law should be interpreted, and the gov' are often as p1ssed-off as the rest of us,


----------



## Calibre12 (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

I hate to go research British legal system etc now (but i promise i will refresh my memory since the last time i checked it was 28 years ago). So there is no one above him? The interpretation of a legal ..., stops at his gavel?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

This ruling can't be interpreted too loosely since people forward their e-mails on to other people all the time for various reasons, negative and positive.


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



TRy said:


> The last sentence here requires a leap of logic, as a ban against forwarding or publishing them, is not the same as a ban on investigation for a spouse's own use in detecting an affair. Stupid ruling none the less.


I meant investigation to find the AP's own photos (on theri computers, phones, etc.), not investigation of the A itself (e.g. by a PI). Apologies for the ambiguity


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Affaircare said:


> As is very often the case, I think posters here are confusing "exposure" and "revenge" and the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.





azteca1986 said:


> No, Voltaire I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Sounds to me that the judge's ruling was to stop harassment of the OW by the GF (and I agree with him).


Thank you both for your erudite posts in which you are very careful to draw a distinction between exposure and revenge.

Unfortunately, what you do not take into account is the fact that the law is a blunt instrument. Such fine distinctions are often blurred or lost altogether, and we all know that lawyers will completely misrepresent the facts to make any exposure look like revenge. Furthermore, if your say that something is vengeful if it is intended to harm, then exposure is by its nature vengeful. It is specifically designed to harm the affair, it is often done to damage the reputation of the APs and in almost every case it will distress the APs. That is exactly the point of it - to put pressure on the APs to end the affair, to cause them harm in order to make them do good. 

The mere threat of legal action effectively bans exposure - at very least it makes it much more difficult. 


The problem with the entire approach behind the judgement is that it fails to take into account the fact that the affair is morally wrong and that it is already causing great harm to the marriage and distress to the BS. It starts from the morally bankrupt premise that having an affair is just fine and dandy and no-one should take any action to interfere with the APs "right" to enjoy their adultery - even those who are damaged by their actions. It draws no distinction between a clandestine extra-marital affair and an open and legitimate love affair between two single people.




> As much you may want to, you can't use intimate pictures sent to the WS and stick them up one a website or distribute them. The pictures were never meant for 'public consumption'. The OW has a right to privacy.


I have a moral problem with this approach. When people engage in wrongdoing they should give up some or all of their rights. This is like the argument that a burglar has the right not to be attacked even when he has broken into someone's home (another asinine legal debate in England). 

In a moral if not a legal sense the WS has "stolen" some deeply private things that should be reserved for the BS and given them to someone else - intimacy, sex, seeing the WS naked, sharing a bed with the WS, etc. If the WS can take the intimate parts of their marriage and share them with other people without the BS's consent, then why shouldn't the BS do the same? Which causes greater distress - your spouse cheating on you or your spouse posting intimate pictures of you taken at the height of an affair? 

Of course the law doesn't see it that way, but natural justice does.


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Calibre12 said:


> So there is no one above him? The interpretation of a legal ..., stops at his gavel?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The English legal system is based on judicial precedent. so once he has set the precedent it is effectively law......unless a higher court sets a different precedent or the legislature steps in to clarify matters with a new law - which it rarely does (and usually only to howls of disapproval).


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

What is interesting and ironic, is that it seems, by rights of society and maybe somewhat legally, that if people ie interested parties find out about the affair through other means or through "accident", then somehow that is ok.

What's particularly ironic is that a lot of relationships, works situations, etc can be ruined by the rumor mill. And yet, very little is done to check the veracity or intended purpose of such statements. 

I have a brother who is a snitch. I know now that anything I say to him will go back to the subject of the conversation. This can be a good thing.

But one time, and he was at university then (so getting educated), we were travelling and someone asked us why our family is coming on different planes. And I said "to get the best prices. Mother is frugal woman."

A few days later, my mother said with a smirk on her face "I heard you called me frugal" like that was an insult. What a waste of that expensive private school education they gave me, since I now speak a language that they refuse to understand.
/jack

But getting back to the matter at hand, at least what is in writing is traceable and verifiable. People can say whatever they want and then claim "No, I didn't say that."


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Voltaire said:


> Furthermore, if your say that something is vengeful if it is intended to harm, then exposure is by its nature vengeful. *It is specifically designed to harm the affair*, it is often done to damage the reputation of the APs and in almost every case it will distress the APs. That is exactly the point of it - to put pressure on the APs to end the affair, to cause them harm in order to make them do good.


I don't necessarily agree with your first sentence, but I agree entirely with the part I've bolded. In the case, the GF (wronged though she was) broke the law by distributing intimate photos of the OW. The law is clear on that. You cannot, no matter what your motivation, launch into cyberspace intimate pictures of anyone without their consent. This is absolute. The law is clear on the matter; it's an illegal act.



> The problem with the entire approach behind the judgement is that it fails to take into account the fact that the affair is morally wrong and that it is already causing great harm to the marriage and distress to the BS. It starts from the morally bankrupt premise that having an affair is just fine and dandy and no-one should take any action to interfere with the APs "right" to enjoy their adultery - even those who are damaged by their actions. It draws no distinction between a clandestine extra-marital affair and an open and legitimate love affair between two single people.


The judgement is based entirely on the illegal act of the distribution of 'private' material. It is not a judgement on the legitimacy of affairs. The law cannot be based on morals because, as you've stated, people have different morals. Clearly the morals of the APs are different to those of the LSs. The law can't pick and choose to whom it applies. Laws have to apply to all citizens equally, irrespective of their morals. It just wouldn't work any other way.



> The mere threat of legal action effectively bans exposure - at very least it makes it much more difficult.


There's no threat of legal action if you tell the truth. To me that's what exposure is; a targeted attack on the affair with the truth. All over this forum we see just how effective exposure is, especially when the details of the affair are shared with:

1. The other BS. Once you have proof of the affair, I feel you're morally obliged to the other BS. Anything less means you become complicit in in keeping the affair clandestine. Obviously not in your best interests.
2. People who have the greatest ability to influence the APs and help break up the affair and support your marriage.
3. The workplace (if relevant). This varies dependent on my next point.

I think exposure is effective if you and the WS are still considering R. In that case exposure as soon after D-Day is best.
If however the WS is determined to divorce, has no intention to reconcile, then I'd suggest a more prudent approach is called for. Exposure is still called for, your families should still know why you're both divorcing, but you'll have to look after your own (financial) interests.


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole with this but...


azteca1986 said:


> You cannot, no matter what your motivation, launch into cyberspace intimate pictures of anyone without their consent.


You can if you have copyright and a release - or have been authorised by someone who had those. An AP who takes photos of a WS certainly owns copyright to them. Presumably the WS agreed that the AP could use the photos as he/she saw fit for his own enjoyment. It's certainly not cut and dried that that precludes him from showing them to others. 

Of course the ruling also includes texts, not just photos. The judge (a very senior one) ruled that the woman had "the right to confidentially and privacy in respect of certain personal photographs and information" How long before that statement is interpreted in such a way that the "information" that is guarded by this privacy ruling includes the information that she is having an affair - so a BS cannot even talk about his WW's affair?



azteca1986 said:


> The judgement is based entirely on the illegal act of the distribution of 'private' material. It is not a judgement on the legitimacy of affairs.


De facto it is because the judge did not consider the fact that the photos had been taken in the context of an affair in his ruling. He did not consider that the photos and texts had been sent to only 3 people including the woman's own husband. By failing to consider any special or mitigating circumstances he effectively ruled that there were no special circumstances, and thus that the law protects those having an illlicit affair to the same extent that it does a couple in an open, legitimate relationship. 





> The law cannot be based on morals because, as you've stated, people have different morals.


Of course the law is based on morals. Why do you think we have laws against murder, rape, and theft? Why do you think laws on things like homosexuality have changed as public morality has changed? 

And the law as it stands condones adultery.





> There's no threat of legal action if you tell the truth.


The texts and photos in question are pretty objective "truth" and yet there is a threat of legal action. 

And clearly from this ruling if a BS reveals what texts say (even vaguely) he is at risk of legal action.




> 1. The other BS. Once you have proof of the affair, I feel you're morally obliged to the other BS.


Aaaah, proof. So on the one hand you support the courts in preventing one BS from showing proof photos and texts to the other BS, but at the same time you want them to show proof. That's cake eating!! (apologies if you consider teh expression inappropriate - no offence intended).


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Well this Judge sounds like an arse to me.

Or possibly there were nuances to this case that we are not aware of.

This does not sound to me like a 'normal' case of exposing an affair but consistent badgering and threatening behaviour.

He is also not very consistent as a Judge as far as I am concerned. This ruling by the same Judge.

In January 2010, he overturned a superinjunction imposed on behalf footballer John Terry which prevented the media from revealing details of his affair with team-mate Wayne Bridge's former girlfriend, Vanessa Perroncel, saying he did not feel the order was "necessary or proportionate".[24] He also criticised Terry's lawyers for not notifying newspapers of the action they were taking.

So it's not ok to send a few people pics and texts detailing an affair but it is ok for a national newspaper to splash it across the front pages for millions of people to see?

:wtf::slap:

Holy random ruling Batman!

Does this judge dude just throw a dice to make up his mind?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

The above taken from a wiki page.

Michael Tugendhat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Voltaire said:


> Don't want to go too far down a rabbit hole with this but...


I know the feeling 



> You can if you have copyright and a release - or have been authorised by someone who had those. An AP who takes photos of a WS certainly owns copyright to them. Presumably the WS agreed that the AP could use the photos as he/she saw fit for his own enjoyment. It's certainly not cut and dried that that precludes him from showing them to others.


In my line of business we do deal with copyright/image rights. This involves a legal contract waiving any further claims to images obtained whilst conducting, say, a TV shoot. A signature is added to a clear legal document. It's far fetched to believe such a document exists between AP's, so let's not confuse the issue further.
If my wife were to send me a saucy pic and for some reason I decided unilaterally to share it without her consent, I'd still fall foul of the same law. My wife could take me to court. Ergo the status of the relationship is irrelevant to the ruling.

Remember, the ruling is against a third party - the GF. She has nothing to do (legally) with the private material.



> Of course the ruling also includes texts, not just photos. The judge (a very senior one) ruled that the woman had "the right to confidentially and privacy in respect of certain personal photographs and information"





> How long before that statement is interpreted in such a way that the "information" that is guarded by this privacy ruling includes the information that she is having an affair - so a BS cannot even talk about his WW's affair?


I don't see that happening. 



> By *failing to consider any special or mitigating circumstances* he effectively ruled that there were no special circumstances, and thus that the law protects those having an illlicit affair to the same extent that it does a couple in an open, legitimate relationship.


Because there are none. The law has to look at everybody the same on the matter of privacy, whether they are a LS or a heartless, deceitful, immoral b*tch.



> Of course the law is based on morals. Why do you think we have laws against murder, rape, and theft? Why do you think laws on things like homosexuality have changed as public morality has changed?


You're confusing morality and discrimination. An employer can no longer discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, race, sexual preference or age. Society attitudes to age have not changed, there's been no moral shift in thinking. It's purely a case of anti-discrimination because we all have the same rights.



> And the law as it stands condones adultery.


The law doesn't condone, it's just indifferent. No, I don't agree either but, well, the law's an ass.



> And clearly from this ruling if a BS reveals what texts say (even vaguely) he is at risk of legal action.


You can't reproduce them, but as I said in my first post in the thread you can _indicate_ the content as part of your exposure.



> Aaaah, proof. So on the one hand you support the courts in preventing one BS from showing proof photos and texts to the other BS, but at the same time you want them to show proof.


You're right. If put in the situation of talking to a fellow BS, I'd state I have conclusive proof, that they really don't want to to see the pics or read the sexts. If they insisted I would share.

My defence would be: I was distraught having found my W was a having an affair. I showed the material to the other BS as I thought at the time it was the right thing to do. I wasn't thinking straight. I'm sorry. It won't happen again *Bambi Eyes*



> That's cake eating!! (apologies if you consider teh expression inappropriate - no offence intended).


Yep, best avoided on this forum. No offence taken.


----------



## Calibre12 (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

@ V - Thanks for responding.


Well it was well predicted a while back that marriage will be obsolete. In the meantime though, let the howling begin!


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



azteca1986 said:


> I know the feeling






azteca1986 said:


> In my line of business we do deal with copyright/image rights. This involves a legal contract waiving any further claims to images obtained whilst conducting, say, a TV shoot. A signature is added to a clear legal document. It's far fetched to believe such a document exists between AP's, so let's not confuse the issue further.
> If my wife were to send me a saucy pic and for some reason I decided unilaterally to share it without her consent, I'd still fall foul of the same law. My wife could take me to court. Ergo the status of the relationship is irrelevant to the ruling.


I'm not going to respond to all of that in detail to avoid too many rabbit holes except to note taht:
1. my counterexample was not about the facts in this case but about a situation where an AP uses photos they themselves took of the WS.
2. Whilst a release form evidences an agreement (and allows the photographer/publisher to show that such an agreement exists if there is any future dispute) there can be such an agreement without the signature of such a form. 




azteca1986 said:


> I don't see that happening.


Well sadly I do. Legal precedents get pushed and their scope can get extended and extended over time. Lawyers are certainly going to try to use the precedent in that way - which at very least means a hefty legal bill in the future for some poor BS who exposes, if not a ruling against him. 




azteca1986 said:


> The law has to look at everybody the same on the matter of privacy, whether they are a LS or a heartless, deceitful, immoral b*tch.


The law has to look at every individual in the same way, but it does not have to look at every situation in the same way. A burglar who gets hit whilst breaking into someone's home is not looked at the same way as someone who gets hit in the street. The law could decide that special privacy considerations apply within a marriage - but chooses not to. 



azteca1986 said:


> The law doesn't condone, it's just indifferent. No, I don't agree either but, well, the law's an ass.


I'm glad you don't agree with the ruling - but in choosing to be indifferent the law is condoning. It is choosing not to see adultery as a mitigating circumstance. It is saying loud and clear "the law does not care about adultery". 

It could be different. In some jurisdictions (including some US states, I believe) there are laws against bringing about spousal disaffection and disaffection of children towards their parents. Those are situational offences - offences that can only occur within a marriage or within a family. 

On the other hand, marriage is a contract. Both spouses make certain commitments. And yet you can't sue for breach of the marriage contract. Go figure. 



azteca1986 said:


> You can't reproduce them, but as I said in my first post in the thread you can _indicate_ the content as part of your exposure.


Don't count on it. If the court rules that certain information (e.g. a text) is "private" then you are treading a very thin line if you report the contents of that text - it is the contents themselves that constitute the "private information". The law is not so dumb that it will not hammer you for saying "he texted that he loved her" when it has banned you from showing the "I love you" text. If you could get away with that then there would be no restrictions at all on the media. Nor can you necessarily hint obliquely. Lord McAlpine is currently suing Sally Bercow for just hinting that he might be the high profile figure behind a paedophile ring. 



azteca1986 said:


> You're right. If put in the situation of talking to a fellow BS, I'd state I have conclusive proof, that they really don't want to to see the pics or read the sexts. If they insisted I would share.
> 
> My defence would be: I was distraught having found my W was a having an affair. I showed the material to the other BS as I thought at the time it was the right thing to do. I wasn't thinking straight. I'm sorry. It won't happen again *Bambi Eyes*.


Should the legal system ever put you in the position of having to defend yourself for having had an open discussion with the other BS about events that affect both of your marriages? Surely that is a complete perversion of justice. The law would be granting and upholding the cheaters' "right" not to get caught (under the thin guise of "privacy") whilst hammering the innocents who are being betrayed. 

The law has lost sight of what it is for - to bring justice.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Problem is using the law to deal with a moral problem. Because that's what it is. To the person who said taking and sending pics of your bits to someone who is not your spouse is a crime. Well no it's not - yes it may be morally wrong but the law isn't there to provide arbitrary moral judgements


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Hey, Dolly. How's you? Haven't seen you around for a wee while.




Dollystanford said:


> Problem is using the law to deal with a moral problem. Because that's what it is.


I agree with that.

But the problem is that the law is sooooo careful these days to be morally neutral that it ends up taking a moral stance (usually in favour of the immoral by refusing to take their immorality into account). Of course not everyone agrees, but many people are amazed that English law:-
- protects burglars who are hurt by householders (and potentially puts the householder in the dock when lashing out at a burglar in their own home)
- protects violent criminals against deportation on the grounds of spurious "human rights"

This, to me, seems like another case in point. By bending over backwards not to make a judgement about the morality of adultery the law actually ends up being slanted in favour of adulterers and against BS's.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Very well darling, busy busy though

Thing is that the examples you gave aren't 'black or white' ones. There are some instances in which a homeowner has indeed faced a judge - however the burglar faces the judge too.

Whether we like it or not, someone being morally corrupt or even committing certain crimes doesn't mean they have no rights at all. 

Some people (and admittedly very few people on this site) do not see adultery in the same terms as you or I might. You may say that if the law started to punish adulterers more this would change - but I would argue that you can't use the law to proscribe people's behaviour. Because that's a slippery slope indeed.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Don't let a few Daily Fail headlines fool you



Voltaire said:


> Of course not everyone agrees, but many people are amazed that English law:-
> - protects burglars who are hurt by householders (and potentially puts the householder in the dock when lashing out at a burglar in their own home)


But between 1990 and 2005 there were just 11 prosecutions for people tackling intruders in any premises, including seven involving homes.

In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.

LAW ON TACKLING BURGLARS


In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others
Householders can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong
Juries must distinguish between "reasonable force" and grievous harm

*It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result.* However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious.

BBC News - Conservative conference: Force against burglars to be allowed

[End t/j]


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Dollystanford said:


> Very well darling, busy busy though


Good busy, I hope. 



Dollystanford said:


> Thing is that the examples you gave aren't 'black or white' ones. There are some instances in which a homeowner has indeed faced a judge - however the burglar faces the judge too.
> 
> Whether we like it or not, someone being morally corrupt or even committing certain crimes doesn't mean they have no rights at all.
> 
> Some people (and admittedly very few people on this site) do not see adultery in the same terms as you or I might. You may say that if the law started to punish adulterers more this would change - but I would argue that you can't use the law to proscribe people's behaviour. Because that's a slippery slope indeed.


I agree that the law shouldn't be used to punish adulterers (except perhaps in the divorce courts, but that is a different matter). But the law should, in my view, allow a court the latitude to consider adultery an act of gross provocation (if not outright justification) in cases involving an adulterer and a BS. Battered women can (or at least could) use the abuse as justification for attacking or murdering their abusive husbands, even if the abuse was not taking place at that time that the wife attacked the husband. I am simply advocating a system whereby a judge could (or habitually would) view adultery in the same sort of light. 

I also think that any act that a BS can reasonably said to have taken in defence of his marriage should be excused - almost along the lines of self defence. 

I'm not talking about punishing adulterers but about allowing BS's some leeway and taking into account the circumstances in mitigation. The law refuses to do that - and is thus stacked on the side of the adulterer.


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



azteca1986 said:


> Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.


Not quite.

Householders are protected against prosecution as long as they can convince the police and prosecutors that they acted honestly and instinctively. And in these times when common sense is so often over-ruled by political correctness (investigations into grooming and abuse of young girls in Northern towns shelved for fear of appearing racist), health and safety directives (PCSOs prevented from going into lake to save drowning boy) and policing by statistics (got to keep those clear-up rates up - so there is massive temptation to go after "soft" collars) that is not always easy.


----------



## Calibre12 (Nov 27, 2012)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

Failing a ban on marriage, since adultery is untouchable, maybe there needs to be marriage insurance, so that if either party breeches the contract, the LS gets the payout. Also, the GF is not the man's wife at the same time the married woman isn't either, yet here they are, creating a law that affects legitimate marriages.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

The ruling is about publishing, not sharing. To tell someone a thing is not publishing. Publishing involves both copying and distribution through channels, likely commercial.

So you can still post X. Is cheating with Y and they have been sending sexy texts and photos. You just can post copies of the texts and photos.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

You can also privately share them so long as you do not publish them.

Do not make the mistake of broadening the scope of the ruling.


----------



## Voltaire (Feb 5, 2013)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Shaggy said:


> You can also privately share them so long as you do not publish them.
> 
> Do not make the mistake of broadening the scope of the ruling.


From the article:

Granting her a permanent order until trial, the judge said she would be more likely than not to establish at any trial that the photographs and sexual texts were private information *and ought not to be disclosed to anyone.*


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*



Voltaire said:


> From the article:
> 
> Granting her a permanent order until trial, the judge said she would be more likely than not to establish at any trial that the photographs and sexual texts were private information *and ought not to be disclosed to anyone.*


But this deals with the act of publishing. You have to see this paragraph in the full context of what it ruling on.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

*Re: English Courts to Rule on Exposure - Sex texts and intimate photos are "private"*

In fact, the BS in this case should instead begin talking at length about the case very very publicly as a way to draw intense attention to the affair.

Their cant publish the photos to texts, but they can wax on at length about WS and the person they are cheating with and about the bigger cost to society for the ruling. It gives them a perfect venue to draw attention to these two horrible cheaters.

Hoist by their own petard.


----------

