HD’s damages for sex tape disappointing – Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet

The most controversial privacy problem recently is sex tapes and sexbilder disseminated on the Internet against the imaged will. The spread of such films and images constitute a serious invasion of privacy.

Judicial handled these kinds of violations that slander. Internet Slander may damage in a completely different way than other forms of defamation. Digital information can get lightning fast, global spread. And, as the saying goes: the Internet never forgets.

This had I hoped that the Supreme Court (HD) would relate to, at least in part, as it has now taken the position to how seriously should look at sexual integrity violations on the Internet. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s decision is not the answer you need.

The background was that a man filmed when he had sexual intercourse with a woman. The film, he then placed on porn sites on the net.

The case concerned the amount to be paid in compensation to the victim. The figures show how serious legal system looks at violations.

The district court proceeded 130 000 to the victim in damages for violation. A high damages, but it is not unique six-figure compensation for this form of abuse. The Court of Appeal reduced the damages to 25 000 on the grounds that it is “in the not too tight circles of the population over time has become more socially acceptable to be very open and outgoing regarding their sexual behavior.”

HD took its better not get the impression Court of Appeal strange reasoning. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the contrary, the seriousness of the defamation of this kind, especially when it is done through film and when it affects young. (Is it less serious to distribute movies on seniors?) Compensation was paid by 70 000 for the violation that the victim suffered. There is a lot of money if you look at the levels of tort compensation in Swedish law.

Speaking for myself I am still disappointed with the ruling. HD reasons not deeper about the special that the violation occurred in a digital environment. The judgment is very concise and bottoms are not in how digital communication has a special dynamic.

Also, the amount is too low. 20 years ago found the HD to a montage of famous people’s faces cut into pornographic images – with the text “Satire” below – would be replaced by 100 000. It is difficult to see why it is now settled the crime was less serious than in the previous case.