A local legal source has cautioned persons against the circulation of pornographic videos and photos, even if though they were not the original publisher of the contents.
This warning comes as another pornographic video is being circulated of a young female – believed to be St. Lucian – reportedly performing oral sex on a male in a restroom. Reports are that the face of the female is very clear in the video, but only the male’s penis is seen.
Many persons have been sharing the video via cell phones, email and social networking sites.
However, the legal source said while it is possible that the young woman can take legal action against the original publisher as well as persons who share the video, it will be an uphill task.
“Generally speaking yes, but frankly the police, the court and certainly the victim does not have the resources to do so, but if they did, yes she could sue the persons who distributed the video,” the source said.
“Every act of distribution is a new act of libel and subject to an action in court, but with these videos going ‘viral’, it’s hard to track down every publisher of the video. Your best bet is to sue the person who originally published it. Hit him hard for general damages and/or imprisonment or the threat thereof; you make him an example to discourage others.”
Section 313 of the Criminal Code, which defines the act as libel, states: “(1) A person commits the offence of libel who, by print, writing, painting, effigy, or by any means otherwise than solely by gestures, spoken words, or other sounds, unlawfully publishes any defamatory matter concerning another person, whether living or dead, either negligently or with intent to defame that other person.”
The source said Section 314 defines what is considered to be defamatory: “(1) A person is defamed if matter is imputed to him or her which amounts to a crime, or which imputes to him or her misconduct in any public office, or which is likely to injure him or her in his or her occupation, calling, or office, or to expose him or her to general hatred, contempt or ridicule.”
The source pointed out: “Note that the latter part of the definition speaks to this matter ‘which is likely to injure him or her in his or her occupation, calling, or office, or to expose him or her to general hatred, contempt or ridicule’.
“As to her remedies, she can seek an injunction to have the video/pics removed from where it has been posted. Additionally, she can seek general damages for the damage done to her reputation. The person/boyfriend who posted the material is subject to seven years imprisonment,” the source added.
The legal source noted if the male or anyone else decides to sell the video, they can be brought up on charges as well for distribution of porno material.
Under the section entitled “Sale of Pornographic Material, Sale of pornographic material 330, it states: “Any person who knowingly and without lawful justification or excuse publicly sells or exposes for sale, or lets on hire or exposes for letting on hire, any obscene book or other obscene printed or written matter, any obscene picture, photograph, video recording, or model, or any other object tending to corrupt morals of a minor, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for five years.”