header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 July 2014 / Tim Lawson-Cruttenden
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Policing the internet

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
speakers_corner_lawsoncruttenden

Tim Lawson-Cruttenden examines the legal framework available to protect the victims of revenge pornography

Former culture secretary Maria Miller recently declared that the “existing legal framework does not provide” protection against the posting of revenge pornography on the internet. Ms Miller is not a practising lawyer. This is another example of a senior politician making a forceful statement tainted by inaccuracy.

Revenge pornography is generally posted on the internet by a former and vengeful lover. Difficulties arise when these are transferred, by anonymous individuals onto numerous web sites. This makes actions to remove the material and obtain redress in damages a complex and difficult exercise.

Any person seeking redress for revenge pornography, involving complete removal of intimate material, must consider the respective legal positions of:

  1. Information society service providers (ISSPs) (a defined term) on whose websites this material is published.
  2. Offenders who post tortious or unlawful material on the internet.
  3. Victims who seek redress for, and the removal of, such material.

ISSPs

ISSPs are conditionally exempt from liability for material posted on sites which they facilitate, cache or host (defined terms see EC Directive

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll