this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
55 points (98.2% liked)

World News

55284 readers
1991 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
55
Call for change in law to tackle covertly-filmed videos of women on nights out (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 month ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Covertly filming women on nights out to upload the videos to social media should be made illegal, the Liberal Democrats have said.

The party has put forward a private members' bill calling on the government to update voyeurism legislation to prevent the content from being posted online for profit.

It said the bill would clamp down on what it calls "a covert filming epidemic" and wants the government to force social media platforms to remove such content and permanently ban repeat offenders.

It comes after a BBC investigation exposed dozens of accounts on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram. The videos focused almost entirely on women, filmed without their knowledge and taken from low angles or behind, sometimes revealing intimate body parts.

The government said covert filming of women and girls was "vile" and vowed to stop people profiting from it.

The BBC investigation identified nearly 50 women who had been filmed without their knowledge.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know what the existing laws in the UK look like,

In general though, in the US, it's usually legal to film things that are happening in public places, that's part of what's (supposed) to protect us from stuff like filming ICE agents.

Now of course, I'm not saying that it's not important to do something to protect people from creeps recording them and posting them online without their consent

But I also feel like this is the kind of law that needs to be crafted very carefully to make sure that it's not going to infringe on legitimate reasons people may have to record people in public. I could absolutely see Republicans here twisting a law like this that was made with good intentions to go after people for posting videos of ice arrests online.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This doesn't appear to be a crackdown on filming in public places. It seems to be going after the people who distribute it and the platforms who host it.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the same concerns still apply, if you can't post that video anywhere it doesn't do much good for you to record it.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Posting online is not the only reason people shoot voyeur videos. Or even the main one.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, but it is important if you're trying to record video of police brutality and such which is where my concerns lie about how these laws could be twisted

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I think this is where we’re really starting to see modern society break down. We’ve gotten to the point where we all live and coexist in a space but there’s nothing binding us together, as community, other than the law. Turns out that if we assume there will always be people who try twist and exploit the law to their own advantage then the law itself no longer works as a tool for building a free and just society.

In the past, we had other systems such as community norms and traditions which tended to be much more adept at dealing with rule-benders. Where did we go wrong?

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This contradicts your previous comment. You said it isnt a crackdown on general filming in public because it's meant to target people who post voyeurustic videos and the platforms that host them, but now you're claiming that voyeuristic videos aren't even intended to be posted online, so who does that leave as the intended targets of this law?

It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to see this used as a justification to pull any video filmed in public that at any point depicts an "unknowing" woman in frame.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You do realize that people shoot voyeur videos for personal use, right?

Voyeur doesn't mean, "without consent for the purpose of distribution."

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You do realize that people shoot voyeur videos for personal use, right?

Yes, and by your own admission, this law doesn't target those people.

Meanwhile, you're arguing the law will target people uploading videos to the internet and platforms that host them, but that this somehow won't affect people uploading videos of things like protests or police brutality because it instead targets videos that people film for "personal use" and don't upload. It makes no sense.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're clearly not following me.

This law is not targeting people filming in public. No provisions in the law say that you can't film in public.

This law targets people who upload the videos they film in public. Not everyone who shoots a video uploads it.

I never said it wouldn't impact people uploading protests or police brutality. I never spoke to that point at all.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This law is not targeting people filming in public. No provisions in the law say that you can't film in public.

The entire premise of this law is based on filming in public. It doesn't say you can't film in public, but it does say you can't share videos containing certain content that isn't well defined and can easily be twisted to include any video video filmed in public. Imagine someone filming a protestor getting beaten by police where a woman is facing away somewhere in the background. This constitutes "filming an unsuspecting woman's behind" and the video gets taken down while the uploader gets banned. This is such an easy point to reach and doesn't require some convoluted conspiracy to pull off.

I never said it wouldn't impact people uploading protests or police brutality. I never spoke to that point at all.

Yes, you did speak to it here when responding to this person:

But I also feel like this is the kind of law that needs to be crafted very carefully to make sure that it's not going to infringe on legitimate reasons people may have to record people in public. I could absolutely see Republicans here twisting a law like this that was made with good intentions to go after people for posting videos of ice arrests online.

This doesn't appear to be a crackdown on filming in public places. It seems to be going after the people who distribute it and the platforms who host it.