Judge: sharing sex video Paay was illegal

Patricia Paay won the lawsuit against the GeenStijl blog and a twitterer. Paay had charged them after GeenStijl placed a link in 2017 on the twitter message of the user @EendevangerNL with a video of Paay's sex. On Wednesday, the Amsterdam court ruled that the singer and television personality Paay was entitled to compensation of 30,000 euros for immaterial damages. She claimed 450,000 euros. After the May session, the parties tried unsuccessfully to reach a settlement.

Paay demanded a high amount for the Dutch standards, because the video had leaked against his will. In his own words, the case has a significant effect on his mental health. The compensation awarded is much lower than necessary, in part because the judge believes that the material damages – mainly based on missed orders – are not sufficiently proven. The amount of compensation is not the only thing remarkable about the court's decision.

Professor of Information Law Nico van Eijk (University of Amsterdam) sees a striking statement in the verdict. "In fact, he says: you can not just place a picture of someone who is made in the private sphere without permission." As a way that is not possible, but as a private twitterer who does not Is not possible.In this case, it is exposed materials.The distributor may assume that there is no sharing permission, according to the judge. "

According to Van Eijk, this view is interesting in the wider discussion of sharing photos and videos online. "Imagine that you make a funny movie during a drink and it is likely that there is an intimate private atmosphere, so you do well to get permission before placing it somewhere online." To be human and therefore as a journalist, you have a responsibility and a duty of care.When you share videos of people and you can reasonably expect that they do not like it you should not do it. "

Facilitating and stimulating

GeenStijl and the twitteraar are not solely responsible for the immaterial damages, Judge the court. Their role in sharing was to facilitate and encourage, but the video was already around WhatsApp. In this context, the requirement is "hard", according to Van Eijk, but it corresponds to the requirements in comparable cases. "For a company such as GeenStijl, such compensation is peanuts but in the eyes of the judge, it is quite high, especially because GeenStijl and the twitterer are not the only responsible for the distribution. There is an amount for non-material damages in the Netherlands In the Netherlands, judges are generally cautious about this and they want to avoid American practices in which billions of millions are no longer an exception. "

GeenStijl included the link to the incriminated video in a message on the site. The integration of such a video is not a publication, according to the blog. The creators let know again in reaction to the verdict on their site. The judge decides otherwise. The incorporation has the same effect as the publication. The material is always on a different site, but is visible on the site which includes a link (embed).

In the case of Paay's video at GeenStijl, a still of the video was shown on the site with a button play on it. The technique behind the judge finds "not interesting". GeenStijl has his own responsibility for his far-reaching work. That the movie would be easy to find on the internet does not change that. Van Eijk: "It is not technical details.It is a discussion in the margins.The essence is the illegality of sharing."

Clear Signal

The young people's point of view on online sexual abuse Helpwanted.nl is "very happy" with the statement, says director Arda Gerkens. In 2017, 1,709 reports came from young people under 26 years old. More than three quarters of these reports concerned the threat or the posting of sexual images. Gerkens: "This verdict is a clear signal against the unwanted diffusion of sexually tinted visual material."

In defense, GeenStijl claimed that Paay sent the video itself. Even if she made it public in limited circles, that does not justify a wider spread, according to the judge. "This is good news for other things," says Gerkens. "Making sexual images is very normal.Do not send it junk.It's the fault.This statement points out that."

For Fulek Blokhuis mediarechtadvocaat of Boekx Advocaten, the verdict has a aftertaste bitter. "In fact, the judge says about the total amount of damages that Paay must recover from all those who were responsible for the distribution." It's unfortunate, says Blokhuis. After all, it's hard to know who shared what about WhatsApp. "The company does not like that kind of data, go ahead and find out about it, it's very laborious to find out."

On appeal

It is not clear yet whether the parties are call. Lawyer Jens van der Brink of GeenStijl says that it is not ruled out, but not obvious because of the high costs of this procedure.

It is known that the prosecutor will prosecute GeenStijl and two other suspects for broadcasting the video. In what manner and when, the public prosecutor will announce later. In criminal cases, according to Blokhuis and Van Eijk, Tuesday's judgment will probably be examined.