You’ve probably heard about stories of nude photos posted, to the subject’s horror, in facebook and other social networking sites. There’s a recent report on a student’s facebook scandal and how it’s a test case under “Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009“ (Republic Act No. 9995).
Incidentally, we have just posted a primer on this law (read here). There are four general classifications of acts that are prohibited (let’s omit the other provisions):
- Taking photo or video coverage of sexual act, or capturing an image of a person’s private area (genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast).
- Copying or reproduction of the photo or video of sexual act.
- Selling or distribution of the photo or video of sexual act.
- Publishing, broadcasting, showing or exhibiting the photo or video of sexual act.
It’s immediately clear that all four refer to sexual act or similar activity, but only the first covers taking pictures of private areas.
Let’s say the accused did not take the photo (or there’s no proof that he took the photo) of a private part (not a sexual act), although there’s proof that he’s the one who uploaded the photos. For instance, a girl took a photo of her private parts using her phone. The boyfriend saw the photo and sent it by MMS to his cellphone. When they broke up, the (ex) boyfriend uploaded the photos in a social networking site. It would appear that the boyfriend would not be liable under the the anti-voyeurism law. Moral of the story?