The Canadian judge ruled that the digitally manipulated photos did not meet the definition of intimate images under the Criminal Code.
A man accused of distributing a fake nude image of his wife on social media has been acquitted after a Canadian judge ruled that it was not a crime. Ontario Court Justice Brian Puddington remarked that distributing fake nude images of a real person might be a “morally reprehensible” and “obscene” act, but it is not a crime due to the wording of the offence in the Criminal Code.
The accused was initially charged with publishing, distributing and transmitting his wife’s altered images without her consent to an unknown male on Snapchat. The victim was clothed in some photos, but in one she was wearing only a bra in her bathroom, while another pic had her face “digitally manipulated” and placed on top of a naked body that was not hers, according to a report in Toronto Star.
As per Puddington, the photos did not meet the definition of intimate images under the Criminal Code. The first pic did not have a sufficient level of nudity, while the manipulated image did not actually show the victim’s body.
“None of this is to say that creating and distributing these fake images is not morally reprehensible and, frankly, obscene. It may be that Parliament will turn its mind to criminalising this conduct in the future,” the judge wrote.
“While I am sympathetic to her, that sympathy cannot play any role in my judgment. I must apply the law dispassionately, and not try to shoehorn images into a definition simply because I find the photographs deplorable.”
‘Just because It’s Not A Crime…’
Reacting to the ruling, social media users said they understood the judge’s point of view but demanded that the laws be changed to address the grey area.
“Legislation should have been passed and not fizzled out. These are seriously demeaning crimes,” said one user, while another added: “I hope this incentives law change. I fear it’ll start a rampant increase of revenge porn.”
A third commented: “Just because it’s not a crime doesn’t mean he won’t be divorced and sued for damages. I would imagine it’s going to be an easy win for his ex-wife.”
A fourth said: “To be clear, this isn’t setting any new precedent. Judges cannot legislate, and parliament has inadvertently acknowledged that current legislation doesn’t cover fake nudes.”
Deepfake technology creates false information in the form of images, videos or audio with the help of AI. Such media content often looks real, but is actually fake. Last year, Taylor Swift threatened legal action after a series of pornographic deepfake images of the pop singer were shared on the internet.
