How to prevent consumption of non-consensual intimate images

The Government is trying to tackle the dissemination of non-consensually shared intimate images by putting the onus of responsibility on the tech platforms on which they are distributed. But Helen Frowe and Jonathan Parry argue that the consumption of such images should also be targeted through government policies.

As part of its strategy to combat Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), the UK Government recently announced an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. This will require tech companies to remove non-consensually shared intimate images from their platforms within 48 hours of notification, on pain of hefty fines.

Like most interventions to tackle non-consensual intimate image (NCII) abuse, this proposal focuses exclusively on individuals and businesses involved in non-consensually creating, obtaining, and sharing intimate images. Tellingly, the Minister for Violence Against Women and Girls, Alex Davies-Jones said:

“By requiring companies to remove non‑consensual intimate images within 48 hours, we are finally putting the onus where it belongs – on the tech firms with the power and resources to act.”

While we support the proposal, we think this way of framing the problem is a mistake. For one thing, by emphasising the role of corporations and technology, we risk occluding the fact that NCII abuse is a wrong done by persons to other persons (as Jonas Haeg forcefully puts it: “Grok Doesn’t Degrade Women – You Do!“). And, more specifically, the exclusive focus on targeting those who non-consensually share intimate images (or facilitate that sharing) ignores the role of those who consume that material. Consumers are those who view and/or engage with non-consensually shared intimate images and videos – usually by accessing websites and online fora that explicitly advertise this content and by posting misogynistic comments – but do not necessarily create, obtain, or share such images.

Consumers of NCII are complicit in abuse

NCII consumers play a significant and ineliminable role in the serious wrongs inflicted on NCII abuse victims. They are also a key revenue source for platforms that host this material. Consumers should therefore be understood as co-perpetrators of NCII abuse. Indeed, consumers make up the vast majority of participants in NCII abuse, since an image posted by a single person will often be viewed by hundreds or thousands of people. Consumers are complicit in NCII abuse in the following ways:

• Sharing images requires “uptake”. Consumers provide the audience that sharers need in order to wrong their victims.
• By providing an audience, each consumer exacerbates the victim’s humiliation and suffering. The bigger the audience, the worse these harms.
• Consumers reinforce misogynistic attitudes that underpin NCII abuse, sustaining a community that endorses and celebrates the degradation of women and girls.
• Each consumer violates the victim’s privacy and sexual autonomy. If the victim did not consent to share an image with that consumer, then they have no right to look. NCII consumption is thus analogous to the ‘in real life’ sexual offence of voyeurism.

Recognising NCII consumers as co-perpetrators broadens the range of interventions that should be considered in order to tackle NCII abuse. For example, in our work, we have argued that it would be appropriate to use legal sanctions to target clear and grave forms of NCII consumption, in order to recognise the seriousness of the wrongs involved and to deter this behaviour.

Each consumer violates the victim’s privacy and sexual autonomy. If the victim did not consent to share an image with that consumer, then they have no right to look.

But the law is only one possible avenue for intervention. There are many other potential strategies for tackling NCII consumption (and hence a substantial component of NCII abuse) that are supported by the co-perpetration model.

Policies for tackling the consumption of NCII

• Public Awareness Campaigns

One key aim is to encourage a shift in public attitudes towards NCII consumption. Rather than treating it as a passive form of bystanding (“just looking”), we should recognise NCII consumption as a form of active participation in serious (and criminal) offending against women and girls.

As the Government’s VAWG strategy recommends, well-crafted public awareness campaigns can play an important role in changing attitudes. One way in which they can do so is by forcing people to confront their failure to treat similar cases alike: Most people recognise that “in real life” voyeurism is a serious wrong and think it appropriate to sanction those who engage in this behaviour. By making explicit the similarities between voyeurism and NCII consumption, an awareness campaign would encourage critical reflection and a public conversation.

• Consent Ed Training

In recent years there has been significant uptake of education and training programmes designed to highlight the importance of consent in the sexual domain. For example, many universities require their students to undertake ‘consent ed’ training.

Such programmes are a good opportunity to integrate discussions of the importance of consent in the case of consuming intimate images (alongside discussions of taking and sharing such images), and the role of NCII consumption in perpetrating sexual abuse.

• Relationships and Sex Education

All schools in England are required to provide relationships and sex education (RSE) to pupils. Incorporating discussions of NCII consumption in high school curriculums would be in keeping with new statutory guidance for RSE.

Pupils must also be taught that possessing (as well as taking, sharing and requesting) indecent or sexual images of a person under the age of 18 is a criminal offence.

This guidance emphasises that pupils should understand sexism and misogyny, the impact of their actions on others, and the important of consent and ethical behaviour. It also emphasises that pupils should understand the importance of challenging harmful beliefs and attitudes and the links between sexism and misogyny and violence against women and girls. On the topic of intimate images specifically, the guidance states that pupils must be taught about their online rights, including their rights against others accessing, sharing, or pressuring them to share their personal material (and that some of these behaviours are criminal). They must also be taught that possessing (as well as taking, sharing and requesting) indecent or sexual images of a person under the age of 18 is a criminal offence.

Schools-based RSE education thus provides an important opportunity to tackle the normalisation of NCII consumption at an early stage. The idea that we should challenge this behaviour by highlighting its similarities with “in-real-life” forms of wrongdoing reflects the statutory guidance that pupils should be taught that “the same expectations of behaviour apply in all contexts, including online.”

The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls strategy is right to target those who create and share NCII, as well as the platforms that host such material. But as it stands, it has a significant blind spot. If the Government is serious that “We each have a role to play, whether by challenging harmful behaviours when we see them, reflecting on our own actions, or setting a positive example”, then tackling the consumption of NCII should be a much higher priority.

By Jonathan Parry and Helen Frowe

Jonathan Parry is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method at the LSE.

Helen Frowe is Professor of Practical Philosophy and Knut and Alice Wallenberg Scholar at Stockholm University, where she directs the Stockholm Centre for the Ethics of War and Peace. She works on moral and political philosophy, with particular interests in the ethics of harming and saving.

This article has been published on the LSE British Politics and Policy Blog.