Suggestion for a new law

[Kowalski.]

Greetings,

I, Steve McQueen, would like to submit a draft for a new law. The law I would like to submit may be based on Part Five, Public and Moral conduct, of the Liberty City laws. I, however, believe it could also be a part of it's own.

The law is as follows.

Act 5.16
Anyone who takes a photograph of another person without their consent is guilty of illegal photography.

I also believe this should be included.

Act 5.17
Anyone who takes a pornographic photograph of another person without their consent is not only guilty of illegal photography but also guilty of sexual interference.

The next part I'd like to present is this:

Act 5.18
Anyone who uses sexual information, such as nude photographs or other descriptions/information of another person without their consent is not only guilty of forced usage of sexual information but also guilty of sexual interference.

I will now present a currently existing law.

Act 6.13
A person who threatens another person or an organisation to reveal his/its personal information or secrets if the threatened person/organisation disobeys him is guilty of blackmailing.

I believe I can also submit a law relating to this.

Act 5.18
Anyone who threatens to reveal sexual information, such as nude photographs or other descriptions/information of another person if the threatened person disobeys him is guilty of pornographic blackmail.

In almost every law submitted, I used sexual interference as a crime, hence why I'd also like to edit this existing law.

Act 5.2
A person who commits touches of a sexual manner without the other person’s consent is guilty of sexual interference.

The edit:

Act 5.2
A person who commits any act of a sexual manner without the other person’s consent is guilty of sexual interference.

I may revise this later on if found necessary.

Thank you.

[spn1725]

What if one sucks a popsicle in a sexual manner without other person's consent?
Interference only supposes touching. "Any act" is too vague.

[superh2o]

Laws are made to be general, in cases where they apply to some degree common sense is used, this suggestions are not needed.

[PulseEffect]

Act 5.16 would potentially be unconstitutional; Section 2, Ordinance I of the Constitution.

5.18 demands charging authorities to essentially duplicate the same offence whereby the defendant may not be even guilty of the other offence. For example, you may use "sexual information, such as nude photographs or other descriptions/information of another person without their consent" but then you require the law to find them guilty of sexual interference, when that criminal offence requires a defendant to have taken pornographic photos of another individual without their consent?

One person could have possession of nude photographs and then use it and be guilty of a 5.18 offence but they can't be guilty of a 5.17 offence because it requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they created the photograph, what happens if they haven't? tl;dr 5.18 is written poorly and could lead to it being struck down or unenforceable by the Courts.

Your suggestions are pretty niche and generally laws already cover what you are proposing. 

[James Conway]

Thank you for your law suggestions, it will be taken into consideration.

locked