Test Case: The Peeping Toms

Two brothers, Marcus and Lucas Silvington, were today sentenced to five years in prison today in a controversial test case demonstrating the unusual nature of Candlewhisper law.

The brothers had for the past six months been conducting a campaign of harassment on university student Lucy Chandlesong, including taking telescopic photographs of her naked to post online and installing a hidden camera in her bathroom. In addition, they had gone to her doctor's office, and taken from the medical computers camera footage of Ms. Chandlesong's colonoscopy!

The Silvington's lawyers argued that as Candlewhisper does not recognise the right to privacy, and indeed enshrines in its constitution free access to any data publically or privately acquired, there was no wrongdoing on the Silvington's part. That they had posted the data online, and on a pay-per-view site, was also within the usual nature of data exchange for Candlewhisper.

After two weeks in court, with what might have been a straightforward case in other nations, the Candlewhisper Judiciary concluded that the Silvingtons had indeed broken no laws in distributing or selling the video images they had acquired, and that there was no wrongdoing there.

However, while the state does not recognise the right to privacy, it does recognise the right to private property (though only of physical locations and objects, not of data). By installing a hidden camera they had trespassed on her private property. In light of the harm caused, and given the leeway given to Candlewhisper judges in sentencing, the judiciary decided upon a sentence much longer than one usually given to criminal trespass.

The Chandlesong lawyers also demanded that the pay-per-view site now be shut down, but the courts deemed they were not within their rights to do this, and indeed that it would be illegal for them to do so, or to stop the Silvington brothers from continuing to gain income.

However, the judiciary did suggest that the Chandlesong family could choose to copy the data, and distribute it freely if they chose, as the Silvingtons had no ownership of the images. The family have reluctantly taken up this suggestion, to deny further profit to the Silvingtons. The Chandlesongs have also noted that the Silvington's conviction is now on public record, and set it up so that search engine, social networking and dating sites flag them so that this crime is referenced whenever their identities are linked to - a service that the privately owned companies running these sites have almost universally agreed to do at minimal or waived fee.

A separate civil proceeding is rumoured to be following, to sue the Silvingtons for harm to emotional and mental wellbeing, and also for damage to Ms. Chandlesong's future professional reputation.

Justice seems to have done, after a fashion, and in Candlewhisper the public response seems to be that the system works. The response outside of the country has been more mixed...