Using new media techniques to mete out instant justice to men who harass women on the streets could land crusaders in court because of a Catch-22

It is proof, if proof were needed, that we are two cultures separated by a common law book. A Web site set up for angry New Yorkers that let them send in pictures, snapped with camera-phones, of people who had sexually harassed them in the street or exposed themselves, has been quietly launched in the UK. But using it might prove disastrous.


Holla Back, originally set up by three men and four women 'using technology to resist street harassment by encouraging women to snap photos of harassers with their camera phones and post their experiences on-line', according to a press statement, will face very different legal challenges in the UK.


'It's a great idea, but a bit of an incendiary device,' said Korieh Duodu, a barrister at London media lawyers David Price Solicitors & Advocates. It is incendiary because, in the UK, Holla Back could find itself in a true Catch-22 situation.


In the US, pictures are e-mailed to the Web log Holla Back NYC, and are then posted on-line. It seems that any genitalia, for example, pictured are blurred out digitally. But if the UK site operators do this, said Mr Duodu, they are performing an editorial function, which makes them responsible for defamatory statements on the site.


If, however, the site allows people to just post pictures and text on the site without editorialising - the only way it can make a defence of innocent dissemination later - pictures that appear on the site might bring the operators to the attention of the Her Majesty's finest, explained Mr Duodu.


'Ostensibly one can sympathise them for wanting to do it this way. There is anti-social behaviour out there,' he said. 'Another question is whether this... could breach the Obscene Publications Act.'


So Holla Back in the UK could either find itself unable to operate, or almost accidentally end up bringing about a change in the law. Mr Duodu wondered if any case that came to court under those circumstances might not precipitate a public good defence to the Obscene Publications Act, something generally used to defend art.


It is not as if there is little likelihood this might happen. 'Any picture that identifies someone will be defamatory because of the nature of the Web site,' pointed out Mr Duodu. 'If there is sufficient information to identify a person, you don't need to name them.'


Holla Back did not wish to give the Gazette an interview, preferring instead to provide a pre-prepared press pack.


Co-founder Emily May said in the statement that 'the mission of HollaBackNYC is... to empower women and provide a community where they can share their stories, and... to raise awareness, making this widespread problem so visible that it can no longer be ignored in the public discourse.'


The problem with doing this in the UK, however, will be that very visibility. The UK site cannot act as an unknowing disseminator, like an Internet service provider such as AOL, without potentially putting criminal images on the site, but it cannot interfere with images to protect itself without opening itself up to a defamation action.