So, the basis of this law is a person’s facial/physical parameters were used to make vulgar videos/images. This caused them distress, and so this is illegal. At this point, it is aiming to protect people from something deemed traumatic, and the law specifically requires the intent to be “to distress”. It’s a good law.
Let’s say someone hand draws a vulgar image using my physical parameters that I find distressing. Is that illegal? At the moment, no, however it’s not too great a step to see it pushed through by a similar argument (what if the artist was REALLY good, and they intended to distress me). And from here we go…
What about a cartoon or caricature? Could someone draw an image of the UK PM performing oral sex to billionaires and fall afoul if the subjects find it distressing? Surely such a cartoon cannot help but intend to dismay or distress the subjects?
Does it have to be vulgar or just cause distress? Could they just mock a person using an image? Mockery certainly sums to distress?
Does it have to be an image, or are distressing written pieces also viable?
It shifts towards the idea that “artistic” creations that provoke distress to an individual ought to be illegal. This is a viewpoint I stand strongly against.
However, this law is groundwork. Groundwork can also push towards a lot of good. Then again, how much do you trust UK politicians to make informed internet laws?