This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
Oh, sorry to hear that, I fixed the link.
Also,
300 protesters arrested in Quebec
, for balance.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Going back to the article about the guy that got 30 days for videotaping his roomate having sex, and having a party to show people, someone reminded me that the guy who videotaped ESPN reporter Erin Andrews got 2 and a half years for the same type of behavior, and there was no subsequent suicide that anyone was considering. Even if you don't think that the roomate's death should be taken into account for sentencing, the amount of time he was sentenced to was pathetic.
Post by
MyTie
Going back to the article about the guy that got 30 days for videotaping his roomate having sex, and having a party to show people, someone reminded me that the guy who videotaped ESPN reporter Erin Andrews got 2 and a half years for the same type of behavior, and there was no subsequent suicide that anyone was considering. Even if you don't think that the roomate's death should be taken into account for sentencing, the amount of time he was sentenced to was pathetic.
I haven't followed the case. I feel that some caution must be exercised when the government determines what private citizens can and cannot film. Certainly this case involved an egregious moral failing. However, if the government determines that someone should get 2 years (a felony) for filming someone without their knowledge, or filming someone on their property without their knowledge, then some events much more innocuous than this instance may be prosecuted as severe crimes.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
What? SO you don't think that invasion of privacy to create pornographic imagry should be a crime? Like if your neighbor set up cameras to catch your wife naked, or your daughter once she was of age, and posts it on the internet, it's better for you to let him do that then make laws against it? I think that drawing a line in the sand that videotaping people while they're naked or engaged in sexual activity is a pretty definitive line that's hard to abuse for nefarious purposes.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Yeah- it wouldn't be the same argument if someone filmed someone else changing a tire.
EDIT: Also, if there are no laws about invasion of privacy, that means that the government wouldn't be prevented from putting cameras in every person's house and/or business to monitor them, because they're not breaking any laws. Surely, you don't think that's a better alternative to setting boundaries around how much privacy a person can expect legally?
Post by
MyTie
What? SO you don't think that invasion of privacy to create pornographic imagry should be a crime? Like if your neighbor set up cameras to catch your wife naked, or your daughter once she was of age, and posts it on the internet, it's better for you to let him do that then make laws against it? I think that drawing a line in the sand that videotaping people while they're naked or engaged in sexual activity is a pretty definitive line that's hard to abuse for nefarious purposes.
Ok, so would you say that if someone videotapes people engaged in sex without their knowledge, and then shows it to people, or displays it for people's viewing, should be punished as a felon and spend 2 years in jail? Does that sound reasonable?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Absolutely. If there's no major deterrent, then there's nothing to prevent people from doing it. If someone can make $50,000 from photos of someone, and the fine is $15,000, or it costs them 30 days in jail, they can look at it as a business decision. After all, the paparazzi violate restraining orders and stalking offenses now to get photos, because of how much they're worth. If sex footage was a misdemeanor, then they'd be doing that too. And considering that something like that can create real emotional distress, ruin social relationships, and possibly affect someone's career if it's put online, I think it's totally appropriate.
Not that they're the same thing, but look at how we judge rape vs. other assaults that leave comparable amounts of physical damage. If you hold someone down and punch them a number of times, bruising them but not breaking anything, and using no weapons, you maybe get 2 years. If you rape a woman, you're looking at 8-9 years. The physical damage might be similar, but the emotional damage and invasiveness of the act is much more severe, so they punish it more harshly.
Post by
MyTie
Absolutely.
Hypothetical case:
Your law goes into effect, that says that if someone videotapes a sexual event without the knowledge of the participants, and displays it for other people to view, they go to jail for two years. In the jurisdiction of the law that you put into effect, a motel owner installs a security camera, and hires a person to keep an eye on the place. Two people have sex in the hallway. The employee calls the police, and has them removed for lewd conduct and trespassing. Then, the motel owner is arrested, and sentenced to a 2 year felony for violating your law.
I'm not saying that the person in the case that actually happened isn't wrong. I believe he is. I'm saying that great care has to be taken to make sure that the government takes appropriate measures to ensure that it doesn't overstep its bounds in enforcing what can and cannot be video taped.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@MyTie- you have to show that the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy for invasion of privacy laws. If you have sex in public, then you have no expectation of privacy, and no one can be violating your right to privacy. The protections for the case you're describing are already in the law. We're not debating a new law. We're discussing how the sentencing wasn't in line with what's usually handed out for an existing felony. What this law does prevent is that same landlord from putting cameras in the rooms and bathrooms, where people expect a measure of privacy to undress and engage in sexual activity.
If you drop a rock out the window at someone, it's assault or at least makes you negligent for creating a dangerous situation. If someone climbs into a clearly marked and fenced demolition zone, and under where you're supposed to be dropping rocks, it's on them if they get hurt because they were in a zone where they should have expected demolition activity.
Also- you discuss this law passing like it's a hypothetical. It already exists as a class D felony with a maximum sentence of 5 years.
Post by
Adamsm
In the hypothetical, as long as the motel owner posts signs around the premise, warning that their security cameras in place(something that already exists), he would more then likely be covered against the law coming down like that on him.
But to change it: The motel owner installs private cams in all of his rooms, video tapes couples going at it, then sells the boot leg tapes; doesn't he deserve jail time for invasion of privacy?
Post by
MyTie
the person had a reasonable expectation of privacyI suppose this works. I just don't want to see people going to jail for silly little stuff.But to change it: The motel owner installs private cams in all of his rooms, video tapes couples going at it, then sells the boot leg tapes; doesn't he deserve jail time for invasion of privacy?What do you think? Have I given any indication that I think invading people's privacy is something that is acceptable? Please don't irritate me with questions that have nothing to do with my arguments.
Post by
Magician22773
Oh, sorry to hear that, I fixed the link.
Also,
300 protesters arrested in Quebec
, for balance.
Thanks. I deleted the link in my quote as well. I may have been a fluke, but this darn thing went nuts while I was reading the article.
Post by
gamerunknown
Elhonna, hidden cameras
don't discriminate by age
.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Elhonna, hidden cameras
don't discriminate by age
.
I wasn't saying they did- I said "of age" to prevent the response that if it was his daughter it would be covered under child pornography laws irregardless of how it was filmed.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It's the nanny state mentality. It doesn't work. It's expensive.
Post by
Magician22773
Its the same thing as the Reagan era "Just Say No" campaign. It can be shown as being very effective when you are telling a bunch of 3rd grade kids to just "Say No".....hell, I dont think the problem is with 3rd graders. Take the same campaign into high school or college, and you will have nearly zero success. But politicians will spend millions of dollars for a few photo ops
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.