[Loughla]

Except if the recording is illegal, it can be used, in some states, against you criminally and civilly.

I was just having this conversation. You can be sued and/or jailed if you record someone without their consent in a two party consent state.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about.

[xyzzy21]

Again, sure technically, but it also Streisands everything about it. The cost-benefit for prosecutors and the other party isn't a slam dunk!

Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)

[lotsofpulp]

>Personally I'd absolutely do it and take the gamble. But I'm risk-thriving (hence started several companies, enjoy international travel, etc.)

I did not think I would ever see someone comparing starting businesses and international travel with committing clear misdemeanors and possible felonies and opening oneself up to civil suits.

[bsanr]

That sounds like a description of every American civil rights activist ever.

[osense]

Great, so instead of being able to count on the justice system we're basicall back to mob justice?

[mcguire]

We like to think of it as democracy in action.

[UnpossibleJim]

So the Salem witch trials were "democracy in action"?

[mcguire]

The Salem witch trials were under the justice system.

[UnpossibleJim]

No shit. I was totally wrong. I picked a horrible example, lol. Thanks =)

[Retric]

Yep. Democracy isn’t perfect it’s just one compromise among many.

[UnpossibleJim]

So better that more innocents be punished than risk any guilty going free? Truly, your love of the strictest "definition" of democracy is baffling, though I think most would vote against you.

[R0b0t1]

Mob justice can be true justice. As in this case precisely, there was proof that a court refused to listen to.

At some point you need to worry about deep fakes, etc, but there's still cases where the accused more or less says they are guilty and flips the court off and everybody acts like nothing can be done about it.

[R0b0t1]

The main concern (and it's not much of a concern) is that you are charged with wiretapping or the equivalent. The penalties for this are not necessarily severe. Refuse to plea and force a trial.

If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.

If someone is actually a rapist and got off on a technicality it's your moral imperative to do something, no? Stand up to unjust laws. Evil prospers because idiots like you do nothing.

[Loughla]

>idiots like you do nothing.

That seems unnecessary ad hominem. Just completely uncalled for.

Also, you're assigning a values judgment to my statements that I genuinely thought I was clear about when I said "Not saying it's right or wrong, but it exists and is something to think about."

You have no idea what my stance is on literally anything. Trying to be superior to someone who has given you nothing to feel superior about seems sort of hateful?

Facts are facts, and consequences are consequences, regardless of right or wrong. That was my meaning. Agree with the outcomes or not, believe me or don't. That doesn't matter.

>If the recording is not tampered with it's unlikely a civil case will get anywhere.

How do you figure? If it is a surreptitious recording without consent, the person who was recorded has a pretty clear line to a civil case.

[sterlind]

it's a stretch, but the judge could bar revealing the motive for recording, or playing clips that reveal the nature of what was recorded, in order to keep the jurors from learning that it was child rape and nullifying the charge. in practice it's unlikely though.

also wait, were criminal charges brought against the rape victim for recording? did some prosecutor decide to actively assist further ruining the victim's life? civil I can understand, but what a scumbag for not exercising prosecutorial discretion if so.