|
|
|
|
|
|
by elemenopy
3995 days ago
|
|
|
> if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved While I can't speak for the U.S., in New Zealand consent is vitiated by mistaken identity [1]. I suspect there is also common law precedent. > If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. Firstly, because from a policy perspective, having an intimate recording publicly and permanently released without consent massively harms the victim to the extent they may be driven to suicide, and there is no reasonable case to be made that the perpetrator should have the right to release such a recording, considering their intention is to inflict pain and trauma upon their victim. Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. It is a social norm that if you receive a sext you do not immediately post it to Facebook. I see no problem in establishing this implicit confidential relationship in statute considering the outcomes of revenge porn. 1. Crimes Act s 128A(6) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/D... |
|
|
> Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence.
Lots of things are implicitly provided in confidence and yet we don't punish people through the legal system for violating confidence. If I tell a secret to a friend that would bring me disrepute if widely known and he reveals it to the world, can I sue him absent an NDA (assume that he knows that I told it to him in confidence)?
As to implicit consent, we actually assume consent very broadly in other areas of the law -- see for instance the third party doctrine -- people who voluntarily give information to third parties have "no reasonable expectation of privacy". But I guess if it's the government it's OK.