Carrie Goldberg: IT’S CLEAR: CREATING AMATEUR PORN WITHOUT A PARTICIPANT’S KNOWLEDGE IS ILLEGAL IN NY

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Nice post, Carrie. It’s worth noting that 1801 only covers offenses within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., which is rather limited – see 18 USC 7: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

    • Thanks, Derek. I interpreted the “territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.” to include the fifty states. Wishful thinking. Okay, for purposes of this NY-centric article, let’s modify the article to say that New Yorkers would also violate the Video Voyeurism Prevent Act in certain laughably limited circumstances, such as if they were to surreptitiously video other US citizens at the UN or the home of a diplomat. That works with the definition of 18 US Code 7’s definition of maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

  2. PrometheeFeu says:

    “Moreover, if we can’t control who sees us naked and when, what privacy rights are even left?”

    This is absurd. If you take your cloths off in front of somebody, you certainly have consented to let them see you naked. How can you possibly have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image of yourself naked vis a vis the person you are consensualy displaying that image to? And how can you possibly be injured by somebody watching a video of an event at which they were and which reveals at most a different perspective? Surely, if you were injured in your privacy, you were injured when the person saw you naked in the first place.

    At the very least, there is a significant inconsistency. If you are naked in public, people taking video of the event and re-watching it is perfectly acceptable. But if you have a privacy interest in preventing people from shifting the image of you naked in time, surely, that interest applies just as much in public.

    Consider the following hypothetical which demonstrates the absurdity of this law. If I consent to you looking at me through a camera and you do so, that is fine. But if instead of watching, you record the event and watch the video right after I leave, you are a sex offender.

    Sure, people who perform such recordings are not sympathetic and they display in their actions an immense lack of courtesy towards the people they have sex with. And the defendant you mentioned here is doubly unsympathetic given the fact that he blackmailed somebody into having sex with him. But 30 months and sex offender registration for taking a video of an event you were allowed to see is truly ridiculous.

  3. Douglas Levene says:

    The laws against sex-taping without the other party’s consent strikes me as perfectly reasonable. However, the Obama Administration and feminist groups are working very hard to create incentives for just such secret taping. I am referring to the campaign to redefine sexual assault on college campuses as sex without “affirmative consent” every step of the way. It is likely that many young man will surreptitiously tape their sexual encounters in order to provide evidence of such consent should the young lady subsequently charge them with assault.