elfs: (Default)
[personal profile] elfs
In a bit of news that will surprise no one, juries don't understand sadomasochism, and so courts have the right to accept retroactively withdrawn consent as assault. S&M is illegal, at least in NY.

There's a lot of messiness in the case, but the outstanding point in the article is this:
Jodi testified she built up enough courage to leave Marcus in late 2001, but also conceded she continued to have contact with him, even going camping. She decided to go to the FBI when he refused to take her photos off the Internet.
He may have been a cad, but if he had her consent for the photographs and their display in the first place there's not much she can do about it. It would seem that she still had voluntary contact with him and was not being held or forced against the will.

Date: 2007-03-07 03:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trinsf.livejournal.com
There clearly is a lot of messiness in the case, but I'd like to point out that wrt domestic violence, partners can continue to live in the home or have contact with the abuser without negating the illegality of the abusive behavior. Because of that, I don't find "she was not being held or forced" to be defense.

Date: 2007-03-07 03:56 am (UTC)
ext_345282: (Default)
From: [identity profile] orcaarrow.livejournal.com
Elegantly put. I must say that I don't know how the American judicial can countenance this. I wish I could be surprised by this, but I'm not. When will the ideals of free will and privacy prevail?

Date: 2007-03-07 04:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mothball-07.livejournal.com
I'd have to say it may depend on whether she consented freely in the first place. If they determined she never offerred uncoerced consent, then it's an abuse case, not a bdsm case. Didn't see enough detail to have a clue, though.

As to whether she had the right to demand the pictures' removal, it's relevant whether she officially signed releases for the photos, or simply didn't object to their initial publication. I think in the latter case they remain her property.

Date: 2007-03-07 04:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] icebluenothing.livejournal.com
So how about if I give someone a Christmas present, and later change my mind about it; can I have them convicted of theft?

Date: 2007-03-07 05:07 am (UTC)
kengr: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kengr
I keep telling people that in most states the laws regarding assault & battery (or whatever the state in question calls it) to *not* have an exception for consent.

You are totally at the mercy of the jury. They'll understand football or even boxing and laugh out of court an attempt to charge you with assualt for those.

But let it be "kinky sex" and you are hosed.

Date: 2007-03-08 08:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] memegarden.livejournal.com
Here's another article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-23-sm-on-trial_x.htm?csp=34

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 30th, 2025 02:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios