10
Decision opens up debate about consent, technology | Winnipeg Free Press
(www.winnipegfreepress.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)
CanadaPolitics
2616 readers
153 users here now
Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@grte
Again NAL, but this may have an effect on Canada's one-party consent laws ... which would not be a good thing imo (per https://recordinglaw.com/canada-recording-laws/)
Better to stay away from challenging the recording part and stick with the psychological damage.
I don't agree. I don't think one party consent should be so sacrosanct that you can film a person having sex without their permission and not catch problems for doing so. Not ancillary issues like psychological trauma (which of course matter in their own right and should carry consequences), the act itself should be a crime, that's a huge violation. I'm sure we can find a reasonable legal distinction between that and recording a phone call.
Most developed countries have revenge porn laws which specifically cover this issue. It's strange to me that Canada doesn't.
It is strange to you because it does have revenge porn laws. What it does not have is an automatic invalidation of the contract entered into to engage in the sexual activity itself if revenge porn laws are violated.
To use another instance of this, if we agree that you will fix my plumbing, and then you steal my car, the stealing of the car is very much against the law, but breaking that law does not invalidate the contract for the plumbing work. @grte above thinks that if you knew the person was planning on stealing your car, you would have never agreed to have them work on your plumbing, and thus the plumbing contract should also become null and void in every case. That is what Canada does not have. Nor it is likely anywhere else does either.
Then that would be rape by deception. Does Canada not have that?
When there is deception, but that needs to also be established. One does not necessarily imply the other.