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
2624 readers
88 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
Consent was given to a different act than the perpetrator was intending on having. It shouldn't fall on one to confirm that every sex act one participates in is not being filmed against one's wishes, that should (pretty obviously, I think) require notification of intent.
Yes, if there is something of substance to prove that is the case then the courts will undoubtedly side in your favour. But "I didn't know" is not sufficient to demonstrate that the intent differed. There are inherently many things one will not know about the situation. The obligations of an agreement are not invalided just because something you didn't expect happened. The nuance must be taken into account.
It is the onus of one entering into an agreement to do their due diligence. Combing the room for cameras may be beyond reasonable, but letting it be known that your privacy is valued when settling on the terms of the agreement is a reasonable expectation. Certainly, if that is spelled out in the agreement then there is an expectation that it will be honoured.
It's not clear cut at all, but it also doesn't need to be as that is exactly why we have a court system.