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
2629 readers
78 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
It's ultimately an issue with single party consent laws. In many places only one person has to consent to being recorded, even if they're the person recording.
This is a good thing for many reasons, like recording your boss flagrantly violating labor laws and such, but I'm sure the issue is that there isn't a legal caveat for the sex tapes.
I am surprised that Canada doesn't have a separate revenge porn law like the US does, though.
We do. The debate in the article is about whether the non-consensual filming of the sex act does or does not invalidate the consent given for the initial sex act, making it a sexual assault.
That's called rape by deception, and is illegal in at least some of the US.
It's not even that, though. That may be in question, but the question here is whether or not an unlawful deed towards a party ("revenge porn" is illegal) should invalidate other agreements made between the same two parties.
To put it another way, if I hire you to fix my plumbing, and then you steal my car on your way out the door, should I be on the hook to pay you for your plumbing services? The theft of my car is unquestionably a legal violation, and something I am not welcoming of, but what is being questioned is if that act is related to our plumbing agreement.
Earlier comments in this thread suggest that if I knew you were going to steal my car I would not have hired you to fix my plumbing, and therefore the plumbing agreement must also be null and void. But the courts aren't so sure – that there may be more nuance to that.