Sep. 15th, 2006 02:41 pm
More on the moron/legal stuff
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdevianceExchanging comments with one of Jason Fortuny's idiot defenders, and I posted this:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
Emphasis mine.
He did not obtain the consent to record the private communications. Making a copy and providing that copy to third parties constitutes recording in this case.
Some other relevant statutes:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.060
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.080
Consensual BDSM is not illegal in Washington, btw.
***
The only legal issue wrt BDSM in this state has to do with the state's domestic violence laws. If called to a domestic disturbance, police who find an injured party have to take the "assailant" into custody, even if the "victim" claims consent or doesn't want to press charges. This is to keep domestic violence victims from putting themselves in the path of further harm because they're too scared or brainwashed to defy their attacker ("Battered Wife Syndrome," etc.)
Obviously, on further review, charges would be dropped in consensual BDSM cases like that.
How the law treats consensual BDSM varies from place to place. Some believe that there's no such thing as consenting to being physically injured at all, others draw the line at major injury (body modification, for instance.) However, as body piercing is legal in most places, as a consensual injury, there's really no reason other consensual "injuries" shouldn't be.
I've never been personally involved with the kink community per se. Not my scene, as it tends toward play I don't like, and has too much stranger involvement--sorry, but I gotta know someone well before they get to see me naked, much less get anywhere near my tingly bits. You'll never see me at The Wet Spot. But I do know plenty of people involved in it and have sort of been on the fringes of the wider community for quite some time (there's lots of kink/queer/poly overlap, especially here.)
There are some practices I don't get. There are also some for which I truly think the people involved need a full psych screening prior to doing it. BDSM is assault, both physical and emotional, and just like some people with psych issues involve themselves with abusers, sometimes people are drawn to BDSM for the wrong reasons--non-consensual abuse can and does happen within the kink community. I especially question lifestyle D/S, and any arrangement in which someone's kids are aware of what they do. The idea that some kid knows why mom wears a collar is stomach churning.
But outside of those limitations, there are valid reasons why people do what they do. It's really not all that different from people who do extreme sports or work out a lot. Heck, would we argue that boxing should be illegal because supposedly no-one can consent to being beaten up (and, for that matter, because boxers primarily tend to be from disadvantaged ethnic and economic groups, and therefore might not be fully consenting to their career?) What about tackle football? Wrestling? Fencing?
There is definitely a psychological component to what some folks do--either giving up total control to another person or taking total control can be cathartic for some. But for most, it's just about chasing endorphins. And unless we're going to make any other physical activity that involves injury or the risk thereof illegal, there's no reason BDSM should be illegal, either. The mantra within the community is "safe, sane and consensual." And within that, I see no reason to bug anyone, legally or via stupid harassment like this, who wants to do it.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:
(a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication;
(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.
(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.
(4) An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.
Emphasis mine.
He did not obtain the consent to record the private communications. Making a copy and providing that copy to third parties constitutes recording in this case.
Some other relevant statutes:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.060
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.080
Consensual BDSM is not illegal in Washington, btw.
***
The only legal issue wrt BDSM in this state has to do with the state's domestic violence laws. If called to a domestic disturbance, police who find an injured party have to take the "assailant" into custody, even if the "victim" claims consent or doesn't want to press charges. This is to keep domestic violence victims from putting themselves in the path of further harm because they're too scared or brainwashed to defy their attacker ("Battered Wife Syndrome," etc.)
Obviously, on further review, charges would be dropped in consensual BDSM cases like that.
How the law treats consensual BDSM varies from place to place. Some believe that there's no such thing as consenting to being physically injured at all, others draw the line at major injury (body modification, for instance.) However, as body piercing is legal in most places, as a consensual injury, there's really no reason other consensual "injuries" shouldn't be.
I've never been personally involved with the kink community per se. Not my scene, as it tends toward play I don't like, and has too much stranger involvement--sorry, but I gotta know someone well before they get to see me naked, much less get anywhere near my tingly bits. You'll never see me at The Wet Spot. But I do know plenty of people involved in it and have sort of been on the fringes of the wider community for quite some time (there's lots of kink/queer/poly overlap, especially here.)
There are some practices I don't get. There are also some for which I truly think the people involved need a full psych screening prior to doing it. BDSM is assault, both physical and emotional, and just like some people with psych issues involve themselves with abusers, sometimes people are drawn to BDSM for the wrong reasons--non-consensual abuse can and does happen within the kink community. I especially question lifestyle D/S, and any arrangement in which someone's kids are aware of what they do. The idea that some kid knows why mom wears a collar is stomach churning.
But outside of those limitations, there are valid reasons why people do what they do. It's really not all that different from people who do extreme sports or work out a lot. Heck, would we argue that boxing should be illegal because supposedly no-one can consent to being beaten up (and, for that matter, because boxers primarily tend to be from disadvantaged ethnic and economic groups, and therefore might not be fully consenting to their career?) What about tackle football? Wrestling? Fencing?
There is definitely a psychological component to what some folks do--either giving up total control to another person or taking total control can be cathartic for some. But for most, it's just about chasing endorphins. And unless we're going to make any other physical activity that involves injury or the risk thereof illegal, there's no reason BDSM should be illegal, either. The mantra within the community is "safe, sane and consensual." And within that, I see no reason to bug anyone, legally or via stupid harassment like this, who wants to do it.
