Posted on 05/09/2018 8:39:45 AM PDT by Simon Green
Edited on 05/09/2018 9:13:54 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
KENNESAW, Ga. (AP)
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
This is a huge situation. If the filmer is found guilty of anything that says he cannot film, this will be a landmark case in the use of cell phones and presenting them in court as evidence in a court trial.
So many times, amateur film, whether it is set up or not, has been used in court proceedings and public news media to create an opinion or a fact of an action, true or false. This will mean if you take film and try to use it or provide it for you, you can be arrested and charged with a crime. And even further, what does that do to the drive by media? They don’t carry a license to film things to present to the public any more than the 17 year old did. This could be huge as it will cause a modification on the interpretation of the first amendment the media throws back when they get caught misbehaving.
rwood
Unless I'm mistaken, minors can legally consent to have sex with each other, just not with adults.
[[ “Sex in a public bathroom stall. Doesnt get any more romantic than that.” ]]
Needs to be put to music; I’m sensing an upcoming song.
Could race difference be a factor?
Is the filming student white or asian, and are the sexed up minors black or hispanic? It shouldn’t matter at all, but such a case would not surprise me. Let’s ignore the deed, but punish the ‘bad intention’ of the filming student.
Just doing their sex-ed homework.
Could race difference be a factor?
When this happened in my high school many moons ago it was was 5 black guys and one developmentally disabled white girl. I can’t imagine the reverse ever happening.
“Inquiring minds want to know...was the girl in the boys’ bathroom, or was the boy in the girls’ bathroom, or is it an oh-so-trendy unisex bathroom, or even trendier, was one of them transsexual? Can’t make assumptions in today’s world.”
Parking lot cameras?
Bank security cameras?
ATM cameras?
Generally, you have to be over the age of consent yourself in order to be charged with any statutory rape crime.
“If she was 15yo then how could it be legally consensual?”
Well, same goes for the 16yo. Or does consent only matter for women?
This kind of issue is why most states don’t charge minors having sex with each other with crimes, or they would have to lock both of them up.
I don’t think it’s going to be that dramatic a case really.
If he was charged with “eavedropping” for recording in an unmistakably public place, then yes. However, a bathroom stall, even in a “public” restroom is a place where there is a considerable expectation of privacy.
I do believe that people filming in bathroom stalls have been charged with crimes quite frequently and there hasn’t been much legal controversy over those cases.
Government is so overreaching that it is involving itself in high school romances...
Really? Is that in most states?
They were just following the instructions their teacher gave them in class. /s
But this was not identified as a planned filming. The whole idea was that it was filmed without the consent of the two being filmed and was made public without their knowledge.
This constitutes an invasion of privacy problem that can be identified on the filming and display on social media by the filming person thus creating a crime, maybe as little as a small misdemeanor, but one nevertheless. So the discretion of the state where the crime was committed,and depending on the sentence applied, will determine if it will be a misdemeanor or felony conviction. I would hope that a plea would, at some time, reach the federal supreme court and they would hear it to establish a determination as to the expected privacy of people being filmed. And at that time, the media will be opened up for lawsuits based upon the victim being filmed and the determination of the federal court.
I’m hoping this will stop this indiscretionary observance of questionable filming and force the media to be truthful on their entries to the public concerning appearance of illegal actions from street corner cell phones. As long as they present and can prove the actions being displayed, I have no problem. But they are not being required to do so and they are given carte blanc to say whatever they wish which has lead to too many lies. Take their opportunity away by removing their protection.
rwood
The cameras you are mentioning are there for the purpose of public protection and criminal activity.
Here is an interesting article put out by the Liberty and Security Initiative and supplied by the University of California, Berkeley:
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Video_surveillance_guidelines.pdf
It does a reasonable job justifying surveillance cameras versus undetermined and questionable filming done that could be edited or purposely misinterpreted.
ABC purposely, in my mind, editing the tape of Zimmerman stepping out the police car after his hospital visit, concerning the Martin killing is an example. The media needs to be reeled in and put on a short leash. They are lying regularly and are hiding behind a lack of judicial control concerning filming.
rwood
Except he posted and distributed it. But you’re right; our world is screwed up.
If the age difference is within 2-3 years, depending on the state, consensual sex is not consider to be rape.
“The whole idea was that it was filmed without the consent of the two being filmed and was made public without their knowledge.”
I don’t really think that is the issue here. States do not really press most “two party consent” cases beyond the state courts because they know that the federal courts will likely slap them down if the recording was made in a public place with no expectation of privacy. They generally only use these charges as leverage and drop the cases before they can get to the point where a challenge can allow the feds to rule such laws unconstitutional.
However, wiretapping cases where people have made recordings where there IS an expectation of privacy are not controversial at all, and that is the case here. So there won’t be any federal intervention because that issue has already been hashed out. There’s certainly nothing in this case that is going to restrain anyone from filming cell phone videos in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy, because there IS an expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall, even in a public restroom.
Yep. Most states either have a set age that someone must be over in order for the statute to apply, or a set number of years age difference between the victim and the perpetrator.
For those that don’t have limits like that, then you can have a situation where, if two teenagers have sex, technically they are both liable to be charged with a crime for assaulting each other, which would be a pretty good inducement to keep any “victim” from testifying, I would think.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.