Landrieu: New Bill Makes Video Voyeurism A Federal Crime

(WASHINGTON DC) Under a new bill introduced today by Senator Mary Landrieu(D-La.), secretly videotaping a person in intimate situations without their consent would become a federal crime. The bill was inspired by a woman in Louisiana who discovered after she was secretly taped that there was no law against such an act. Mirrored after Louisiana's new law, the Landrieu legislation would make "video voyeurism" a crime punishable by up to three years in prison in case of adult victims, and up to ten years in prison when a child is involved.

"In the privacy of our own homes, none of us should have to wonder whether or not we're being secretly watched-- and even recorded," said Senator Landrieu. "Unfortunately, our laws haven't kept up with the new technology that makes this kind of invasion of privacy very easy to accomplish. This act of "video voyeurism" is not addressed by our federal legal system and in most states, it's not even a crime. The legislation I am introducing today helps fill this gaping hole in our privacy laws, so that if someone is secretly watching you, under this bill it will be a crime punishable by law."

The legislation was unveiled at a press conference where Senator Landrieu was joined by Monroe, Louisiana activist Susan Wilson, whose story inspired the bill, Actor Angie Harmon, who played Susan in the Lifetime Original Movie "Video Voyeur," and two New Orleans natives, Executive Producer Blue Andre, and Mary Dixon, Lifetime's Vice President of Public Affairs.

"I'm so grateful to Senator Landrieu and Lifetime Television for their commitment to this issue," said Susan Wilson. "This bill will help provide victims and their families with much-needed protection and ensure some accountability for those who violate the privacy of others."

"Susan Wilson had to learn the hard way that a high-tech invasion of privacy wasn't against the law in Louisiana-- or any other state," said Senator Landrieu. "She's fought to make changes in Louisiana's laws so that victims in Louisiana can pursue a legal remedy. But there shouldn't have to be a Susan Wilson in every state in order for people to be protected from this kind of horrifying event. I hope this legislation will act as a deterrent-- but if it doesn't, at least victims will have the strength of federal law behind them."

The new bill, entitled the "Family Privacy and Protection Act," would create two new federal crimes of video voyeurism, one dealing with adults and one dealing with minors. Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record another individual either for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent is in violation of the law. The penalty for violation is a fine and/or imprisonment of up to three years, or ten years in the case of a minor.

In addition, the bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn) for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close down those sites and move to the new domain.

The Washington folks don't seem to learn. If this passes, it'll be struck down under the 10th amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ") in nothing flat.

Also, I should have highlighted that last paragraph.

In other words, Landrieu wants the U.S. to mandate a '.porn' domain. That she believes the U.S. Congress can regulate an international network in this way is just breathtaking.

I'm not sure that the Constitution could be twisted to prohibit secret videotapings of private homes. If I discovered that someone was spying on me with video cameras secretly inserted in my home and I also found out that there was no legal recourse against it, I'd resort to lethal vigilantism. I do think that the attempt to establish a .prn domain and force all websites with "adult" content to abandon .com and move to .prn will fail; it's completely unworkable because not every adult site is hosted in the US and it's going to create a mess with the hundreds (if not thousands) of domains already in existence. You'll also have problems with web hosting services that allow users to host "adult" content but are not specifically designed for such.

Internet domain (such as .prn) for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close down those sites and move to the new domain.

And what federal or international regulatory body will decide ahead of time what content is harmful? And how will you keep minors away from the .prn websites? And this means public "discussion" groups like yahoo.COM will have to close, too?

This seems like more "for the children" grandstanding legislation. May I also suggest a .hat domain for all the hate groups? And a .pol for politics and a .spm for all the Spam and a .jnk for junk and a .rel for religion? Oh, and .pam for Pamela Anderson.

Next: an internet tax to pay for web marshalls.

I do think that the attempt to establish a .prn domain and force all websites with "adult" content to abandon .com and move to .prn will fail;

Of course it will fail. It will fail because the purveors of porn aren't trying to protect children, they're trying to entrap them. If they really wanted to protect children then they would have worked harder to create environments where children are naturally protected - either by suggesting a special domain name originally or by avoiding the tricks they so often use of putting misleeding (or outright untruthful) metadata that will draw children in.

If the real reason for pornography were simply to provide a safe and legal (and modestly profitable) outlet for adults who are interested in it we wouldn't need such laws. But the profits aren't nearly so great when you simply give the adults what they want. You have to ensnare the children.

Shalom.

Mirrored after Louisiana's new law, the Landrieu legislation would make "video voyeurism" a crime punishable by up to three years in prison in case of adult victims, and up to ten years in prison when a child is involved. "In the privacy of our own homes, none of us should have to wonder whether or not we're being secretly watched

--------------

I have conflict over this issue. The iooirtunity for abuse of intrusion becomes serious here. On the other hand, net sites that encourage and coordinate sex with kids are not a private matter. In this issue I'll side with protection of privacy even though I deplore what is being committed in privacy. I don't want eventual leftist monitoring equipment in every home.

It will fail because the purveors of porn aren't trying to protect children, they're trying to entrap them.

Perhaps some are, but many require several levels of authentication (often with credit card verification). Those sites, who are deliberately taking measures to ward off underage visitors (there will be some who slip through, and it is technologically impossible to prevent it) would still be smacked down by this proposal because their website's domain name would change, meaning that all of their paying customers would have to know to go to the new domain.

Also, as I said before, you have the matter of web hosting serivces who allow for adult content but do not cater specifically to those kinds of clients (typically such sites require those hosting "adult" content to set up verification systems and warnings that are displayed before any adult material can be seen). They'll have to police their user's regularly, scouring the content to insure that no "harmful" information appears in a .com URL, and it's going to be quite a burden.

This all becomes moot, of course, if the site is hosted overseas. The US will have to take up the issue with the domain registrar and if they have to deal with Verisign...well, good luck. Paying customers of Verisign can't get them to change domain ownership when requested and given Verisign's track record, they're not going to be too worried about violating yet another law.

This doesn't need a FEDERAL crime statute to deter non-consent video taping in private areas. The federal courts are not a good place to enforce laws on criminal conduct unrelated to a federal issue. The states have better criminal systems in place, so it should be a state law and state punishment. One unhappy lady in La. shouldn't be the reason to expand the federal criminal code.

You know what? I'd support this crap if they included a ban on all video snooping, like drug-related video snooping by the DEA, traffic-light video snooping--which is just a moneymaking racket--and "street surveillance" (which is going into effect in most major cities).

As it stands, this foolishness is going to fail.

Perhaps some are, but many require several levels of authentication

IMHO, with a little anecdotal evidence to back it up, this is a smoke screen. there is no such thing as an "honest" purveyor of porn. They do care to stay out of the way of law enforcement, but their real desire is to sell more. Healthy adults rarely purchase porn. The best way to keep a steady supply of customers is to arrest adolescents at their stage of sexual development. They set up an easily circumventable process and then say "Hey, I'm doing what I need to to keep kids out."

Shalom.

Typical liberal nonsense - instead of amending the Louisiana peeping Tom law to include video cameras, they make an unconstitutional effort to create a new federal crime.

C'mon, you're idea is too logical and appropriate. Can't you see this is a CRISIS ? /sarcasm

IMHO, with a little anecdotal evidence to back it up, this is a smoke screen. there is no such thing as an "honest" purveyor of porn. They do care to stay out of the way of law enforcement, but their real desire is to sell more.

An online pornography site is going to be hard-pressed to find lots of minors with access to their own credit cards. Yes, their motives for age-checks may be motivated heavily by existing laws, but so what?

As for a desire to "sell more" -- that's the desire of just about any company that sells a product or service. That's called "capitalism".

You know what? I'd support this crap if they included a ban on all video snooping, like drug-related video snooping by the DEA, traffic-light video snooping--which is just a moneymaking racket--and "street surveillance" (which is going into effect in most major cities).

Interesting question: By kissing your wife as you run that red light or go 40 in a 25 mph zone, can you therefore get the ticket dismissed?

As for a desire to "sell more" -- that's the desire of just about any company that sells a product or service. That's called "capitalism".

True, but until recently people had internal moral restraints against doing "whatever it takes" to increase sales. Never so for pornographers. These days there isn't much internal restraint on anyone.

As for minors with access - just hang around a while.

Shalom.

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.