Posted on 04/19/2002 10:25:51 AM PDT by John Jorsett
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------
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.
As it stands, this foolishness is going to fail.
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.
C'mon, you're idea is too logical and appropriate. Can't you see this is a CRISIS ? /sarcasm
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?
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.
Not too sure about that. Since Roe v. Wade discovered a Constitutional 'right of privacy', guaranteeing privacy becomes one of the delegated powers.
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.