Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Wisconsin Court Rules that You Can’t Tape Your Naked Lover Without Consent

Good.  This ruling helps make it more comfortable for couples to get naked with each other more often. 

A Wisconsin appeals court says people do not automatically have the right to videotape others who are naked in their presence.

The 4th District Court of Appeals ruling comes in the case of a former Waunakee High School chemistry teacher who videotaped his girlfriend while she was naked and also while they were having sex.

Mark Jahnke argued that because his girlfriend agreed to be naked around him, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Jahnke appealed his conviction for illegally making a nude recording. He was sentenced to probation.

(7) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1745 hrs
Law

  1. Once again government gets to intervene in our private lives and supposed conservatives applaud.

    I suppose if she videotapes the naked rapist that evidence now gets suppressed?

    We don’t know.  It will now take lawyers and judges to determine that.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2008 at 2049 hrs


  2. Jahnke’s argument as presented here is so lame I laughed out loud. I’d be shocked to hear that he can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    I imagine that in a rape case the rules regarding evidence may be different. Remember that in some states taped conversations are not admissible if both parties are not aware of the recording.

    Posted by Aaron on December 30, 2008 at 2317 hrs


  3. Hmm. Rape vs consensual sex . . . nope. I don’t see a difference!

    Posted by jimi on December 30, 2008 at 2354 hrs


  4. I think the ruling was entirely appropriate.
    Are we really supposed to believe that it should be legal for you to install a hidden camera in your bathroom, not tell anyone about it, and then be totally off-the-hook when one of your guests finds out?  What if the person getting naked was a child?  Those who do not like this ruling would have to support that circumstance as well.
    The boyfriend in this case was a sleazebag and a coward.  He deserves all the punishment and embarrassment he gets.

    Posted by David on December 31, 2008 at 1247 hrs


  5. My view is that although the girlfriend removed her clothes willingly, she NEVER consented to being taped.  Now, I love my husband more than anything, but I would KILL him if he did something like that.  It’s a complete invasion of privacy, not to mention a breach of trust.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1553 hrs


  6. Mark Jahnke argued that because his girlfriend agreed to be naked around him, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Good grief. Only a liberal could come up with that kind of [ILL] logic.

    Posted by Jeni on December 31, 2008 at 1843 hrs


  7. David;

    While I am not stating that I think the ruling in this case is wrong, your corollary is false. If a guest goes into the bathroom that you suggest (with a hidden camera) there IS an expectation of privacy, unless of course they leave the door wide open. They are in a closed room and do not expect to be part of a spectacle. As for extending the ruling to minor children, there are already numerous laws and rulings on the trafficking of child pornography. I was unable to read the original article (404 error) so will reserve opinion on whether or not there was the same expectation of privacy in this case. I know I would think that if I were alone with one I had an intimate relationship with, I would think that we were truly alone…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 31, 2008 at 1848 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.