|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is illegal in the man's state to film without the person's consent? If so, he broke the law it seems.
Sexual consent seems not to be the issue. Consent to be filmed is the issue at hand in this case.
Does anyone have access to the law in this jurisdiction?
As usual, if an individual doesn't like the law, he/she can contest the law on appeal to a higher court. Additionally if people don't like a certain law, we can lobby our representative to change the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The LAW?
Ah yes. . .what cival wars begin with
To deny men opportunity to protect themselves from YOUR law. . .is grounds enough
Loosing. . .lost faith in YOUR laws
Pathetic to say the least. . .this man is going to prison to be beaten and raped for what?
Don't care. . .no arguments accepted. . .you lose
I said so. . .more and more of us say so. . .end of discussion
again war
Tis a sick sick anti male world we live in. . .males will/are awake/awakening and END IT!
Keep driving men and women apart. . .of course at the inhumane expense of men and well the result is obvious. . .of course
don't think so. . .ok. . .don't think so
you watch the violence rise (as it already is)
you watch more and more men turn and learn hate
I'm learning hate. . .maybe I already have. . .in the end. . .doesn't matter much does it?
YOUR laws are wrong and never, ever should have been. They are only there because of false studies, politics, and government funded activists groups (feminists). . .did I mention chivalry? (or maybe the abuse of it)
Ever hear of no taxation without representation?
well there ya go!
understand that?
Learning to hate. . .day by day (maybe its just me. . .but I doubt it)
Steve Barr
stevebarr49271@yahoo.com
understand that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/2002/1204/1471208.htm l
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Videos of male athletes were sold through Web sites
CHICAGO -- A federal judge has ordered eight companies and three people to pay $506 million to 46 male college athletes who were secretly videotaped in locker rooms, restrooms and showers.
The videotapes were sold through Internet sites advertising "hot younger dudes."
"We look at this judgment as the court system sending a signal to the sexual predators that they're not going to get away with this," said attorney Cindy Fluxgold, who represents several of the athletes.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles P. Kocoras' decision, handed down last week, grants each of the 46 plaintiffs $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. The remainder of the $506 million award pays costs and attorneys' fees.
Kocoras also ordered the defendants to surrender the videotapes and get out of the business of making and selling them.
The tapes, with names such as "Straight Off the Mat" and "Voyeur Time," first came to light in April 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reported that hidden-camera videotapes, including footage taken during a 1995 wrestling tournament at Northwestern University, were being marketed online and by mail.
No criminal charges were filed. Illinois has since enacted a law making it illegal to secretly film anyone in locker rooms or bathrooms.
Fluxgold said Wednesday that the 46 unnamed plaintiffs represent a fraction of the men caught on tape, many of whom have not been identified. She said she didn't have an accurate count of how many athletes were videotaped, but that the number is "in the multiple hundreds of people."
The lawsuit alleged invasion of privacy, unlawful use of the plaintiffs' images for monetary gain, and mail and wire fraud under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The plaintiffs, who were granted anonymity by the court, are described in the lawsuit as 28 "John Does" and "unknown Illinois State University football players."
The lawsuit says they are past or present athletes at Northwestern, Illinois, Illinois State, Eastern Illinois, Indiana, Penn, Iowa State and Michigan State.
Kocoras' judgment was entered against Franco Production, Franko Productions, Rodco, Hidvidco, Hidvidco-Atlas Video Release, AMO Video, Atlas Video, Gamport/Earthlink, and individuals Daniel Franco, George Jachem and R.D. Couture.
The District Court clerk's office said no attorneys had appeared on behalf of the defendants since at least 2000. No telephone numbers could immediately be found.
Two Internet service providers were dismissed from the lawsuit in 2000 after Kocoras ruled that they were immune from the lawsuit under a federal law that relieves ISPs of any liability for the words or actions of their customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes. . .sold on the internet
However in this case. . .none were sold nor distributed!!!
This is nothing more then male persecution. . .perion. . .just one of millions. . .ok!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As usual, if an individual doesn't like the law, he/she can contest the law"
Get real!
Men have been "contesting" forever (at least in my life)to what avail. . .absolutly none.
Don't feed me that kind of shit. . .everybody already knows way better then that.
It is a politically correct thing, which means factually incorrect thing.
Ef-n laywers can't fight it no matter how much $ they get. . .can they!!!!
That arguement is lame. . .politically correct, however factually, and conclusivly a lie.
I (maybe we) don't hear you anymore!
Steve Barr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:49 PM February 15th, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"This phone conversation is being recorded for quality control purpose only," is an often heard prerecorded message when calling some businesses.
==================================================
It appears that it is time for another disclaimer. Any man capable of having sex should wear a shirt, or have a sign in his car, or in his house that says.
WARNING! Any person commiting a sex act with the male person affiliated with this sign will be recorded on videotape to ensure quality control compliance with all applicable statutes of law, to wit, Penal Code 12345, Section 6789, Part B.
My own personal opinion about this whole thing (as close as possible) is best described here by the top image:
(click) Government's Big Nose
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item. All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At birth, every male infant now arrives into the world with the stigma of non-rebuttable presumption of guilt.
Male sexuality has been effectively criminalized.
The feminist legal apparatus is a totalitarian web that threatens all men's liberty, regardless of a man's actual conduct.
Sexual assault is not a crime defined by behavior or acts.
It is a crime defined (retroactively) by the subjective emotions of any given female.
Rape and marital rape laws provide women with 30 days to "decide" whether a sexual interaction was (in her view alone) "consensual" or not.
In sum, every man's personal liberty now hangs on a tenuous thread of female subjectivity.
If video evidence and written evidence (a pre-screw consent form) can be thrown out, then celibacy is the only logical safeguard from the current legal tyrannies that mark every man as "prey" ripe for harvesting.
Disclaimer: "my sweetie would NEVER do that to me!"
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The shit is just plain out of control
What are men to do?
Maybe just what they are. . .regress. . .invert
reaction. . .counter reaction
the law. . .the real law. . .the only law
Celebacy may not be fulproof. . .but it does reduce the risk considerably.
It sucks. . .it ain't natural but there it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:42 AM February 13th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
> Male sexuality has been effectively criminalized.
In the strict sense of the law most men are in fact serial rapists.
> If video evidence and written evidence (a
> pre-screw consent form) can be thrown out,
> then celibacy is the only logical safeguard
> from the current legal tyrannies that mark
> every man as "prey" ripe for harvesting.
Celibacy is not an option. Even a male spider who has an 80% chance of being eaten after the first sex act will not accept it.
The risk is not that great. Only 2.5% of all sexually active males are covnvicted of sex crimes. If 50% of them are guilty (mostly pedophiles) then your chance of being destroyed is 1.2%. If you avoid
-- single mothers
-- women under 18
-- dangerous women
-- one night stands
your chances fall to .5%. Even your chances of dying in a car crash are higher. Cohabitation is the best as you will not have a divirce either. If she wants children, break up.
Sidors Goat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:10 PM February 13th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Celibacy is not an option. Even a male spider who has an 80% chance of being eaten after the first sex act will not accept it."
The male tarantula usually starts to die a few months after sex. In fact the male tarantula will sometimes jump into the female tarantuals mouth (I can hear lorainnes orgasm from here!).
But, I get your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, (and fine ladies here too)
Can we plz get off the animal kingdom channel take on this? Human male/female interactions are so very different and complex. No disrepect and no insults intended, but this is a totally tangental conversation.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:40 PM February 14th, 2004 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
methinks you need to chill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Stephen, every animal analogy has been wrong anyways ;-)
It is a red herring...
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I guess being disrespectful is illegal now?
18 months in prison for being disrespectful. . .ooookkkkk?
for being disrepectful?
Show me one woman in this country that has the least amount of respect for a man!
18 months. . .?
Pehleze
How long did the girlfriend get for turning on the camera?
Was she charged?
Ah . . .answer. . .nope
Sick and goddamed tired of men paying for the actions of women.
Sick of our courts. . .prosecuters, lawyers, government. . .country!
This IS NOT AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE
IT IS AMERICA LAND OF THE PERSECUTED MALE
Fight for the US. . .um nope. . .for what/why
Nothing left for men here. . .nothing
Sound a little harsh
Well what men have gone through over the last 30+ years is far more than just harsh. . .its inhumane and criminal. . .by law of right and wrong.
Will the madness end before its too late. . .or is it too late?
I fear for my son. . .soon I'll fear for my daughters too.
Steve Barr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's a good point. If the girlfriend was involved why wasn't she charged, tried, etc. ? I'd like to know more details about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a man is sexually active today it is a good idea to video the acts. These tapes could prove that the sex was consensual and thus avoid a 50 year prison sentence on a false rape accusation. After all, when there is no other evidence to contradict a rape charge the "he said, she said" kicks in and the "she said" version is usually the one believed. And would Kobe Bryant be in the mess he is now if a video camera had recorded the encounter? Think about it!
Even police now video traffic stops and interrogations to protect themselves from false charges of police brutality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These tapes could prove that the sex was consensual and thus avoid a 50 year prison sentence on a false rape accusation.
There is one aspect of this that might already be generally legal and useful for men. There's talk about men having women sign agreements to have sex before they do so. Of course, a woman can later claim that she changed her mind during the act, whether or not she did. If the woman signs an agreement to have the act recorded, however, then she'd later have more difficulty falsely claiming that she changed her mind during the act -- the video would contradict such a claim.
Of course, men will still have to realize that they can be imprisoned for rape if the woman says something along the line of "I should go home" or "My car needs washing." If the man takes a minute or two to realize that the woman wants to wash her car immediately, she might have him imprisoned for years. The woman could, of course, put into the agreement, signed by her and the man, that neither would use the video for any purpose other than court proceedings in the event of a rape accusation.
Nah! Such feminist inspired romance won't work. Men must have the right to unilaterally decide to record their sexual encounters, provided they keep them to themselves unless they are needed in judicial proceedings.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:10 PM February 12th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"She says four of her clients have used the form successfully in refuting sexual misconduct allegations,"
That means that already 4 women who signed a document stating they were consenting to the act later still claimed to have been raped anway! No integrity whatsoever. Guess that's what comes from a life unbound by accountability. I wonder how early these women had decided to sue for rape. Was it really the next day, or had they planned it prior to signing the contract? Maybe they decided to claim they'd been raped and then went out to meet the man who they would accuse, stalking around till they found a proper victim, (and a man with the audacity to try to protect himself from false accusations would make the perfect target).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:58 AM February 13th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if it was videotaped she can claim she wanted him to stop and he did not. Still his word against her. And his credibility is zero as he is already a sex offender (videotaping). I knew some cases like that but do not need to discuss them further.
As only 25% of accused rapists are convicted that would INCREASE your chance of conviction TRICE!
The best way is to avoid
-- single mothers
-- women under 18
-- one night stands
-- women who have issues with men/feminists
-- women with emotional baggage
-- dangerous women
Then your chances of being falsely convicted are .5%.
Your chances of dying in a car crash is .5%. I avoid motorcycles but I can not avoid cars.
Sidor's Goat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
?
If she was vidiotaped as not saying no, how on earth can that still be his word against hers?
Where is your data for 25% are convicted.
How do you come by your percentages?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Where is your data for 25% are convicted.
BJS. 160K/y are accused of sex crimes --> and 40K/y are convicted 9K/y of rape, 22 K/y of sex assault, the rest of other stuff.
> If she was vidiotaped as not saying no,
> how on earth can that still be his word
> against hers?
She wispered no which was inaudible on tape. Should any jury take a sex offender's word that she did not?
I knew about guys convicted on that stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MHO-if he isn't scarred then it isn't rape. She needs to make it CLEAR that she is not a willing participant. He should be bloody from her fighting. It should be OBVIOUS to anyone watching the film that no meant no.
In an ideal world.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I just stop loraine?
No way
Well maybe the extremely overwhelming proof. . .absolute proof finaly sunk in.
Notice overwhelming and absolute. . .unaruably
PERIOD
AGAIN end of discussion.
ADD ONE MORE FOR THE MEN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee Lorianne ...
This one is TOO easy. And I thought you were smarter than this. If a person was, w/out permission, taping sex and saw a rape, heard the woman had filed charges, and went to the police with the tape: do you think the police would charge them if they brought in the tape? Give me a break Lorianne.
The only thing that save 2 Dallas Cowboys from rape charges is that 1 of them video taped it for the express purpose of NOT going to jail. And feminists pressed for them to be charged with taping it. Geeeee, wonder why. No mention from our buddies the Rad Fems of putting the woman in jail, just the guys.
You don't wanna argue this one Lorianne, you alreay lost a lot of credibility the last time we tangled.
Either learn or keep spouting what "professor" Women's Studies teaches you and keep getting embarressed. Your choice bubba.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno
I think loraine is finally realizing the "other" half of every single story.
There is in fact the other half. . .factually.
Soon she will realize the scope of the other half.
It is larger then the "crime" itself.
Way
ta ta for now
Steve Barr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think females and males CAN NOT really understand each other on sexual issues. Female fear of rape and male fear of false accusations. That is even deeper then feminism and goes back to instincts.
A bull who is stronger then a cow has sex with her regardless of her consent. A female spider who is much stronger then a male feels violated after most consensual sex and eats him. False accusations of rape comes from female instinct to destroy her lover.
When human males and females depended on each other compromise was possible, but not anymore. Now for some decades men and women will be natural enemies, and males will suffer much more as females are organised. Also males still depend on females for sex.
But eventually further degrees of independence like electronic sex will reduce friction between men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually most animals cannot rape. The female must be courted. With horses and cows, the breeder must be very careful not to have the males get hurt. Those females can really put a hurting to a male they do not approve of. Besides, rape is not a word that really applies to the animal world. Rape construes emotional trauma, and only humans hold sex to a level above natural function that would traumatize.
The female spider eats the male because she can-she is hungary and they are cannibals. Same for the preying mantis. I would be careful not to put human connotations on insects and animals.
False alegations are spawned by a system which rewards the behavior. If there were no reward, there would not be false allegations. The Salem Witch Trials are a good example of this.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I would be careful not to put human connotations
> on insects and animals.
Sometimes the extreme evil which humans can hide or tame is evident in other species who go by instincts. And during slavery or unfair laws those with all the power release their natural evil.
When Genguis Khan invaded China, average men in his army became serial killers and mutilators. Ancient Greek society caused average men who had access to women to rape boys. Modern misandry causes average women to become false accusers and torturers.
Every man is indeed a potential rapist, but every woman is a potential black widow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually rape was not acceptable in ancient Greece. Typically, the young boys were fondled by the older men in the bath houses, but sodomy was not part of the deal. Once the boys hit puberty the fondling would stop. It was a right of passage, and not abnormal at the time.
I do not think evil is a word which can be applied to the animal world. The black widow eating the male is ensuring a nutritious meal and only serves a biological funtion.
I know I am being picky, I get the feeling you are young. I admire your passion, it is more important than info. I do suggest though, since feminists are quick to jump on these side facts, that you be careful to check your facts before putting htem out here.
Respectfully, The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dont' be offended at all by Jen's comment. See, and I should spell this out ...
Most of us here have been the victims of the false facts Machievellian Machinations of the Feminazis. So we often use facts to counter their arguments. It works in our favor when we are factual, stay on point, and have a ton of memorized (and updated) information archived and researched. When you present something it has to be factual. It will be picked apart a lot harder by "feminists" out in the world than it will be here.
This is a great place for you passion. Trust me on this. I was falsely accused of rape and for years had no outlet for my anger and frustration. I couldn't talk about, relate, and/or help others. But when I got online and found groups like this I had an outlet. But a kind, gentle word of caution my young brother. Gently said and humbly offered: I post on several boards now, I have had articles published now, I have opened my life up for this cause. It's been good and informative for me. But, and this is critical, hateful people will come here and use your words and (HONEST!) misapplication of facts against you and us.
When I started I spewed out some pretty angry shit. Months later when I posted on some feminist boards to disprove some "commonly know facts" (read: long debunked lies) I had 3 problems:
1) I had SOME facts, but could not back it all up. It was like when you have a losing conversation with someone and a month later have the PERFECT answer and wish you had it earlier.
2) The angry words I said when I got into this were used against me and others.
3) I have had 3 attempts in the last 5 months of "feminists" to try to effect my real life. 1 tried to get me fired, 1 tried to get my home number, and 1 sent me and my WIFE a hateful E-mail for some dummy YAHOO account calling me a rapist. (my wife read that one).
It's like what I learned from older Brothers in my fraternity and from NCO's in the military. Yes, you are accepted as one of us, but keep in mind if you go out and say/do something as ONE of US ... it reflects on us too.
Just some ideas for you to smoke over your mental Bar-B-Que.
With respect.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I probably sounded harsh, I am sorry. I did mean it as constructive criticism. I too have been squashed flat in an arguement (usually by my husband Dave) for not getting my facts straight, for going on tangents, etc.
I look at this board as practice for the real world. So I appreciate it when I see where I am ineffective and can tweak my style of arguement.
I really didn't mean to sound condescending. I am just a bitch. ;-)
Really, I hope you stick around, Sidor.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:31 PM February 14th, 2004 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
>"I am just a bitch.;-)"
Sidor,
No she's not, really.
She has a heck of a quick wit and a good sense of humour, but bitch, No way.
...Good at handleing trolls to...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I know I am being picky, I get the feeling
> you are young.
Would any retirement home accept a 35-yo?
> I admire your passion
Which has brought nothing of substance except depression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depression happens when passion leads nowhere. Stick around, there are usually projects going on, like the Glenn Sacks D&G one, where we can make a difference.
Again, I was in a funk, not your fault or problem. Sorry.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right after this story posted, before the comments started flowing in, I called the reporter who wrote the story (his phone number is at the bottom of the article). He wasn't especially sympathetic to the guy (no, I didn't really press too hard for his position). He did tell me that original charges included twelve years in prison, and the guy ended up with 18 months. I also inquired as to whether or not the guy said anything about using the tapes for defending himself against false rape charges. The reporter told me that the defense attorney did mention that briefly in a press conference, but that it apparently was not brought up in court. Curiously, he also told me that he believed that such a position in court would be detrimental to the guy's case, but I couldn't get him to expand on that theory. Hmmm.... Well, given the recent posting here on the topic of false allegations of rape, I wonder if such a defense might not have been far more credible than what he had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
For me, the article brings up a few important questions:
1) If it is illegal to videotape a person without consent, then, he did break the law, truth be told. However, is a year and a half (with the potential for twelve years; thanks for posting that, Frank) just a tad extreme?
I would say, yes. Was it unethical for the tapes to be made without consent? I would also say yes. Which brings me to my next question.
2) If he had received consent before videotaping, would it then be legal and usable as evidence against rape accusations?
If so, then those who wish to protect themselves by videotaping sexual encounters might consider telling the potential partner up front. This might mean fewer consummations, but maybe that potential partner could have been a danger, anyway. Of course, this also brings up the point of how to ensure that consent had been made before, and then you get into signed consent forms...
Gotta say, it's sad that our society has come to this point. But, I can't blame any man for wanting to protect themselves. I'm a teacher, but I never meet with my students, most of whom are female, in my office, especially not with the door closed. I meet in a much more open space, where there may be people around. I'm not taking any chances. I don't like it, but that's what I feel I have to do to protect myself from sexual harrassment charges.
3) Was the female accomplice charged? That is, the girlfriend who started the camera? If so, what did she get? If she wasn't charged, why not? I know what my gut tells me, but I generally try not to let my gut speak for me. It does so, anyway, on occasion, especially if I've ordered the Burrito Magic Extreme from the Taco Hut. But, in general, I tend to let my brain mediate. But, it might be interesting to find out what her involvement was, and what charges were placed against her.
The actual fact of the article saying very little about the accomplice is pretty damning, already, I say. Another example of how the media plays up "bad men," but shoves the "bad women" under the carpet.
So, what do we do about it?
I think the rape shield laws are a good place to start. I think it's a good idea to try to attack those laws whenever possible, to point out their flaws.
Severin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> 1) If it is illegal to videotape a person
> without consent, then, he did break the law,
> truth be told. However, is a year and a half
> (with the potential for twelve years; thanks
> for posting that, Frank) just a tad extreme?
Alas, in US human rights mean NOTHING! I have a female friend who got FIFTEEN YEARS for drugs and served 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Police seized more than 50 tapes from his residence, but they were only able to identify and locate six victims, resulting in the six charges."
You know you're a victim when police have to hunt you down, come to your house and explain to you that you're a victim.
"Often the women would spot the camera and ask if they were being taped and Lewis would say it wasn’t turned on."
"Keeeheehee, that camera isn't turned on is it?" *wink, wink*
"the tapes were not shown outside the residence and were not distributed in any way."
Otherwise the suit would have been for royalties, while they tried to garner as much publicity for the case as possible so they can hopefully land a playboy contract out of it.
"“You are full of yourself and you will, in all probability, breach the law again when it suits you,” said Luebke."
What do you bet he broke the speed limit on the day he said that? Oh wait, that doesn't compare, because that was a victimless crime...
“I am really disgusted by your callous disrespect of those women you had a relationship with,” said Luebke. “You are a self-centered, nihilistic lout.”
Translation - "You have far more self-esteem than I would ever permit myself. That you keep your options open and maintain a healthy sex life while I would cling like glue and make any sacrifice to keep any of those women if I could actually attract them forces me to look at things which make me insecure. So I'm going to project that you must be behaving immorally so I don't feel so bad about you being more successfull in that regard than me. Naturally, as a judge this means I must punish you for what I percieve as immoral behavior, at least when men do it. If it were men suing a woman who had taped them I'd tell them to quit whining and if they really were mortified than next time they go into a strange woman's bedroom and there's a camera pointed at the bed, check it yourself! Of course, I'm no more interested in honestly examining my hipocrisy than I am my insecurities,so I guess it's just tough luck for you."
“(The tapes) were simply trophies,” said Assistant Dist. Atty. John Daniels. “They are offensive, disgusting and extremely demeaning.”
Of course they are. Feminists have said so, so it must be. I'm convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just take a look at this from a few angles.
1) If the girlfriend was bringing home women to have sex with and tapeing it without those women knowing. With her boyfriend sometimes pushing play. The only person who would probably get charged would be the boyfriend.
2) 18 months? People get less for theft, robbery, and assault and battery.
3) This man filmed women who willingly had sex with him. So now they want to send him to jail for a year and a half. He will now have a criminal record. He will now lose all the money he could have made in that year and a half. He will go to jail and probably end up spending time with real criminals. He will get out and have a hard time adjusting to life again. If he has a morgage on his house he will probably loose that. There is a good posibility he will be raped in jail. But no one cares if men get raped in jail do they?
“(The tapes) were simply trophies,” said Assistant Dist. Atty. John Daniels. “They are offensive, disgusting and extremely demeaning.”
Sure the tapes may be offensive to the dist. Atty. but he was never intended to see them in the first place. If anything the guy was probably tapeing them for his girlfriend to watch. If sex is disgusting then we as people are inherantly disgusting. It is not the guys fault if the tapes were demeaning, he never used them in a demeaning way. If what the girls did on the tapes was demeaning they did it of thier own free will.
"“You are full of yourself and you will, in all probability, breach the law again when it suits you,” said Luebke."
Now the judge is fortune telling. How could the judge know if he will break the law in the future. I know, send him to a place where he is treated badly and the only people he has to talk to are real criminals, then the judge has a good chance of his prediction coming true and he can start his own psychic hotline.
“I am really disgusted by your callous disrespect of those women you had a relationship with,” said Luebke. “You are a self-centered, nihilistic lout.”
Let's say a woman was taping her sexual encounters with men. Could you see the judge saying to her “I am really disgusted by your callous disrespect of those men you had a relationship with,” I sure cannot. Even if somehow a case of a woman ever got to trial like this one she would get the minimum sentance if any. And the men, well, people would say that is just the price they had to pay for dipping thier privates in the honey jar. Isn't it great how men are always expected to pay for sex in one way or another?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Police seized more than 50 tapes from his residence, but they were only able to identify and locate six victims, resulting in the six charges."
You know you're a victim when police have to hunt you down, come to your house and explain to you that you're a victim.
****Uh yea,because knowledge of a crime being committed against you is a prerequisite to being a victim,guess theres no such thing as a murder victim.Or a sexually abused child that has no awareness of wrongdoing****
"Often the women would spot the camera and ask if they were being taped and Lewis would say it wasn’t turned on."
"Keeeheehee, that camera isn't turned on is it?" *wink, wink*
****Altho some women would play up to being taped and like it,you seem to be justifying the crime by the womens stupidity or there trust in another human being****
"the tapes were not shown outside the residence and were not distributed in any way."
Otherwise the suit would have been for royalties, while they tried to garner as much publicity for the case as possible so they can hopefully land a playboy contract out of it.
****What?! Playboy contract?!,because if your dad taped your mom and they divorced of course she would want press,For a Playboy Contract!!
"“You are full of yourself and you will, in all probability, breach the law again when it suits you,” said Luebke."
What do you bet he broke the speed limit on the day he said that? Oh wait, that doesn't compare, because that was a victimless crime...
****Speeding is for the safety of yourself and the other people on the road,altho i dont agree on the law dictating what i can and cant do to harm myself.I dont want you barrelling down the freeway at 120mph,chatting on your cellphone,and shooting herion while im driving my boyfriend to work****
“I am really disgusted by your callous disrespect of those women you had a relationship with,” said Luebke. “You are a self-centered, nihilistic lout.”
Translation - "You have far more self-esteem than I would ever permit myself. That you keep your options open and maintain a healthy sex life while I would cling like glue and make any sacrifice to keep any of those women if I could actually attract them forces me to look at things which make me insecure. So I'm going to project that you must be behaving immorally so I don't feel so bad about you being more successfull in that regard than me. Naturally, as a judge this means I must punish you for what I percieve as immoral behavior, at least when men do it. If it were men suing a woman who had taped them I'd tell them to quit whining and if they really were mortified than next time they go into a strange woman's bedroom and there's a camera pointed at the bed, check it yourself! Of course, I'm no more interested in honestly examining my hipocrisy than I am my insecurities,so I guess it's just tough luck for you."
**** its bad either way,your right.I can totally see where ya get the insecurities too.LOL for god sakes the judge is calling him names.Hwat the hells a lout?!
“(The tapes) were simply trophies,” said Assistant Dist. Atty. John Daniels. “They are offensive, disgusting and extremely demeaning.”
Of course they are. Feminists have said so, so it must be. I'm convinced.
****Demeaning yes,i believe is this happenned the other way ala a woman doing this to a man and the women got off you would be up in arms****
the only logical arguement that seems to work is that you believe taping people without there knowledge is OK to do and should not be unlawful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll answer your comments.
The girl friend, who was equally involved and participated fully, wasn't even charged. Get you head out of the sand and realize that the judiciary was playing to a camera too.
No, I see nothing wrong with videotaping sex. Wanna know why? Since women have Rape Shield Laws and can make up any story they want, men should be able to defend themselves. The only reason quite a few men (remember the 2 Dallas Cowboys falsely charged?) are not in jail is because of videotaping.
Women DON'T seem to get charged with these crimes, but men do. It's called selective prosecution.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immortal remarks by Judge Luebke:
"“You are full of yourself and you will, in all probability, breach the law again when it suits you,” said Luebke."
“I am really disgusted by your callous disrespect of those women you had a relationship with,” said Luebke. “You are a self-centered, nihilistic lout.”
There is an irony in any judge telling someone they are a "self-centered, nihilistic lout" and "being full of yourself!"
Pot calling the kettle black!
This particular judge probably has a 300 pound dominatrix he has to answer to in the evening. They are all a bunch of wormy degenerates!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Florida it is illegal to film someone without their consent. The way around this in Florida is to hang a sign that clearly states "video monitoring equipment in use", this gives makes the person aware before they proceed they are being filmed.
my $.02
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
