He was there legitimately
This is nuts. The Guardian:
Anyone who films a partner during sex without their consent is committing the criminal offence of voyeurism, the court of appeal has ruled in a case that may affect the Crown Prosecution Service’s apparent reluctance to bring charges.
In other words the CPS thinks filming a partner during sex without their consent is and should be legal legal legal.
The ruling by three judges came at the end of an unsuccessful appeal by a man convicted of filming himself having sex with prostitutes. His lawyers argued that the voyeurism law allowed him to do so since even a bedroom is not a private place if he was there legitimately.
And he was totally there legitimately because by god he was paying for it.
In a highly unusual development in a criminal case, the court allowed someone not directly involved in events to intervene in the hearing to develop arguments that consent should be the primary issue when considering cases under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act.
…
Jon Rees QC, for Richards, told the court that even though the two women may not have consented to being filmed, if Richards was entitled to be in their bedrooms they could not have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
So he could have invited a film crew in over the women’s protests? Put the whole thing on live tv while they objected?
Emily Hunt was supported in her legal campaign by the Centre for Women’s Justice. Later on Tuesday, she said she had been told by her lawyers that the CPS was no longer resisting her judicial review claim and was now re-examining its decision not to prosecute.
A CPS spokesperson said: “What constitutes a ‘private act’ for the purposes of the offence of voyeurism had never been conclusively defined by a higher court until today.
“The CPS does not make or decide the law; that is the remit of parliament and the courts respectively. Now that this new authoritative judgment has clarified this point of law, the CPS will review its position in the judicial review brought by Emily Hunt.”
Isn’t this phobic toward guys who like to film naked women without their consent so they can share on Twitter?
So, the same CPS that’s so eager to deny the existence of sex (but not gender) as a criterion for harassment and abuse at school has decided women’s “privacy” is sold or rented with their sexual “services?” Did they clear this with the “Sex work is work” choosey choice “feminism” branch of the woke brigade first?
Compare and contrast:
The CPS may not make or decide the law, but they’re having a damn good crack at doing so on issues they care about, which apparently doesn’t include filming a women without consent while she is having sex.
C’mon. What business does a ho have expecting privacy!?
/CPS
“His lawyers argued that the voyeurism law allowed him to do so since even a bedroom is not a private place if he was there legitimately.”
But… no one was questioning the legitimacy of his presence there, at issue wad the legitimacy of the recording device. Unless the prevailing thinking was that consent to sex is automatically also consent to PUBLICISED sex…?
Oh my god. They actually thought that.
If they’re gonna go for full commodification and transactionality of “sex work”, then she should have been fully informed of his recording intentions and presented with a contract for filming rights and permissions, or at least a model release or waiver.