• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trans Bathroom issue easily explained.

sangha said:
It is illegal to record conversations unless parties to the conversation consent
Click to expand...

YouTube is full of illegal then.
 
Celebrity said:
You apparently missed "There is no state statute that regulates the interception of telephone conversations."

To put it politely, you are wrong again sangha. Chalk it up to one more oversight on your list of blanket statements that ultimately proved to be without merit.

Can you prove that 18 U.S.C. § 2511 overrules state law, or that 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) requires any consent whatsoever, from any party, especially insofar as Vermont v. Brooks is concerned?

Here is the statute:



Saying that it is criminal to eavesdrop, if it is for the purpose of committing any criminal act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) would be a circular argument.

Now, if you are claiming that it's illegal to record in Vermont, please, prove it.
Click to expand...

You have completely misunderstood the plain english of the law. It says it is legal to record a conversation with consent "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act...'

IOW, even if you have the consent to record the conversation, it is illegal to do so if the recording is to be used for an illegal act such as extortion.
 
sangha said:
You have completely misunderstood the plain english of the law. It says it is legal to record a conversation with consent "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act...'
Click to expand...

Show me where it says it is illegal to record without consent in Vermont.
 
sangha said:
You have completely misunderstood the plain english of the law. It says it is legal to record a conversation with consent "unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act...'
Click to expand...

Right... legal if not for the purpose of a criminal act.
 
Now, voyeurism is a completely different matter. Of course, voyeurism law varies by state, and surveillance for the purpose of voyeurism is illegal by Vermont statute.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the difference in this case between surveillance and journalism, but I suspect recording for personal use is out. Also, I don't know how consent would work for a voyeur. I think it's the whole point of voyeurism to not have consent.
 
Folks, if you can read the explanation of who has the right to choose which formerly sex-segregated facilities they wish under New York City law, and still claim that cross dressers are excluded from doing so, please come back and raise your hand.

I chose NYC, just because I found that handy little card online to explain to all the apparently ignorant people what their law requires. If you have read other statutes granting protection to gender expression (the term varies with the statutes), you understand that this is basically the same throughout the country. And it is what has people across the spectrum of political beliefs upset. But more are learning every day. It's not about perverts. It's about men invading women's spaces.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GenderID_Card2015.pdf
 
Celebrity said:
Now, voyeurism is a completely different matter. Of course, voyeurism law varies by state, and surveillance for the purpose of voyeurism is illegal by Vermont statute.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the difference in this case between surveillance and journalism, but I suspect recording for personal use is out. Also, I don't know how consent would work for a voyeur. I think it's the whole point of voyeurism to not have consent.
Click to expand...
Lordy! How did this convo head down this path? I didn't realize you guys were talking specifically about voyeurism, but yeah, if you're recording someone for THAT sexual purpose, duh, illegal. How might you tell the difference? Let's say I as a female am in a toilet stall, I have a video recorder which I place on the floor while I take care of business, and I record the sound of someone using the toilet next door in addition to capturing video of her feet. Have I committed an illegal act? If the police stop me, I can say, "Oh my, I'm sorry, I didn't know it was on record" or even "I was having a conversation with someone on the phone and I just wanted a record of it." No prosecutor who wasn't an idiot would ever bring charges regardless of which defense I used.

Now, if they convinced a judge of probable cause for a search warrant and found a metric **** ton of recordings like this on a hard drive at my residence; or found offers by me to sell such material on fetish web sites to people with foot fetishes (essentially 100% males), then you've got an entirely different situation. My goose would be cooked.

Okay now? The communications laws being cited previously really weren't intended to cover sex crimes.
 
Celebrity said:
I think it's the whole point of voyeurism to not have consent.
Click to expand...

Voyeurism is simply about watching, consent of the other parties or no. Typically, it is about being sexually stimulated by watching, although legally, I doubt the courts care whether sexual stimulation was achieved or not. The ethical voyeur does indeed get consent, either directly, or by fiat by being in a place where it is expected people will be watching, such as a play party or lifestyle club setting.
 
Renae said:
Nyet. In Texas only one party needs to know the convo is being recorded.
Click to expand...

I think his argument is that is still consent.
 
Jane said:
Okay now? The communications laws being cited previously really weren't intended to cover sex crimes.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear that I provided statute regarding voyeurism in contrast to the Trans Bathroom issue when I said "a completely different matter."

But it's great that you were able to explore a situation involving voyeurism in great detail in a public forum.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
To clarify my previous remark above, Is there such a person as a celibate gay person?
Click to expand...

ANd ill ask my question again also, is that a joke question?
 
gmeyers1944 said:
To clarify my previous remark above, Is there such a person as a celibate gay person?
Click to expand...

As I noted before, that is like asking if there is such a things as a celibate straight person, unless you think a person is asexual until they physically have sex.
 
gmeyers1944 said:
To clarify my previous remark above, Is there such a person as a celibate gay person?
Click to expand...

You're right, everyone gay is born with a dick in his mouth

Oh and don't forget those meetings we fly off to at night, where we stomp on a crucifix, eat the entrails of babies, and summon the devil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom