Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Anonymous
Was this a violation of free speech? 2017-07-18 05:19:07 Post No. 8598845
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Was this a violation of free speech? 2017-07-18 05:19:07 Post No. 8598845
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 1.17.38 PM.png (1MB, 1222x1148px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 1222x1148px
Matthew Christian, a 44-year-old from London, met the victim on dating site barebackparty.com and had sex.
Without the knowledge of the closeted bisexual man, the video shows his face clearly on film. None of his friends, family or work colleagues knew of his bisexuality.
The video had been seen 150,000 times and shared across dozens of sites by the time it was pulled.
In a statement, the victim said he has been suffering from acute anxiety and panic attacks.
In defense, Christian claimed he was high on cocaine and crystal meth when he posted the film.
Christian was handed 22 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 months.
Judge Joanna Greenberg QC said: ‘The private lives of each and every one of us is something that we are entitled to have respected.
‘In your case you abused the trust placed in you by the victim because he expected that his privacy would be respected.’
Christian was also ordered to complete 200 hours of unpaid work, pay £1,500 in compensation, pay £435 costs and complete a 20 day rehabilitation requirement.
He was also ordered to sign on to the sex offenders register for the next seven years.
https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-man-xtube-closeted/#gs.S7RPBKI
>>
Violation of free speech?
This is a pretty justified sentence senpai.
>>
>>8598872
Why? In many states (I know this happened in the UK) it is legal to record someone without their consent. Fuck closeted bisexuals. I am glad he got outed. Cheating on your wife with some meth addict? You deserve to have people know your shame and lies.
>>
>>8598845
>uk
>free speech
good joke
>in his defense, he was high on meth and cocaine
fucking londonfags
>>
The sexuality doesn't even matter. Posting nude / sexual videos of someone filmed and then shared without their consent is bad.
Free speech would be him writing about it on his blog - unless he used the victims real name and identifiable description publicly. He would still get in trouble for that. That's why books have disclaimers like the "no characters based on real persons living or dead."
>>
>>8598901
Why are you not allowed to factually depict events in writing? You cannot say you had sex with someone if you did? Bullshit. You can even say their name if it happened. It is only defamation if it is false information.
>>
>>8598890
And out there looking for bareback sex specifically as well.
I still feel it's wrong that he had a sexual video of him posted publicly, but the wife deserves to know her husband isn't even trying to not be a disease vector. (Cheating is bad enough, being unsafe while cheating and putting your trusting partner at risk is horrendous. I knew a guy who cheated on his wife and then gave her HIV that he got from one of the women he cheated on her with.)
>>
>>8598913
How could the judge even prove the man didn't know he was being recorded? Of course the guy who got outed was gonna say he had no idea, even if he did, and then its just he said, xir said.
>>
>>8598890
Wtf had this got to do with free speech, you dunce?
We already know America is a retarded country with retarded laws.
Taking images of people and publishing them without their consent has been illegal forever, even in America.
It's disgusting that so many men think it's okay to film people without their consent. I hate to think how many men I've met who have filmed me without consent.
I get the "fuck the closeted biscum" thing, seriously he needed to be outed but you can't breach people's privacy.
Also, the UK has specific revenge porn laws.
>>
>>8598906
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort
>>
>>8598950
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort
What does a description of a tort have to do with what I said? Can you zero in on what you deem the relevant sentences in this article?
>>8598933
He cannot prove he was recorded without consent. The judge just has to take his word for it over the man who has to register as a sex offender now.
Once the video has been removed from the internet the harm is no longer there.
Anything else is rewarding specious and unprovable claims.
>>
>>8598890
>it is legal to record someone without their consent.
Is it also legal to publish without their consent? If so, that's pretty messed up.
>>
>>8598890
While in the UK, it is legal to record someone without their consent (hence CCTV), it's not legal to publicise those videos. There are specific laws against "revenge porn" which encompass recording others in sexual situations and sharing it online without their consent.
Your freedom stops when it directly infringes the freedom of other free individuals.
>>8598900
America, stop. You're embarrassing yourself again.
>>
File: Screen Shot 2017-07-18 at 1.56.13 PM.png (335KB, 2158x826px) Image search:
[Google]
335KB, 2158x826px
>>8599014
Absolutely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One-party_consent_states
>>
>>8599005
So what? The proof is that there wasn't a written and signed contract.
It's why even when you go to college, or do an educational course, the college gets you to sign consent to them using your image or recording your voice.
Without a contract there was no consent, it's that simple.
>>8599017
I said that, what's your point?
>>
>>8598845
> violates the NAP
> gets schlonged
Pretty gr8 family
>>
>>8599032
Implied oral consent or even express oral consent cannot be proven to have not taken place. This is going to be two opinions, the man who recorded the video, claiming the other party gave consent, and the man who was in the video with him, claiming he did not consent. Both have bias to disagree, neither has evidence or witnesses in this case.
>>
File: ss (2017-05-18 at 05.19.25).jpg (23KB, 351x266px) Image search:
[Google]
23KB, 351x266px
>>8598845
>In defense, Christian claimed he was high on cocaine and crystal meth when he posted the film.
>"Your honor, I can't be tried for this crime I definitely committed on the grounds that I was doing another crime at the time."
>>
>>8598845
>In defense, Christian claimed he was high on cocaine and crystal meth when he posted the film.
kek
what a great defense
>>
>>8598845
No
/thread
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3