The court ultimately sentenced the husband to five months, finding that intentionally recording the footage went beyond what could be justified by his attempt to prove an affair. However, the man can choose to have the sentence converted to a NT$150,000 fine, which equates to over $4,700, and can still be appealed.
So the problem is he recorded too much of it, I guess?
Never thought you need a permission to record other people at your own home, but it does make some sense.
Never thought you need a permission to record other people at your own home, but it does make some sense.
Well, the issue is that it was his spouse's home too, and she has the same reasonable expectation of privacy within her own home as well.
The problem is that he recorded her without her consent, in an area where she would have an expectation of privacy.
They both got hit for their actions. He was awarded NT$500,000 in the divorce, and would be fined NT$150,000 for his part in the illegal recording. He'd still come out about $11,000USD ahead if he just paid the fine lol.
It seems like there is something wrong with the law that punished him in this case, unless, as one paragraph might imply, it was just about the length of the recording.
We ban recording people having sex without their consent because that can be harmful to them. But if a recording is made to get justice for another harm, then the same rationale as self-defence applies (even though this isn't defence against violence): you should be able to take an action which would in other situations be illegal if it is to remedy a sufficiently serious wrong.
The right to privacy isn't absolute, and various things in this case go against it: spouses generally expect much less privacy from each other than strangers, or an individual from the state, in particular. I might be justifiably annoyed if my partner recorded me non-sexually without my consent, but I think I'd have to give up that objection if someone had been stealing from them while they were out and they set up a camera to try and find the culprit... who turned out to be me. That doesn't seem to go away if my misdeed were sexual.
No one should be recorded having sex without their consent.
I might be justifiably annoyed if my partner recorded me non-sexually without my consent, but I think I’d have to give up that objection if someone had been stealing from them while they were out and they set up a camera to try and find the culprit… who turned out to be me.
I would absolutely divorce my spouse if I found out they were recording me without my consent. Sexual or not.
You're giving out very short, absolute answers while me and many others are trying to have a nuanced discussion. I actually know that you think that people shouldn't be recorded having sex without their consent, because you've already said it. Repeating that doesn't accomplish anything. Your other sentence does nothing to elaborate.
Do you want to explain why you don't agree with my point of view that there are exceptions to the general rule, or do you not want to have a discussion at all? At this point I'd certainly forgive if you if you're done with the topic but just feel like you can't leave things un-replied-to. I certainly know the feeling.
If so though, I'd seriously recommend that instead of replying the way you have been doing, everyone including you would have a better time if you were to say something like, "I don't think that justifies it, but I don't feel like discussing it further". Not replying at all is also an option of course, though it can feel unsatisfying.
I don't know about everyone else, but personally I see reply like that and I think "fair enough." I see replies like those you have been giving and I think, "why bother?"
I don't think there are any exceptions to recording someone having sex without their consent. That's why my message is straightforward and succinct. There is no nuance here.
No means no. An absence of a "yes" means "no" when it comes to sex.
The fact that there are so many of you here that think there's wiggle room to recording someone having sex without their consent is actually kind of mind-fucking me because it's a line I would think we all fucking learned to not cross, but apparently we've regressed more than I realized.
Even normalizing privately recording your spouse in their own home, which you fucking did, is atrocious.
Obviously you don't think there are exceptions, or at least, you don't think they're the same ones I do, otherwise we would agree. But you're not saying, for example, whether you think that the things other people think are exceptions go any way towards mitigating the wrong you believe is being done, or whether they make no difference at all. So you have again not moved the discussion forward. The point of a discussion isn't to just state your position and when someone says why they disagree, to state it again; it's to explain why you don't don't agree, in light of their reason.
If I say "killing people is wrong" and you say "I'd make an exception for self-defence", and I reply, "no, killing people is wrong," that's not a conversation. If you say, "but killing is wrong because of the harm it causes, and acting only in self defence doesn't cause harm but rather reduces it" and I say, "no, killing people is wrong without exception," no possible function of a conversation is fulfilled. Here are all the functions I can think of, apart from social (because we're not doing this to make friends, let's be real):
To convince the other person that you're right (whether for personal satisfaction, or the hope that this will improve the world). I'd be failing at this, as you are, because without raising any objection to someone's reasoning, they're never going to change their mind. That reason remains valid for them and noone tried to change that.
To get the other person to understand where you're coming from. Again, this is a failure: by not engaging with your reasoning about self defence, you never get the chance to understand why I think the way I do.
To understand where the other person is coming from. Clearly this function is also a failure with this way of conversing.
The only thing I can imagine you succeeding at is that you just have a compulsion to state and restate your opinion when someone contradicts you. So I'd ask you to seriously think about what it is you are achieving for yourself. If it's just that compulsion, then you need to know that it's really annoying for everyone else, so please find some way to reduce that compulsion or divert it somewhere else to not piss us off. If instead you're trying to achieve one of the more reasonable goals, I'd ask you to seriously evaluate how well you're doing and whether you can bring yourself round to a different conversational style which will work better for you.
Either way it's quite clear you won't be able to do this right now. I offered you a lot of opportunities to engage, and you were immune to all of them, so I'm out - bye.
I explained more in detail and this is how you reply to me? By ignoring everything I said, comparing non-consensual recording to murder, and then criticizing the way I write because you believe I’m either crazy or are trying to win people over?
It’s not my job to hand hold the type of person who believes it’s ever justified to sexually harass someone as revenge.
I don’t give a single fuck if my comments piss you off. Be mad.
He could've recorded right after the sex finished or them otherwise interacting romantically, like kissing.
There's no requirement for recording her having sex without her consent.
The court ultimately sentenced the husband to five months, finding that intentionally recording the footage went beyond what could be justified by his attempt to prove an affair.
13 Comments
Maxxie@piefed.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 3d
So the problem is he recorded too much of it, I guess?
Never thought you need a permission to record other people at your own home, but it does make some sense.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 3d
Well, the issue is that it was his spouse's home too, and she has the same reasonable expectation of privacy within her own home as well.
The problem is that he recorded her without her consent, in an area where she would have an expectation of privacy.
They both got hit for their actions. He was awarded NT$500,000 in the divorce, and would be fined NT$150,000 for his part in the illegal recording. He'd still come out about $11,000USD ahead if he just paid the fine lol.
Wren@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 2d
I'm on the side of the court. He still gained and she still lost, he just didn't gain as much since he decided to record a damn porno.
DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 3d
The 'Justice' system, everybody
velma@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 3d
Yep, she was punished for infidelity and he was punished for recording without consent.
FishFace@piefed.social · 7 pts · 3d
It seems like there is something wrong with the law that punished him in this case, unless, as one paragraph might imply, it was just about the length of the recording.
We ban recording people having sex without their consent because that can be harmful to them. But if a recording is made to get justice for another harm, then the same rationale as self-defence applies (even though this isn't defence against violence): you should be able to take an action which would in other situations be illegal if it is to remedy a sufficiently serious wrong.
The right to privacy isn't absolute, and various things in this case go against it: spouses generally expect much less privacy from each other than strangers, or an individual from the state, in particular. I might be justifiably annoyed if my partner recorded me non-sexually without my consent, but I think I'd have to give up that objection if someone had been stealing from them while they were out and they set up a camera to try and find the culprit... who turned out to be me. That doesn't seem to go away if my misdeed were sexual.
velma@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 3d
No one should be recorded having sex without their consent.
I would absolutely divorce my spouse if I found out they were recording me without my consent. Sexual or not.
FishFace@piefed.social · 0 pts · 2d
You're giving out very short, absolute answers while me and many others are trying to have a nuanced discussion. I actually know that you think that people shouldn't be recorded having sex without their consent, because you've already said it. Repeating that doesn't accomplish anything. Your other sentence does nothing to elaborate.
Do you want to explain why you don't agree with my point of view that there are exceptions to the general rule, or do you not want to have a discussion at all? At this point I'd certainly forgive if you if you're done with the topic but just feel like you can't leave things un-replied-to. I certainly know the feeling.
If so though, I'd seriously recommend that instead of replying the way you have been doing, everyone including you would have a better time if you were to say something like, "I don't think that justifies it, but I don't feel like discussing it further". Not replying at all is also an option of course, though it can feel unsatisfying.
I don't know about everyone else, but personally I see reply like that and I think "fair enough." I see replies like those you have been giving and I think, "why bother?"
velma@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 2d
I don't think there are any exceptions to recording someone having sex without their consent. That's why my message is straightforward and succinct. There is no nuance here.
No means no. An absence of a "yes" means "no" when it comes to sex.
The fact that there are so many of you here that think there's wiggle room to recording someone having sex without their consent is actually kind of mind-fucking me because it's a line I would think we all fucking learned to not cross, but apparently we've regressed more than I realized.
Even normalizing privately recording your spouse in their own home, which you fucking did, is atrocious.
FishFace@piefed.social · 2 pts · 2d
Obviously you don't think there are exceptions, or at least, you don't think they're the same ones I do, otherwise we would agree. But you're not saying, for example, whether you think that the things other people think are exceptions go any way towards mitigating the wrong you believe is being done, or whether they make no difference at all. So you have again not moved the discussion forward. The point of a discussion isn't to just state your position and when someone says why they disagree, to state it again; it's to explain why you don't don't agree, in light of their reason.
If I say "killing people is wrong" and you say "I'd make an exception for self-defence", and I reply, "no, killing people is wrong," that's not a conversation. If you say, "but killing is wrong because of the harm it causes, and acting only in self defence doesn't cause harm but rather reduces it" and I say, "no, killing people is wrong without exception," no possible function of a conversation is fulfilled. Here are all the functions I can think of, apart from social (because we're not doing this to make friends, let's be real):
The only thing I can imagine you succeeding at is that you just have a compulsion to state and restate your opinion when someone contradicts you. So I'd ask you to seriously think about what it is you are achieving for yourself. If it's just that compulsion, then you need to know that it's really annoying for everyone else, so please find some way to reduce that compulsion or divert it somewhere else to not piss us off. If instead you're trying to achieve one of the more reasonable goals, I'd ask you to seriously evaluate how well you're doing and whether you can bring yourself round to a different conversational style which will work better for you.
Either way it's quite clear you won't be able to do this right now. I offered you a lot of opportunities to engage, and you were immune to all of them, so I'm out - bye.
velma@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 2d
I explained more in detail and this is how you reply to me? By ignoring everything I said, comparing non-consensual recording to murder, and then criticizing the way I write because you believe I’m either crazy or are trying to win people over?
It’s not my job to hand hold the type of person who believes it’s ever justified to sexually harass someone as revenge.
I don’t give a single fuck if my comments piss you off. Be mad.
DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 3d
So how was he supposed to get the proof of infidelity he required to get the divorce?
velma@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 3d
He could've recorded right after the sex finished or them otherwise interacting romantically, like kissing.
There's no requirement for recording her having sex without her consent.